Claire Dunlop | University of Exeter (original) (raw)

Books by Claire Dunlop

First published as a special issue of Policy & Politics, this updated volume explores policy fail... more First published as a special issue of Policy & Politics, this updated volume explores policy failures and the valuable opportunities for learning that they offer.
Policy successes and failures offer important lessons for public officials, but often they do not learn from these experiences. The studies in this volume investigate this broken link. The book defines policy learning and failure and organises the main studies in these fields along the key dimensions of processes, products and analytical levels. Drawing together a range of experts in the field, the volume sketches a research agenda linking policy scholars with policy practice.

This comparative volume provides the first-ever comprehensive account of regulatory impact assess... more This comparative volume provides the first-ever comprehensive account of regulatory impact assessment – the main instrument used by governments and regulators to appraise the likely effects of their policy proposals. 38 international experts from universities across the world and practitioners describe the substance of impact assessment, situate it in its proper theoretical traditions, and scrutinise its usage across countries, policy sectors, and policy instruments. The volume will be used in socio-legal studies, public economics, regulation and political science.

Articles by Claire Dunlop

It seems paradoxical to suggest that theories of learning might be used to explain policy failure... more It seems paradoxical to suggest that theories of learning might be used to explain policy failure. Yet the Brexit fiasco connects with recent approaches linking four varieties of policy learning to policy pathologies (Dunlop, 2017; Dunlop and Radaelli, 2013, 2018). This article sets out to explain the UK government’s (mis)management of the Brexit process from June 2016 to May 2019. Drawing on interviews with UK policy makers and stakeholders, we ask how did the UK government seek to learn during the Brexit negotiations? We consider four modes of learning: reflexivity, epistemic, hierarchical, and bargaining. By empirically tracing the policy process and scope conditions for each of these, we argue that learning through the first three modes proved highly dysfunctional. This forced the government to rely on bargaining between competing factions, producing a highly short-termist form of learning which stymied the development of a coherent Brexit strategy. We argue that the analysis of Brexit as a policy process (rather than a political event) reveals how policy dynamics play an important role in shaping the political context within which they are located. The article concludes that public policy analysis can therefore serve to endogenise existing accounts of macro political developments like Brexit.

The institutional grammar tool (IGT) is an important and relatively recent innovation in policy t... more The institutional grammar tool (IGT) is an important and relatively recent innovation in policy theory and analysis. It is conceptualized to empirically operationalize the insights of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. In the last decade, political scientists have offered a number of applications of the IGT, mainly focused on disclosing and scrutinizing in-depth the textual configurations of policy documents. These efforts, involving micro-level analyses of syntax as well as more general classifications of institutional statements according to rule types, have underpinned empirical projects mainly in the area of environmental and common-pool resources. Applications of IGT are still in their infancy, yet the growing momentum is sufficient for us to review what has been learned so far. We take stock of this recent, fast-growing literature, analysing a corpus of 26 empirical articles employing IGTs published between 2008 and 2017. We examine these in terms of their empirical domain, hypotheses, and methods of selection and analysis of institutional statements. We find that the empirical applications do not add much to explanation, unless they are supported by research questions and hypotheses grounded in theory. We offer three conclusions. First, to exploit the IGT researchers need to go beyond the descriptive, computational approach that has dominated the field until now. Second, IGT studies grounded in explicit hypotheses have more explanatory leverage, and therefore should be encouraged when adopting the IGT outside the Western world. Third, the domain of rules is where researchers can capture findings that are more explanatory and less microscopic.

Policy learning is an attractive proposition, but who learns and for what purposes? Can we learn ... more Policy learning is an attractive proposition, but who learns and for what purposes? Can we learn the wrong lesson? And why do so many attempts to learn what works often fail? In this article, we provide three lessons. First, there are four different modes in which constellations of actors learn. Hence our propositions about learning are conditional on which of the four contexts we refer to. Second, policy learning does not just happen; there are specific hindrances and triggers. Thus, learning can be facilitated by knowing the mechanisms to activate and the likely obstacles. Third, learning itself is a conditional final aim: although the official aspiration of public organizations and politicians is to improve on public policy, policy learning can also be dysfunctional – for an organization, a policy, a constellation of actors or even democracy.

Debates about impact and relevance have long been a feature of British politics and international... more Debates about impact and relevance have long been a feature of British politics and international studies. Thanks to the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF), we now have large-scale and comparable empirical evidence to animate and shape these discussions. Here, we present the first systematic analysis of the case studies. Using frequency data, we report the political economy of political science and international studies impact across four broad themes: who has what impact and when; impact’s beneficiaries; impact’s evidence base; and, generating and validating impact. Analytically, we comment on the findings using insights from disciplinary histories and knowledge utilisation literatures. We conclude by discussing the ramifications of our case analysis for the discipline.

Policy learning is commonplace in the public policy literature but, the question whether it quali... more Policy learning is commonplace in the public policy literature but, the question whether it qualifies as analytical framework on the policy process has not been addressed systematically yet. We therefore appraise learning as analytical framework in relation to four standards: assumptions and micro-foundations; conceptual apparatus; observable implications; normative applications. We find that policy learning meets the four standards, although its theoretical leverage varies across them. Since we are not aware of theories of the policy process that meet all the standards all the time, we conclude that policy learning fares reasonably well and it’s worth-investing intellectual resources in this field.

Whilst the literature classifies policy learning in terms of types or ontological approaches (ref... more Whilst the literature classifies policy learning in terms of types or ontological approaches (reflexive and social constructivist learning versus rational up-dating of priors), we offer a three-dimensional approach to explore the relationships between individual learning, learning in groups, and the macro-dimension. Our contribution is in terms of mapping most (although not all) lively debates in the field on a multi-dimensional space and to explore the logic of causality from micro to macro. To achieve our two aims, we draw on Coleman’s bath-tub. We map learning in the bath-tub by considering prominent studies on learning but also, in some cases, by exploring and drawing lessons from political science and behavioral sciences. By integrating findings in an eclectic way, we explain the logic of learning using a single template and suggest methods for empirical analysis. This is not a literature review but an original attempt to capture the causal architecture of the field, contributing to learning theory with findings from mainstream political science and behavioral sciences.

Epistemic communities are at their most powerful in novel and technically complex policy issues w... more Epistemic communities are at their most powerful in novel and technically complex policy issues when decision-makers’ and stakeholders’ understandings are rudimentary. A successful epistemic community reduces uncertainty through policy learning. These lessons enable policy actors to recognise their preferences thus making the issue more tractable. However, policy learning is dynamic and has various modes. Where an epistemic community’s advice points in unfavourable policy directions, rival lessons may be crafted by policy actors thus threatening an epistemic community’s place as principal teacher on an issue. What happens to the influence of epistemic communities that do not attend to these alternative interpretations? Can epistemic communities teach in the ‘wrong’ mode? Using the empirical case of the long-running hormone growth promoters saga in the European Union (EU), we show how even in complex technical issues, learning in the epistemic mode may not dominate for long. Specifically, we identify a key barrier to epistemic communities’ influence neglected in the literature: the ‘irony of epistemic learning’. In setting the foundational knowledge on novel issues, epistemic communities provide non-specialist governance actors with the resources to oppose the very knowledge these experts have created thereby curtailing their influence. We conclude with a discussion about whether epistemic communities can and should overcome this irony.

