Another factor that might influence local governance arrangements could be the preference for specific national ‘policy styles’ that Jeremy Richardson (1982) argued existed within various Western European states. For example, Richardson showed that some countries were much more likely than others to involve interest groups in
policy-making, adopt certain types of policy instrument or try to ensure that policy is co-ordinated horizontally and vertically. He argued that distinct ‘standard operating procedures’ within national institutions shape how decision-makers will address a
42
specific policy issue – in contrast to Theodore Lowi’s argument that policy problems determine the way in which the political system operates (Lowi, 1964, O'Riordan and Jordan, 1996).
The idea of national policy styles echoes the historical institutionalist view that traditional procedures and structures will endure unless there is a ‘radical shock’ in the external environment that ‘punctuates the equilibrium’ and results in the
emergence of new institutions (True et al., 1999). In the context of this thesis, such a perspective suggests that governing actors in Germany and the UK would try to address environmental problems in different ways because of how institutions and behaviours within the two countries have developed and become embedded over time. Indeed, as various scholars have shown, historical legacies are likely to influence policy outcomes significantly (Hall and Taylor, 1996, Ostrom, 1986, Thoenig, 2003, Lodge, 2003). This is because behaviours, attitudes and working cultures – as well as physical organisations – shape decision-making processes in a ‘path-dependent’ manner, sometimes long after they have achieved their original purpose (Pierson, 2000). Moreover, these institutions prove very difficult to change, because actors within the system seek to prolong the status quo – either because they benefit from it individually and collectively (Mayntz and Scharpf, 1995, Scharpf, 1997), or because it appears to produce satisfactory policies (March and Olsen, 1989).
Nonetheless, mindful of the idea that external pressures on national policy styles could result in a new institutional paradigm, Richardson was interested in
investigating how factors such as European Union membership might be influencing the standard operating procedures of various countries. His work spawned a number of empirical studies, many of which aimed to outline the distinctive characteristics of individual national styles in order to identify contrasting approaches (Vogel, 1986, Jänicke and Weidner, 1997, Weale, 1997, Knill and Lenschow, 1998, Carter and Lowe, 1998, Wurzel, 2002, Lees, 2007). Notably, several analyses focused on
environmental policy and identified clear distinctions between the British (or English) and German styles – and a number of them did find that EU membership was
43
The differences between typically ‘English’ and ‘German’ environmental policy styles are quite stark and cover a range of areas. For example, in keeping with its
Rechtsstaat (‘legal state’) traditions, environmental policy in Germany has
traditionally been made by high-ranking officials and legal experts, and resulted in laws that penalise polluters, most of which are enforced by the Länder and local authorities (Jänicke and Weidner, 1997, Pehle and Jansen, 1998). This contrasts sharply with the pragmatic reliance on ‘soft’ law and discretion that is typically associated with the UK and England. Britain’s more flexible and consensual approach also means that state actors include a range of other stakeholders in policy-making processes (sometimes the very same polluters who are penalised in Germany) in order to increase the chances that they will adhere to the resulting legislation (Weale, 1997).
Furthermore, German policy-makers are more likely to opt for the ‘best available technology’ or ‘state of the art’ (SOTA) solution to address an environmental problem, whereas their English counterparts prefer to rely on the ‘best practicable means’ (BPM) to deal with an issue (Knill and Lenschow, 1998). Interestingly, Armbrüster (2005) has noted how wider societal attitudes in Germany and the UK appear to mirror these preferences, which he attributes to the different philosophical traditions in the two countries. Regardless of the reasons for the contrast, few doubt that the German perspective has enabled its federal government to stimulate domestic green manufacturing businesses at the same time as addressing environmental
concerns (Lütkenhorst and Pegels, 2014, Wüstenhagen and Bilharz, 2006).Although Wurzel (2002) found that EU agreements settled on a compromise position between the two extremes (the ‘best available technology not entailing excessive costs’), this contrast nonetheless represents a worthwhile line of enquiry at the municipal level.
Another key difference is associated with whether policy-makers are concerned with measuring the quantity or the consequences of pollution. For example, Héritier et al. (1994), and Butt Philip (1998) have distinguished between the traditional German focus on reducing the emissions or inputs of environmental ‘bads’ into the air, soil or water and the British reliance on monitoring immissions or their outcomes (the concentration of harmful pollutants in living organisms, particularly humans). Notably, Wurzel (2002) attributes this difference partly to the geographic nature of
44
the two countries: in direct contrast to Germany, the UK is an island with fast-flowing rivers, rough seas and high winds, which means that pollutants disperse much quicker.
