Although policy transfer has become increasingly established empirically as an actual process (Pierson 2003), as a concept it is difficult to study. The greatest obstacle for the researcher is the problem of counterfactuals whereby it is assumed that because there is transnational similarity in a policy area, a transfer of policy has actually taken place (Bennett 1991; Jones and Newburn 2002). The difficulty is to demonstrate that developments in politics would not have occurred in any case, which ultimately is impossible to do (Jones and Newburn 2002). Consequently, the different categories of transfer are difficult to assign with any degree of certainty in cases other than a direct copying of a policy.
The second major problem in trying to identify policy transfer addresses the opposite situation, namely the conclusion that since two countries have different policies, no policy transfer has taken place between them. However, in such cases, although there is no evident change in behaviour or adoption of a programme, policy transfer can have taken place if one of the countries has drawn negative lessons from examining another’s policy (Newmark 2002).
Both of these problems are reinforced by the fact that learning is usually of a limited and iterative nature so that it is often difficult to establish any direction of transfer (Pierson 2003), especially due to the sheer number of items that can be transferred and routes by which this can take place:
fPJolicy transfer does not require anything more than a vacation trip, a stroll along the internet, discussion at a conference, or even ideas gained through the interactions of a given policy network' (Dolowitz 2003, p
102).
As Blanck pointed out when looking specifically at the influence of the US on the UK, the people involved in policy transfer often do not realize that transfer has taken place: ‘America does change people... hut in ways so subtle that it is hard to describe'
(Blanck quoted by Smith, Baston et al. 2002, p 456).
The problems with the existing research literature in the area of policy transfer are several: the fact that it is undertheorised; that it is dominated by case studies that do not tell us enough about the circumstances in which policy transfer is likely to arise, who is likely to initiate it and for which reasons; the form policy transfer is likely to take; and the chances of it being successful. Additionally, a clear methodology for assessing the extent and shape of transfer is missing. Lots of the provided evidence is either anecdotal, circumstantial, or both (Pierson 2003).
In order to address these difficulties, it has been pointed out that it is important to take an interdisciplinary approach when looking at the transfer of policies (Radaelli 2000; Smith, Baston et al. 2002). Of special importance seems to be network analysis (Stone 2000; Stone 2000b), which brings us back to the first area of literature outlined in this chapter. Applying a policy network perspective to this field assists in revealing the
underlying dynamics of the processes involved and their impact on different policy sectors (Howlett and Ramesh 2002).
Summary
This chapter has reviewed the literature on the three key concepts that characterise the modern policy process: policy networks, evidence-based policy making and policy transfer. These concepts have had a long history and have featured prominently within political and academic discourses at various points in the past. After a long period of neglect, these concepts have only started to re-emerge as defining traits of policy making again since the early 1990s.
Despite a multitude of terminologies four key groups of policy networks can be identified: iron triangles, issue networks, policy communities and advopacy coalitions. When placing these concepts on a continuum, the notion of iron triangles is the most restrictive, consisting of only three groups of actors - interest groups, committees and an executive agency - while issue networks are the broadest, representing a more diffuse network of actors, whose composition changes significantly over time and from issue to issue, while both policy communities and advocacy coalitions are placed in between.
When looking at the use of evidence in the policy process several questions arise. First of all, what constitutes evidence, most importantly good evidence, and how do policymakers use evidence in the policy process? While three key .categories of research utilisation models have emerged - instrumental, conceptual and strategic use of knowledge - the nature of evidence is still contested. In light of the fact that too stringent or too lose a definition is obstructive it was decided to follow Davies, Nutley et al (2000b) and to opt for a more fluid definition considering evidence as a
‘‘systematic investigation towards increasing the sum of knowledge'.
Similar to policy networks, within the field of policy transfer a multitude of competing terms and definitions is evident. However, it is possible to identify three key concepts: policy diffusion - any pattern of successive adoptions of policy developments; policy convergence - the emergence of similar policies in different
countries with or without any connection between them; and policy transfer - the process through which knowledge about developments in one area or time is used in another one.
Following on from this exploration of the literature, the next chapter considers the research questions and methodology used in order to examine the three concepts of policy networks, evidence and policy transfer in relation to the case of Sarah Payne and the British debate about sex offender community notification.
Chapter 3
Research Questions and Methodology
fTJhe truth of what we observe lies less in things themselves, than in the mood of the observer ’ (Andrew Motion, The Invention of Dr Cake, p 88)
Within academia, it is frequently argued that the basic beliefs a researcher has about the world, also known as paradigm or worldview, will influence, if not determine, the way he or she sets out to conduct the research and thereby the chosen methodology (Hussey and Hussey 1997; Creswell 1998; Bowling 1997). Building on the work of Guba and Lincoln, Creswell (1998) argues that such a researcher’s paradigm consists of five categories of philosophical assumptions: ontological, epistemological, axiological, rhetorical and methodological. Ontological assumptions address the nature of reality; epistemological, the relationship between the researcher and that which is being researched; axiological, the question of values; and rhetorical and methodological, the questions relating to what makes up the language of research and what constitutes the precise nature of the research process.
Relating to these assumptions, two main paradigms have emerged within the social sciences. First of all, there is the ‘positivistic’ paradigm, also known as the ‘quantitative’, ‘scientific’ or ‘traditionalist’ paradigm. Secondly, there is the ‘phenomenological’ paradigm, which is also referred to as the ‘qualitative’, ‘subjectivist’ or ‘interpretivist’ one (Hussey and Hussey 1997). The differences between these two paradigms in relation to the five philosophical categories are outlined in Table 3.1.