Complex Network Management and the Governance of the Environment:
Prospects for Policy Change and Policy Stability
Over the Long Term
Michael Howlett,
Department of Political Science,
Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby,
B.C. Canada
V5A 1S6
604-291-3082
howlett@sfu.ca
Paper Prepared for the
PRI/SSHRC PROJECT ON TRENDS
Environment and Governance Section
FINAL VERSION
July 27, 1999
Abstract:
This chapter examines the prospects for Canadian governance of medium to long-term trends in the environment. It finds policy processes promoting both policy change and policy stability to exist, but argues that those enhancing the prospects for policy change are likely to predominate. The chapter notes that internationalization of environmental management efforts, ecological crises, economic re-structuring and changes in Canada's social and political systems are likely to promote rapid paradigmatic policy change. However, it argues that such change can either be resisted or facilitated by a programme of network management activities undertaken by Canadian governments. The paper outlines several procedural policy tools which can be utilized by Canadian governments towards either end.
1. Introduction: Modern Governance and Policy Change1
Contemporary governance takes place within a very different context than that of past decades. Government capacity in terms of human and organizational resources has increased, but its autonomy or ability to independently effect change has been eroded. This is due, at the international level, to the growth of powerful international and trans-national actors and systems of exchange.2 At the domestic level, however, modern governments have also been affected by the re-structuring of societies into complex networks of interorganizational actors.3 As a result of both movements, states have undergone a kind of "hollowing" out, as various functions and activities traditionally undertaken by governments now involve a variety of significant non-governmental actors. This is true of services previously provided directly by government employees - from highway maintenance to psychiatric care - which have been contracted out to non-governmental organizations; the replacement or augmentation of legal and regulatory enforcement - in areas such as energy conservation and drinking and driving - by information-based quasi-private public relations campaigns; a general shift in regulatory activities from "enforcement" to "compliance" regimes; and a shift in the use of financial instruments away from taxes and subsidies towards the increased use of tax expenditures.4 Intentionally or not, these changes have all had the effect of further deepening the network structure and complex character of contemporary life by fostering the creation and interaction of non-governmental and governmental organizations.5
These processes and paradoxes pose challenges to public administration at the turn-of-the century. The result, in practice, has been for many governments to develop a renewed interest in types of policy instruments which can deal with the complexities of modern societies. That is, governments in many countries have turned away from the use of a relatively limited number of traditional, more or less command and control oriented, "substantive" policy tools - such as public enterprises, regulatory agencies, subsidies and "moral suasion" - which attempt to directly influence the allocation of goods and services in society. Instead, modern governance more and more entails the use of an entirely different set of tools, "procedural" instruments such as government-NGO partnerships, public advisory commissions, interest group funding and information dissemination, which act in a less direct fashion to guide or steer social actors in the direction government wishes.6
As such, modern governance is becoming less and less a matter of direct service delivery and more and more a matter of indirect network management,7 in which governments attempt to influence network actors, or re-structure networks themselves, in order to manage change and achieve their ends.8 Thus contemporary governance, in contradistinction to government in past epochs, is very often indirect, subtle and largely invisible. However, it requires a great deal of pre-planning and much foresight to steer the immense ship of state indirectly in what are largely uncharted waters.
This chapter examines how changes in a specific sector, the environment, are likely to affect policy outcomes in a single jurisdiction, Canada. It develops a model of policy change and assesses the manner and extent to which such change can be led by governments, rather than simply reacted to. As such, it provides the foundation for a discussion of how Canadian governments can best position themselves to steer policy in the environmental sector in the near future.
2. Understanding Policy Change
Assessing the likely impact of developments in any particular sector on government policy-making requires an understanding of the general processes through which policies change. Moreover, it requires, at the outset, a clear understanding of exactly what the dependent variable, "policy change" entails.
At the present time, several competing definitions of policy change can be found in the literature of the policy sciences. Peter Hall, for example, has developed one notion of policy change as involving an alteration in either the means or ends of policy-making. In his work, Hall identified three types or "orders" of change: first order change in which only the settings of policy instruments vary; second order change in which the types of instruments used to effect policy change; and third order change in which the goals of policy are altered.9 Examples of first order changes would include increasing the safety requirements automobile manufacturers must follow or altering the level of allowed emissions from a factory. In these examples, second order changes might involve such actions as adding or substituting financial incentives for regulation in the traffic safety field or changing the type of instrument used in pollution control, such as changing from an administered emission standard to the imposition of a tax on emissions. Third order changes would involve a shift in policy goals, such as moving away from a focus on private vehicles to one on public transit in the traffic safety area or, in the pollution case, a shift from a focus upon ex post end-of-pipe regulation to a focus upon ex ante preventative production process design.
Although this formulation has some advantages in terms of simplicity and clarity, there are some difficulties associated with its focus on changes in policy outputs as an exclusive measure of policy change. That is, as Hernes has pointed out in the context of a general discussion of sociological change processes, change can involve not only changes in outputs but also changes in inputs and changes in processes.10 A focus on instrument change, in particular, is problematic in the case of public policy-making. This is because (1) the same types of instruments can be used for different ends, meaning a change in instrument will sometimes be evidence of a change in goals and other times not, (2) it is sometimes very difficult to disentangle goals and means in the way that is required for the analysis to proceed, and (3) even a change in the setting of an instrument can sometimes reflect a major shift in policy goals, as occurs, for instance, when tax rates are increased in a progressive or punitive direction. 11
Case studies of instances of policy change have in fact revealed a variety of different types of change and a number of distinct processes through which change has occurred. These same studies have also uncovered a number of processes and factors which inhibit policy change. Taking these together, it is possible to identify the key elements of policy change, the basic types of change, and the relationships that exist between basic processes and types of change.12
2.1. Policy Change and Policy Stability: Different Processes and Different Outcomes
Until fairly recently, it was often thought that policy change occurred largely as a result of events and occurrences which took place outside of stable policy-making systems or sets of relatively stable actors, instruments, institutions and ideas related to specific policy issue areas.13 That is, it is possible to identify in almost any policy area a policy system consisting of the current collectively accepted definition of an issue, the current state of relevant policies (laws, regulations, fiscal instruments, government programs and relationships) on the issue, and the people and institutions, both inside and outside government, actively engaged in and debating the policies' maintenance and modification.
The notion that such systems change only due to exogenous events or "shocks" arose from the assumption that policy systems or sub-systems were a form of stable or self-adjusting "homeostatic" system. Given an initial set of characteristics and composition, it was argued, policy systems would adjust to any internal changes and could only be thrown out of equilibrium by external events which introduced new dynamic elements into the system.14 In addition, it was often argued that a policy system had a set capacity for action which, once reached, would prevent or restrict any internal changes from occurring - the "overload" thesis.15 This notion of the exogenous nature of policy change focussed attention on the various types of external crises which could provoke a government response or policy change.
Although aspects of these models remain useful,16 more recent conceptions of policy systems are more chaotic, abandoning notions of dynamic equilibria in favor of adaptive concepts in which systems can affect their environments and therefore alter the nature of their own constraints.17 In the policy sciences, this shift has manifested itself in the acknowledgement that crises are not the only external source of policy change, and that factors internal or endogenous to policy-making systems and sub-systems can also independently, or in conjunction with external factors, lead to policy change.18
This recognition has led to more systematic efforts to measure, chronicle, and account for policy change. These efforts have moved well beyond the original "external-internal" distinction and have identified both a number of distinct processes which influence the type and speed of change, and a number of distinct types of change determined by the scope and tempo of change. In particular, four major processes which underlie policy change and four major processes which enhance policy stability have been identified. Listed in order of their appearance in the literature, the processes which facilitate policy change are: systemic perturbations; venue change; policy learning; and subsystem spill-overs. In contrast, the processes which enhance policy stability are: non-decisions; hard issues; path dependency, and closed networks. Each of these processes is briefly described below.
2.1.1. Policy Change: Four Processes
Systemic perturbations is a formal term provided to describe the oldest known form of policy change-enhancing process - that originating in external crises which upset established policy routines. These can include idiosyncratic phenomena such as wars or disasters, or repeating events such as critical elections and leadership rotations. The well known American student of policy processes, Paul Sabatier, for example, has argued that "changes in the core aspects of a policy are usually the results of perturbations in non-cognitive factors external to the subsystem such as macro-economic conditions or the rise of a new systemic governing coalition".19 The principle mechanism by which change occurs is via the introduction of new actors into policy processes, very often in the form of enhanced public attention being paid to a policy issue as a result of a perceived crisis situation.
Venue change refers to a second process of facilitating policy change, one related not so much to changes in external conditions as to changes in the strategies policy actors follow in order to pursue their interests.20 In their work on policy formation in the United States, for example, Baumgartner and Jones noted several strategies employed by actors presently excluded from policy systems or subsystems to gain access to policy deliberations and affect policy outcomes.21 This usually involved members of policy communities attempting to "break into" more restricted networks of central policy actors, but also can involve jockeying for advantage among network actors.22 Venue shifting strategies usually involve the redefinition of a policy issue in order to facilitate the alteration of the location in which policy formulation occurs. These include notable instances such as when environmental groups attempt to redefine the image of an issue like waste disposal from a technical issue to a public health or property rights one susceptible to lawsuits and recourse to the courts.23 Not all policy issues are susceptible, or as susceptible, to re-framing or image manipulation, and not all political systems contain any, or as many, alternate policy venues. However, Baumgartner and Jones argue that actors outside of formal policy processes, especially, will attempt to alter existing policy images in the hope that an alternative venue can be successfully located in which their issues and concerns will be accorded a favorable reception.
Policy learning refers to the third change-enhancing process described by policy scholars. It refers to the manner in which, as Hugh Heclo has noted, a relatively enduring alteration in policy results from policy-makers and participants learning from their own and others' experience with similar policies.24 What is learned is often the experiences of other jurisdictions, but can also involve reflection on experiences originating within the confines of the subsystems' existing boundaries.25 This behaviour can result in a variety of feedback-like policy learning processes.26 These include instances ranging from those in which policy actors in one country investigate and report on activities in another, to situations in which administrators attempt to emulate "best practices" in service delivery. While some types of learning are limited to reflections on existing practices, other types are much more far-reaching and can affect a wide range of policy elements.27 All involve the development and diffusion of new ideas into existing policy processes. These different conceptions of learning and its role in public policy formation are used by many analysts to describe a commonly described tendency for policies to change as the result of alterations in policy ideas as knowledge of past experiences influences judgments as to feasibility or desirability of certain present courses of action.
