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

Abstract

Reference to policy learning is commonplace in the public policy literature but the question of whether it qualifies as an analytical framework applicable to the policy process has yet to be systematically addressed. We therefore appraise learning as analytical framework in relation to four standards: assumptions and micro‐foundations, conceptual apparatus, observable implications, normative applications. We find that policy learning meets the four standards, although its theoretical leverage varies across them. Since we are not aware of theories of the policy process that meet all of these standards all the time, we conclude that policy learning fares reasonably well and it's worth investing intellectual resources in this field.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives, policy learning and institutionalization: the surprising failure of open government in Norway

“…Models of policy learning also align well with theories of policy transfer and translation Berry andBerry 2014, cited in Dunlop andRadaelli 2018). The policy translation perspective emphasizes how communicative processes influence perceptions about the appropriateness of global norms and policies, reshaping them during the process of policy adoption .…”

What's the Problem? Multilevel Governance and Problem‐Solving

“…Thus, we would expect in MLG to apply standard operating procedures and engage in top‐down hierarchical of bargaining‐based modes of learning under conditions of high problem tractability. Conversely, when policy problems are intractable, more bottom‐up, reflexive, epistemic, and contingent modes of learning come into play (Dunlop & Radaelli, ). According to Schrefler (), knowledge utilization should especially occur in situations of low problem tractability and low levels of conflict around a policy.…”

Learning in participatory environmental governance – its antecedents and effects. Findings from a case survey meta-analysis

“…Acknowledging these different perspectives on learningor rather, these different concepts, which are all subsumed under the learning labelwe consider three distinct and complementary modes of learning, which are derived from the literature. As knowledge plays a key role in the context of learningas the substance of learning (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2018) and has been regarded as the 'currency' of collaboration (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015), we express the three perspectives on learning in terms of the different ways in which they relate to knowledge: learning as knowledge-exchange, as knowledge-building, and as knowledge-uptake (see Table 1). We assume that the three modes of learning are interrelated: that deliberation may benefit capacity building, and that both deliberation and capacity building may benefit informed decision outputs (see Figure 1).…”