Transcript Winegen - GE3LS Component

Implementing Complex Policy Initiatives:
Layering, Drift, Conversion and Policy Design as Alternative
Outcomes of System Reform Efforts in Transition
Management
Socio-Technical System Workshop Paper
Potsdam, September 21, 2007
M. Howlett,
Institute for Governance Research (IGS)
Department of Political Science
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6
[email protected]
1
Overall Objectives
•
Overview: Workshop and Paper Aims
– Workshop Proposal: “Is it politically possible to induce and shape
sustainable socio-technical transitions, and, if so, how? (and) What
kind of governance seems most appropriate for the innovation of
sustainable production-consumption decisions? (and) How could
adequate forms of governance be developed and introduced? (p.1)”
– This paper addresses several definitional and other conceptual
questions related to transition management such as: how do policy
studies typically understand socio-economic transformations and the
role played in them by governments? What is involved in transition
management from a governance perspective? And what can policy
studies contribute to the understanding of these phenomena?
2
Four Key Questions in the Analysis of Socio-Technical
Transition Management from a Policy Perspective
•
1. What is a socio-technical system and how have policy studies dealt
with them in the past?
•
2. How difficult is it to change socio-technical systems through
government action?
•
3. What are the governance arrangements and policy tools available for
transition management?
•
4. What are the likely outcomes of transition management activities
utilizing these policy tools and governance strategies?
3
Question #1 - What is a socio-technical system and how
have policy studies dealt with them in the past?
•
Socio-technical systems are large-scale arrangements of actors,
institutions, ideas and practices that govern how human societies
generate wealth and re-produce themselves:
– created out of traditional means and relations of production which
are altered by various forms of production-related innovations
– useful to look at such processes as a system or network
•
broader than just technological invention and is dependent on a host of
socio-economic factors
– the nature and operation of relevant institutions that pursue
innovation
– the economic and social incentives that encourage or discourage
innovation
– the capacity for diffusion of knowledge and innovation
4
Question #1 - What is a socio-technical system and how
have policy studies dealt with them in the past?
•
Faults in socio-technical systems – such as weak incentives for
innovation, social and economic instability, bad infrastructure and
inadequate human capital - can reduce the capacity of the system to
develop and apply knowledge innovatively.
•
This holds out the promise that policies can also guide innovation and
socio-technical system orientations and components towards new ends,
such as “sustainability” by fostering changes in innovation system
behaviour (such as new ‘green’ research or technical targets).
– Transition management is based on the notion that governments
should be able to ‘steer’, ‘plan’ or ‘guide’ the direction of sociotechnical transformation by varying or manipulating system
parameters through the astute use of policy tools.
5
Question #1 - What is a socio-technical system and how
have policy studies dealt with them in the past?
•
Contribution of Policy Studies
•
Socio-technical systems seen as existing at the outermost layer of a
funnel of causality; a model of policy determinants popularized in the
1970s in which a set of independent variables affecting policy outcomes
exist within a `nested' relationship (Hofferbert 1974).
– Socio-technical systems seen as the ‘largest’ or most indirect
background condition or independent variable affecting government
policy-making, and not as a dependent variable affected by policy
activity.
•
Socio-technical conditions thus viewed as worthy of some attention but
not detailed treatment, because in most cases they can be considered
‘a given’ or ‘constant’, only creating a constraint and opportunity
structure for more proximate variables such as political ideas and power
and decision-making behaviour.
6
Funnel of Causality
Decisional
Attributes
Institutions
Ideas
Resources
Socio-Technical
Environment
Question #1 - What is a socio-technical system and how
have policy studies dealt with them in the past?
P OLICY
7
Question #1 - What is a socio-technical system and how
have policy studies dealt with them in the past?
•
Socio-Technical Systems can also be seen as a dependent variable
– Indirect and Direct Effects of Policy on Socio-technical systems
• (1) Indirect effects are diffused through other intervening
variables, (leading to suggestions for ‘niche management’
strategies for socio-technical system transformation); and
• (2) More direct transition management efforts aimed specifically
at large-scale, system-wide, change and targeted at specific
aspects of the structure and operation of an existing sociotechnical system.
8
Question #1 - What is a socio-technical system and how
have policy studies dealt with them in the past?
9
Question # 2 - How difficult is it to change socio-technical
systems through government action?
