Link between both literatures

Once concluded the horizontal and vertical analysis of the key concepts proposed by the policy transfer and the benchmarking literatures, this section will elaborate on the nature and characteristics of the link that can be established between them. This step is not only undertaken to connect the nature and the steps specific to each of them, but mainly to:

1) Evaluate their potential as foundations of a framework for the analysis of policy transfer; and

2) Relate within a consistent approach the specifications and lessons obtained from each literature in view of the definition of such a framework.

It has been previously noted that both literatures may be understood as different approaches to the same “transfer problem”, with the view arising from the comparative politics being a “top-down” approach and the view arising from management science being a “bottom-up” approach. It has also been noted that learning and transfer are two cyclical steps present in the benchmarking sequences studied, which seems to suggest a relation between the literatures in terms of processes.

To further explore these potential links and others that may arise, the analysis has been focused in two areas – the concept and the process – and has differentiated four concepts related to the mentioned literatures: policy learning, policy transfer, benchmarking (policy-making tool) and benchmarking (management tool).

Building on the consulted literature, each concept has been defined for a number of categories included in each area, so to provide a one-sight view on their more relevant characteristics (Table 14).

Table 14: Comparison between benchmarking and policy transfer literatures

Benchmarking Policy learning Policy transfer Policy-making

tool

Management tool 1) Concept

Sphere Political Political Political Management

Relation to Object Policies, programs Policies, administrative

arrangements, institutions Scope Spatial / temporal Spatial / temporal Spatial Spatial Character Voluntary;

1) Definition Problem driven Several causes (coercion, international pressures,

5) Action Not specified Development of policies, administrative

Logically, this approach builds on an implicit interpretation of the concepts at the time of selecting a given definition or approach stated in the consulted literature.

The four notions examined are related to the importation of elements from external entities. This common interest bridges both literatures at the conceptual level and makes them relevant for the definition of a transfer framework. However, any insight digging further in this common statement will find substantial differences across them.

Benchmarking (management) is clearly outside of the political sphere. Therefore it may provide an adequate framework to import elements that fall within the management sphere, but it seems less useful to treat policies. Benchmarking (policy-making), policy learning and policy transfer are inside the policy sphere, thus related to the policy-making process. They all interact with the decisions involved in policy-policy-making, either acting as a source of new ideas (particularly policy learning) or being part of the evaluation, selection or implementation steps of policy. However, their contributions are different in focus: the policy learning approach stresses on the conditions under which the policy operates, the policy transfer approach on the process by which it moves and the benchmarking approach on the policy elements responsible for excellence.

All the four notions are interested in the spatial dimension of the problem (i.e. importer elements from other places), but the policy learning and policy transfer concepts encompass it and also take into account the temporal dimension (i.e. importing elements from past experiences). As regards their “character”, policy learning and benchmarking (policy-making and management) are mainly conceived as voluntary processes driven by rationality (bounded or not), while the policy transfer concept seems able to apply as well to non-rational or / and compulsory processes.

When the analysis is performed on the processes proposed by the literatures, it shows that they share five stages: definition, selection, learning, adapting and action. There are however differences in the approach and contents of every step depending on the concept studied.

Benchmarking (policy-making and management) and policy transfer are dependent upon the action stage, as it is necessary for studying the transfer process or to effectively drive improvements in the importer entity. Policy learning is less interested on this stage, as it concentrates on the conditions of the transfer and treats action as a kind of scenario for prospective evaluation. Similarly, the focus of policy transfer on the transfer process itself diminishes its interest in the learning stage, while it is relevant for the others.

The definition and selection stages seem to be more defined in benchmarking (policy-making and management) as a result of a univocal criterion and method for selecting

external experiences (excellence and evaluation of indicators). Policy transfer and policy learning follow a less systematic approach, which on the other side may be more suitable for treating the complexity of policy-making.

The approach to the learning stage reflects variations among the four concepts, suggesting fundamental differences in the construction of models able to understand and work with reality. Benchmarking (policy-making and management) models the external experience in terms of processes and factors contributing to excellence and learns from them only in the measure that they can add value to the importer entity. Policy learning models the external experience in terms of conditions and causal relations between actions and effects. The learning process is comprehensive and is already interested in the limits and potential applications of the lessons drawn. Policy transfer understands the external experience in its core elements, those which are distinctive, in order to establish their transferability.

Nonetheless, it is probably at the adaptation stage where the differences in definition among the concepts are the more visible, ranging from a clear-cut specification in the case of benchmarking (management) to an undefined prospective evaluation in the case of policy learning. In this case the greater sharpness found in benchmarking (management) can be explained as a result of the management environment, which allows a greater power for straightforward implementation, which is not the case in the political sphere, where debate and agreement are a requirement.

From these evidences it arises that there are affinities between both literatures as regards the concepts and processes they propose for the search and application of lessons obtained from external experience. However, it is important to distinguish their scope of application according to three axes.

The first one is the sphere where the transfer question lies. Here we should distinguish between the management and policy-making spheres, though they are not separated by a clear-cut and impermeable boundary between them⁵¹. The management sphere is clearly within the scope benchmarking literature and hardly admits any consideration from the policy transfer and learning literatures.

Once in the policy-making sphere, the scope for each literature will be determined by the policy definition dimension and the complexity dimension. The policy definition dimension refers to the point of the political process at which the transfer problem has arisen. It may be understood as a continuum going from policy to practice. The

51 Wyatt (2002, p.4) states this boundary in the following terms: “we can differentiate in broad terms between, on the one hand, policy making which involves the exercise of decision-making powers by politicians who are electorally accountable for their acts, and on the other hand managerial decisions by those with delegated responsibility for the operation of public services”.

complexity dimension makes reference to the specific complication of the transfer problem. It may be understood in terms of the number of levels, actors and interactions involved, the relevance of the specific policy field tackled and the uncertainty present in the decision-making system.

According to these two dimensions, the relation between both literatures in the policy-making sphere can be described as represented in Fig. 49. The scope of benchmarking literature is preferently located in well-defined and lowly complex steps of policy, while the scope of the policy transfer literature is complementary⁵². However, the boundaries between them are not clearly defined, as represented by the dashed interface.

Fig. 49: Conceptual diagram relating policy transfer and benchmarking literatures in the policy-making sphere

Source: own elaboration

This proposition supports the view of the comparative politics being a “top-down”

approach and the view arising from management science being a “bottom-up” approach.

This view is in harmony with the development of the benchmarking concept, eminently practical, which reached the policy sphere only after succeeding in the private and public sectors as a management tool.

52 This approach, somehow places in a second level the specific focus of each literature (centered in conditions and transfer processes in the policy transfer literature and related to the search of excellence in the benchmarking literature). This decision has been taken in order to better focus on the methodological aspects of the transfer problem, in view of the objective set for this thesis.

Policy learning /