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

Abstract

A considerable body of work has invoked learning in seeking to explain observed patterns of EU policy change. This paper scrutinizes the relevance of learning for understanding policy outcomes. We apply a consolidated framework based on factual, experiential and constructivist learning across the individual and organizational levels to examine the unlikely policy outcome of dedicating 20% of the EU 2014-2020 budget to climate action. Learning did play some role in the policy outcome, in that the belief that climate policy integration (CPI) was an appropriate instrument to address climate change was the result of constructivist learning over the preceding decade. However, this learning was restricted to a handful of policy entrepreneurs in the Cabinet/DG Clima, who largely "pushed" the policy through based on preexisting convictions. Conversely, beyond some experiential learning, there is little evidence that learning was a significant feature of the policy process amongst actors in other European institutions.

‘A very human business’—Transnational networking initiatives and domestic climate action

“…In fact, these aspects remained secondary to learning, cautioning against under-emphasising the cognitive function of networking initiatives vis-à-vis more affective aspects. Additionally, from a methodological perspective, significant difficulties exist in establishing a causal link between the learning and emotions we observed and substantive actions contributing to climate goals (Dunlop and Radaelli, 2017;Rietig and Perkins, 2018).…”

The Covid-19 crisis: a critical juncture for EU climate policy development?

“…The Commission's policy entrepreneurship contrasts with past experiences with EU crisis response. When the Commission acted as a policy entrepreneur after the 2008 economic crisis to support EU climate policy, it had to resort to initiatives which remained 'under the radar' and had no immediate budgetary or economic implications (Rietig and Perkins 2018). Being a skilled policy entrepreneur, therefore, seems an insufficient explanation for the advances in EU climate policy in the Covid-19 response.…”

Accelerating low carbon transitions via budgetary processes? EU climate governance in times of crisis

“…The approaches discussed above could be loosely summarized under the concept of policy stabilization with the elements of path-dependency, policy feedback and transition pathways (Rosenbloom et al, 2019), while recognizing their distinct features and areas for empirical application. Their focus on factors based in or related to historical institutionalism offers scope for broadening the analysis towards constructivist elements of institutionalism, in particular the role of policy entrepreneurs as agents of change (Fitch-Roy et al, 2020) and agents of learning (Rietig & Perkins, 2018). Addressing this gap in the literature advances our understanding of the relevance of causal factors such as policy entrepreneurs and learning that can facilitate policy stabilization especially during times of external crises when political attention is focused elsewhere.…”

“…(1) Policy entrepreneurs as dedicated individuals going above and beyond their job description to influence the policymaking process (Fitch-Roy et al, 2020;Mintrom, 2013) and (2) Learning through reflection on previous experiences, new knowledge and adapting beliefs by individual policymakers and/ or organizations involved in policymaking (Rietig & Perkins, 2018). Policy stabilization is crucial for addressing climate change as long-term policy objective that is being threatened by competing short-term political interests, lack of leadership and in some cases active obstruction.…”