Policy failures present a valuable opportunity for policy learning, but public officials have fai... more Policy failures present a valuable opportunity for policy learning, but public officials have failed to learn valuable lessons from these experiences. The studies in this volume investigate this broken link. This introduction to the issue defines policy learning and failure, before organising the main studies in these fields along the key dimensions of: processes, products and analytical levels. We continue with an overview of the special issue articles, outlining where they sit in the wider literature and how they link learning and failure. We conclude by sketching a research agenda linking policy scholars with policy practice.

This paper analyses policy failure as a degeneration of policy learning. Analytically the paper d... more This paper analyses policy failure as a degeneration of policy learning. Analytically the paper drills down on one ideal type of policy learning – epistemic learning. This is the realm of evidenced-based policymaking (EBPM), where experts advise decision-makers on issues of technical complexity. Empirically, the paper presents the management of bovine tuberculosis (BTB) in England since 1997 as a failure of epistemic learning – where learning degenerated as the result of various weaknesses in government’s management of its relationship with an epistemic community established to advise it. Drawing on evidence from elite interviews and documentary analysis, these management failures are analysed as problems of learning about different aspects of organizational capacity. The paper concludes with some reflections on the value of learning theories as a conceptual lens for policy failure.

In response to the attacks on the sovereign debt of some Eurozone countries, European Union (EU) ... more In response to the attacks on the sovereign debt of some Eurozone countries, European Union (EU) leaders have created a set of preventive and corrective policy instruments to coordinate macro-economic policies and reforms. In this article, we deal with the European Semester, a cycle of information exchange, monitoring and surveillance. Countries that deviate from the targets are subjected to increasing monitoring and more severe ‘corrective’ interventions, in a pyramid of responsive exchanges between governments and EU institutions. This is supposed to generate coordination and convergence towards balanced economies via mechanisms of learning. But who is learning what? Can the EU learn in the ‘wrong’ mode? We contribute to the literature on theories of the policy process by showing how modes of learning can be operationalized and used in empirical analysis. We use policy learning as theoretical framework to establish empirically the prevalent mode of learning and its implications for both the power of the Commission and the normative question of whether the EU is learning in the ‘correct’ mode.

Politics

Donald Schön’s assertion that becoming an effective professional requires more than technical rat... more Donald Schön’s assertion that becoming an effective professional requires more than technical rationality underpins the pedagogy of Masters in Public Administration (MPA) programmes. This article explores how public administrators can be taught to think reflectively and reflexively about the limits of control in the context of decision-making and regulatory policy appraisal. We report on an in-class pedagogical experiment on illusions of control used to generate a real-life experience of the cognitive and emotional dimensions of control. By doing so, we introduce the concept of ‘regulatory humility’ and contribute to the literature on experiments as pedagogical tools, and to debates on teaching methods in public administration and political science.

In this article, we examine how agencies build organizational political capacities (OPC) for repu... more In this article, we examine how agencies build organizational political capacities (OPC) for reputation management, where capacity building is treated as a challenge underpinned by the learning relationships that exist between key governance actors. This challenge requires the development of four types of OPC: absorptive capacity (ACAP); administrative capacity (ADCAP); analytical capacity (ANCAP) and communicative capacity (COMCAP). Analytically, we link each of these capacities to one particular type of policy learning – reflexive learning – which characterises politicised situations where an agencies reputation is under threat and citizens are the main governance partners. Empirically, we demonstrate how agencies learn to develop these OPCs with governance partners using the case of the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which increasingly aims to engage citizens in a dialogue to combat the negative images attached to health and safety regulation. We conclude asking what a learning approach tells us about how agencies can develop OPC.

In this article, we present some major lessons drawn from a recently completed research project. ... more In this article, we present some major lessons drawn from a recently completed research project. Our research dealt with ex-ante evaluation, mainly impact assessment (IA). We shed new light on research questions about the control of bureaucracy, the role of IA in decision-making, economics and policy learning, and the narrative dimension of appraisal. We identify how our findings stand in relation to conventional arguments about these issues, and reflect on their normative implications. We finally reason on the possible extensions of our arguments to the wider field of policy evaluation, connecting IA and ex-post evaluation.

International Public Management Journal

Regulators face an array of initiatives designed to boost the effectiveness of policy delivery an... more Regulators face an array of initiatives designed to boost the effectiveness of policy delivery and cut administrative burdens. A good deal of analytical attention is given to these governance tools, but we know much less about how regulators themselves understand and learn about them. We use a quasi-experiment to assess the effects of training on local government inspectors’ understandings of the Primary Authority (PA) initiative. Established in 2009 by the UK’s Better Regulation Delivery Organisation (BRDO), PA partnerships are legally binding agreements that provide businesses with a single point of regulatory contact and inspectors provide advice and reduce duplication of inspections and paperwork. The scheme is complex, and marks a significant departure from the existing inspection framework. Our findings suggest that, regardless of training, the regulatory innovation is well understood among local authority inspectors. Training may make a difference however in aspects of regulatory reform which are contentious or could be taken as counter-intuitive to professional norms. The article also highlights the value of the quasi-experimental approach for policy-relevant public management research.

Bækgaard, M., Baethge, C., Blom-Hansen, J., Dunlop, C.A., Esteve, M., Jakobsen, M., Kisida, B., Marvel, J.D., Moseley, A., Serritzlew, S., Stewart, P.A., Kjærgaard Thomsen, M. and Wolf, P.J. (2015) ‘Doing Experiments in Public Management Research: A Practical Guide’, IPMJ, 18, 2: 323-342.

This paper provides advice on how to meet the practical challenges of experimental methods within... more This paper provides advice on how to meet the practical challenges of experimental methods within public management research. We focus on lab, field, and survey experiments. For each of these types of experiments we outline the major challenges and limitations encountered when implementing experiments in practice and discuss tips, standards, and common mistakes to avoid. The paper is multi-authored in order to benefit from the practical lessons drawn by a number of experimental researchers. Observational data are routinely used in both quantitative and qualitative public management research. They can be used to study a broad range of research questions. However, it is often challenging to draw causal conclusions from studies of observational data. This is due to selection bias, omitted variables and endogeneity, which are problems that may be difficult to avoid when collecting observational data. There are various techniques that can be employed ex-post to remedy these problems. But these solutions may not always be available, and they are often challenging in terms of complexity. In contrast, the core idea of experimental methods is collect good data that do not need ex-post correction in order to be used for causal analysis. This is why experimental methods are sometimes referred to as a design-based approach to causal research. The emphasis is on building a strong research design. The quality of the data means that the ensuing analysis of the collected data can often be done in a simple and transparent way. The evidence may lie in a simple comparison of means between control and experiment groups. Experiments come in different types which each have distinct advantages and disadvantages. They are discussed in more detail by Blom-Hansen, Morton and Serritzlew (2015). In this paper we focus on the challenges of practical experimental research.

Politics

International Public Management Journal

The political control of the bureaucracy is a major theme in public administration scholarship, p... more The political control of the bureaucracy is a major theme in public administration scholarship, particularly in delegation theory. There is a wide range of policy instruments suitable for the purpose of control. In practice, however, there are economic and political limitations to deploying the full arsenal of control tools. We explore the implications of the costs of control by examining cross-country patterns of fire alarms. We identify and categorise a set of control instruments and their rationale using accountability typologies. We then code the presence or absence of different instruments by drawing on an original dataset of 14 instruments in a population of 17 European countries. Using configurational analysis, we analyse cross-country patterns. In the conclusions, we reflect on the patterns identified, their implications for controlling bureaucracy in advanced democracies and the literature on administrative traditions. We finally propose how our empirical findings may be extended to further explanatory analyses.