Finally, subsystem spill-overs refers to the most recently described change process, one which occurs in situations in which activities in otherwise distinct subsystems transcend old policy boundaries and affect the structure or behaviour of other subsystems.28 Instances such as those which have occurred as internet-based computing collided with existing telecommunications regimes, or when long-established natural resource policy actors find it necessary to deal with Aboriginal land claims issues, are examples of this phenomenon. Although this particular process of policy change has just begun to be examined, it would appear that spill-overs can occur on specific issues without any permanent change in subsystem membership - subsystem intersection - or they can be more long-term in nature - subsystem convergence.29 This general process, like systemic perturbations, affects policy processes largely through the introduction of new actors into otherwise stable subsystems. Unlike systemic perturbations, however, the new actors tend to be policy specialists and interested parties, rather than simply members of the aroused public.
2.1.2. Policy Stability: Four Processes
The question of policy stability and resistance to change has also been addressed in the policy literature over the course of the past 30 years. This literature, built up from numerous case studies, has highlighted the manner in which ideological and institutional factors insulate policy issues from the change processes outlined above.
Policy-making is about both making, and failing to make, decisions on policy issues. Non-Decisions was a term used in the 1960s to describe situations in which policy debates remained mired in the status quo because alternatives were simply not considered or debated.30 Examples of such instances range from the failure to deal with issues important to the urban poor to similar inaction on a wide-range of women's issues. Non-decision making has been the subject of many inquiries and studies, beginning with the community power debates in political science in the early 1960s and 1970s31 and extending into contemporary discourse analysis which reflect the manner in which ideologies operate to filter and colour the types of options put forward in the policy-making process.32 All of these studies point to the significance of policy "frames", or relatively stable sets of overarching policy ideas which serve to filter out alternative visions of public policy. 33
Hard Issues is a term coined more recently to describe the oft-noted phenomenon in which the nature of a particular policy issue can insulate it from external change processes. 34 As students of the public policy process in the 1970s like Cobb, Ross and Ross had noted, issues follow different routes onto government agendas with a significant difference in policy processes being related to whether the issue involved significant elite or public mobilization.35 More recently May and Pollock, Lilie and Vittes have argued certain issues either fail to ignite popular interest, or if they do, fail to deliver a popular consensus on what kinds of change are required. 36 They argue that some issues like toxic regulation or utility rate-setting are "hard" in that they are technical, legalistic, means-oriented or, simply, unfamiliar to most members of the public. Such issues are more likely to involve smaller sets of specialized policy actors than issues such as traffic safety or health, which are more likely to generate public attention and discussion. Hard issues, therefore, are more likely to involve only a very limited number of specialized policy actors and serve as a barrier to entry of new actors into existing subsystems.37
Path Dependence is another recent term for an older observation, one which refers to the manner in which current policy decisions are influenced by the institutional and behavioural legacies of past ones.38 Policy legacies affect current policy-making due to factors such as sunk costs, or institutional routines and procedures which can force decision-making in particular directions - either by eliminating or distorting the range of options available to governments.39 Hence, for example, a decision to alter an existing nuclear energy program in which billions may already have been invested, is a much more difficult decision to make than if a program had not yet been started. As Weir, and March and Olsen, and others have argued, stability is expected to occur when an issue is routinized or institutionalized.40
Closed Networks refer to a more recently identified source of policy stability, which is based simply on the ability of existing key policy actors to prevent new members from entering into policy debates and discourses. This can occur, for example, when governments refuse to place prominent environmentalists on environmental advisory boards or regulatory tribunals, when funding is not provided for intervenors at environmental assessments, when the creation of such boards and procedures is resisted, or due to the behaviour of interest groups in pursuing specialized issue niches.41 Rhodes, and Schaap and van Twist, and many others have argued that all subsystems tend to construct "policy monopolies" in which the interpretation and general approach to a subject is more or less fixed.42 Only when this monopoly is broken and new members emerge into these subsystems, would a policy be expected to change in any significant sense of the term.
2.2. Key Variables and Measures of Policy Change
This brief outline of the major processes of policy change and stability found in the policy literature highlights the commonalities found in the central variables affected by and involved in these policy dynamics. At first glance the central variables are the nature of the actors; institutions, issues, and ideas found in a policy sector. However, as Figure I suggests, the eight processes identified above in fact share only two central variables. That is, these processes underline the significance of the entrance of (1) new actors, be they the public or policy "elites", and (2) new ideas, be it specific new knowledge or more general image frames, as the major factors affecting both policy change and policy stability.
Figure I- Key Variables involved in Policy Change and Stability Processes
Change
Process
Stability
Process
Variation Causing (Stability)/Change
Change Variable
Actors
Sub-System Spill-Overs
Systemic Perturbations
Closed Networks
Hard Issues
(Lack of) Entrance of New Actors into Subsystem
(Lack of ) Mobilization of Public Around Issue
Ideas
Policy Learning
Venue/Image Change
Non-Decisions
Path Dependency
(Lack of ) Entrance of New Ideas into Subsystem
(Lack of) Change in Institutional Discourses
Actors, of course, come in different types and occupy different locations in the policy-making process. Generally-speaking, they can be usefully thought of as existing in the general public or policy universe; in the set of attentive actors within the policy universe which have some knowledge of affairs in the policy area in question, or the policy community; or in the set of those actors which have some interest in a particular area which lead them to routinely interact with other interested actors in more restricted policy networks.43 "New" actors in this context can refer either to the movement of actors from the policy universe into a policy communities or network, or the movement of actors from a policy community to a network.
Ideas, similarly, come in different shapes and sizes. They exist both at the cognitive and normative levels and can play a significant role in affecting either the foreground propositions or background assumptions of policy debate.44 Each type of idea - programmatic principles and discursive frames in the case of the foregrounded ideas of policy experts and the public, or paradigmatic idea-sets and attitudinal values in the case of background assumptions of either group - can have significant policy-implications. New ideas of any of these types can result in policy change, although the extent of change will vary directly with the generality of the types of ideas involved. That is, a shift in public sentiments and attitudes, for example, can be expected to have a broad, but diffuse, impact on policy content. On the other hand, the introduction of a new programmatic idea by a policy elite would be expected to have a much more specific and concentrated impact.
3. A Vector Theory of Policy Change: A Taxonomy and Analytical Model
Specifying the basic variables involved in policy change and stability begs the question of how these two latter sets of processes are related to each other. Here it is not unreasonable to suggest that the nature and type of policy change which occurs in a specific sector is linked to the manner in which policy processes enhancing stability or encouraging change are linked together.45 That is, a policy process promoting change can be impeded by another process encouraging stability, resulting in only a gradual change from the status quo. Or a situation can exist where two or more change processes can be underway, without any countervailing stability process, hence promoting more rapid or fundamental change. On the other hand, in the opposite situation, a change process can be limited or negated by the existence of multiple stability processes.46
In this regard, it should be noted that several of the change and stability processes are very closely linked to each other. For example, extensive path dependency implies a fairly costly effort is required to alter the status quo. This is likely only to come about rapidly if a systemic crisis occurs which undermined the status quo to such an extent that it is cheaper to alter policy than retain it. Similarly, a process such as policy spillover can serve to undermine a closed network. Estimating exactly what the typical relationship is between forces of change and stability, however, requires further elaboration of the nature of patterns of policy change and how they are linked to the two basic change variables - ideas and actors - described above.
3.1. Typical Patterns of Policy Change
It is important to note that many observers have remarked upon the fact that most policies made by governments are, for the most part and most of the time, in some way a continuation of past policies and practices. Even what are often portrayed as "new" policy initiatives are often simply variations on existing practices.47 In normal circumstances a policy problem or issue will be dealt with by reference to an existing practice, or in what has been described by many as an "incremental" fashion.48 This pattern of piecemeal policy change is the stuff of "normal" policy-making.
A second pattern of policy change is more dramatic, though infrequent, and represents a major re-conceptualization and re-structuring of policy. This type of policy change is often described as "paradigmatic".49 The primary differences between the two relate to the fact that incremental change involves non-innovative changes at the margin of existing policies utilizing existing policy processes, institutions, and regimes. Non-incremental, "paradigmatic", change involves new policies which represent a sharp break from how policies were developed, conceived, and implemented in the past.50 Frequently cited examples of such changes include shifts in fiscal and monetary policy in most western countries from a balanced-budget orthodoxy to Keynesian principles and practices in the 1930s and 1940s and a subsequent shift away from Keynesianism to forms of monetarism in the 1970s and 1980s;51 and similar shifts in resource policy from pure exploitation to conservation in the 19th century and then from conservation to sustainable management in the 20th.52 While incremental change is usually thought of as a process of more-or-less linear evolutionary change, paradigmatic change is usually seen as involving periods of stability and incremental adaptations interspersed by periods of revolutionary upheaval or what has often been referred to as a "punctuated equilibrium" pattern of policy change.53
A useful way to look at these different typical patterns of policy change has been suggested by Durrant and Diehl.54 Analogizing from work in paleobiology, they have argued that policy change has two components. Policies can vary not only in terms of the mode of change - between the normal pattern of piecemeal incremental change and the pattern of paradigmatic chance mentioned above - but also in terms of the tempo or speed of change (see Figure II ).
Figure II- Basic Patterns of Policy Change
Rapid
Speed of Change
Fast
Slow
Paradigmatic
Rapid
Paradigmatic
Gradual
Paradigmatic
Mode of Change
Normal or
Intra-Paradigmatic
Rapid
Incremental
Gradual
Incremental
Source: Adapted from Robert F. Durrant and Paul F. Diehl, "Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy: Lessons From the U.S. Foreign Policy Arena" in Journal of Public Policy 9(2) pp. 179-205.
