Dinastías, territorios y relaciones diplomáticas en la Edad Moderna

This section focuses on policy learning and unpacking the major debates within policy learning literature among theorists in the field. Within the field of policy learning, the concept of ‘learning’ has been interpreted in many different ways. Distinctions between ‘policy transfer’ and ‘lesson-drawing’ have, for example, been established within public policy vocabulary (Stone, 1999). These terms are nevertheless still used interchangeably, and sometimes inappropriately, by those writing about them. There are three major debates within policy learning literature that this author has highlighted. The first debate centres on the existence of subtypes of policy learning, the second debate focuses on disagreement over motivations for policy learning, while the third debate revolves around whether or not different approaches to policy learning can be grouped together or not.

2.3.1 Do subtypes of policy learning exist?

The first major debate in policy learning literature concerns the existence of subtypes of policy learning. This debate is multidimensional, with some sub-debates. The wider debate on subtypes of policy learning emerged out of a lack of definitional consensus surrounding the concept. According to Stone (1999:52):

“‘Policy learning’ is yet another label connected with policy transfer, but this concept is analytically distinct. Here, the emphasis is on cognition and redefinition of interests on the basis of new knowledge which affects the fundamental beliefs and ideas behind policy approaches. …The objects of transfer can include (i) policies, (ii) institutions, (iii) ideologies or justifications, (iv) attitudes and ideas, and (v) negative lessons.”

The concepts of ‘policy transfer’ and ‘lesson-drawing’ are often the two most prominent concepts being discussed in policy learning literature. In actual fact, both Stone (1999:52) and Bennett and Howlett (1992:288) suggest that the literature on policy learning, transfer and lesson-drawing is over-theorised. “There is, however, some danger in the casual interchangeability of ‘lesson-drawing’ and ‘policy transfer’. Policy transfer is the broader concept encompassing ideas of diffusion and coercion as well as the voluntaristic activity of lesson-drawing” (Stone, 1999:52).

According to Page (2000:3), with ‘policy transfer’, the focus is “on the study of how policies in exporter jurisdictions are identified as worthy of emulation and how they are applied in

25 importer jurisdictions.” However, lesson-drawing is concerned with the ‘fungibility’ of policy programmes and possibility of transferring them between jurisdictions (Page, 2000; Rose, 2005; Wolman, 2009). Based upon these definitions, it is fitting and in line with the aims of this thesis that its theoretical basis will rest upon the work of Richard Rose and his concept of lesson-drawing as policy learning. “Rose [is] concerned with learning which affects instruments and program[me]s adopted by governments to implement policies… [and]

focus[es] on the activities of members of domestic and transnational policy subsystems in this learning process” (Bennett & Howlett, 1992:285).

Returning now to the broader and encompassing debate on whether or not subtypes exist within policy learning, as alluded to by Stone (1999), some authors warn against the dangers of equating these different methods of policy learning. This is said in light of the concern regarding over-theorisation in the field. Different authors may be discussing the same concepts but referring to them differently. This generates unnecessary excess and repetition in the theory. It could confuse those studying policy learning, as well as stunt further accurate development of the concept and field. While other subtypes such as ‘policy band wagoning’,

‘systematic pinching of ideas’ and ‘emulation and harmonisation’ have been named in the policy learning literature, policy transfer and lesson-drawing remain the most popular subtypes of policy learning, where subtypes are outlined (Stone, 1999:51-52).

2.3.2 Disagreement over the motivations for policy learning

Another debate, which is also linked to existence of different concepts of policy learning, concerns the motivation for policy learning itself. This includes disagreement over whether to use policy transfer or lesson-drawing. Proponents of both policy transfer and lesson-drawing highlight different aspects of each policy learning subtype to state their case. To begin with, proponents of policy transfer maintain that a key aspect of their research agenda is the act of finding reasons for the transfer of policy (James & Lodge, 2003:183). However, “the question of explanation appears less central to the concerns of Rose…who suggests ‘lesson-drawing’

as a guide for policymakers rather than entailing an explanation why it occurs” (James &

Lodge, 2003:183).

Policy transfer proponents make one of these points in their case by highlighting the objects and actors involved in transfer. “Dolowitz & Marsh identify seven possible objects of transfer: policy goals, structure and content; policy instruments or administrative techniques;

institutions; ideology; ideas, attitudes and concepts; and negative lessons” (Baumann &

26 White, 2010:3). In lesson-drawing, however, the objectives of policy learning are considered to be what Rose refers to as ‘policy programmes’, which are studied by policy-makers and analysts alike. “Every programme is a mixture of resources, and the mix varies from programme to programme…Programmes combine the ‘hardware’ and the ‘software’ needed to advance towards a policy goal” (Rose, 2005:17). Furthermore, according to Wolman (2009:17):

“lesson-drawing is concerned with whether programs are fungible, that is, capable of being put into effect in more than one place… In the policy process a lesson can be defined as a program for action based on a program or programs undertaken in another city, state, or nation.”

