Crisis, learning and policy change in the European Union

Abstract

What is the causal relationship between crisis, learning and change? How does causality works in the current responses to the sovereign debt crisis provided by the European Union? We question the conventional identification of the cause-and-effect relationship provided by theories of crisis management, integration and policy learning. Drawing on models of contingent learning developed within psychology and behavioural and evolutionary economics, we theorise that surprise produces behavioural change via a fast-paced associative cue-outcome mechanism and that policy learning follows change. We then run our exercise in causal identification through a plausibility probe. We show that our argument passes the plausibility probe. Our conclusions on cognition and situational effects on learning suggest a new research agenda, more sensitive to how individuals behave in the real world and more robust in its micro-foundations.

Does Policy Learning Meet the Standards of an Analytical Framework of the Policy Process?

“…Thus, under conditions of crisis and extreme surprise, we have micro‐foundations that illustrate the sequence between contingent learning and inferential learning. This sequence has been successfully probed in the context of the crisis of the Euro—showing that the findings under carefully controlled experiments can also apply to the domain of public policy (Kamkhaji & Radaelli, ).…”

“…The other mechanism is called contingent learning (Kamkhaji & Radaelli, 2016). It occurs under conditions of extreme surprise and uncertainty.…”

“…Under conditions of extreme surprise, we should observe contingent learning first, followed by inferential learning. This is a proposition that can be tested in cases of acute crisis, and more precisely in intra-crisis periods (Kamkhaji & Radaelli, 2016), and crisis management capacity-building (e.g., Schwarzer, 2015).…”

Multiple streams, leaked opportunities, and entrepreneurship in the EU agenda against tax avoidance

“…This contradiction is a constraint for decision makers who cannot deal with all problems at once, and have to settle for suboptimal solutions, or make a decision before having developed clear preferences (Ackrill, Kay, & Zahariadis, ). This problematic de‐synchronization becomes more acute in crisis situations, where both time pressure and the demand for rapid reactions increase (Kamkhaji & Radaelli, ). Finally, the MSF provides a differentiated account of agency by taking into account the role of ideas, without dismissing entirely the rationality of actors.…”

Does learning matter for policy outcomes? The case of integrating climate finance into the EU budget

“…Learning has been invoked to explain changes in political agendas, the choice of policies and instruments, as well as the dynamics of organizational processes and strategies (Bomberg 2007;Feindt 2010;Kamkhaji and Radaelli 2016;Koch and Lindenthal 2011). Underlying this interest in learning is increased recognition of the role of knowledge, beliefs and ideas in policy processes Nye 1987;Radaelli 1995).…”