Revue Française d'Administration Publique

What do governments, international organizations and stakeholders mean when they say that proposa... more What do governments, international organizations and stakeholders mean when they say that proposals for new regulation should be systematically appraised? And do regulators really use the results of produced by evidence-based policy instruments? In this article, we consider two dimensions of policy appraisal: the breadth and scope of the empirical analysis, and its utilization. We use these two dimensions to produce an explanatory typology with four types. The types enable us to review the literature systematically, exposing gaps as well as documenting the results. In the final part of the article builds expectations that link quality of analysis and utilization, thus showing how future research may become less descriptive and more inclined to testing.

The increased saliency of how to value ecosystems services has driven up the demand for policy-re... more The increased saliency of how to value ecosystems services has driven up the demand for policy-relevant knowledge. It is clear that epistemic communities’ advice can show-up in policy outcomes, yet little systematic analysis exists prescribing how this can actually be achieved. This article draws on four decades of knowledge utilisation research to propose four types of ‘possible expert’ that might be influential on ecosystems services. The first section reports the broad findings of a literature review on knowledge use in public policy, and outlines the four-fold conceptualisation pioneered by Carol Weiss that defines the literature. Section two systematises the field by placing these four modes of knowledge use within an explanatory typology of policy learning. With how, when and why experts and their knowledge are likely to show-up in policy outcomes established, the article then proposes the boundaries of the possible in how the ecosystems services epistemic community might navigate the challenges associated with each learning mode. Four possible experts emerge. The expert with: political antenna and epistemic humility; the ability to speak locally and early to the hearts and minds of citizens; a willingness to advocate policy, and, finally, an enhanced institutional awareness and peripheral policy vision. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the utility of the analysis.

European Political Science, 2013

Since 2003, the European Commission has produced analytical documents to appraise and support its... more Since 2003, the European Commission has produced analytical documents to appraise and support its policy proposals. These so-called impact assessments (IAs) are now quite common in the preparation of legislation in the member states of the European Union. Previous research has been concerned with the quality of the IAs in terms of evidence-based policy, especially in terms of economic analysis and other standards of smart regulation. In this article, we move from a different perspective. We draw on the narrative policy framework to explore impact assessment as text and discursive instrument. We consider a sample of IAs that differ by originating DGs, legal instrument, and level of saliency. The findings show that the narrative components of the IA are quite prominent in the sample. The Commission may use IA to produce evidence-based policy, but it also engages with IA to provide a presentation of self, to establish EU norms and values, and to create consensus around policy proposals by using causal plots, doomsday scenarios, and narrative dramatization.

Does regulation cause corruption? In a field dominated by economics, the public administration li... more Does regulation cause corruption? In a field dominated by economics, the public administration literature has opened the peripheral view of social scientists by bringing evidence to bear on three different claims: that regulation causes corruption but under certain conditions; that it is the quality of regulation to hinder corruption; and, that anti-corruption regulation can aggravate the problem of corruption. After having reviewed and discussed the claims, we turn to recent advances in the literature and make suggestions for future research. We make the case for drawing more attention to regulatory policy instruments and point to the crucial stage of rulemaking. Next, we introduce novel ways to model causality and identify how regulation may explain corruption, contrasting the statistical worldview with set-theoretic explanations. Finally, we critically discuss the state of play with measures of corruption and how to improve.

This chapter introduces the new impulse for public administration scholarship be relevant: the so... more This chapter introduces the new impulse for public administration scholarship be relevant: the so-called ‘impact agenda’ appearing in academic research audits. We start by providing some background to the impact revolution, explore public administration’s impact credentials, and the various tensions and dilemmas being relevant raises for scholars. After these discussions, we offer some analysis from a unique dataset of public administration impact case studies submitted to the UK’s 2014 Research Excellent Framework (REF). By uncovering the central themes of these studies we identify critical differences between public administration scholars working in politics departments as opposed to their business school counterparts. More broadly, a bias toward managerial themes is strong with traditional, value-driven research around trust, corruption and transparency marginal concerns. We conclude discussing what impact implies for the future research agenda in public administration.

Dunlop, C.A. and Radaelli, C.M. (2019) ‘Policy Instruments, Policy Learning and Politics: Impact Assessment in the European Union’, in Capano, G., Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Virani, A. (eds) Making Policies Work: First and Second Order Mechanisms in Policy Design, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

One proposition we put forward in this volume is that there is a relationship between policy inst... more One proposition we put forward in this volume is that there is a relationship between policy instruments and mechanisms. To find out how exactly this relationship works, its activators and the causal role of policy instruments, we zoom-in on the case of impact assessment (IA) in the European Union. IA is an evidence-based instrument adopted by the EU in the context of the evidence-based better regulation strategy. The connection between IA and learning is apparently intuitive: IA should bring evidence to bear on the process of selecting policy options, and therefore assist decision-makers in learning from different type of analysis, dialogue with experts and stakeholders, and open consultation. However, we find out that learning comes in different modes (epistemic, reflexive, bargaining and hierarchical) and that the activators, context and results of learning vary across modes. In the conclusions, we reflect on the connections between learning and politics revealed by our approach to policy instruments and varieties of learning.

In this introductory chapter, we explain how the study of policy learning has evolved to the poin... more In this introductory chapter, we explain how the study of policy learning has evolved to the point where it is today, and show how the contributions to the volume provide empirical and conceptual insights that, help address four major questions. First, what exactly do we mean by learning in the context of comparative public policy analysis and theories of the policy process? Second, what do we know about the causes of learning, its mechanisms, how it develops in different policy processes, within and across countries? Third, what are triggers and hindrances of mechanisms of learning? Fourth, what are the consequences of different types of learning for the efficiency of public policy as well as for the normative criteria of the democratic theory we adopt?

Over the years, there has been a proliferation of initiatives, methods and tools for evaluation i... more Over the years, there has been a proliferation of initiatives, methods and tools for evaluation in the European Union (EU). In 2015, the Commission produced a set of integrated guidelines and a single toolbox for better regulation, with the ambitious aim of closing the policy cycle, that is, to draw on evaluation methods systematically from the stage of policy formulation to (a) the end of a project or (b) the moment of ex-post regulatory review. The idea of ‘closing the policy cycle’ is intuitively attractive, but in practice it raises issues of who is exercising control and oversight of different evaluation approaches and tools inside the Commission, the relationship between the Member States and the Commission, and the inter-institutional relations that define power within ‘better regulation’. We examine across time the emergence of different types of evaluation (ex ante and ex post, regulatory evaluations and more traditional approaches to expenditure evaluation) as ‘solutions’, and associate them to problems. We find that the goal of closing the policy cycle is a very tall order for the Commission and the EU more generally, given the historical development of different problems-solutions combinations. The rise of ‘better regulation’ provides the ideational cement for this re-configuration of evaluation ‘to close the policy cycle’ but there are critical issues with tools, methods and scope of evaluation. In the end, today the pieces do not fall into place and the puzzle of ‘evaluation for whom and for what purposes’ has not been solved yet. This less-than-Cartesian puzzle, with its odd de-coupled pieces of different evaluations is not efficient if the problem is to close the policy cycle. But ambiguity is organizationally acceptable if the problem is to generate local power equilibria that can be exploited within the Commission and externally. Evaluation, in fact, is also a frame of reference and praxis where the Member States, the Sec Gen, the DGs of the Commission, the European Parliament test and constantly re-define the question of who has control over EU policy.