Based upon these different actors and objects of policy learning, as mentioned above, proponents of both methods argue that theirs is the ‘better’ and more effective learning tool of the two. Wolman (2009) argues and suggests that lesson-drawing is the best way to engage in the process of policy learning and policy transfer together. Newmark (2002), for example, highlights the differences between the two methods to make his case. In discussing lesson-drawing, Newmark makes the point that, compared to policy transfer, both positive and negative lessons can be and are to be learned from. Furthermore, he says that policy adoption and change are not absolutes when it comes to lesson-drawing, rather, there is a possibility that these things might occur, and if not, this does not imply that policy learning has not or could not have taken place. Instead, “negative lessons are drawn when an entity decides neither to adopt a particular policy or program[me] after reviewing what has been done elsewhere” (Newmark, 2002:155).

On the other hand, while an inherent motivation to learn exists among those using lesson-drawing methods, some have highlighted that policy transfer requires numerous factors to help facilitate policy learning through this method. “A number of factors further facilitate policy transfer including a common language, similar ideologies, relationships among personnel, and the existence of think-tanks and policy entrepreneurs” (Newmark, 2002:156).

Based upon this, proponents of lesson-drawing will suggest that lesson-drawing offers a greater opportunity to learn—with fewer obstacles. While context and differences are taken into account when studying policy programmes, they are not viewed as hindrances, and learning from those different and ‘unusual’ from oneself is encouraged.

There is much further debate about which of the policy learning methods is equally more useful and more appropriate to use in the current globalised context in which we live.

27 According to Stone (1999:53), not only do lesson-drawing and policy transfer contribute to comparative public policy at a scholarly level, but they also complement “a broader concern with ‘global policy studies’ and the need for public policy to directly address globalisation”

(Stone, 1999:53). In making the argument for lesson-drawing, Stone (1999:54) states that

“one response to globalisation may be that an enhanced capability for lesson-drawing allows decision-makers to counter-act the decay of sovereignty and control over domestic policy brought by globalisation.” Furthermore, she states that it is likely that policy failure and implementation problems will arise as a consequence of policy transfer. Rather, “comparative analysis [lesson-drawing] has a role to play identifying domestic circumstances or structures that aid effective policy transfer [and policy learning]” (Stone, 1999:54).

2.3.3 Can different subtypes be grouped together?

Numerous policy learning authors and theorists have emphasised the tendency of Dolowitz and Marsh in their work to not quite distinguish between different subtypes of policy learning, but rather to group them together. Dolowitz (2003) goes so far as to casually and repeatedly equate policy transfer and lesson-drawing, using the terms interchangeably on a continual basis. Evans & Davies (1999: 363-364) suggest that policy transfer, rather than being a subtype of policy learning, is in fact a generic concept or framework under which all other subtypes can be organised as ‘dimensions of policy transfer’. Furthermore, Evans &

Davies (1999:363-364) observe that:

“In essence, [Dolowitz and Marsh (1996)] have drawn together a general framework of heterogeneous concepts including policy diffusion, policy convergence, policy learning and lesson-drawing under the umbrella heading of policy transfer which mainly draws on the work of Rose (1991, 1993), Bennett (1991), Robertson (1991) and Wolman (1992).”

Furthermore, in so doing, Dolowitz and Marsh view lesson-drawing, among other methods, to be a subtype of policy transfer, ultimately subsuming them under one broader label (Hamber, 2003; James & Lodge, 2003; Stone, 1999). Evans and Davies (1999) follow in the footsteps of Dolowitz and Marsh by also suggesting that policy diffusion, policy convergence and lesson-drawing all refer to ‘different types’ of policy transfer. Wolman (2009:11), too, is of the opinion that “policy transfer is…a subset of policy learning where learning occurs as a result of information about policies in place elsewhere.”

Some authors argue that policy learning and policy transfer are two entirely distinct concepts.

“‘Social learning’ or ‘policy learning’ is yet another label connected with policy transfer, but

28 this concept is analytically distinct” (Stone, 1999:52). In her work, Stone (1999) appears to distinguish between policy transfer and policy learning for herself, suggesting in fact that policy learning leads to policy transfer. Newmark (2002:154) also suggests a distinction;

however this distinction refers to policy transfer and lesson-drawing being viewed on two different levels. In his opinion, “distinction should be made among these terms as policy transfer and policy convergence are general terms, while lesson-drawing and emulation are more specific” (Newmark, 2002:154).

In a somewhat opposite approach to that of the likes of Dolowitz and Marsh, who suggest that lesson-drawing is a subtype of policy transfer, in keeping with the ‘general’ and

‘specific’ labels concept, Baumann and White (2010:2) argue that instead of policy transfer, lesson-drawing is associated with ‘generalisability’. In essence, lesson-drawing aims to take cases of specific policy successes, then extracts general models, ultimately to draw general policy lessons. In effect, Baumann and White (2010:2) suggest that policy learning and policy transfer are both based upon lesson-drawing.