As this model demonstrates, paradigmatic change, although infrequent, can be either rapid or slow. This is somewhat different from the usual conception of paradigmatic change cited in the literature, which has emphasized its often rapid nature. However, empirical evidence of such gradual processes has been generated in diverse areas such as fiscal policy, agricultural policy, aboriginal policy and forestry policy, among others. 55 The same is true for the more common pattern of incremental change which can occur at either tempo, despite the fact that the literature has tended to focus on the gradual nature of many incremental policy processes.56
Linking these typical patterns of change to the central variables identified in the previous section is a critical first step in any effort to understand, and manage, a sectoral, or any other, policy process. That is, the previous section identified the presence or absence of new actors and new ideas as crucial variables related to the presence or absence of specific change and stability processes identified in the policy literature. Figure III outlines the central relationship expected to apply between the major patterns of policy change discussed above and the central variables affecting change outlined in the previous section.
Figure III- The Effects of Changes in Actors and Ideas on Policy Change
Introduction of New Actors
Yes
No
Yes
Rapid
Paradigmatic
Slow
Paradigmatic
Introduction of New Ideas
No
Rapid
Incremental
Slow
Incremental
Source: Adapted from Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh. "Policy Subsystem Configurations and Policy Change: Operationalizing the Postpositivist Analysis of the Politics of the Policy Process." Policy Studies Journal. 26, no. 3 (1998): 466-482."
This analysis suggests that there can be no paradigmatic change without the introduction of new ideas, but that even with the introduction of such ideas the speed of change will be affected by whether the ideas are generated by new or old actors. This, in turn, suggests that certain change and stability processes can be linked with certain typical patterns of policy change (see Figure IV below). That is, since both the typical general patterns of policy change and the specific processes outlined in the previous section involved a different emphasis on the presence or absence of new policy actors and policy ideas, it follows that the different change and stability processes combine to result in a propensity towards a typical general pattern of change.
Figure IV- Stability and Change Processes and Associated Patterns of Policy Change
Involves Presence
of New Actors
Yes
Subsystem Spillovers
Systemic Perturbations
No
Closed Subsystems
Hard Issues
Yes
Policy Learning
Venue Change
Rapid
Paradigmatic
Gradual
Paradigmatic
Involves Presence of New Ideas
No
Non-Decisions
Path Dependency
Rapid
Incremental
Gradual
Incremental
Each of the change and stability processes fundamentally involves the introduction, or the prevention of the introduction, of either new actors or new ideas into a policy process. Each, however, can be involved with other processes which also affect the central variables. Thus, for example, while policy learning and venue change are primarily about the introduction of new ideas, they can be combined with processes such as subsystem spill-overs or systemic perturbations which can introduce new actors into the policy system or subsystem. Understanding the relationships between the two change central variables, and the eight specific change and stability processes they affect, is an essential part of the identification and analysis of a typical patterns of policy change. Such an understanding, therefore, is a basic requirement for the analysis of future trends in specific policy sectors, and for the design of effective governmental responses to such trends.57 In the following section, the ability of governmental procedural policy tools to facilitate or impede policy change through the manipulation of the introduction of new ideas and actors into policy processes will be discussed.
4. Managing Policy Change: Tools for Complex Network Management
As will be apparent from the above discussion, some of the policy processes which promote or facilitate policy change or stability can be subjected to manipulation by governments, such as venue shifting, policy learning and non-decision making, among others. Others, such as systemic perturbations, cannot be directly manipulated, although governments can prepare themselves for their occurrence. A variety of tools can be used by governments to promote, or prevent, specific types of change by altering the distribution of new ideas and actors involved in the policy process and hence altering the propensity for specific types of policy change. That is, policy effects can be designed into policy processes by contemporary governments which can influence these patterns through various kinds of network management activities.58 This can be done for a variety of reasons and general policy aims, such as "getting out in front of an issue" in order to retain some steering capacity in the face of change, or attempting to restrain the impact of change in order to minimize turbulence and any resulting policy instability.59
Although a complete discussion of the possible means for enhancing policy change is beyond the scope of this paper, 60 it should be noted that Bressers and Klok, Schneider and Ingram, and others, have identified a number of policy instruments which can be used to alter the ideas and actors involved in policy subsystems.61 These include education, training, institution creation, the provision of information, "labeling", propaganda, exhortation, formal evaluations, hearings and institutional reform.62
Research into the tools and mechanisms used in intergovernmental regulatory and government organizational design has also identified several others instruments such as "treaties" and a variety of "political agreements" which can affect target group recognition of government intentions and vice versa.63 Other research into interest group behaviour and activities has highlighted the existence of tools related to group creation and manipulation, including the role played by private or public sector patrons in aiding the formation and activities of such groups,64 and their selective representation on government advisory bodies.65
Still other research into contemporary policy-making has highlighted the use of techniques such as focus groups;66 research funding for, and access to, investigative hearings and tribunals;67 and the awarding of various powers to inquiries and hearings such as the ability to subpoena witnesses or enforce orders.68 Finally, some researchers have also emphasized the manner in which tools can be used to negatively affect interest groups and other actors' behaviour. Such "negative" procedural instruments include suppression of information, misleading the public, withholding information, or deception, obfuscation, and other forms of administrative delay.69
This latter point emphasizes the fact that procedural tools can be used in a variety of ways to enhance or diminish change and stability processes.70 As Figure V shows, in the abstract, tools can be used to promote either incremental or paradigmatic change, or to increase the speed or tempo of either mode of change.
Figure V - Policy Tools for Managing Policy Change
General
Aim
General Strategy
Specific Mechanisms
Examples of Relevant
Policy Tools
Promote
Gradual Incremental Change
Enhance:
Stability Processes
Discourage:
Change Processes
Encourage:
Non-Decisions
Hard Issues
Path Dependency
Closed Networks
Discourage:
Policy Learning
Venue Change
Systemic Perturbations
Sub-System Spill-Overs
• Eliminate public debate and participation
• Bureaucratize
processes and administration
• Restrict membership in advisory bodies
•Lock-in programs
• Censorship
• Restrictions on judicial review
• Build absorptive capacity
• Isolate policy sectors
Promote
Rapid
Incremental
Change
Enhance:
Idea-Based
Stability and
Actor-Based
Change Processes
Discourage:
Actor-Based
Stability and
Idea-Based
Change Processes
Encourage:
Non-Decisions
Path Dependency
Systemic Perturbations
Sub-system Spill-overs
Discourage:
Closed Networks
Hard Issues
Policy Learning
Venue Change
• Re-organize administration
• Create technical advisory
groups
• Lock-in Programs
• Disseminate Information to Public
• Discourage judicial or administrative reviews
Promote
Gradual
Paradigmatic
Change
Enhance:
Actor-Based
Stability and
Idea-Based
Change Processes
Discourage:
Idea-Based
Stability and
Actor-Based
Change Processes
Encourage:
Closed Networks
Hard Issues
Policy Learning
Venue Change
Discourage:
Non-Decisions
Path Dependency
Systemic Perturbations
Sub-system Spill-overs
• Public Participation
• Facilitate judicial or
administrative reviews
• Encourage international linkages
• Enhance technical or legal
capacity of administration
• Create Multi-sectoral
Advisory Committees
• Sunset Clauses
Promote Rapid Paradigmatic Change
Enhance:
Change Processes
Discourage:
Stability Processes
Encourage:
Policy Learning
Venue Change
Systemic Perturbations
Sub-System Spill-Overs
Discourage:
Non-Decisions
Hard Issues
Path Dependency
Closed Networks
• Fund interest groups
• Create royal Commissions
• Provide new program funds
• Enhance Judicial Review
• Enhance public participation
• Provide public information
campaigns and advertising
• Sunset Clauses
• Create cross-sectoral
advisory committees
While the effects of the use of such tools should not be exaggerated, neither should their impact be discounted. Although these instruments remain for the most part indirect, limited in scope, often largely invisible or only partially visible, they are an important, and increasingly significant, element of the toolkit of government in the contemporary period.71
5. Environmental Trends and Their Likely Effect on Canadian Policy Outcomes With and Without Government Action
Utilizing the concepts, variables and relationships set out above, this section examines the most likely consequences of several currently identifiable political, economic, socio-cultural and ecological trends for Canadian environmental policy. There are numerous such trends apparent in the contemporary era and only several of the most significant of these will be examined below in terms of their likely effect on Canadian policy-making. In this subsection, the impact of those trends on policy-making in the absence of the concerted use of procedural policy tools will be assessed. The manner in which such tools can be used to mediate the impact of these trends will be discussed in the following subsection.
5.1. General Environmental Trends and Canadian Government Environmental Policy
Among the most significant trends affecting the contours and contents of Canadian environmental policy-making are the political consequences of internationalization of environmental issues; continued geo-physical and ecological problems related to resource depletion and environmental degradation; and a range of economic problems related to shifts in economic activity away from resource-intensive development and towards service and less resource-intensive manufacturing processes.72 In addition, the propensity for spill-overs from on-going policy development in other areas, such as the continuing struggle to expand human and aboriginal rights, and demands for enhanced public participation by increasingly well educated and informed citizens in larger numbers of democratically organized polities, promises to affect environmental policy-making in Canada and elsewhere.73
5.1.1. Internationalization
Several key trends relate to the internationalization of environmental politics. The spread of environmental politics beyond national borders is partially related to the scale and trans-boundary nature of many environmental issues.74 However, it is also closely linked to the improvements in transportation and communications technologies which have facilitated international and trans-national contacts among activists, exports, officials and others involved in a variety of policy areas, including the environment.75 The development of stable and effective international ENGOs such as Greenpeace and many other less well known organizations, is a manifestation of this process, 76 as is the more frequent and closely integrated meetings of experts and politicians on environmental subjects,77 and the establishment of many new international treaties and conventions on environmental subjects. 78
All of these developments affect Canadian policy-making as internationalization, (1) undermines existing policy networks with a virtually exclusive domestic base,79 (2) facilitates cross-national learning and policy transfer,80 and (3) provides alternate venues for policy actors blocked at the domestic level in pursuing their interests.81
A variety of non-environmentally specific trends are also associated with internationalization which can have, and have had, spill-over affects on activities and development in this sector. For example, fiscal issues related to international investment flows have affected the government's capacity to deal with environmental issues. This occured when budget cuts occasioned by government deficit concerns in an era of mobile capital have cut into the resources and capacities of environmental protection agencies.82
Hence internationalization is a potent trends favoring policy change. Three of the change enhancing processes identified above are influenced by the trend. Moreover, while augmenting the potential for venue-shifting, spill-overs and policy learning, internationalization also affects path dependence, closed networks and non-decisions by undermining the established institutions, actors and ideas present in this sector.