This chapter offers an alternative to functional accounts of randomised control trials (RCTs) tha... more This chapter offers an alternative to functional accounts of randomised control trials (RCTs) that dominate public administration and its academic literature. By decentring advisory governance, we the acknowledge indeterminacy and contingency of the claims RCTs can make to producing policy-relevant knowledge. Micro-level analysis of the advisory governance of bovine tuberculosis (BTB) in England demonstrates that the policy relevance of knowledge technologies cannot be reduced to a set of conditions that may be, or should be, present or absent. Relevance is made and re-made through narrative contests. RCTs, we suggest, may be especially vulnerable to such de-construction.

In this chapter we focus on how to use insights from behavioural theory in the process of impact ... more In this chapter we focus on how to use insights from behavioural theory in the process of impact assessment of EU policy proposals. Over the last decade, the European Commission and more generally the European Union (EU) have developed an integrated approach to impact assessment of policy proposals – legislative or not. The impact assessment process is now a major step in the development of proposals by the European Commission. Recently, the European Parliament being biased in this way!!as invested in analytical capacity to work dialogically with the Commission on this issue. Extant literature has established that the EU impact assessment system is, comparatively speaking (for example, in comparison to the systems of the 28 Member States and the United States [US]), sufficiently robust and comprehensive (Fritsch et al., 2013; Renda, 2011; Radaelli, 2009; Wiener and Alemanno, 2010).
In the debate of how to conduct impact assessment and train policymakers, there are calls for integrating the insights of behaviour science into policymaking and design regulatory options that take into account the various biases that affect citizens’ responses (Alemanno and Spina, 2013; John, 2013; John et al., 2013; Sunstein, 2011; Van Bavel et al, 2013; Vandebergh, Carrico and Schultz, 2011). But policymakers have a brain too, and therefore their own choices can be biased. The starting point for this chapter is the potential impact of one over-arching bias – the illusion of control (Langer, 1975). The proposition is that this illusion – which leads humans to over-estimate their competence and ability to control outcomes – may be particularly damaging when the tendency to regulate is institutionalised. Specifically, while the EU impact assessment process obliges policymakers to consider the status quo option (non-intervention), this is rarely ever selected.
We should be clear: we do not claim that cognitive biases explain the preference for public intervention. There are different political and economic justifications for intervention. An organisation can also deliberatively decide to manipulate the IA procedures towards interventionist choices. If this is so, cognitive biases have no role to play since the organisation is not misdiagnosing the facts; rather it is manipulating them. Rather, we are interested in increasing policy makers’ awareness of ‘regulatory humility’ (Dunlop and Radaelli, 2015b). We believe this should be encouraged among policy-makers, and specifically that the option of not using public intervention (so called ‘do nothing’ option in IA) be given due consideration – whether it is rejected or not. The classic policy-making literature has always pointed toward the limits of policymaking and policymakers (notably, Hogwood and Gunn, 1984; Simon, 1956; Vickers, 1965: chapter 8; Wildavsky, 1979: especially part 2). The increased complexity of the policy environment, the difficulty of getting evidence into policy, and greater clarity about human biases have all led to a re-discovery of these limitations. The result has been a renewed call for regulatory humility and humble decision-making (Dunlop and Radaelli, 2015b; Etzioni, 2014). We are interested in how EU policymakers might be de-biased in two main ways: first by structuring IA in ways that encourage policymakers act in ways that work with biases and second by using training to stimulate awareness and reflection about the biases and their possible impact on policymakers’ work.
The chapter is structured as follows. In section one, we set up the proposition that EU policymakers are especially susceptible to an illusion of control. Then we explore what can be done to combat a pre-eminent bias. We outline two categories of solutions. In section two we look at how the IA system in the EU can be implemented and amended in ways that ‘go with the grain’ of cognitive biases (Dolan et al, 2009: 7). Here, we accept the reality of that policymakers often operate in ‘fast’ mode (Kahneman, 2011). Rather than try to re-wire the policymaker’s brain, we focus on re-wiring the context within which they work to ensure that what is automatic to them is also beneficial to policymaking. In short, how can we nudge EU policymakers to explore the ‘do-nothing option’, and indeed all policy options, with humility about the control they can exercise? Section three takes a slightly different tack. Here we focus on how policymakers can be exhorted to engage in more ‘slow’ thinking about the biases they carry. Such reflection can be triggered through training. We explore the possible teaching tools that can be and are being used including in-class behavioural experiments. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how some of these ideas can be taken forward by the Commission.

Damonte, A., Dunlop, C.A. and Radaelli, C.M. (2015) 'Controlling Bureaucracies with Fire Alarms: Policy Instruments and Cross-Country Patterns', in Jensen, M., Koop, C. and Tatham, M. (eds) Coping with Power Dispersion, Routledge.

This chapter uses the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to analyse and compare the parliamentary h... more This chapter uses the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to analyse and compare the parliamentary hearings on the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011/12 in the UK and the USA. The presence of bias is the main rationale for bringing experts into parliamentary life. However, drawing on the insights of behavioural sciences, our findings show that the politicians’ heuristics were not ‘fixed’ by experts’ testimonies. Rather than generate narrative learning, or at least reduce bias, we have found that there is more evidence for narratives as political devices. Beyond this, the chapter demonstrates the utility for NPF for those who operate in ‘qualitative analysis mode’ and evaluate the work of democratic institutions.

Zahariadis, N. (ed) (2013) Frameworks of the European Union's Policy Process: Competition and Complementarity across the Theoretical Divide, Routledge., Nov 2013

The European Union may well be a learning organization, yet there is still confusion about the na... more The European Union may well be a learning organization, yet there is still confusion about the nature of learning, its causal structure and the normative implications. In this contribution we select four perspectives that address complexity, governance, the agency-structure nexus, and how learning occurs or may be blocked by institutional features. They are transactional theory, purposeful opportunism, experimental governance and the joint decision trap. We use the four cases to investigate how history and disciplinary traditions inform theory; the core causal arguments about learning; the normative implications of the analysis; the types of learning that are theoretically predicted; the meta-theoretical aspects and the lessons for better theories of the policy process and political scientists more generally.

The report presents an analysis of the first two years of submissions to the Health and Safety Ex... more The report presents an analysis of the first two years of submissions to the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Myth Busters Challenge Panel (MBCP) – 272 cases in all. It outlines the themes that recur in the cases and, in particular, the weaknesses in organisations’ capacity that contribute to the questionable use of health and safety. This non-technical summary addresses seven key questions.

1. What is the problem at the heart of each health and safety myth?
Nearly half the myth cases are classified by the HSE as an excuse / poor customer service (45%), with poor communication or explanation (22%) and an over-interpretation of health and safety (20%) following close behind. The rest of the cases are either for other regulators (7%) or treated as sensible uses of health and safety (6%).

