Dunlop, C.A. and Radaelli, C.M. (2018) ‘Does Policy Learning Meet the Standards of a Theoretical Lens on the Policy Process?’, Policy Studies Journal, 46, S1: S48-S68 (original) (raw)

The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change

Several different explanations of policy change based on notions of learning have emerged in the policy literature to challenge conventional conflict-oriented theories. These include notions of 'political-learning' developed by Heclo, 'policy-oriented learning' developed by Sabatier, 'lesson-drawing' analyzed by Rose, 'social learning' discussed by Hall and 'govern-ment learning' identified by Etheredge. These different concepts identify different actors and different effects with each different type of learning. Some elements of these theories are compatible , while others are not. This article examines each approach in terms of who learns, what they learn, and the effects of learning on subsequent policies. The conclusion is that three distinct types of learning have often been incorrectly juxtaposed. Certain conceptual, theoretical and methodological difficulties attend any attempt to attribute policy change to policy learning, but this does not detract from the important reorientation of policy analysis that this approach represents.

Dunlop, C.A. and Radaelli, C.M. (2013) 'Systematizing Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions', Political Studies 31, 3: 599-619.

Political Studies, 2013

The field of policy learning is characterised by concept stretching and lack of systematic findings. To systematize them, we combine the classic Sartorian approach to classification with the more recent insights on explanatory typologies. At the outset, we classify per genus et differentiam – distinguishing between the genus and the different species within it. By drawing on the technique of explanatory typologies to introduce a basic model of policy learning, we identify four major genera in the literature. We then generate variation within each cell by using rigorous concepts drawn from adult education research. Specifically, we conceptualize learning as control over the contents and goals of knowledge. By looking at learning through the lenses of knowledge utilization, we show that the basic model can be expanded to reveal sixteen different species. These types are all conceptually possible, but are not all empirically established in the literature. Up until now the scope conditions and connections among types have not been clarified. Our reconstruction of the field sheds light on mechanisms and relations associated with alternatives operationalizations of learning and the role of actors in the process of knowledge construction and utilization. By providing a comprehensive typology, we mitigate concept stretching problems and aim to lay the foundations for the systematic comparison across and within cases of policy learning.

Dunlop, C.A. (2017) ‘Pathologies of Policy Learning: What Are They and How Do They Contribute to Policy Failure?', Policy & Politics, 45, 1: 19-37.

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.

Dunlop, C.A. (2017) ‘Policy Learning and Policy Failure: Definitions, Dimensions and Intersections’ Policy & Politics 45, 1: 3-18.

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.

Policy Learning, Policy Failure, and the Mitigation of Policy Risks: Re-Thinking the Lessons of Policy Success and Failure

Administration & Society, 2021

Policy failures are often assumed to be unintentional and anomalous events about which well-intentioned governments can learn why they occurred and how they can be corrected. These assumptions color many of the results from contemporary studies of policy learning which remain optimistic that ongoing policy problems can be resolved through technical learning and lesson drawing from comparative case studies. Government intentions may not be solely oriented toward the creation of public value and publics may not abide by government wishes, however, and studies of policy learning need to take these “darksides” of policy-making more seriously if the risks of policy failure are to be mitigated.