5.1.2. Ecological Crises
Probably the most highly publicized trend, of course, relates to an apparent increase in the various environmental crises which occur from time to time.83 It is important to note, however, that these crises are of different types and have different effects on policy-making. That is, crises vary according to their duration and geographical specificity. At one extreme are crises which have specific spatial and temporal effects such as oil or toxic spills and accidents. At the other extreme are those which are more general and long-term in nature such as those related to alterations in weather patterns and pollution-related disasters such as global warming or acid precipitation. In between fall a variety of other crises of varying duration and coverage, such as a short-term but widespread decline in a fish stock or the localized but long-term problems associated with the commissioning and de-commissioning of nuclear generating facilities.
While all of these crises can be classified as potential systemic perturbations, upsetting various routines and procedures common to policy systems, the potential for such crises to effect policy change varies directly with the type of crisis which occurs. That is, localized, short-term accidents can act as "focussing events" and open windows for policy reform, but are unlikely in themselves to result in policy change unless accompanied by substantial pre-existing support for change.84 More wide-spread, short-term, crises can reveal gaps and inconsistencies in planning and policy systems and affect limited types of procedural policy change.85 However, longer-term problems, be they local or more general in nature, can lead to the creation of interest groups and more organized forms of public involvement which can open-up previously closed policy networks and re-frame hard issues into less technical ones relating to, for example, community, public or individual health and safety.86
Canada, of course, has had its share of all different types such crises, and there is no reason to expect their number to diminish. In fact, as human beings continue to put pressure on ecological systems in numerous different ways and as public information media continue to expand and develop, it is likely that an increase in the number and prominence of both short and long-term crises will occur. Hence, although with different potential effects, the number of systemic perturbations in this sector is likely to increase.
5.1.3. Post Staples Economic Adjustment
A third major trend with significant potential impacts on environmental policy-making in Canada is socio-economic in nature. This involved the continual progression of most of Canada towards a 'post-staples' economy in which the country's historical emphasis and reliance on natural resource-based economic activity; is lessened by a shift towards service sector and other less resource-intensive forms of economic activity. Although it is important not to exaggerate this trend, since many regions of Canada may still be characterized as "resource dependent", there is little doubt that the economy as a whole is more diffused and diversified than in the past.87 The development of significant new non-resource based information and other technologies 88 has accompanied severe pressures on critical resource sectors such as the fishery and the forest base and has involved substantial changes in much of Canada's social, cultural and demographic landscape.
Rapid sectoral shifts in the structure of the Canadian economy, including a shift to services, rapid tertiarisation, and significant industrial expansion in regional centres has led to an internal 'reconfiguration' of growth and development, with a significant increase in metropolitan shares of population and employment, the emergence of regional economic centres, and the decline of smaller resource-dependent communities.89 Among the ecological aspects of these changes have been a shift from resource intensive production process to more environmentally benign ones - even in resource-based industries, such as eco-tourism.90
Economic restructuring of Canada's political economy in a post-staples direction has been associated with changes in the movements of capital, global competition, and technological innovation in the resource sector, all of which have resulted in the "downsizing" of the resource-based workforce and extensive job loss in rural areas. The loss of existing jobs, and the inadequate creation of new jobs in the sector has become increasingly problematic in many regions which face decline and depopulation. The growth of the tertiary sector, on the other hand, is largely urban-based and involves the creation of more jobs with proportionally less direct resource reliance and negative impact. 91
The combined effects of changes in industrial structure and labour markets has effected the level of popular support and interest in environmental issues among the Canadian public. In resource-based rural areas support for basic values such as wilderness protection has dropped as these are seen as contributing to the decline of the traditional resource industries. In urban areas on the other hand, there is less opposition to activities such as park creation, although individuals are less likely to rank environmental issues as high in terms of political salience. 92
This means that economic res-structuring and associated population movements and settlements patterns in Canada have had a somewhat paradoxical impact on public opinion and activism in the environmental sector. That is, overall, given the general decline of rural areas and the increase in urban populations over the past decades, general support for environmental issues has increased at the same time that opposition to specific projects and proposals in non-urban areas has intensified.
In terms of the change and stability processes outlined above, this means that post-staples economic adjustment has raised the potential for spill-overs from a variety of economic activities into environmental policy-making and has enhanced the number of venues available to activists through, for example, the institutionalization of various kinds of regional development and land use boards and agencies. More significantly, however, re-structuring undermines an important stability process - path dependency - by altering the value and significance of traditional resource industries, thereby altering the cost implications of alterations in traditional land and resource use patterns of activity.
5.1.4. Political and Cultural Change
Environmental policy-making is also affected by the general trends visible in the enhanced democratization and fragmentation of Canadian civil society. Although the exact parameters of these changes are somewhat unclear, the mobilization of a previously deferential portions of the population to embrace various forms of political action and involvement - including that regarding the environment93 - has potent implications for environmental policy-making.
Although Canada has so far eschewed the development of an exhaustively litigious form of citizen-led policy-making,94 there has been a manifest increase in the willingness of individual companies and citizens to redefine many conflicts and rights-related and to challenge government regulatory actions through judicial and quasi-judicial venues.95 While the direct impact of this movement on the environment has been limited,96 in many areas courts have created new sets of rights and entitlements which have spilled over into environmental areas. This is especially the case with First Nations in Canada which have benefited from a series of Supreme Court rulings which have created new land use and land management rights which have forced the inclusion of aboriginal groups in resource and environmental policy-making both on treaty and non-treaty lands.97 It is also the case with
Litigation and activism surrounding the free trade agreements, which has resulted in the establishment of new forms of investment rights which have undermined government latitude in regulatory matters.98
This trend, therefore, has augmented the potential for environmentally-relevant policy-spill-overs and has provided new venues for policy deliberations through the promotion of a loosely-defined but justiciable "rights" agenda.
5.2 The Likely Effects of Unmediated Environmental Trends on Canadian Government Environmental Policy
The analysis of three major international, ecological and socio-political trends suggests that taken together they have undermined all of the major stability processes and augmented the potential of all the change-oriented ones. That is, stability processes such as non-decisions are being overcome by the introduction of ideas from the international and trans-national sphere such as bio-diversity and bio-regionalism which help to alter the frames of policy discourse in the sector. Although these ideas have been in circulation for some time, they have only recently begun to emerge as the guiding principles behind environmental treaties and resource management efforts.99 Similarly, stability-enhancing factors such as hard issues and closed networks are being undermined by the emergence of new policy actors such as international ENGOs and the redefinition of environmental issues in terms of frames related to community health and individual or group rights. Finally, the nature of path dependencies in this sector is also being altered as new institutions are created in the new international environmental order and the political economy of Canada re-structures.
Policy change processes are also being enhanced. The number and type of systemic perturbations is likely to increase in frequency as populations place increasing pressure on eco-systems and existing infrastructure ages, promoting the likelihood of the occurrence of various types of ecological crises. Similarly, the emergence of new international institutions and the development of a more activist Canadian judiciary enhances the number of judicial and other administrative and public venues for policy deliberations. Globalization and increasing international integration, generally, increase the potential for policy learning. Finally developments in Canadian social and political culture which promote individual activism and linkage of various subsystems in areas such as health and aboriginal affairs, to name only two, re-define "hard issues" into more publicly digestible forms.
Overall, following the model of policy change set out in Figure IV above, this analysis suggests that the likely impact of unmediated environmental trends on Canadian environmental policy is towards rapid paradigmatic change. That is, even the limited number of trends identified above all point in the direction of enhanced policy change processes and reduced policy stability processes. This suggests that both new actors and new ideas will be present in this policy sector, a situation likely to lead not only to significant changes in the mode of policy-making, but also to its tempo. These general observations are set out in Figure VI below.
Figure VI - Effects of Unmanaged Environmental Trends on Change and Stability Processes in Canadian Environmental Policy-Making
Environmental Trend
Direction of Effect
Change Processes
Learning
Venue Change
Spill-over
Systemic Perturbations
Internationalization
Internationalization/ Political/Social and Cultural Change
Environmental Complexity/Economic
Re-structuring/Political/Social and Cultural Change
Ecological Crises
• Encourages cross-national transfers, through elite networking
• Provides alternate policy venues
• Crosses traditional sectoral and
geographic policy boundaries
• Introduces new actors, undermines existing institutions and policy processes
Stability Process
Hard Issues
Non-Decisions
Closed Subsystems
Path Dependency
Ecological Crises/Economic Adjustment/Socio-Political Change
Internationalization
Internationalization/Socio-Political Change
Internationalization /Economic Restructuring
• Redefines issues from the technological to the public realms
• Discouraged by rapid dissemination
of ideas
• Adds multiple new domestic and international actors to existing policy subsystems
• Creates new institutional structures
and treaties and undermines resource dependence of the economy and sunk costs
5.3. The Potential for Procedural Policy Tools to Mediate the Impact of Environmental Trends on Canadian Government Environmental Policies.
Some of the effects of these processes can already be seen in the shifts which have been occurring in Canada away from the old implementation style of regulation by bilateral negotiation towards more open, and less predictable, multi-stakeholder policy processes, many of which were forced upon recalcitrant Canadian governments by new policy actors.100 However, while rapid paradigmatic change is one possible outcome of current environmental trends, it is by no means certain that this will occur.
As was suggested above, this is due to the fact that contemporary governments have a wide range of procedural tools at their disposal which can serve to either speed-up or slow-down the tempo of policy change, or alter its general nature.101 In order to enhance the potential for learning, for example, Canadian governments could undertake a variety of capacity-building activities.102 Activities related to the dissemination of information, the provision of funding and access for subsystem members, and the inclusion of network members in formal policy deliberations could be incorporated into policy design in order to encourage learning and prepare governments to deal with the results of the change processes outlined above.103 Alternatively, governments could attempt to slow or prevent change from occurring through, for example, the withdrawal of funding from interest groups or the elimination of advisory groups. 104
However, while the effects and impact of future environmental crises remain somewhat unpredictable, it is highly unlikely that the process of the internationalization of policy-making or the re-structuring of the Canadian economy will be reversed and Canada adopt a more autarchous form of socio-economic, political, and cultural development.105 Similarly, it is difficult to imagine Canadian society moving in a less democratic direction than has been the case over the past decade.