2. Where do myths come from?
The geographical spread of myths is broadly in line with UK population density by region. Though myths are found in a wide variety of sectors – sixteen in total – they are concentrated in seven main areas: leisure (24% of cases); workplace health and safety (16%); retail (15%); education (13%); food safety (8 %); transport (8%); and housing (6%).
Some sectors show up in particular types of myths more than others. As might be expected, the workplace accounts for nearly one third of over-interpretation cases (31%) and nearly a quarter of over-interpretation cases come from educational establishments (24%). The leisure sector – mainly gyms and amateur sports clubs – shows up strongly in poor customer service and poor communication cases (28% and 31%, respectively).

3. Who do health and safety myths affect?
Health and safety myths affect fourteen groups of citizens, four of which bear the brunt: consumers (32%); children (20%); employees (13%) and citizens accessing public services (12%). The impact of health and safety myths on children is the most surprising finding; children are frequently prevented from engaging in activities in educational and leisure settings on the grounds of health and safety that are found to be baseless. Another surprising finding concerns volunteers. Despite the recent focus on the impact of ‘elf and safety’ myths on volunteers, this group is affected by myths in only 3% of the cases.

4. What are people being protected from?
The largest category of cases involves everyday objects (32%) – for example, spills from hot or cold drinks, play-related concerns and ladders. Beyond the mundane, over a fifth of the cases concern objects related to what we term ‘purity’ issues – these are risks affecting children or dealing with hygiene, animals or taboo issues such as drugs. The well-known conkers case is a typical example of a purity case (case 92). Consider also the case of a council banning dog training classes on its premises on health and safety grounds (case 152).

5. What are the reasons for these myths?
The rise of health and safety myths in the UK cannot be attributed to a single cause or combination of causes, but the cases submitted to the Challenge Panel do have recurring themes which relate to gaps and weaknesses that exist in three aspects of organisations’ capacity.
First, problems relating to administrative pressures are prevalent. Particularly important is evidence of deficiencies in staff training (39% of cases), fear of legal action (28%) and avoidance of economic costs (25%). Analysis suggests that fear of legal action and over-interpretation of health and safety may be linked – the classic case of a council banning hanging baskets falls into this category (case 7). A similar link is found between cost avoidance and poor customer service. Take for example the hairdresser who refused to offer their customer a drink on health and safety grounds! (case 132).
Second, problems relating to analytical capacity also recur. Specifically, a generic ‘better safe than sorry’ risk averse mind-set shows up in over half the cases (60%) and is especially strong in instances of poor customer service. One typical example is that of a cyclist being told to remove their chained-up bicycle from a pedestrian area (case 27). An incorrect assumption that regulations exist in an area is found in nearly one third of cases (32%) and is linked in particular to myths that demonstrate an over-interpretation of health and safety. Take for example the concern that standing on an office chair to put up Jubilee bunting constituted a breach of health and safety regulations (case 35).
Finally, problems related to organisations’ capacity to communicate recur in the erroneous use of health and safety. Over a third of the cases involve an individual who could be blamed for an alternative decision (37%) and may be using health and safety to avoid confrontation. The other intriguing communication issue is found in cases where there are concerns about aesthetics (30%). For example, the misguided use of health and safety to enforce school uniform policy and ban frilly socks (case 180) or prevent decorations in offices and schools (case 104).

6. How aware is the public of health and safety myths?
Analysis of press coverage and hits on the HSE’s mythbusters pages demonstrates that knowledge of these myths is widespread. In its first two years, the MBCP and 58 of its cases have been the subject of 437 press stories. Only three of the cases have not been accessed online by the public. The use of hairdryers in the gym (case 171) is the most visited web page, followed by the frilly socks ban (case 180), refusal to add strawberry sauce and nuts to ice cream (case 210) and refusal of spare parts and manual for DIY appliance repair (case 186).

7. What can we conclude about health and safety myths?
The research uncovers the complex range of factors that recur in health and safety myths. As we might expect, cost avoidance is one important contributor. But, there are also less cynical factors in play. In particular, the fear of legal action, the prevalence of a ‘better safe than sorry’ attitude and the incorrect assumption that there is regulation in place where there is not all play major parts in myth creation. The analysis also raises awareness of particular areas where myths are flourishing. Myths prevail in expected settings – the workplace, retail and education – but also in the leisure sector. Particular groups are affected by health and safety myths – consumers as we might expect, but also children.
Identifying these trends allows the HSE to develop more focussed communications strategies that tailor advice and raise awareness in specific sectors and about particular populations. It will also enable them to support organisations to address the capacity gaps that make health and safety myths more likely.

STATEMENT FROM HSE
The report is the result of independent research conducted by the University of Exeter. However, the HSE are supportive of the research and value its findings.

Through their purchasing power and the way they deliver services, public sector organisations can... more Through their purchasing power and the way they deliver services, public sector organisations can play a pivotal role in driving sustainable development in the UK. And as the autonomy and diversity of such organisations has grown, their regulators have gained increasing influence over the way our public services are run. The SDC's Review of Public Service Regulators began with the premise that the main public service regulators should be leading exponents of sustainable development, and encourage the bodies they regulate to do the same. The review focussed on the three main regulators of local government, education and health in England:
• the Audit Commission
• the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted)
• the Healthcare Commission/Care Quality Commission (CQC).

We set each regulator a number of challenging goals, then worked with them to implement the changes necessary to meet those goals.

In Scotland, as in the rest of Europe and the UK, issues of health and well being have come to be... more In Scotland, as in the rest of Europe and the UK, issues of health and well being have come to be of increasing concern in the contemporary workplace, and no less so in the teaching profession where levels of ill-health retirement and workrelated sickness absence have become perennial concerns (Wilson 2002; Brown and Macdonald, forthcoming; Travers and Cooper 1996). Indeed, it has been estimated that stress in physical and psychological terms may cost taxpayers in Scotland approximately £43 million per year and, in addition, that some £37 million a year is spent on supply teachers to cover for those who are absent. Furthermore, it has been proposed that anything between £750,000 – £1.5 million might be saved every year in Scotland through the introduction of comprehensive teacher support systems (Goss 2001). While it is a well-established fact that teaching is one of the most stressful jobs (Smith et al, 2000a, 2000b; Trunch, 1980; Tuetteman and Punch, 1990), very little primary data on teachers in Scotland actually exist. Rather, the evidence base in Scotland is dominated by reviews cataloguing the evidence and arguments concerning the nature and sources of teacher stress, for example, the Scottish Council for Research in Education (SCRE) has published two of the most detailed reviews of the sources and prevalence of teachers’ stress (Johnstone, 1989; Wilson, 2002). In an effort to form a baseline picture of teachers’ health needs in Scotland, as well as a more strategic view of what could be done to address these growing problems, NHS Health Scotland and the charity Teacher Support Scotland (TSS) with support from the Esmee Fairburn Foundation commissioned research to explore the issue of teachers’ health and well being. The explicit aim of the endeavour was to address the ‘growing perception in Scotland that there is a need for consistent and systematic support for teachers on a national basis’ (NHS Health Scotland 2003), the concern being that teacher recruitment,. retention and morale will be adversely affected if such support is not forthcoming. There were three components to the research, the aims of which were: 1. to map the context and support which is currently offered to teachers in Scotland. 2. to ask teachers themselves about their health needs and the support they would like to be offered in the future. 3. to catalogue the interventions from around the world which might be effective in addressing teachers’ health and well being. Data were collected for each strand respectively through: 1. A survey of the HR Departments of all 32 Scottish Local Authorities to determine the nature and extent of support for health and well being issues among teachers. 2. A health and well being questionnaire survey of a sample of teachers drawn from the register of the General Teaching Council of Scotland and a focus group session with staff members in a SEN school. 3. A “rapid evidence assessment” using international social science and occupational health databases to search for relevant literature on health interventions which have been used to improve health and well being in the teaching profession across the world. This report summarises the results from all three strands of the research project.

