Learning in the bath-tub: the micro and macro dimensions of the causal relationship between learning and policy change

Abstract

Whilst the literature classifies policy learning in terms of types or ontological approaches (reflexive and social constructivist learning versus rational updating of priors), we offer a three-dimensional approach to explore the relationships between individual learning, learning in groups and the macro-dimension. Our contribution maps most (although not all) lively debates in the field on a multidimensional space and explores the logic of causality from micro to macro. To achieve these two aims, we draw on Coleman's 'bath-tub'. We map learning in the bathtub by considering prominent studies on learning but also, in some cases, by exploring and drawing lessons from political science and behavioural sciences. By integrating findings in an eclectic way, we explain the logic of learning using a single template and suggest methods for empirical analysis. This is not a literature review but an original attempt to capture the causal architecture of the field, contributing to learning theory with findings from mainstream political and behavioural sciences.

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

“…Certainly, the field has many limitations—the major is that after so many years from the intuitions of Peter Hall (), Bennett and Howlett (), May (), we are still struggling with the causal relation between learning and change. Possibly what we are finding out in terms of micro‐foundations and, turning to another dimension, the Coleman's “bath‐tub” structure of causality (Dunlop & Radaelli, ), will illuminate the way ahead. As mentioned, presumably more leverage will need a closer integration among policy learning, ideational analysis, and knowledge utilization (on the latter, see the attempts made by Schrefler, , and Radaelli, ).…”

‘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).…”

Left on the shelf: Explaining the failure of public inquiry recommendations

“…The model was created through a combination of theory and data used iteratively. Its theoretical components were built out of a variety of classic and contemporary research relating to: the concept of lesson‐learning (for example, Elliott and Macpherson ; Dunlop and Radaelli ), learning and organizational and policy change (Levitt and March ; Leeuw et al ; Dekker and Hansén ) and public inquiries specifically (Salter ; Brown ; Elliott ). These literatures were contextualized against studies of public policy change (Howlett and Giest ), public management reform (Pollitt ) and institutionalization (Selznick ; Scott ; Hall and Taylor ).…”