As a result, the continued presence and positive reception provided to new ideas in this sector, again following the elements of the model set out in Figure IV, preclude the return to any form of incremental policy-making. Rather, the choice before Canadian policy-makers in the environmental sector is largely restricted to altering or attempting to alter the tempo of policy change, rather than its fundamental nature. Figure VII below sets out the general situation and potential for procedural instrument use by Canadian governments to slow down the process or non-incremental, or paradigmatic, policy change which is likely to occur in this sector.
Figure VII - Policy Tools for Managing Paradigmatic Environmental Policy Change in Canada
General
Options
Change
Factor
General
Prognosis
General
Strategy
Specific Tactics
Examples of
Policy Tools
Promote
Gradual Incremental Change
Undermined by
New Ideas
Unlikely to be
attained due to
impact of
Internationalization and economic
re-structuring
Promote
Rapid
Incremental
Change
Undermined by
New Ideas
Unlikely to be
attained due to
impact of
internationalization
Promote
Gradual
Paradigmatic
Change
Likely due to presence of New Ideas but undermined by presence of New Actors
Can be attained
by restricting
entrance of new
actors into
policy processes
Enhance
Actor-Based
Stability and
Discourage
Actor-Based
Change Processes
Encourage:
Closed Networks
Hard Issues
Discourage:
Systemic Perturbations
Sub-system Spill-overs
• Discourage
Public Participation
• Restrict judicial or administrative reviews
• Enhance technical or legal capacity of administration
• Restrict Multi-sectoral Advisory Committees
Promote Rapid Paradigmatic Change
Enhanced by presence of New Ideas and
New Actors
Default
Position
That is, given the configuration of change and stability factors outlined in this chapter, it is likely that some form of non-incremental or paradigmatic change will occur in the Canadian environmental sector. That is, since firm government action to prevent the flow of new ideas, resulting largely from closer international integration, is highly unlikely, some form of paradigmatic change is the most likely change outcome over the near future. The central question, then, is whether this change will occur at a rapid pace (the default position) or whether Canadian governments will act to slow down the tempo of change by implementing various forms of network management activities aimed at promoting a shift towards gradual rather than rapid paradigmatic change.
While it would be difficult to attempt to block change entirely given the strength of the change processes underway (and especially the propensity for somewhat unpredictable systemic perturbations), the speed or tempo of change could be reduced through enhancement of actor-based stability processes and the reduction of the potential for actor-based policy change. This would allow existing actors to deal with new ideas, limiting the speed of paradigmatic change.
6. Conclusion: Consequences of Environmental Trends for Canadian Governance
This discussion has shown that different patterns of policy change exist and can be linked to different change and stability processes centering on the presence or absence of new actors and new ideas in sectoral policy processes. A critical question for anyone concerned with future trends in policy-making is whether and how these processes can be affected or otherwise manipulated by governments. As this paper has argued, governments can manipulate both change and stability processes, through the use of policy tools which can affect the range of ideas and actors present in policy deliberations. Although the extent to which either process can be manipulated will vary according to the exact specification of the change and stability processes involved, several conclusions can be reached in the case of Canadian environmental policy. These are:
1. As in all other policy areas, both sets of policy change forces and processes exist in the environmental area - i.e. both policy change and stability enhancing and processes are present.
2. Current environmental trends such as internationalization, ecological crises, economic re-structuring, and social, cultural and political change are enhancing change processes in this sector and undermining stability processes.
3. Left unmediated by the use of government procedural policy tools, the conjuncture or vector of such forces is leading in the direction of rapid paradigmatic change as new actors and new ideas are introduced into this sector.
4. Any attempt to shift environmental policy change to an incremental basis would require Canadian government actions to curtail the flow of knowledge and new ideas circulating in to the policy process. This is something which would appear to be very difficult to achieve given current trends towards internationalization, even if a Canadian government would actually wish to do so.
5. While restricting the entrance of new policy ideas in this sector would be extremely difficult in present circumstances, governments in Canada could use specific policy tools to offset the introduction of new actors into the policy process, hence slowing down the process of paradigmatic policy change.
1 I would like to thank Harry Swain, Tsuyoshi Kawasaki, Jeremy Rayner, George Hoberg, Ben Cashore, Allen Sutherland, and Edward Parson for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
2 On the paradox of enhanced state capacity and reduced state autonomy in the era of globalization see Cerny, Philip G. "International Finance and the Erosion of State Policy Capacity." In P. Gummett, ed(s), Globalization and Public Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996. 83-104 and Reinicke, Wolfgang H. Global Public Policy: Governing Without Government? Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1998
3 See Dobuzinskis, Laurent. The Self-Organizing Polity: An Epistemological Analysis of Political Life. Boulder: Westview, 1987; Lehmbruch, Gerhard. "The Organization of Society, Administrative Strategies, and Policy Networks." In R. M. Czada and A. Windhoff-Heritier, ed(s), Political Choice: Institutions, Rules, and the Limits of Rationality, Boulder: Westview, 1991. 121-155; and Mayntz, Renate. "Modernization and the Logic of Interorganizational Networks." In J. Child, M. Crozier and M. R, ed(s), Societal Change Between Market and Organization, Aldershot: Avebury, 1993. 3-18
4 Hawkins, Keith and John M. Thomas. "Making Policy in Regulatory Bureaucracies." In K. Hawkins and J. M. Thomas, ed(s), Making Regulatory Policy, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989. 3-30; Woodside, K. "The Political Economy of Policy Instruments: Tax Expenditures and Subsidies in Canada." In M. Atkinson and M. Chandler, ed(s), The Politics of Canadian Public Policy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983. 173-197; Weiss, Janet A. and Mary Tschirhart. "Public Information Campaigns as Policy Instruments." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 13, no. 1 (1994): 82-119; and Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. "Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience." Policy Studies Review. 12, no. 1 (1993): 3-24. On these trends in public administration more generally see Hood, Christopher. "A Public Management for All Seasons?" Public Administration. 69, no. Spring (1991): 3-19 and Doern, G. Bruce and Stephen Wilks, ed. Changing Regulatory Institutions in Britain and North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
5 See La Porte, Todd R. "Organized Social Complexity: Explication of a Concept." In T. R. La Porte, ed(s), Organized Social Complexity: Challenge to Politics and Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. 3-21; Milward, H. Brinton, Keith G. Provan, and Barbara A. Else. "What Does the 'Hollow State' Look Like?" In B. Bozeman, ed(s), Public Management: The State of the Art, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. 309-323; and Peters, B. Guy and Jon Pierre. "Governance Without Government? Rethinking Public Administration." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 8, no. 2 (1998): 223-244.
6 On "traditional" substantive policy tools see Woodside, K. "Policy Instruments and the Study of Public Policy." Canadian Journal of Political Science. 19, no. 4 (1986): 775-793 and Lester M. Salamon, ed., Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action (Washington D.C.: Urban Institute, 1989. On "procedural" instruments see Michael Howlett, Legitimacy and Governance: Re-Discovering Procedural Policy Instruments, (Vancouver: Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the British Columbia Political Studies Association, 1996) and in't Veld, Roeland J. "The Dynamics of Instruments." In B. G. Peters and F. K. M. Van Nispen, ed(s), Public Policy Instruments : Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration, New York: Edward Elgar, 1998. 153-162.
7 See Peters, B. Guy. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lexington: University Press of Kansas, 1996.
8 See Erik-Hans Klijn, "Analyzing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks: A Theoretical Examination of the Concept Policy Network and Its Problems" in Administration and Society 28(1) 1996 pp. 90-119; Johan A. de Bruijn and Ernst F. ten Heuvelhof, "Policy Networks and Governance" in David L. Weimer ed., Institutional Design Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995 pp. 161-179; and de Bruijn, J.A. and E.F. ten Heuvelhof. "Instruments for Network Management." In W. J. M. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjan, ed(s), Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, London: Sage, 1997. 119-136.
9 See Peter Hall, "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy-Making in Britain" in Comparative Politics 25 (3) 1993 pp. 275-296
10 See Gudmund Hernes, "Structural Change in Social Processes," American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1976, pp. 513-547;
11 On the multi-dimensional aspects of policy instruments and the inter-relationship of means and ends see Linder, Stephen H. and B. Guy Peters. "Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts"." Journal of Public Policy. 9, no. 1 (1989): 35-58; Hood, Christopher C. The Tools of Government. Chatham: Chatham House, 1986 and Majone, Giandomenico. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process,. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
12 It is important to note here, that policy change can occur at different levels, ranging from the broad parameters of a political system to the sub-sectoral or issue area. In this discussion the focus is upon the meso or sectoral level. For examples of analyses focussing on different levels of policy-making see Daugbjerg, Carsten and David Marsh. "Explaining Policy Outcomes: Integrating the Policy Network Approach with Macro-Level and Micro-Level Analysis." In D. Marsh, ed(s), Comparing Policy Networks, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1998. 52-71; Cavanagh, Michael, David Marsh, and Martin Smith. "The Relationship Between Policy Networks at the Sectoral and Sub-Sectoral Levels: A Response to Jordan, Maloney and McLaughlin." Public Administration. 73, no. Winter (1995): 627-633 and Eisner, Marc Allen. "Discovering Patterns in Regulatory History: Continuity, Change and Regulatory Regimes." Journal of Policy History. 6, no. 2 (1994): 157-187.
13 See Heclo, Hugh. "Ideas, Interests and Institutions." In L. C. Dodd and C. Jillson, ed(s), The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations, San Francisco: Westview, 1994. 366-392 and Heclo, Hugh. "Conclusion: Policy Dynamics." In R. Rose, ed(s), The Dynamics of Public Policy: A Comparative Analysis, London: Sage, 1976. 237-266.