In the study of evidence-based policy-making and advisory governance, we know much about the poli... more In the study of evidence-based policy-making and advisory governance, we know much about the politics of expertise with the barriers to knowledge use and the frustrations of expert advisors and those they advise all recurring subjects of analysis. But, we know far less about the expertise dimension and, in particular, have drawn few lessons from science and technology studies (STS). Our starting point is simple – for scientists to become more effective policy actors they can benefit from insights on how they negotiate knowledge production and career progression in their own backyard. We start by outlining four political settings where scientists and their knowledge are most commonly found. Scientists are variously engaged as: authoritative advisors to decision-makers; contributors to social debates; standard setters at home and abroad; and, adversarial actors in interest-based controversies. Still drawing on public policy analysis we outline the dynamics that underpin how and when knowledge is used for policy-making in each. Then we enter STS. Specifically, we draw on four STS perspectives that critically analyse how scientists: ‘teach’ decision-makers; communicate with the public; establish scientific hierarchies; and, negotiate controversy. They are boundary work; public understanding of science; epistemic communities; and, revolving doors. We use the four STS approaches to illuminate the core arguments about where lessons come from in science and how scientists themselves learn; the types of learning that are theoretically predicted; the normative implications of the analysis; and the lessons that can be gleaned for better policy theories and political science more generally.

Adult educators aim to develop learners with cognitive agility and research skills to enable them... more Adult educators aim to develop learners with cognitive agility and research skills to enable them to respond creatively in an increasingly complex world. Traditional pedagogical modes of teaching are routinely supplemented with andragogical educational methods which emphasize learning as self-directed. In the last decade, this has been pushed further still with practices designed to promote self-determined learning – heutagogy – taking hold. Essentially, the challenge here is reminiscent of Argyris and Schön’s (1978) classic ‘triple loop learning’ where learners are taught how to teach themselves. In higher education, MPA instructors have long been at the forefront of these types of innovations emphasising reflexivity as a key goal (Meer and Marks, 2013). Research-driven teaching and assessment is the master mechanism used to generate critical reflection for mid-career practitioner learners.
This may be an accepted aspiration but it is not easy to achieve. Self-direction does not happen overnight. Learning is a multi-dimensional process, a journey if you will. There are detours and wrong turns, the learner will at points require a guide, or may stop to enjoy the scenery. In short, the learner is not always capable of directing the learning situation. This paper explores what the incorporation of research into public administration teaching can imply for learner autonomy. Specifically, how might MPA assessments be designed to make the links between didactic pedagogy, self-directed and self-determined learning?
Analytically, the paper draws on an education model that explores the incorporation of research in teaching in terms of the locus of control for learner and instructor over the goals of the exercise and substantive means with which they are to be achieved. Specifically, the interest here how the locus of control changes when research is incorporated into MPA teaching in different ways. For example, where practitioner students are simply presented with a public administration model that serves as a conceptual lens on their world, the locus of control in terms of both the means and ends resides with the instructor. However, we can loosen the strings of control by inviting practitioners to reflect on concepts, to critique them, and to apply them to an original case. Each of these moves affect the dynamics of control over the means and ends of learning – moving practitioners from learning in pedagogic mode toward self-directed andragogy. In the conceptual discussion, four distinct types of learning are identified –each with different mixes of control between educator and learner. These learning situations do not compete; the choice for the instructor designing assessment is not to identify a ‘superior’ option. Rather, what the model makes clear is that successful adult education programmes are not the domains of assessment hierarchies with self-determined learning at the top. Rather, they are composites of different types of learning that involve different roles for educators and learners.
Empirically, the paper introduces the policy brief as a research-oriented assessment tool which has the potential to incorporate all four learning situations. Specifically, the paper presents a policy brief exercise that draws on a specific approach to risk governance. The assessment is designed to gradually increase the level of control exercised by learners. Mid-career practitioners start in pedagogic mode as they are instructed in the research behind the risk tradeoffs framework (Graham and Wiener, 1995). But, in order complete the policy brief, they must conduct their own empirical research and use its application to reflect on the framework, criticise it, and reform it. In this way, the policy brief moves mid-career practitioners beyond pedagogy and into the realm of self-directed and ultimately self-determined learning.

Public policy and administration scholars face a common question when design their curricula: how... more Public policy and administration scholars face a common question when design their curricula: how is the policy process best explained? Specifically, should we avoid the so-called ‘stagist’ approach which breaks the analysis of policy-making into distinct phases – for example, agenda-setting, policy formulation, implementation – in favour of more holistic lenses – for example, advocacy coalition framework (ACF) or institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework? At the heart of this dilemma is the charge that the long-established stagist model fails to capture the complex and intertwined reality it seeks to analyse (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, 1993). In addition to descriptive inaccuracy, five further criticisms are made. The stages model does not: lend itself to prediction; provide a clear basis for hypotheses testing; integrate learning throughout the process; appreciate that policy-making is not always top-down; and, finally, provide a temporally accurate account of policy-making. While these criticisms are well-known by policy scholars, many of us still find pedagogical merit in stagism and it remains widely used to underpin core policy teaching. But, what are its consequences? Are we misleading our students when we teach using the stages? Do they appreciate its heuristic nature? What do our students think policy theories should do for them? Should they simplify or predict (or both)? We conduct the first in-class experiment to answer these key questions. In this paper, we present the results of a series of questions about policy-making asked at the beginning and end of an undergraduate public policy model underpinned by the stagist logic. We find little cause for concern that a stages approach undermines students’ understands of the complexity of policy-making in the real world. Rather, students display a sophisticated appreciation of the limits and functions of academic theories.

Do regulatory control instruments provide accountability? What does the empirical evidence say ab... more Do regulatory control instruments provide accountability? What does the empirical evidence say about the effectiveness of existing regulatory accountability designs? What are the effects of regulatory accountability regimes when we consider the joint effects of a set of policy instruments, or, in other words, an ecology, mix or configuration? This paper answers the first two questions and provides suggestions about tackling the third.
At the outset, we go back to the literature on the tools for the control of the regulators and interpret this literature in terms of accountability relationships. Consider a given instrument: what kind of accountability mechanism does it trigger? Who is accountable to whom, in what fora and through what procedure? We perform this conceptual reading in terms of accountability for the following regulatory instruments: freedom of information, notice and comment, regulatory impact assessment and substantive judicial review.
We check the theoretical predictions about accountability on the basis of the empirical evidence available in the literature. We find gaps between the theorized accountability mechanisms and the cross-national experience, and discuss how to feed-back the cautionary tales provided by empirical evidence into theory.
Finally, policy instruments do not operate in isolation. They work together in ecologies or mixes. We therefore conclude by making the case for studying accountability effects by looking at ecologies – an argument that has consequences for our understanding of causality. To illustrate this final argument we present the coordinates of our new research programme funded by the European Research Council (ERC), giving a preview of how data and analyses will look like.

