Administrative Traditions and Policy Change: When Policy Paradigms Matter. The Case of Italian Administrative Reform During the 1990s

Abstract

In recent years a growing number of scholars have developed cognitive and ideational theoretical frameworks for the analysis of policy‐making processes: their underlying belief is that ideas (conceived as beliefs, causal theories and paradigms) really do matter. The concept of policy paradigm has been particularly useful in studying both the contents and dynamics of policy change. The present paper takes this concept, partially reformulates Hall's definition in terms of the distinction between the hegemonic and dominant paradigm, and then uses it to come to terms with the contents and dynamics of the Italian administrative reforms implemented during the 1990s. Mixing the conceptual lenses offered by the ideational and cultural path taken in the field of public policy and by historical neo‐institutionalism, this article attempts to explain the Italian trajectory, and to underline how normative and cognitive elements represent an important influence on the ‘design’ and ‘strategy’ of policy change. Our analysis of the consistency of the reformers’ documents and policy strategy shows that, despite their claims, the contents and strategy of reform do not represent a paradigmatic about‐turn, but constitute an evolutionary adaptation to external pressures imposed by the hegemonic administrative paradigm.

Studying administrative reforms through textual analysis: the case of Italian central government accounting

“…Italy has a strong legalistic administrative tradition and represents a relevant context of study, since it has been often identified as a typical example of Napoleonic country and a medium-intensity adopter of NPM ideas (Hood 1991(Hood , 1995Capano 2003;Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004;Ongaro 2011;Fattore et al 2012, Bellè andOngaro 2014). Moreover, being a civil-law country, Italy has always relied on laws and administrative acts to adopt reforms (Panozzo 1998).…”

“…The paper explores reforms with novel methodological lenses in a country that has been described as a mild adopter of managerial reforms and a neo-Weberian state (Capano 2003;Kuhlmann 2010;Ongaro 2011). …”

How to Innovate Management Accounting for Public Sector: An Italian Case Study

“…Consequently, the adoption of emergent budgetary tools was initially limited to local level (Ongaro & Valotti, 2008), where governments have "adopted planning and results assessment, budgeting financial autonomy for up to 60% of their resources, and diversified managerial strategies for their public services as far back as 1993" (Lippi, 2003, p. 152). It has also to be noted that until 2003, the 93% of Italian municipalities had implemented an independent unit dedicated to managerial accounting services, while just the 50% of them had adopted innovative accounting methods (Capano, 2003). In terms of accounting reform, in 2005, the city of Pisa was the first local government to consolidate its financial accounts, thanks to the implementation of technical tools designed for a deeper monitoring of financial performances and a better management of achieved results (Kuhlmann, 2010).…”

The innovativeness of national policy portfolios – climate policy change in Austria, Germany, and the UK

“…While following a consistent policy path, symbolic innovations create a picture of activity but in fact support the status quo. Thus, symbolic innovations serve as negative feedback in order to ensure increasing returns and policy stability (Pierson 2000, Capano 2003, Howlett and Rayner 2006. Second, the process sequencing approach with its application of the punctuated equilibrium model (Haydu 1998, Baumgartner et al 2009) follows the idea of cycles switching between incremental and more radical sequences of change (Howlett 2009).…”

“…Third, cumulative incrementalism describes a number of approaches all criticising process sequencing on the basis of empirical cases where 'shocks do not always result in institutional change, and institutional change does not always come from such shocks' (Van der Heijden 2010, p. 231, Genschel 1997, Pierson 2004 but rather as a result of cumulative adaption (Coleman et al 1996, Capano 2003, Lee and Strang 2006, Cashore and Howlett 2007. Here, 'bottom-up' processes of increasing returns and policy learning through incremental changes of the meso-level of policy instruments finally reach a tipping point for a more radical change in the instrumental logic at the highest policy level (Pierson 1993, Coleman et al 1996, Howlett and Cashore 2009, Daugbjerg and Sønderskov 2012.…”