•
Socio-technical systems are self-reinforcing and have difficult-to-alter trajectories
•
Trajectories are ‘path dependent’ in the sense that initial decisions affect later
ones and hence later outcomes so that the sequencing of events is critical and
innovations, for good or bad, once in place are difficult to change (Pierson 2000;
Greener 2002; Howlett and Rayner 2006).
•
Change can be thought of as linear/evolutionary and only subject to indirect
government action or as tending to occurs in an irregular, non-linear or
‘punctuated equilibrium’ fashion and subject to direct government policy activity
(Berkhout, 2002).
10
Question # 2 - How difficult is it to change socio-technical
systems through government action?
•
With direct action, governments must carefully calibrate their actions
against their assessment of the ‘stage’ at which a trajectory may be.
– The role of government is different in each phase of the transition
process. In the preparation phase it must play the catalyst and
director… in the take-off phase, other actors must be mobilized in
the direction of the transition objective. Here and in the acceleration
phase, the government has to stimulate learning processes about
possible solutions…In the stabilization phase the guidance is mainly
oriented towards embedding, to prevent or contain backlashes and
other negative effects: so a role as controller and consolidator
(Rotman, Kemp and van Asselt (2001) p. 26)
11
Question # 2 - How difficult is it to change socio-technical
systems through government action?
•
There are four principles types of transformation (Smith, Stirling and Berkhout
(2005):
– ‘endogenous renewal” - existing regime members make conscious efforts to
adapt based on a common perception of external threats to existing
systems;
– “re-orientation of trajectories” - clearly defined internal or external shocks
lead to unco-ordinated responses;
– ‘emergent transformation” - poorly understood external processes promote
long-term change and responses are unco-ordinated and poorly informed;
and
– “purposive transitions” - governments and key actors develop and push
forward new technologies and related changes in existing socio-technical
systems in the absence of common perceptions of threats or opportunities
arising from new developments and innovations (pp. 1500-1502).
12
Question # 2 - How difficult is it to change socio-technical
systems through government action?
• The careful planning and calibration of government activities
requires a great deal of capacity and expertise on the part of a
government, which it may not have in great supply.
– Governments must have a reasonably high level of policy
analytical capacity in order to perform its tasks in the proper
order and sequence and develop medium and long-term
projections, proposals for, and evaluations of, future
government activities and not simply react to short-term
political, economic or ecological challenges and imperatives
occurring in their policy environments (Fellegi 1996,
Singleton 2001, Anderson 1996, Bakvis 2000).
13
Question #3 - What are the governance arrangements and
policy tools available for transition management?
• In its broadest sense, “governance” is a term used to describe
the mode of government coordination exercised by state actors
in their effort to solve familiar problems of collective action
inherent to government and governing.
• ‘Governance’ is thus all about establishing, promoting and
supporting a specific type of relationship between governmental
and non-governmental actors in the governing process.
• Several common types of
arrangements exist (Considine)
governance
strategies
or
14
Question #3 - What are the governance arrangements and
policy tools available for transition management?
Mode of
Governance
•
Central Focus of
Governance Activity
Form of State
Control of
Governance
Relationships
Overall
Governance Aim
Prime Service
Delivery
Mechanism
Key
Procedural Tool for
Policy
Implementation
Legal
Governance
Legality - Promotion
of law and order in
social relationships
Legislation,
Law and Rules
Legitimacy
Voluntary
Compliance
Rights
Property, Civil,
Human
Courts and Litigation
Corporate
Governance
Management - of
Major
Organized
Social Actors
Plans
Controlled
and
Balanced Rates
of
Socioeconomic
Development
Targets
Operational
Objectives
-
Specialized
and
Privileged Advisory
Committees
Market
Governance
Competition
Promotion of Small
and Medium sized
Enterprises
Contracts and
Regulations
Resource/Cost
Efficiency
and
Control
Prices
Controlling for
Externalities,
Supply
and
Demand
Regulatory Boards,
Tribunals
and
Commissions
Network
Governance
RelationshipsPromotion of Interactor organizational
Activity
Collaboration
Co-Optation
of
Dissent and SelfOrganization
of
Social Actors
Networks
of
Governmental,
and
NonGovernmental
Organizations
Subsides
and
Expenditures
on
Network Brokerage
Activities
-
15
Question #3 - What are the governance arrangements and
policy tools available for transition management?