14 More generally see Starling, Jay D. "The Use of Systems Constructs in Simplifying Organized Social Complexity." In T. R. La Porte, ed(s), Organized Social Complexity: Challenge to Politics and Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. 131-172 and Aminzade, Ronald. "Historical Sociology and Time." Sociological Methods and Research. 20, no. 4 (1992): 456-480.
15 See Douglas, James. "Review Article: The Overloaded Crown." British Journal of Political Science. 6(1975): 488-500 and Simeon, Richard. "The 'Overload Thesis' and Canadian Government." Canadian Public Policy. 2, no. 4 (1976): 541-552.
16 For examples of the recent use of similar models see Savoie, Donald J. Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999 and Jones, Bryan D. Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
17 See Daneke, Gregory A. "Back to the Future: Misplaced Elements of Political Inquiry and the Advanced Systems Agenda." In W. N. Dunn and R. M. Kelly, ed(s), Advances in Policy Studies Since 1950, New Brunswick: Transaction Press, 1992. 267-290 and Jervis, Robert. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. On the origins of these models see Buckley, Walter. "Society as a Complex Adaptive System." In W. Buckley, ed(s), Modern System Research for the Behavioural Scientist, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1968. 490-513.
18 See Bennett, Colin J. and Michael Howlett. "The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change." Policy Sciences. 25, no. 3 (1992): 275-94.
19Paul A. Sabatier, "An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein." Policy Sciences 21(1988): 129-168; Sabatier, Paul A. "Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change." Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization. 8, no. 4 (1987): 649-692; and Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, ed. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview, 1993.
20 On the first uses of this concept see Schattschneider, E.E. The Semisovereign People; A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.
21 Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. p. 26 and 239-241.
22 On the distinction between policy communities and networks see Wilks, Stephen and Maurice Wright. "Conclusion: Comparing Government-Industry Relations: States, Sectors, and Networks." In S. Wilks and M. Wright, ed(s), Comparative Government-Industry Relations: Western Europe, the United States, and Japan, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. 274-313 and Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1995. For an example of its application see Howlett, Michael and Jeremy Rayner. "Do Ideas Matter? Policy Subsystem Configurations and the Continuing Conflict Over Canadian Forest Policy." Canadian Public Administration. 38, no. 3 (1995): 382-410.
23 Other examples of venue-shifting behaviour can be found in Jordan, Grant. Indirect Causes and Effects in Policy Change: Shell, Greenpeace and the Brent Spar. Boston: Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1998 and Hoberg, George. Distinguishing Learning from Other Sources of Policy Change: The Case of Forestry in the Pacific Northwest. Boston: Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1998.
24Hugh Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).
25Cf Richard Rose, Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space Chatham: Chatham House Publishing, 1993; Rose, Richard. "What is Lesson-Drawing." Journal of Public Policy. 11, no. 1 (1991): 3-30; and Olsen, Johan P. and B. Guy Peters, ed. Lessons From Experience: Experiential Learning in Administrative Reforms in Eight Democracies. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996.
26See Paul Pierson, "When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change" in World Politics 45, 1993 pp. 595-628 and Knoepfel, Peter and Ingrid Kissling-Naf. "Social Learning in Policy Networks." Policy and Politics. 26, no. 3 (1998): 343-367.
27 On the different types of learning see Bennett, Colin J. and Michael Howlett. "The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change." Policy Sciences. 25, no. 3 (1992): 275-94 and May, Peter J. "Policy Learning And Failure." Journal Of Public Policy. 12, no. 4 (1992): 331-54.
28 Dery, David. "Policy by the Way: When Policy is Incidental to Making Other Policies." Journal of Public Policy. 18, no. 2 (1999): 163-176.
29See G. Hoberg and E. Morawski, "Policy Change Through Sector Intersection: Forest and Aboriginal Policy in Clayoquot Sound" in Canadian Public Administration 40(3) 1997 pp. 387-414 and Wyn Grant and Anne MacNamara, "When Policy Communities Intersect: The Cases of Agriculture and Banking" in Political Studies 43, 1995 pp. 509-515. On system and sub-system linkages, more generally, see Marion, Russ. The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social Systems. London: Sage, 1999 and Jervis, Robert. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997 esp. pp. 29-61
30 See Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz "Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework" in American Political Science Review 1963 (2) pp. 632-642 and Frederick W. Frey, "Comment: On Issues and Nonissues in the Study of Power" in American Political Science Review, 65 1971 pp. 1081-1101.
31 See Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, Power and Poverty : Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970) esp. chapter 3.
32See Susan Phillips "Discourse, Identity, and Voice: Feminist Contributions to Policy Studies" in L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett and D. Laycock eds., Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998) pp. 242-265.
33 See Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974; Schon, Donald A. and Martin Rein. Frame Reflection: Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books, 1994; and esp. Campbell, John L. "Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy." Theory and Society. 27, no. 5 (1998): 377-409.
34Earlier studies sometimes referred to these as "wicked" problems. See Rittel, Horst W.J. and Melvin M. Webber. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy Sciences. 4(1973): 155-169, and Martin, John F. Reorienting a Nation: Consultants and Australian Public Policy. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998
35 See Cobb, Roger W. and Charles D. Elder. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972; Cobb, R., J.K. Ross, and M.H. Ross. "Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process." American Political Science Review. 70, no. 1 (1976): 126-138; and May, Peter J. "Reconsidering Policy Design: Policies and Publics." Journal of Public Policy. 11, no. 2 (1991): 187-206.
36 See Philip H. Pollock III, Stuart A. Lilie, and M. Elliot Vittes, "Hard Issues, Core Values and Vertical Constraint: The Case of Nuclear Power" in British Journal of Political Science 23 (1) 1993 pp. 29-50
37 Keller, Ann C. "Innovation and Influence: Scientists as Advocates in Environmental Policy Change." Seattle: Paper Presented to the Western Political Science Association (1999)
38 See Margaret Weir, "Ideas and the Politics of Bounded Innovation", S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth (eds.), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 188-216; David, Paul A. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY." The American Economic Review. 75, no. 2 (1985): 332-337; and Rose, Richard. "Inheritance Before Choice in Public Policy." Journal of Theoretical Politics. 2, no. 3 (1990): 263-291
39See Wilsford, David. "The Conjoncture of Ideas and Interests." Comparative Political Studies. 18, no. 3 (1985): 357-372; Wilsford, David. "Path Dependency, or Why History Makes It Difficult but Not Impossible to Reform Health Care System in A Big Way." Journal of Public Policy. 14, no. 3 (1994): 251-284; and Rona-Tas, Akos. "Path Dependence and Capital Theory: Sociology of the Post-Communist Economic Transformation." East European Politics and Societies. 12, no. 1 (1998): 107-131.
40 See March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1989. P. 52. See also Haydu, Jeffrey. "Making Use of the Past: Time Periods as Cases to Compare and As Sequences of Problem Solving." American Journal of Sociology. 104, no. 2 (1998): 339-371 and Twist, M.J.W. van and C.J.A.M. Termeer. "Introduction to Configuration Approach: A Process for Societal Steering." In R. in't Veld, L. Schaap, C. J. A. M. Termeer and m. J. W. Van Twist, ed(s), Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory: New Approaches to Societal Steering, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991. 19-30.
41 See Browne, William P. "Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy Domain." Journal of Politics. 52, no. 2 (1990): 477-509 and Browne, William P. "Issue Niches and the Limits of Interest Group Influence." In A. J. Cigler and B. A. Loomis, ed(s), Interest Group Politics, Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 1991. 345-370.
42 Rhodes, R. A. W. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997. See also Schaap, L. and M.J.W. van Twist. "The Dynamics of Closedness in Networks." In W. J. M. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjan, ed(s), Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, London: Sage, 1997. 62-78 and Frank R. Baumgartner, and Bryan D. Jones. "Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems." Journal of Politics. 53, no. 4 (1991): 1044-1074
43 See Pross, Paul. Group Politics and Public Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992; Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1995 and Knoke, David. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
44 Campbell, John L. "Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy." Theory and Society. 27, no. 5 (1998): 377-409. More generally see Blyth, Mark M. "Any More Bright Ideas?" The Ideational Turn of Comparative Political Economy." Comparative Politics. 29(1997): 229-250. Hall, John A. "Ideas and the Social Sciences." In J. Goldstein and R. O. Keohane, ed(s), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. 31-56 and Jacobsen, John Kurt. "Much Ado About Ideas: The Cognitive Factor in Economic Policy." World Politics. , no. 47 (1995): 283-310.
45 See, generally, Nisbet, Robert. "Introduction: The Problem of Social Change." In R. Nisbet, ed(s), Social Change, New York: Harper and Row, 1972. 1-45. See also Peters, B. Guy and Jon Pierre. "Institutions and Time: Problems of Conceptualization and Explanation." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 8, no. 4 (1998): 565-584; Feick, Jurgen. "Comparing Comparative Policy Studies - A Path Towards Integration?" 12, no. 3 (1992): 257-286; and March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1989. Esp. chapter 4
46 This "vector" approach to policy dynamics shares some similarities with the "field" approach to group dynamics developed in the organizational psychology literature in the early 1950s. See Lewin, Kurt. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics." In D. Cartwright, ed(s), Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper, 1951. 188-237 and, more recently, Wilson, David C. A Strategy of Change: Concepts and Controversies in the Management of Change. London: Routledge, 1992. See also Hammond, Thomas H. and Christopher K. Butler. Some Complex Answers to the Simple Question, "Do Institutions Matter?": Aggregation Rules, Preference Profiles, and Policy Equilibria in Presidential and Parliamentary Systems. Detroit: Michigan State University PIPC Working Paper 96-02, 1996.
47Nelson W. Polsby, Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Initiation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
48 See Charles Lindblom, "The Science of Muddling Through." Public Administration Review 19 (2) 1959 pp. 79-88. More generally see Michael T. Hayes, Incrementalism and Public Policy. New York: Longmans, 1992.
49Peter Hall defines a policy paradigm as establishing "the broad goals behind policy, the related problems or puzzles that policy-makers have to solve to get there, and, in large measure, the kind of instruments that can be used to attain these goals". Peter A. Hall, "Policy Paradigms, Experts, and the State: The Case of Macroeconomic Policy-Making in Britain", Stephen Brooks and Alain-G Gagnon (eds.), Social Scientists, Policy, and the State, New York: Praeger, 1990, p. 59.
