Policy diffusion, policy transfer, and policy mobilities revisited: A call for more interdisciplinary approaches in human geography

Abstract

Geographers and urban studies scholars tend to rely on policy mobilities approaches to explain processes of policy spread, whereas political scientists and public policy scholars usually draw on either policy diffusion or policy transfer. I challenge this widespread scholarly practice of selecting approaches based on the association with a certain discipline. Instead, first and foremost, the specific research aim(s) and question(s) should shape the choice of theoretical lens. Analytical or policy outcome‐oriented studies should rely on policy diffusion and policy transfer, while a policy mobilities approach is best suited for more (policy) critical analysis. The approaches can also complement each other to a certain degree. Analytical and policy outcome‐oriented approaches need a stronger critical perspective while policy mobilities scholars need to underpin their critique with constructive suggestions on how to improve established practices.

Policy mobilities, ‘informational infrastructures’ and the ‘digital turn’: Towards a research agenda

“…Authored and edited books, conference sessions and reading groups continue to give it a degree of coherency and shape. Earlier this year in this journal, Haupt (2023) made an argument for a particular future for policy mobilities, and he is not alone, with critique and commentaries continuing to come from those inside and outside of it (Hulicka et al., 2023; Plehwe, 2023; Robin & Acuto, 2023; Temenos, 2023).…”

“…A series of themes have structured the field's evolution as outlined in a series of critical reviews of it, together with the wider study of public policy of which it is but one aspect (Baker & Walker, 2019; Haupt, 2023; Temenos & McCann, 2013). However, across these has been an apparent privileging of physical over virtual presence.…”