•
The types of governance strategies most suited to ‘direct’ socio-technical
transformation are ‘corporate’ and ‘market’ since co-operation of affected parties
is required for such action.
•
Transition managers can affect governance goal-setting through the use of
‘procedural’ policy tools – such as provision of information to, the extension of
funding to, and the appointment to advisory boards and commissions of
members of interest groups and organizations supportive of sustainability, or the
re-organization of government agencies and departments to emphasize particular
sustainability goals or orientations
General Purpose
Instrum ent Use
Procedural
of
Nodality
Principal Governing
Resource Used
Authority
Treasure
Information
provision/
withdrawal
Treaties
Advisory com mittees/
com missions
Interest
funding/
creation
Organization
group
Conference
Com missions of Inquiry
Governm ent
Reorganizations
16
Question #3 - What are the governance arrangements and
policy tools available for transition management?
• Other tools are also needed. Means-oriented policy components
(“instruments”, “mechanisms” and “calibrations”), affect the
implementation of governance goals, objectives and settings “onthe-ground” and are accomplished through the use of traditional
‘substantive tools’ which focus on the manner in which goods
and services are produced and distributed in society.
Principal
Governing
Resource Used
General Purpose
Instrum ent Use
Substantive
of
Nodality
Authority
Treasure
Organization
Advice
Training
Reporting
Registration
Regulation
Self-Regulation
Licences
Census-taki ng
Grants
User Charges
Loans
Tax Credits
Polling
Administration
Public Enterprises
Policing
Consultants
Record-Keeping
17
Question #3 - What are the governance arrangements and
policy tools available for transition management?
•
Ultimately a policy arrangement or mix is composed of many parts that must be
integrated (I.e. co-ordinated and coherent)
Policy Content
Policy
Ends or
Aims
High Level Abstraction
Programme
Operationalization
GOALS
What General Types of
Ideas Govern Policy
Development?
OBJECTIVES
What Does Policy Formally
Aim to Address?
(e.g. environmental
protection, economic
development)
Policy
Focus
Policy
Means
or Tools
INSTRUMENT LOGIC
What General Norms
Guide Implementation
Preferences?
(e.g. preferences for the
use
of
coercive
instruments,
or
moral
suasion)
Level
(e.g. saving wilderness or
species habitat, increasing
harvesting levels to create
processing jobs)
MECHANISMS
What Specific Types of
Instruments are Utilized?
(e.g. the use of different tools
such as tax incentives, or
public enterprises)
Specific On-the-Ground Measures
SETTINGS
What are the Specific
On-the-ground Requirements of
Policy
(e.g. considerations about the
optimal size of designated streambed riparian zones, or sustainable
levels of harvesting)
CALIBRATIONS
What are the Specific
Ways in Which the
Instrument is used?
(e.g. designations of higher levels of
subsidies, the use of mandatory vs
voluntary regulatory guidelines or
18
standards)
QUESTION #4 - What are the Likely Outcomes of Transition
Management Utilizing these Policy Tools and Governance Strategies?
•
Four common Outcomes of Efforts to Integrate Governance Arrangements
– Layering is a process whereby new goals and instruments are simply added
to and existing regime without abandoning previous ones, typically leading to
both incoherence amongst the goals and inconsistency with respect to
instruments used.
– Drift occurs when the goals of the policy change without changing the
instruments used to implement them, which then can become inconsistent
with the new goals and most likely ineffective in achieving them (Tornvlied
and Akkerman 2004).
– Conversion involves changes in instrument mixes while holding goals
constant. If the goals are inconsistent, then changes in policy tools may
reduce levels of implementation conflicts or enhance them, but are unlikely
to succeed in matching means and ends of policy.
– Design occurs when there is a conscious effort made to create or
fundamentally re-structure policies so that they are consistent and coherent
in terms of their goals and means orientations (Eliadis, Hill and Howlett 2004;
Gunningham and Sinclair 1999).
19
QUESTION #4 - What are the Likely Outcomes of Transition
Management Utilizing these Policy Tools and Governance Strategies?
Regime
Goals
•
•
•
Coherent
Incoherent
Regime Instruments
Consistent
Design
Drift
Inconsistent
Conversion
Layering
The existing evidence shows that many existing policy regimes or mixes
have developed haphazardly through processes of policy layering, or
repeated bouts of policy conversion or policy drift, in which new tools and
objectives have been piled on top of older ones, creating a palimpsest-like
mixture of inconsistent and incoherent policy elements.