We use cultural theory and action research to explore a curious phenomenon in UK health and safet... more We use cultural theory and action research to explore a curious phenomenon in UK health and safety regulation – the regulatory myth. Despite having one of the lowest levels of workplace deaths in the world and a health and safety regulator that commands the respect of its regulatees and duty holders, health and safety in Britain has become a by-word for over-regulation and triviality. Indeed, in the last decade, public scepticism is such that the expression ‘health and safety gone mad’ has entered common parlance to express exasperation about almost any rule – real or fictitious – that citizens think an unnecessary intrusion. This mirrors what citizens encounter on a regular basis; it is almost accepted practice by businesses and local authorities to refuse goods and services accompanied by the excuse that a non-existent health and safety regulation prevents the transaction or assistance.
Examples of health and safety myths abound. In one of the best known instances, a local authority banned hanging baskets due to health and safety concerns (see a fuller account from Almond, 2009, HSE, case 7). There is also the infamous example is the school than outlawed the wearing of socks with lace frills on the grounds that they may constitute a trip hazard (HSE, case 180). Or, take, the headteacher who called off school sports day due to concerns that dew on the grass may result in slips (HSE, case 197). We could go on.
How can we explain the exercise of such regulatory imagination by individual service providers? The use of health and safety myths is commonly dismissed as, at best, driven by a compensation culture and media hype surrounding accidents and, at worst, simply dissembling and cynical behaviour on the part of individuals. But, such accounts may obscure more than they illuminate. Empirical evidence suggests the citation of fictitious health and safety rules is widespread and certainly not limited to situations where compensation could be extracted as the result of a hazardous event or media-friendly issues (Dunlop, 2015b). So, while we accept the fear of civil litigation and media amplification as important parts of the wider backdrop for businesses and the public sector, we still need to explain the diverse nature of regulatory myths and why particular health and safety myths recur in different settings. Moreover, perhaps we simply do not buy the presumption that sentient individuals are motivated simply to behave cynically by choice.
We explore an alternative analytical strategy that combines Douglas and Wildavsky’s cultural theory of risk (1982, Swedlow, 2011) with Argyris and Schön’s action approach to individual interactions (1974) to explain the UK phenomenon of health and safety myths. The analysis is guided by the need to understand how the macro context conditions and is re-made at the micro-level by everyday interactions of service providers with citizens. Section one uses cultural theory to uncover the origins of health and safety myths. We demonstrate that the plausibility of myths is secured by pervasive negativity around regulatory tools in general and the non-prescriptive and everyday nature of health and safety as an idea in particular. In section two, we come down to the micro-level. We are interested here individuals’ behaviour on the ground, what leads a headteacher to ban frilly socks on health and safety grounds? Action theory illuminates the (re-)production of myths as a function of the ‘theories-in-use’ we use to maintain control of potentially hostile or uncomfortable social situations. In section three we enter the empirics. Using examples from the government database of health and safety myths, we see that citing non-existent health and safety rules offers a simple and effective way to help people avoid blame, loss of profits or being shown up as ignorant or unskilled. Gaps in human and organisational capacity – administrative, analytical and communicative – condition our responses. We finish by exploring how and if myths can ever be busted for good.

The epistemic communities approach speaks directly to the complex challenges faced by decision-ma... more The epistemic communities approach speaks directly to the complex challenges faced by decision-makers in uncertain, international policy environments. Accordingly, the approach has proved valuable in explaining the role of experts in a variety of political settings, and has remarkable disciplinary reach within and beyond its roots in IR and political science. Yet arguably, we are still some way off the ‘reflective research program’ envisaged two decades ago (Adler and Haas, 1992). This panel brings together two of epistemic communities pioneers with scholars from international relations, public policy and sociology to explore what we have learned from the approach so far, and the future research frontiers for scholars interested in the power of knowledge and epistemic communities in international politics and policy.

Participants: Dr Claire A. Dunlop, University of Exeter, UK; Professor Peter M. Haas, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Professor Emmanuel Adler, University of Toronto, Professor Camille Roth, CNRS-Paris; Professor Mai’a K. Davis Cross, Northeastern University.

Discussants: Professor Nuhket Sandal, University of Ohio; Professor Claudio Radaelli, University of Exeter, UK.

The debate on the use, non-use and abuse of science in regulatory policy is as old as the field o... more The debate on the use, non-use and abuse of science in regulatory policy is as old as the field of regulation. But there have been few attempts to link the different usages to specific policy instruments. In this paper we focus on a policy instrument called impact assessment. Since 2005, the European Commission has prepared its policies by using a process of impact assessment that is supposed to collate the best available evidence before making a formal policy proposal to the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. We consider a sample of impact assessments of regulatory proposals in different domains (such as health and safety, environment, media and communications) and code the type of scientific evidence mentioned in the references of the document, covering both social sciences and natural sciences. We then relate the findings to journal’s rankings to see whether the European Commission tends to rely to certain types of journal that are more or less pivotal within a discipline. The conclusions contribute to the literature on regulatory policy and the usages of science in government.

Over the last 15 years, the European Commission has routinely signalled its commitment to ‘smart ... more Over the last 15 years, the European Commission has routinely signalled its commitment to ‘smart regulation' through fitness checks and legislative review that aim to simplify and, in some instances, withdraw EU laws. The most recent attempt – the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) – took place in December 2012 during a period of intense political pressure on the Commission to reduce red tape and adopt harder de-regulation rules, following the examples of member states like the UK.
This paper offers a comparative analysis of these review episodes to uncover the various causal mechanisms that underpin reducing the EU’s policy footprint. We situate the recent episodes in the development of the politics of ‘smart regulation’ in the EU – since 2005, the Commission has repealed some 6000 rules.
Our findings show that the outcome of the ‘politicised Commission’ is ambiguous in the domain of regulation. On the one hand, the most active countries in this domain have put pressure on the European Commission to reduce regulation originating in Brussels and ‘balance the competences’ of the EU and member states. Often this pressure has come directly from Finance Ministers and Prime Ministers, with blueprints for less regulation sent to Brussels – e.g., Cameron’s meeting with Barroso in Autumn 2013 and the twelve prime ministers’ letter to Barroso and Van Rompuy of February 2012 to launch growth via de-regulation. On the other, the ‘smart regulation’ agenda has allowed the Secretariat of the European Commission to develop strategic and organizational control on the regulatory activity of the Commission, and to implement the political preferences of the President in a more effective way. In the conclusions we reflect on the implications of our findings for theories of integration and the agency of the ‘politicised Commission’.

This paper argues that a within-case analysis of the causes and patterns of the legalization of s... more This paper argues that a within-case analysis of the causes and patterns of the legalization of same-sex marriage in England and Wales in July 2013 offers fresh insights into change in LGBT regulation in Western Europe. Using systematic process analysis based on narrative analysis and elite interviews, the article explores the construction of gay marriage as a Conservative institution from four perspectives: rational choice (ideas as strategic instruments); sociological (ideas as diffused across space and time); historical (ideas as carried in power structures) and discursive (ideas as communicated through elite interaction). It deviates from common analysis citing the importance of party interests or social norms to demonstrate that the unexpected promotion of gay marriage legislation Conservative elites was largely the result of historical and discursive forces. Specifically, the structural legacy of a discriminatory policy passed by Conservatives under Thatcher unexpectedly empower gay activists and their sympathisers in the party. This policy legacy paved the way for Conservative modernisers under David Cameron to push an idea that had personal resonance for them – gay marriage as a symbol of Conservative tolerance and the bedrock of stable family relationships. With a Conservative-led government as a least-likely case for championing change, analysis foregrounds modes of explanation that more often play only supporting roles – historical and discursive. The study’s main finding is that negative policy legacies can be resurrected and reclaimed by political elites and, using transformative narratives, used as the basis for radical policy change.