Germany UK
Regulatory style Interventionist Mediating
Traditional principles
Sachlichkeit (objectivity)
Ressortprinzip (ministerial and departmental independence) Uniform standards
Professionalism Generalism
Discretionary approach
Focus of concern Level of pollution emitted (emissions)
Impact on human health of
pollutants (immissions)
Preferred solutions
State of the art (‘Best Available Technology’)
Flexible and cost-effective (best practicable means) State intervention Hierarchical Substantive Low flexibility/discretion More self-regulation Procedural High flexibility/discretion Consultative approach Formal Legalistic (Rechtsstaat) Hard law More adversarial Informal Pragmatic Soft law Consensual Regulatory structure Functional decentralisation Sectoral Hierarchical co-ordination Sectoral decentralisation Sectoral
Lacking hierarchical co- ordination of local activities
Table 2.2: Contrasting styles of environmental policy in Germany and the UK (adapted from Knill and Lenschow, 1998, Weale et al., 1991, Héritier et al., 1994, and Wurzel, 2002)
Table 2.2, which draws on the comprehensive typology of Knill and Lenschow (1998), but also incorporates perspectives from Weale et al. (1991), Héritier et al.
(1994) and Wurzel (2002), summarises some of the main contrasts between the typical policy style of each country. Although Knill and Lenschow do an admirable job in diagnosing these differences, there is substantial overlap between their six categories of contrasting characteristics (namely: regulatory style; traditional
45
principles; focus of concern; state intervention; consultative approach; and regulatory structure). For example, the focus of concern will dictate which preferred solutions may be desirable, and these would be shaped by the typical degree of state
intervention. This in turn relates closely to the regulatory style and consultative approach, which are strongly influenced by traditional principles (and vice-versa).
Notably, these contrasts overlap with the analysis of Treib et al. (2007), who map state-society relations against various dimensions of policy, politics or polity. Table 2.3, which is based on their analysis, shows how policy styles that are associated with the UK or England are more characteristic of governance arrangements, whereas the typical German style sits closer towards the government end of the spectrum. More importantly for the purposes of this thesis, there is a clear parallel between these contrasting regulatory approaches and Hooghe and Marks’ two typologies of multi- level governance (see section 2.2.3). These similarities reflect the connection between a policy-making approach and the institutional and structural context: one is likely to influence the other, and vice-versa (Stone, 2005).
However, the sheer number of contrasting features that both Knill and Lenschow and Treib et al. identify, together with their overlapping nature, means that using them as the basis for any comparison risks getting lost in issues of definition and
categorisation. Therefore, although their characterisations of typical policy or
governance styles do shape this research project, it will not investigate each individual dimension as a separate line of enquiry. Instead, the thesis will draw particularly on two aspects that are relatively straightforward to identify. The first of these is a preference for either state of the art (SOTA) solutions or the best practicable means (BPM) for addressing a problem, which are associated with Germany and England respectively. This should indicate the extent to which each municipality is
demonstrating leadership and ambition in climate protection – and, by illustrating whether the local state is investing significant resources in the sector, may also indicate its importance vis à vis other actors in decision-making processes. The second line of enquiry will investigate the extent to which each municipality relies on hierarchical state regulation or horizontal stakeholder engagement in policy-making. As with the typologies of multi-level governance, these national characterisations are ideal models, and therefore we would not necessarily expect any state or municipality
46
to fit neatly into any particular category. Nonetheless, figure 2.2, which will act as a template to illustrate each city’s approach in chapters 4, 5 and 6, shows how
jurisdictions that adopt strategies typical of the ‘German’ and ‘English’ policy styles might be located against these two sub-dimensions.
State intervention
(‘government’) Societal autonomy (‘governance’)
Policy dimensions
Legal bindingness Soft law
Rigid approach to implementation Flexible approach to implementation
Presence of sanctions Absence of sanctions
Material regulation Procedural regulation
Fixed norms Malleable norms
Politics
dimension Only public actors involved Only private actors involved Polity
dimensions
Hierarchy Market
Central locus of authority Dispersed loci of authority
Institutionalised interactions Non-institutionalised interactions
Table 2.3: The government-governance spectrum as it applies to policy, politics and polity (adapted from Treib et al., 2007)
47
When combined with the analysis of multi-level governance types discussed in section 2.2.3, investigating these two factors will illustrate the overall governance arrangements within the case studies and therefore bridge the (small) gap between some of the governance literature and policy styles perspectives. This is because each line of enquiry will study the relationship between the state and private actors,
focusing particularly on how these stakeholders seek to govern climate change at the local level together.