Expansión territorial: Ginebra, Saluzzo y Monferrato

Lesson-drawing applies “knowledge about a programme in one country to the design of a programme in another. The starting point is that another country has already paid the cost of being first in the field. [Thus,] lesson-drawing tries to avoid the costs of being first and re-inventing the wheel by learning from the trials and errors of a programme already in operation.”

The first step in the process is to begin scanning for programmes elsewhere and thus to seek information about programmes that address problems that resemble or are similar to one’s own. The second major step is to then construct a conceptual model of the programme that one has sourced and selected on the basis that it is or has been in operation in another country. Thirdly, the next step is to “compare models of foreign practice with a model of the programme causing dissatisfaction at home” (Rose, 1991:20).

However, this research, in light of its aim to learn from the U.S. regulation of shale gas extraction, applies the lesson-drawing approach differently to what was originally intended for it. Instead of focusing on a policy programme and constructing a related conceptual model, this research focused specifically on the regulation of shale gas extraction in the U.S.

by its government. It is from these legislations and regulations by various agencies at federal, state and local levels of government in the U.S., that lessons were drawn on shale gas extraction in the U.S., which is considered to be the prime case on shale gas extraction and development on the international level. Consequently, as South Africa currently does not have any regulatory framework in place to deal specifically with shale gas extraction, drawing policy lessons on these matters from the prime international example could greatly benefit South Africa in its future shale gas development.

In light of the fact that this thesis aims to learn with the end goal of using this policy research to lay the foundation for contributions to policy development on shale gas extraction by the South African government, it makes sense to draw lessons from one government to another.

Specifically, it makes sense to draw lessons on how the U.S. government regulates shale gas extraction and development within its own national context, so as to lay the foundation to inform how the South African government could regulate the extraction and development of

34 the country’s own estimated shale gas reserves. Therefore, studying the broad regulation of shale gas is more relevant to the aim of this research than studying a specific policy programme.

While this might differ from the original lesson-drawing approach, lesson-drawing is still being applied, and is nonetheless very relevant to policy learning on regulation. Lesson-drawing is not only an approach to policy learning, but it is also an analytical tool that can be adjusted slightly in its application to still produce valuable policy lessons on regulation. Rose (1991) talks about using lesson-drawing to help deal with one’s own problems by learning from how others have applied solutions to the same problems elsewhere.

South Africa does not yet have a policy programme on shale gas extraction to speak of, as its shale gas reserves have not yet been confirmed, nor is there any legislation specific to shale gas or hydraulic fracturing. Rose (1991) also speaks of dissatisfaction being a key reason for policymakers to embark upon a lesson-drawing quest; however, in South Africa, as indicated, there is no policy programme on shale gas to be dissatisfied with. Instead, this thesis adopted lesson-drawing an as analytical tool with the intention for the lessons drawn to make a policy research contribution that is preventative in nature.

By learning what to avoid from the U.S. regulation of shale gas extraction, if and when shale gas extraction, exploitation and development happen in South Africa, policy lessons may be drawn in order to avoid less than ideal outcomes that occurred in the U.S. Due to the fact that South Africa is in need of specific legislation for and regulation of shale gas extraction and development in the likelihood that it will occur in the Karoo, the focus should thus be on drawing lessons from regulation of the same issue within the context of a prime example similar to ours.

2.5 Conclusion

In light of the fact that lessons are already being drawn on different levels, both within the U.S. and between other shale-rich countries, this thesis uses policy learning and lesson-drawing as its theoretical framework.

Many debates within policy learning literature can be highlighted; three of which encompass the major issues at hand. Firstly, the debate on whether or not subtypes of policy learning exist helps to unpack the many definitional and conceptual issues between theorists in the field; with lesson-drawing and policy transfer emerging as the two most prominent subtypes

35 of policy learning. Furthermore, the second debate surrounding the motivations for policy learning also serves to highlight why lesson-drawing is better suited to use in the globalised context in which we presently exist. The third major debate on policy learning illustrates the disagreement upon the grouping of subtypes of policy learning and whether or not policy transfer or lesson-drawing is the primary subtype.

Additionally, in discussing Richard Rose’s lesson-drawing approach to policy learning, this thesis applies lesson-drawing as an analytical tool somewhat differently. In spite of being advocated by Richard Rose, policy lessons will not be drawn from specifically from policy programmes elsewhere, nor will this be followed by the construction of a model. Rather, this thesis, in meeting its aim of learning to inform the South African government on the exploitation of its own estimated shale gas reserves, draws lessons from the legislation and regulation of shale gas extraction and development in the U.S.

36