It is widely acknowledged in the literature that the study of blame avoidance behavior (BAB) exhibited by public officials is scattered and unconcentrated, and that, for the most part, it neglects both contextual factors and comparative research. These deficits inhibit the production of the kind of generalized findings necessary to better understand potential consequences for the policy process and the workings of political systems. We address these deficits by developing a framework that takes stock of blame avoidance research, clarifies the explanatory potential of contextual factors, and allows for a systematic context‐sensitive cross‐case analysis. For illustrative purposes, the framework is applied to the Home Insulation Program in Australia as a critical case. This case reveals the explanatory potential of contextual factors for the understanding of BAB and the consequences thereof. We conclude by stating the advantages of our framework and explain how it can be used for comparative research.

Blame avoidance behavior (BAB) encompasses all kinds of integrity-protecting activities by officeholders in the face of potentially blame-attracting events. Although considered essential for a realistic understanding of politics and policymaking, a general understanding of this multi-faceted behavioral phenomenon and its implications has been lacking to date. We argue that this is due to the lack of careful conceptualization of various forms of BAB. Crucially, the difference between anticipatory and reactive forms of BAB is largely neglected in the literature. This paper links anticipatory and reactive forms of BAB as two consecutive decision situations. It exposes dependence relationships between the situations that trigger BAB, the rationalities at work, the resources and strategies applied by blame-avoiding actors, and the various consequences thereof. The paper concludes that anticipatory and reactive BAB are distinct phenomena that require specific research approaches to assess their relevance for the workings of polities.

Blame avoidance behaviour (BAB) has become an increasingly popular topic in political science. However, the preconditions of BAB, its presence and consequences in various areas and in different political systems largely remain a black box. In order to generate a better understanding of BAB and its importance for the workings of democratic political systems, the scattered literature on BAB needs to be assessed and structured. This article offers a comprehensive review of the literature on blame avoidance. It departs from Weaver's concept of blame avoidance and subsequently differentiates between work on BAB in comparative welfare state research and work on BAB in public policy and administration. It is argued that between these two strands of literature a bifurcation exists since both perspectives rarely draw on each other to create a more general understanding of BAB. Advantages from existing approaches must be combined to assess the phenomenon of blame avoidance in a more comprehensive way.Keywords: blame avoidance behaviour; elite behaviour; political strategy; literature review Current public affairs are increasingly characterised by rising public expectations and by the media-induced politicisation and scandalisation of events (Flinders, 2014;Strömbäck, 2008). It is not surprising that these developments have an impact on the behaviour of actors at the centre of public affairs and media interest. This explains why the phenomenon of blame avoidance behaviour (BAB) has become an increasingly popular topic in political science. BAB displayed by public actors encompasses all kinds of activities intended to downplay or distance oneself from (potentially) blameattracting and goal-threatening events. The study of this type of elite behaviour has experienced renewed interest in recent years, which is not least demonstrated by the growing number of articles published in various subfields of the discipline that consider aspects of blame avoidance. Although scholars generally agree that BAB is an important aspect of democratic governance that needs to be taken into account when the workings of democratic political systems are examined, the preconditions of BAB, its presence and consequences in various areas and in different political systems largely remain a black box (Hinterleitner and Sager, 2015). For instance, how does the political system handle blame? Is it still functional -can it cope with blame and fulfil its basic functions? Or does it lead to political polarisation, policy stalemate and public disaffection (Weaver, 2013)? These are only a few of the questions that need to be answered in order to gain a better understanding of BAB and its impact on the workings of democratic systems. However, differences in approaches towards BAB abound. A first step towards answering these questions is a comprehensive review of the literature. This article departs from Weaver's concept of blame avoidance and subsequently differentiates between work on

No abstract

Studies examining the policy implications of elite polarisation usually concentrate on policy formulation and change, but neglect the impact of polarisation on the day-to-day application of policies. Applying the method of causal process tracing to the Swiss “Carlos” case, a blame game triggered by the reporting about an expensive therapy setting for a youth offender, this article exposes and explains a hitherto neglected, but highly important, mechanism between political elites engaging in blame generation and changes in policy practice. A policy’s distance and visibility to mass publics, as well as the incentives and resources of elites to engage in blame generation, explain the dynamics within blame games, which, in turn, effect organisational and behavioural changes that help institutionalise a more politicised policy practice. Politicised policy practice can make an important difference to policy target populations, as well as damage output legitimacy and undermine democracy.