Reap what you sow: implementing agencies as strategic actors in policy feedback dynamics

Abstract

Government agencies responsible for policy implementation have expertise on policy practicability, efficiency and effectiveness, and knowledge which is provided to policymakers as feedback. However, we know very little about the feedback dynamics in which implementing agencies provide different types of feedback with the intention that it is used by policymakers, and the strategic decisions underlying these dynamics. This article connects the literature on policy feedback and knowledge use to develop a typology of implementation feedback which can account for these strategic actions. While existing distinctions between positive and negative feedback lead to confusion when applied to implementation feedback, our typology moves beyond this confusion, by classifying implementation feedback on the basis of two dimensions: preferences of implementing agencies and whether feedback is in response an agenda for change, or existing policy instruments. To illustrate the typology, we look at implementation feedback surrounding the post-2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. We find that implementing agencies engage predominantly in problem-solving and mitigating types of implementation feedback, which are the types of feedback most likely to be used instrumentally by policymakers. Moreover, role perception of implementing agencies limits feedback focused on agenda removal, which is more politically sensitive and contested. These insights are important for our understanding of policy feedback on the level of policy instruments and settings. Moreover, future research can use this typology to structure feedback by other actors.

Governance tools for urban food system policy innovations in the Milano Urban Food Policy Pact

“…Although, looking at formal structures for involving multiple stakeholders evidence in this direction is lacking. This may imply that successful stakeholder engagements can still occur through informal venues (see, for example, Polman and Alons, 2021). Moreover, stakeholder involvement may still play a role in enabling high innovativeness; however, our findings indicate that in combination with the investigated governance tools this cannot offer a sufficient explanation.…”

The persuasive role of the past: Policy feedback and citizens' acceptance of information communication technologies during the COVID‐19 pandemic in China

“…Therefore, our findings could demonstrate that the resource effect of e‐governance infrastructure is counteracted by individuals' privacy concerns regarding the health QR code, resulting in a non‐significant relationship with their acceptance of this technology. In addition, recent studies have shown that the feedback of a policy goes beyond the distinction between positive and negative (Daugbjerg & Kay, 2020 ; Polman & Alons, 2021 ), meaning that the ultimate feedback may contain conflicting formation paths. We believe the inconsistent results regarding the resource effect and interpretive effect demonstrate the complexity of the overall policy feedback effect.…”

“…Historical institutionalist scholars have long suggested that individuals' opinions and behaviors are shaped by institutions (Pierson, 1993 ; Skocpol, 1992 ; Steinmo et al, 1992 ). Within policy science, the policy feedback literature views past policies as “causes” and has elaborated upon the effects and mechanisms through which public policies shape citizens' behavior in the policy process (e.g., Fernández & Jaime‐Castillo, 2013 ; Polman & Alons, 2021 ; Schmid et al, 2020 ). Following this line of thought, the present study aims to explore the roles of past policies in the formulation of citizens' acceptance of ICTs.…”

Strategic Planning within Ministries in Iceland: Lessons and Development

“…Johanson (2009), for instance, explores various aspects of strategizing, placing emphasis on the role of public agencies in strategic planning. Similarly, Polman and Alons (2021) investigate public agencies responsible for policy implementation, aligning more closely with the focus of this study, development of strategy at a higher level (European Commission), with the implementation occurring at a lower level of government. Developing a strategy for a subject differs significantly from a unit strategy, further complicated by the division between formulators and implementers, opening for example the door to a principal-agent problem.…”