Recognizing the drawbacks of layering, conversion and drift, policy makers
and critics have increasingly turning to the promotion of complex policy
mixes that have been designed, rather than incrementally developed
(Meijers 2004; Briassoulis 2005; Meijers and Stead 2004).
The explicit goal of these new designs is optimization and the avoidance of
contradictory or conflicting mixes of policy tools (Gunningham et al 1998,
Gunningham and Sinclair 1999).
20
QUESTION #4 - What are the Likely Outcomes of Transition
Management Utilizing these Policy Tools and Governance Strategies?
•
Notions of ‘smart’ or ‘optimal’ policy design (Gunningham, Grabosky and Sinclair 1998;
Gunningham and Sinclair 1999; Eliadis, Hill and Howlett 2005) emphasize:
– 1.The importance of designing policies that employ a mix of policy instruments
carefully chosen to create positive interactions with each other.
– 2.The importance of considering the full range of policy instruments when
designing the mix.
– 3.The increased use of “alternative” tools such as, various forms of self-regulation
by industry, and policies that can employ commercial and non-commercial third
parties to achieve compliance, such as suppliers, customers and a growing cast
of auditors and certifiers.
– 4.Finally, the importance of the search for new network-appropriate procedural
policy instruments, and various techniques of network management (Howlett and
Rayner 2004).
21
QUESTION #4 - What are the Likely Outcomes of Transition
Management Utilizing these Policy Tools and Governance Strategies?
• There is no guarantee, however, that an optimal policy mix will result
from a (re)design effort - such as transition management. This would
only occur if a government had enough capacity to be able to adopt a
governance strategy and set of policy tools likely to lead to a
sustainable socio-technical transition and avoid the pitfalls of policy
layering while so doing.
22
Conclusions
• Q1. What is a socio-technical system and how have policy
studies dealt with them in the past?
– A1. Socio-technical systems are large-scale arrangements of
actors, institutions, ideas and practices that govern how
human societies generate wealth and re-produce themselves
(Dosi et al, 1988). They are created out of traditional means
and relations of production which are altered by various
forms of production-related innovations. These systems have
been seen as both the subject and object of policy activity,
serving as a multiply-mediated ‘objective’ constraint on policy
activity and as a subject both of an indirect and difficult-tocontrol process of government influence filtered through
many intervening steps and variables, and also as a
candidate for more direct government manipulation.
23
Conclusions
• Q2. How difficult is it to change socio-technical systems through
government action?
– A2. Socio-technical systems are path dependent and very
difficult to change through government action (transition
management). The need to carefully calibrate government
actions with the degree to which a trajectory is
institutionalized and with the attitude and behaviour of other
actors to the planned transformation, in the context of
whether or not changes are clearly recognized and/or ‘selfpropelled’, raises the issue of the policy analytical capacity of
the ‘transforming’ government to plan and operate the
specific types of policy tools it has at its disposal to
implement change. The careful planning and calibration of
government activities requires a great deal of capacity and
expertise on the part of a government, which it may not have
24
in great supply.
Conclusions
• Q3. What are the governance arrangements and policy tools
available for transition management?
– A3. Transition management involves the use of multiple tools
in policy instrument mixes established to operationalize a
particular mode of governance or governance strategy. There
is a set of eight basic types of instruments from which any
policy mix is constructed; setting out the range of options
which transition managers have at their disposal in
attempting to design or alter an existing socio-technical
paradigm. However, these tools are embedded in
governance strategies and the types of strategies best suited
to ‘purposive transitions’ in socio-technical systems are
market and corporatist ones.
25
Conclusions
•
Q4. What are the likely outcomes of transition management utilizing
these policy tools and Governance Strategies?
– A4. Overall, this analysis suggests that the likely result of
government transition management efforts is a less than perfectly
co-ordinated response to short-term challenges, rather than a longterm effort at optimal planning (Lee and Yoo, 2007). In such a
context, the most likely outcome of transition management efforts is
policy layering or policy drift/conversion, as events and occurrence
overtake sustainability strategies and lead to a disjuncture between
policy goals and means. Only when planning occurs in high capacity
governments, is it likely to result in effective integrated design.
26