50 See Berry, William T. "The Confusing Case of Budgetary Incrementalism: Too Many Meanings for a Single Concept." Journal of Politics. 52(1990): 167-196 and Cox, Robert H. "Can Welfare States Grow in Leaps and Bounds? Non-Incremental Policymaking in the Netherlands." Governance. 5, no. 1 (1992): 68-87.
51 See Hall, Peter A., ed. The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989 and Hall, Peter A. "The Change from Keynesianism to Monetarism: Institutional Analysis and British Economic Policy in the 1970s." In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth, ed(s), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 90-114.
52 See Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency : The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959 and Hays, Samuel P. Beauty, Health, and Permanence : Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
53 See Connie J. G. Gersick, "Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm", Academy of Management Review, 16, 1991, pp. 10-36 and Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, "Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism" in Thomas J.M. Schopf ed., Paleobiology San Francisco, Freeman, Cooper 1972 pp. 82-115. See also Krasner, Stephen. "Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics." Comparative Politics. 16, no. 2 (1984): 223-246.
54See Robert F. Durrant and Paul F. Diehl, "Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy: Lessons From the U.S. Foreign Policy Arena" in Journal of Public Policy 9(2) pp. 179-205.
55For examples of rapid paradigmatic change, see Peter Hall, "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy-Making in Britain" in Comparative Politics 25 (3) 1993 pp. 275-296. On gradual paradigmatic change see Michael Howlett, "Policy Paradigms and Policy Change: Lessons From the Old and New Canadian Policies Towards Aboriginal Peoples" in Policy Studies Journal 22 (4) 1994 pp. 631-651; and William D. Coleman, Grace D. Skogstad, and Michael M. Atkinson, "Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture" in Journal of Public Policy 16 (3) 1996 pp. 273-302.
56 See, for example, Hayes, Michael T. Incrementalism and Public Policy. New York: Longmans, 1992. The originator of the concept, Charles Lindblom, of course, had noted that incremental change can occur at both speeds. See Lindblom, Charles E. "Still Muddling, Not Yet Through." Public Administration Review. 39, no. 6 (1979): 517-526.
57 Cortell, Andrew P. and Susan Peterson. "Altered States: Explaining Domestic Institutional Change." British Journal of Political Science. 29(1999): 177-203; Zahariadis, Nikoloas and Christopher S. Allen. "Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany." Policy Studies Review. 14, no. 1/2 (1995): 71-98; and Bressers, Hans and Mac Honigh. "A Comparative Approach to the Explanation of Policy Effects." International Social Science Journal. , no. 108 (1986): 267-288.
58 See Heritier, Adrienne. "Policy-Making by Subterfuge: Interest Accommodation, Innovation and Substitute Democratic Legitimation in Europe - Perspectives from Distinctive Policy Areas." Journal of European Public Policy. 4, no. 2 (1997): 171-189.; Johan A. de Bruijn and Ernst F. ten Heuvelhof, "Policy Networks and Governance" in David L. Weimer ed., Institutional Design Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995 pp. 161-179; Peters, B. Guy and Jon Pierre. "Governance Without Government? Rethinking Public Administration." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 8, no. 2 (1998): 223-244; and Bressers, Hans Th.A. "The Choice of Policy Instruments in Policy Networks." In B. G. Peters and F. K. M. V. Nispen, ed(s), Public Policy Instruments : Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration, New York: Edward Elgar, 1998. 85-105.
59 Pal, Leslie A. Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times. Toronto: ITP Nelson, 1997.
60 A good overview is provided in de Bruijn, J.A. and E.F. ten Heuvelhof. "Policy Instruments For Steering Autopoietic Actors." In R. In 'T Veld, L. Schaap, C. J. A. M. Termeer and M. J. W. Van Twist, ed(s), Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory: New Approaches to Societal Steering, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991. 161-170.
61 See Hans Bressers and Pieter-Jan Klok, "Fundamentals for a Theory of Policy Instruments" in International Journal of Social Economics 15 (3/4) 1988 pp. 22-41 and Anne L. Schneider and Helen Ingram, "Behavioural Assumptions of Policy Tools" in Journal of Politics, 52(2) 1990 pp. 511-529.
62 On specific tools see Janet A. Weiss and Mary Tschirhart, "Public Information Campaigns as Policy Instruments" in Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(1) 1994 pp. 82-119; Robert Bellehumeur, "Review: An Instrument of Change" in Optimum 27(1) 1997 pp. 37-42; Michael Saward, Co-Optive Politics and State Legitimacy (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1992; and Rose, Jonathan. "Government Advertising in a Crisis: The Quebec Referendum Precedent." Canadian Journal of Communication. 18(1993): 173-196.
63See Simon J. Bulmer, "The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutionalist Approach" in Journal of Public Policy 13 (4) 1993 pp. 351-380; Peters, B. Guy. "Government Reorganization: A Theoretical Analysis." International Political Science review. 13, no. 2 (1992): 199-218 and Hollander, Marcus J. and Michael J. Prince. "Analytical Units in Federal and Provincial Governments: Origins, Functions and Suggestions for Effectiveness." Canadian Public Administration. 36, no. 2 (1993): 190-224.
64On the U.S. situation of private sector patronage see Anthony Nownes and Grant Neeley, "Toward an Explanation for Public Interest Group Formation and Proliferation: "Seed Money", Disturbances, Entrepreneurship, and Patronage" in Policy Studies Journal, 24(1) 1996 pp. 74-92. On the Canadian situation of public sector patronage see Leslie A. Pal, Interests of State: The Politics of Language, Multiculturalism, and Feminism in Canada Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993; Sandra Burt, "Canadian Women's Groups in the 1980s: Organizational Development and Policy Influence" in Canadian Public Policy 16, 1990 pp. 17-28 and Finkle, Peter et al. Federal Government Relations With Interest Groups: A Reconsideration. Ottawa: Privy Council Office, 1994.
65 Brown, David S. "The Management of Advisory Committees; An Assignment for the '70's." Public Administration Review. 32(1972): 334-342; Smith, Thomas B. "Advisory Committees in the Public Policy Process." International Review of Administrative Sciences. 43, no. 2 (1977): 153-166; Brown-John, C. Lloyd. "Advisory Agencies in Canada: An Introduction." Canadian Public Administration. 22, no. 1 (1979): 72-91.
66See Scott R. Furlong, "Reinventing Regulatory Development at the Environmental Protection Agency" in Policy Studies Journal 23 (3) 1995 pp. 466-482
67See Jane Jenson, "Commissioning Ideas: Representation and Royal Commissions" in Susan D. Phillips ed., How Ottawa Spends 1994-95: Making Change Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1994 pp. 39-69; Alan C. Cairns, "Reflections on Commission Research" in A. Paul Pross, Innis Christie and John A. Yogis eds. Commissions of Inquiry Toronto: Carswell, 1990 pp. 87-110; Wheare, K.C. Government by Committee. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955; Dion, Leon. "The Politics of Consultation." Government and Opposition. 8, no. 3 (1973): 332-353; and Wraith, R.E. and G.B. Lamb. Public Inquiries as an Instrument of Government. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1971.
68See, for example, Salter, Liora and Debra Slaco, Public Inquiries in Canada Ottawa: Science Council of Canada, 1981 and Bryan Schwartz, "Public Inquiries" in Canadian Public Administration 40 (1) 1997 pp. 72-85
69See Claus Mueller, The Politics of Communication: A Study in the Political Sociology of Language, Socialization and Legitimation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973) pp. 145
70 See Gilmore, Thomas N. and James Krantz. "Innovation in the Public Sector: Dilemmas in the Use of Ad Hoc Processes." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 10, no. 3 (1991): 455-468.
71 See Aldrich, Howard. "Visionaries and Villains: The Politics of Designing Interorganizational Relations." In E. H. Burack and A. R. Negandhi, ed(s), Organization Design: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Findings, Kent: Kent State University Press, 1977. 23-40; Nordlinger, Eric A. On the Autonomy of the Democratic State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981; and Weimer, David L. "The Craft of Policy Design: Can It Be More Than Art?" Policy Studies Review. 11, no. 3/4 (1992): 370-388.
72 A similar list has been used by the U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission in assessing its likely future role in this sector. See International Joint Commission, The IJC and the 21st Century: response of the IJC to a Request by the Governments of Canada and the United States on How to Best Assist Them to Meet the Environmental Challenges of the 21st century. Washington D.C.: IJC, 1999. On these trends, generally, see Melody Hessing and Michael Howlett, Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997); Fleming, Thomas, ed. The Environment and Canadian Society. Toronto: ITP Nelson, 1997; and Collier, Ute. Deregulation in the European Union: Environmental Perspectives. London: Routledge, 1998.
73 On these overall, non-environmentally specific, socio-political trends see Bennett, W. Lance. "The Uncivic Culture: Communication, Identity and the Rise of Lifestyle Politics." PS: Political Science and Politics. 31, no. 4 (1998): 741-762 and, in Canada, Nevitte, Neil. The Decline of Deference: Canadian Value Change in Cross-National Perspective. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1996.
74 See Brenner, Neil. "Beyond State-Centrism? Space, Territoriality, and Geographical Scale in Globalization Studies." Theory and Society. 28(1999): 39-78 and Young, Oran R. "The Problem of Scale in Human/Environment Relationships." Journal of Theoretical Politics. 6, no. 4 (1994): 429-447.
75 See, generally, Risse-Kappen, Thomas. Bringing Transnational Relations Back in: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.. On the consequences for the environmental movement see Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink, ed. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998. Esp. Chapter 4.
76 Zurn, Michael. "The Rise of International Environmental Politics: A Review of Current Research." World Politics. 50, no. 4 (1998): 617-649 and Galtung, Johan. "The Green Movement: A Socio-Historical Exploration." International Sociology. 1, no. 1 (1986): 75-90.
77 See Haas, Peter M. "Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination." International Organization. 46, no. 1 (1992): 1-36.
