Theorizing policy diffusion: from a patchy set of mechanisms to a paradigmatic typology

Abstract

In recent decades, we have witnessed the diffusion of policy diffusion studies across many sub-disciplines of political science. Four mechanisms of policy diffusion-learning, competition, emulation and coercion-have become widely accepted as explanations for how policymaking processes and policy outcomes in one polity influence those in other polities. After pointing to major shortcomings of this inductively gained set of mechanisms, we present a theoretically more coherent typology that draws on key concepts from International Relations and Policy Studies. The four mechanisms we lay down consider rationalist and social constructivist approaches equally and they incorporate symmetric and asymmetric constellations. By further distinguishing between processes confined to one policy field and those arising from links across policy fields, we present a typology of eight theoretically consistent pathways of policy diffusion. Our framework enables the aggregation of knowledge and contributes to conceptual coherence in multi-methods research.

Contagious Policies? Studying National Responses to a Global Pandemic in Europe

“…The fact that restrictions on internal mobility were reduced once infection rates fell while cross-border movement remained limited in most countries, for instance, could be perceived as an indication that border closures resemble symbolic policies or are driven by foreign policy considerations rather than by efficacy concerns (see Donz e 2020). Based on the typological theory of policy diffusion by Blatter et al (2021), researchers could further investigate the mechanisms and pathways of policy diffusion by studying whether decision-makers were driven by interests, ideology or the will to be recognized as a responsible or responsive problem-solver in the domestic and international arena. Yet, since the effectiveness of policies could not be sufficiently evaluated during the first wave of the pandemic, the policy responses could also be studied through the lens of norm emergence and cascade (see e.g.…”

The diffusion of climate change adaptation policy

“…Their members are held together by “deep core beliefs” such as their left–right orientation, forming a potentially relevant network through which policies can diffuse. By contrast, advocacy coalitions or networks connecting different jurisdictions—whether transnational, national or subnational—share “policy core beliefs” such as common understandings of policy problems and appropriate solutions (policy instruments) and typically include different kinds of state and non‐state actors, for example NGOs and private businesses (Blatter et al, 2021, p. 14; Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Sabatier & Weible, 2007, pp. 194–195).…”

“…Interest‐driven policy diffusion assumes that governments make strategic policy choices based on their domestically or—as it is often the case for adaptation policy—locally derived self‐interests, and associates with two mechanisms: learning and competition (Blatter et al, 2021, p. 12). Learning is understood as the “updating of beliefs based on lived or witnessed experiences, analysis or social interaction” (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2013, p. 599).…”

“…The second type of motivation presumes that governments make policy decisions based on their established and expected rights and duties in so‐called asymmetric constellations (Blatter et al, 2021). The mechanisms linked with this motivation have been widely referred to as coercion .…”

“…are influenced by the policy choices in other jurisdictions. The sine qua non of policy diffusion is thus interdependent policy‐making; that is, jurisdictions have to observe each other and condition their policy choices accordingly, regardless of whether they eventually make their choices anticipatorily, simultaneously, or subsequently (Berry & Berry, 2018 p. 256; Blatter et al, 2021, p. 2; Braun & Gilardi, 2006, p. 304; Graham et al, 2013, p. 675; Maggetti & Gilardi, 2016, p. 1; Simmons et al, 2006, p. 787) 1…”