Public Administration, 2008

Learning is essential to public policy. The policy process is also a process where knowledge is c... more Learning is essential to public policy. The policy process is also a process where knowledge is created, assimilated, assembled, and diffused across time and space. This does not necessarily mean that learning is always functional, or hasn’t got undesirable consequences in terms of power and inequalities. Controlling ideas means controlling uncertainty and meanings. In other words, we need to answer questions about the process which leads actors to select a different view of how things happen (‘learning that’) and what courses of action should be taken (‘learning how’). Equally challenging is the set of questions raised by the causality of learning: why does learning happen this way or another way, or does not happen at all? Can we design the policy process so that learning takes place in desirable ways? Finally, learning is not a monolith: actors process knowledge in different learning modes, and each of these modes requires its own explanation.
The establishment of policy learning as a theory, i.e. a privileged lens to explain policy processes, decisions and outcomes, is still work in progress. Any strong theoretical framework emerges from the right articulation of existing bodies of work and their application to new questions and/or new contexts. For this workshop we welcome political science-inspired papers on the micro-foundations of learning, its organizational dimensions, and the macro consequences of learning, in single policy domains or across countries and policies. But we also warmly invite submissions from colleagues willing to open up their analytical vision to the cognitive and behavioral sciences, as well as sociology and other social sciences. We do not privilege any type of methods or approach, although we obviously care about sound methodology, transparency in reporting findings, and the quality of research design. The papers will be both empirical and conceptual, the important element being that they contribute to cross-fertilization and to the construction of policy learning theory.

Our workshop brings together international scholars to present their policy learning research. Le... more Our workshop brings together international scholars to present their policy learning research. Learning is one of the classical themes in the study of politics and public policy. It emphasizes politics and policymaking are not only archetypical realms of resource-based power relations but also spheres where ideas are created, assimilated, organized, and politicized to reduce uncertainties about political and policy problems. Yet, theoretical perspectives on political and policy learning still differ regarding the role that learning is expected to play. In particular, we explore how learning takes place, its normative implications for democracy and decision-makers and innovations in its measurement.

We have grants for early career researchers (see Eligibility section) to attend a workshop in Kaz... more We have grants for early career researchers (see Eligibility section) to attend a workshop in Kazakhstan entitled 'Learning in Governance: Theory, Design and Methods'.

The workshop is part of Newton Researcher Links, being run under the Newton - Al-Farabi Partnership Programme. It is coordinated by Dr Claire A. Dunlop (University of Exeter, UK) and Professor Neil Collins (Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan), and will take place at Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan, 2-5 February 2015.

The theme of the workshop falls broadly into Political Science (including public policy and administration and international relations).

All travel, accommodation and meals will be covered by the grant.

In this contribution we focus on regulatory reform. We present the agenda in the field and the re... more In this contribution we focus on regulatory reform. We present the agenda in the field and the research trajectory of three political scientists rather than a single story. This is because we believe that the story of our collective effort is more important that the individual trajectories. Indeed, impact in the social sciences is often generated by the sustained collective research focus and wider discourse coalitions. So, to begin with, Alessia is a policy analyst with an interest in qualitative methods. In the last fifteen years, she has worked on effective design in regional development, infrastructure, green growth, and budgeting, with a domestic and comparative focus. Her experience with regional and national Italian decision-makers increased her awareness of how diversity in information about possible consequences of public choice is crucial for balanced policy solutions. But such a diversity is hardly attainable when elected politicians alone are in control of instrument design, and information is biased by business and interest groups1. The justification for information gatekeeping was normatively ingrained in a certain understanding of representative democracy that equates popular sovereignty with the absolute, unconditional control of elected politicians on decisions – provided that the law is not violated. As she was told while discussing the limited role of evaluation in the governance of infrastructural projects, " if a mayor wants a football pitch on the roof of the bell tower of St Mark's basilica in Venice, s/he must be allowed to go ahead ". No policy instruments seemed capable of changing this mindset. In order to pin down the variables that could really make a difference in public policy led her to shift the focus from decision-making to accountability constraints on the administrative dimension, and to Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as a suitable method for testing their difference-making power. Accountability opens alternative channels for bringing into the policy process minority views-Galileo would

Swamplands is the reflections of an academic trying to make an impact with their research and sup... more Swamplands is the reflections of an academic trying to make an impact with their research and supporting colleagues to do the same. Much of what I have to say invokes the work and spirit of John Dewey (1933) and Donald A. Schön (1973, 1983, 1987) whose intellectual legacies on learning and reflection remains strong and resonant. It was Schön, of course, who memorably described the world of professional practice as the ‘swampy lowlands’ – a flat place where it’s difficult to see much beyond where you are, and there are no signposts to help direct the way out. Indeed, this lack of signage is reflects the fact that there is no way out. Rather, we survive the swamp by trial, error and, often, failure. Here I reflect on how we can accommodate, and even flourish in what I think of as the ‘social impact society’ without intolerable disruption the identities of universities and academics. Specifically, I talk about three questions at the heart of understanding how we can help build effective social impact systems:
1. To what extent are universities impact organisations;
2. How is academic knowledge changed in social impact systems; and,
3. What demands does impact place on academics
I finish with some modest proposals about staying buoyant in the impact swamp.

Ground-breaking research by a team at the Centre for European Governance (CEG) has caused policym... more Ground-breaking research by a team at the Centre for European Governance (CEG) has caused policymakers to look again at the way they assess the effects of regulation and new legislation on the economy and society.

The research, by Professor Claudio Radaelli and Dr Claire Dunlop, analyses the ways policymakers develop tools to measure the effects of regulation, how they learn from their own and others’ experiences, and how they think about and approach regulatory reform.

Professor Radaelli explained: “Regulation is a significant determinant of economic growth and good governance. Assessment of the likely impact of proposed regulations can save lives, limit risks and promote growth. But governments and international organisations tend to have a narrow approach.”

The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe, 2017

Policy evaluations are increasingly considered a taken-for-granted prerequisite for a well-perfor... more Policy evaluations are increasingly considered a taken-for-granted prerequisite for a well-performing public sector. In this chapter, we address the question whether this view reflects the actual situation concerning evaluation capacity and culture in Europe. First, we reflect on the history of policy evaluation in Europe, by distinguishing between two ‘waves of evaluation’: the countries in Northwestern Europe that have conducted evaluations since the 1960s and the countries in the rest of Europe for which evaluation is a more recent phenomenon. Next, to illustrate the two waves of evaluation, we zoom in on three political systems that represent the national, regional, and international level in Europe: the United Kingdom (UK), Flanders (Belgium), and the EU. For each system, we map evaluation culture and capacity by analyzing six indicators. The chapter concludes with a reflection on current trends in evaluation research and possibilities for future research.