78 Choucri, Nazli, ed. Global Accord: Environmental Challenges and International Responses. Boston: MIT Press, 1993. Hurrell, Andrew and Benedict Kingsbury, ed. The International Politics of the Environment. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Johnson, Pierre Marc and Andre Beaulieu. The Environment and NAFTA: Understanding and Implementing the New Continental Law. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1996; Reif, Linda C. "International Environmental Law." In G. Thompson, M. L. McConnell and L. B. Huestis, ed(s), Environmental Law and Business in Canada, Aurora: Canada Law Book, 1993. 71-103; and Kirton, John. "The Commission for Environmental Cooperation and Canada-U.S. Environmental Governance in the NAFTA Era." American Review of Canadian Studies. 27, no. 3 (1997): 459-486.
79 See Alker, Hayward R. and Peter M. Haas. "The Rise of Global Ecopolitics." In N. Choucri, ed(s), Global Accord: Environmental Challenges and International Responses, Boston: MIT Press, 1993. 205-254
80 See Bennett, Colin J. "Understanding Ripple Effects: The Cross-National Adoption of Policy Instruments for Bureaucratic Accountability." Governance. 10, no. 3 (1997): 213-233 and, more generally, Bennett, Colin J. "What is Policy Convergence and What Causes It?" British Journal of Political Science. 21, no. 2 (1991): 215-233.
81 See Kahler, Miles. International Institutions and the Political Economy of Integration. Washington: Brookings Institution, 1995. The actual effect, of course, varies according to the type of internationalization process at work. On the various types of effects such as the use of global markets by business, adherence to international rules and regulations by governments, changes in international discourses on the part of policy experts and others, and infiltration of domestic policy processes by non-domestic actors see Bernstein, Steven and Benjamin Cashore. "Globalization and Four Paths of Internationalization: Examining Eco-Forest Policy Change in British Columbia." Canadian Journal of Political Science. 2000 (forthcoming) and Keohane, Robert O. and Helen V. Milner, ed. Internationalization and Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
82 See, generally, Cerny, Philip G. "International Finance and the Erosion of State Policy Capacity." In P. Gummett, ed(s), Globalization and Public Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996. 83-104. On the impact in Canada see Toner, Glen and Tom Conway. "Environmental Policy." In G. B. Doern, L. A. Pal and B. W. Tomlin, ed(s), Border Crossings: The Internationalization of Canadian Public Policy, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1996. 108-142; Howlett, Michael. "Sustainable Development: Environmental Policy." In A. Johnson and A. Stritch, ed(s), Canadian Public Policy: Globalization and Political Parties, Toronto: Copp Clark Longman, 1996 and Harrison, Kathryn. Passing the Buck: Federalism and Canadian Environmental Policy. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1996.
83 See Paterson, Matthew. Global Warming and Global Politics. London: Routledge, 1996; and Canada, Government of. The State of Canada's Environment. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1991.
84 On the role of accidents in opening policy windows and their limited effects see Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984; Birkland, Thomas A. After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy and Focusing Events. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997; and Howlett, Michael. "Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Issue, Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal Agenda-Setting." Canadian Journal of Political Science. 31, no. 3 (1998)
85 On these dimensions see Gray, Pat and Paul 't Hart. Public Policy Disasters in Western Europe. London: Routledge, 1998
86 See Scharpf, Fritz W. "Policy Failure and Institutional Reform: Why Should Form Follow Function?" International Social Science Journal. 108(1986): 179-190.
87 See Melody Hessing and Michael Howlett, Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997); and Britton, John N.H. et al. "Technological Change and Innovation: Policy Issues." In J. N. H. Britton, ed(s), Canada and the Global Economy: The Geography of Structural and Technological Change, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996.
88 See Wolfe, David "Technology and Trade" in Simon Rosenblum and Peter Findlay eds., Debating Canada's Future: Views From the Left (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1991) pp. 106-127 and Anderson, R. et al., ed. Innovation Systems in A Global Context: The North American Experience. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1998.
89 For a discussion of the implications of such transitions for a regional/provincial political economy see Howlett, Michael and Keith Brownsey. "From Timber to Tourism: The Political Economy of British Columbia." In R. K. Carty, ed(s), Politics, Policy and Government in British Columbia, Vancouver: UBC Press, 1996. 18-31.
90 See Janicke, Martin, Harald Monch, and Manfred Binder. "Ecological Aspects of Structural Change." Intereconomics. 28, no. 4 (1993): 159-169 and Hutton, Thomas A. Visions of a 'Post-Staples' Economy: Structural Change and Adjustment Issues in British Columbia. 1994. Vancouver: Centre for Human Settlements. PI #3.
91 Osberg, Lars, Fred Wien, and Jan Grude. Vanishing Jobs: Canada's Changing Workplaces. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company, 1995.
92 Dearden, Philip and Rick Rollins, ed. Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993.
93 Paehlke, Robert. "Green Politics and the Rise of the Environmental Movement." In T. Fleming, ed(s), The Environment and Canadian Society, Toronto: ITP Nelson, 1997. 251-274.
94 On this pattern see Kagan, Robert A. "Adversarial Legalism and American Government." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 10, no. 3 (1991): 369-406 and Kagan, Robert A. and Lee Axelrad. "Adversarial Legalism: An International Perspective." In P. S. Nivola, ed(s), Comparative Disadvantages? Social Regulations and the Global Economy, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997. 146-202.
95 Manfredi, Christopher. "The Judicialization of Politics; Rights and Public Policy in Canada and the United States." In K. Banting, G. Hoberg and R. Simeon, ed(s), Degrees of Freedom; Canada and the United States in a Changing World, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1997 and Schneiderman, David and Kate Sutherland, ed. Charting the Consequences: The Impact of Charter Rights on Canadian Law and Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997
96 See Elgie, Stewart. "Environmental Groups and the Courts: 1970-1992." In G. Thompson, M. L. McConnell and L. B. Huestis, ed(s), Environmental Law and Business in Canada, Aurora: Canada Law Book, 1993. 185-224 and Howlett, Michael. "The Judicialization of Canadian Environmental Policy 1980-1990 - A Test of the Canada-U.S. Convergence Hypothesis." Canadian Journal of Political Science. 27, no. 1 (1994)
97 See, generally, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co-Existence: An Alternative to Extinguishment (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1994) and Michael Asch ed., Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equity and Respect for Difference Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997. More specifically see Hoberg, G. and E. Morawaski. "Policy Change Through Sector Intersection: Forest and Aboriginal Policy in Clayoquot Sound." Canadian Public Administration. 40, no. 3 (1997): 387-414.
98 See Scofield, Heather. "Nafta Trio Warned of Corporate Lawsuits: Plug Loophole to Avoid Claims, Think-Tank Says." The Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 23 1999, A7; Kirton, John. "The Commission for Environmental Cooperation and Canada-U.S. Environmental Governance in the NAFTA Era." American Review of Canadian Studies. 27, no. 3 (1997): 459-486 and Ayres, Jeffrey M. Defying Conventional Wisdom: Political Movements and Popular Contention Against North American Free Trade. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
99 See Haeuber, Richard. "Setting the Environmental Policy Agenda: The Case of Ecosystem Management." Natural Resources Journal. 36, no. 1 (1996): 1-27 and Rayner, Jeremy. "Evaluating National Forest Programmes: Lessons From Biodiversity Policies in Canada." In P. Gluck, G. Oesten, S. H and K.-R. Volz, ed(s), Formulation and Implementation of National Forest Programmes: Volume 1 - Theoretical Aspects, Joensuu: European Forest Institute, 1999. 229-236.
100 See Simmons, Julie M. "The Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization and Value Change Within the Department of the Environment." Sherbrooke: Canadian Political Science Association (1999); Stefanick, L. "Organization Administration, and the Environment: Will a Facelift Suffice or Does the Patient Need Radical Surgery." Canadian public administration. 41, no. 1 (1998): 99-146; and Rabe, Barry G. "The Politics of Sustainable Development: Impediments to Pollution Prevention and Policy Integration in Canada." Canadian Public Administration. 40, no. 3 (1997): 415-435. More generally see Howlett, Michael. "Beyond Legalism? Policy Instruments, Implementation Styles and Convergence in Canadian and U.S. Environmental Policy." San Diego: Western Economics Association (1999)
101 See Lindquist, Evert A. "Public Managers and Policy Communities: Learning to Meet New Challenges." Canadian Public Administration. 35, no. 2 (1992): 127-159; Agranoff, Robert and Michael McGuire. "Managing in Network Settings." Policy Studies Review. 16, no. 1 (1999): 18-41 and Mayntz, Renate. "Public Bureaucracies and Policy Implementation." International Social Science Journal. 31, no. 4 (1979): 633-645.
102 See Chapter 4 of March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1989; Ruttan, Vernon W. "Designing Institutions for Sustainability." In E. T. Loehman and D. M. Kilgour, ed(s), Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1998. 142-164
103 See Janicke, Martin and Helge Jorgens. National Environmental Policy Plans and Long-Term Sustainable Development Strategies: Learning from International Experiences. Berlin: Freie Universitate Berlin Forschungsstelle fur Umweltpolitik Paper 96-5, 1997; Janicke, M. and H. Weidner. National Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study of Capacity Building. Berlin: Springer, 1997; and Janicke, Marin et al. "Structural Change and Environmental Impact." Intereconomics. , no. January/February (1989): 24-35. See also Glasbergen, Peter. "Learning to Manage the Environment." In W. M. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft, ed(s), Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996. 175-193.
104 Phillips, Susan D. "How Ottawa Blends: Shifting Government Relationships With Interest Groups." In F. Abele, ed(s), How Ottawa Spends 1991-92: The Politics of Fragmentation, Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1991. 183-228; and Atkinson, Michael M. and Cassandra W. Pervin. "Sector Councils and Sectoral Corporatism: Viable? Desirable?" In M. Gunderson and A. Sharpe, ed(s), Forging Business-Labour Partnerships: The Emergence of Sector Councils in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. 271-294. See also Pal, Leslie A. Interests of State: The Politics of Language, Multiculturalism, and Feminism in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993.
105 See Doern, G.B., L. Pal, and B.W. Tomlin, ed. Border Crossings: The Internationalization of Canadian Public Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1996 and Johnson, Andrew and Andrew Stritch, ed. Canadian Public Policy: Globalization and Political Parties. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1997. More generally see Hammond, Allen. Which World? Scenarios for the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1998
??
...Continued on next page
1
37