Conceptual framework

Dolowitz states: “in order to use policy transfer as an explanatory variable, one also needs to understand and explain the process of transfer […]” by “[…] focusing on the questions which form the basis of the policy transfer framework” (Dolowitz et. al, 2000, p. 11). These objectives are further explored through questions developed in a framework based on existing literature and on the empirical studies (see Figure 3.1: Dolowitz and Marsh’s policy transfer framework).

The framework applied in this thesis is divided into two sections (see Figure 4.1: Policy transfer and post transfer learning framework).

Figure 4.1 Policy transfer and post transfer learning framework

* Grey font- areas not discussed or briefly discussed in the thesis

Source: Own rendition based on Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000;Evans and Davie,1999; Glasbergen (1996); Rose, 2005; Kem p and Weehuizen, 2005; Hayek, 1945 ; Dopfer et al, 2004; NREL, 2004

① WHY?

The first part of the framework explores the types of lessons China has been drawing from abroad and systematically organises the evidence of policy transfer by answering the “why”,

“what” “from where and who” questions. The second part of the framework explores “how”

China has applied policies from abroad in its post-transfer learning process at various policy levels.

Reiterating Dolowitz and Marsh’s frameworks described in Chapter 3, the questions provide a step-by-step approach to examining the policy transfer process: “What is policy transfer? Who transfers policy? Why is there policy transfer? What is transferred? […] From where are lessons drawn?” (Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996). These questions highlight the key factors of lesson drawing and policy transfer and can be revised to address the scope of this research:

Question 1: Why is China drawing lessons from abroad?

Question 2: What types of policy contents are transferred and what types of policy learning processes are involved?

Question 3: From which countries are the policies drawn from and who are the key actors in the policy transfer process?

Question 4: How are the lessons (knowledge) transferred?

Question 5: How are transferred policies implemented in China?

The five questions fall into three types of research categories: exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory questions (Yin, 2003). Exploratory questions consist of ‘what’ queries to investigate ideas, events, or phenomena. The purpose of exploratory questions is to develop a foundation of knowledge in order to engage in further detailed explanatory research rather than to test a theory. Descriptive questions such as “who” and “where” examines a phenomenon in greater detail when compared to exploratory questions by describing and investigating the significance of the characteristics studied. “How” and “why” questions are typical found in explanatory research. Explanatory research questions are developed from descriptive research but extend beyond a mere account and description of the subject under study and focuses on analysing and drawing relationships within a phenomenon (Thames Valley University, 2008).

A research study is unlikely to fall neatly into one particular research category; instead, a study may involve two or more types of research questions. In this thesis, the three varieties of research questions are applied to gain a clearer understanding of policy learning, transfer and post transfer learning in China’s RE policy framework. The above five questions are categorised into the respective typology:

Exploratory Questions:

Question 1: Why is China drawing lessons from abroad (or what is the rationale for drawing lessons from abroad?)

Question 2: What types of policy contents are transferred and what types of policy learning processes are involved?

Descriptive Question:

Question 3: From which countries are the policies drawn from and who are the key actors in the policy transfer process?

Explanatory Question:

Question 4: How are the lessons transferred?

Mixed:

(explanatory &

descriptive)

Question 5: How are transferred policies implemented in China?

The first exploratory question helps to explain China’s rationale for drawing policy lessons. The question begins with a “why” but is not an explanatory question that requires descriptive research but is essentially asking: “what is the rationale” for policy transfer in China? But the wording “why policy transfer” is retained from Dolowitz and Marsh’s framework to maintain consistency of the broadly accepted language used in policy transfer. Identifying the drivers behind policy transfer builds a platform for further research in this thesis since the question frames the research. For instance, if China’s main objective for lesson drawing is to catch up with the global RE policy trends, coercive transfer would be considered since external forces impact policy decisions. On the other hand, voluntary policy transfer would be a central theme if there were active intentions for policy agents to draw lessons from abroad to help address similar issues at home.

The second question is also an exploratory query that helps identify the policy content drawn from abroad and the type of policy learning process. Policies drawn from abroad can be categorised into two forms: hard or soft transfer policies (as discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.5).

Hard transfer consists of specific policy goals, contents, instruments, and institutions while soft transfer policies involve more abstract concepts such as ideologies, attitudes and ideas (Dolowitz, 2000). As noted in Chapter 3, the empirical research primarily focuses on hard transfer, specifically policy instruments but this does not indicate that soft transfer is not relevant in the policy transfer process, as some ideas and attitudes towards RE are embedded along. This thesis does not discuss ideological discussions and attitudes separately but when relevant, soft transfer issues are briefly mentioned to provide context. Additionally the policy learning process can involve technical learning, which does not challenge existing objectives as well as conceptual learning, which can lead to a change in policy paradigms. Both technical and conceptual learning can involve hard or soft transfer elements (Glasbergen, 1996). Overall, answering the exploratory questions requires a retrospective examination of China’s RE framework, which begins the process of segregating policies formed by domestic experience and those adapted from aboard.

Question 3 is descriptive and identifies the origins where policies are drawn from and helps to provide a clearer sense of relationships formed between the two countries resulting in policy transfer. This discussion leads to the sub-question of identifying the key actors responsible in

the learning process. Policy transfer agents are responsible for the dissemination of knowledge and their involvement in the learning process leads to the next question of how these policies are transferred.

Question 4 provides an explanatory inquiry that examines how transferred policies are adapted in China. Answering this question requires providing evidence of how policy actors obtain knowledge from abroad and transfer selected policies from certain countries. For instance, policy actors can draw policy lessons through systematic studies, observations, interaction or experience (see Chapter 3, Figure 3.4: Learning mechanisms for obtaining knowledge).

Answering this question requires looking for the mediums in which policy transfer evidence are documented, such as in media, reports, conference meetings, government statements etc.

(Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000).

The last question is a mix of explanatory and descriptive elements that explore how transferred policies are applied in China’s policy levels. The descriptive component involves grouping the policies according to its policy function at the first and second policy level. Once the policy levels have been determined, the impact of policies from abroad is examined using the wind power sector as a case study. Answering the above questions requires a methodology where qualitative approaches supported by quantitative data within a case study research design.