Politikwandel und seine Messung in der vergleichenden Staatstätigkeitsforschung: Konzeptionelle Probleme und mögliche Alternativen

Abstract

Zusammenfassung: Politikwandel kommt in der vergleichenden Staatstätigkeitsforschung eine zentrale bedeutung zu. dennoch versäumen es zahlreiche empirische Arbeiten, das Konzept klar zu definieren und zu operationalisieren. Vor diesem Hintergrund zieht diese Abhandlung eine kritische bilanz des Forschungsstandes zu Politikwandel in den bereichen umwelt- und Sozialpolitik. Wir stellen fest, dass Untersuchungen häufig Näherungswerte für die Messung von Politikwandel verwenden, obwohl diese einem präzisen Verständnis von Staatstätigkeit widersprechen. Des Weiteren findet weder die Komplexität politischer Entscheidungen noch die Möglichkeit, Politikwandel ebenfalls als Politikabbau aufzufassen, genügend Aufmerksamkeit in der empirischen Staatstätigkeitsforschung. Zumeist ist der empirische Fokus vieler Studien sehr eng und verhindert somit robuste Aussagen über Kausalbeziehungen. Als Antwort auf diese Defizite unterbreiten wir ein neues Konzept zur Messung von Politikwandel und diskutieren dessen Vor-und Nachteile gegenüber den bisherigen Ansätzen sowie die Konsequenzen für den Forschungsprozess.Abstract: Policy change is an important concept in comparative policy analysis. despite its central significance, most empirical studies fail to provide clear-cut definitions and measurement of this concept. Against this background, this article evaluates previous scholarship on policy change in the areas of social and environmental policy. We find that most studies use proxies for Polit Vierteljahresschr (2010) 51:409-432 410 C. Knill et al.measuring policy change even though they contradict the basic idea of policy-making activities. Furthermore, studies usually neither capture the complexity of policy change, nor take into the possibility of policy change through dismantling account. Additionally, the empirical focus of most analyses is too narrow, thereby impeding robust statements about causality. In response to these shortcomings, we propose a new conceptual perspective which captures policy change as a broader empirical phenomenon. We discuss its advantages as well as its disadvantages and show the implications for the research process.

Collective Learning through Climate Knowledge Systems: the Case of South Africa

“…There is no agreement in the literature about the measurement of change. Since a contribution to this debate is not the prime interest of this piece, I use the regulatory density -the number of policies and instrumentsas an indicator without further discussion (Knill et al, 2010).…”

Who Drives Change? Comparing the Evolution of Domestic Climate Governance in India and South Africa

“…Given my non-dichotomous understanding of change, I use a combination of three different methods: a quantitative assessment based on regulation density, as proposed by Knill et al (2010), the results of an expert survey, and qualitative answers from a number of semi-structured interviews. In South Africa, 35 interviews were conducted between January 20 and March 13, 2010, and 30 interviews in India between October 8 and November 25, 2010.…”

Factors Driving the Promotion of Hydroelectricity: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis

“…energy demand, spatial planning, or environmental protection (Carley, ; Yi & Feiock, ). Following this argumentation, the strength of policy instruments promoting hydroelectricity is conceptualized as follows: Knill, Schulze, and Tosun () suggest two dimensions that try to assess how such a policy mix is attuned: regulatory density and regulatory intensity. Density measures the amount of regulatory activity usually operationalized by counting the number of policy instruments employed in a specific policy field.…”