A Conceptual Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Policy Change: Measurement, Explanation and Strategies of Policy Dismantling

AbstractThe analysis of policy change has so far concentrated on the assessment and explanation of different degrees of change. The distinctions between radical versus incremental, path-breaking versus path-dependent or self-reinforcing versus reactive sequences have dominated the debate while the precise direction of policy change has rarely been taken into account. This article therefore concentrates on the extent to which policy change implies a "reduction", "decrease" or "diminution" of existing policy arrangements. It conceives of this direction of policy change as "policy dismantling". In developing analytical tools to identify and explain policy dismantling, the article aims to elucidate some of the causes, conditions and strategies of policy dismantling and to establish policy dismantling as a distinct category of policy change.Keywords: policy changepolicy dismantlingpolicy terminationpolicy densitypolicy intensitypolicy outputpolitical dismantling strategies AcknowledgementsThe article is based on joint research conducted in the context of the project CONSENSUS (Confronting Social and Environmental Sustainability with Economic Pressure: Balancing Trade-offs by Policy Dismantling or Policy Expansion?) that has been financed within the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission. Research funding is gratefully acknowledged. We are also grateful to the colleagues and researchers that have been involved in this project. The ideas and concepts presented in this article have been developed in intensive cooperation with the research team.Notes1. This argument closely follows Bauer (Citation2006) and Jordan et al. (Citation2012).2. This argument has been developed in various publications related to the CONSENSUS project. See, for instance, Knill et al. (Citation2010, Citation2012), Bauer and Knill (Citation2012), and Jordan et al. (Citation2012).3. If market-based instruments are abolished and new command and control instruments are introduced, then the policy may become stricter as a whole. Therefore, in order to follow our analytical framework, additional assumptions are sometimes needed for the conclusion that "reduction of policy instruments" is equal to policy dismantling.4. The data were collected as part of the project "Confronting Social and Environmental Sustainability with Economic Pressure: Balancing Trade-offs by Policy Dismantling? (CONSENSUS)", which has been financed under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission. For further information on the project and the data collection, see http://www.fp7-consensus.eu.5. Like Vis and van Kersbergen (Citation2007), this section draws on prospect theory. Engaging in a wholesale review of prospect theory goes beyond our analytical scope, but would in our eyes be a fruitful path to follow.Additional informationNotes on contributorsMichael W. BauerMichael W. Bauer is Jean Monnet Professor and holds the chair of Comparative Public Administration and Policy Analysis at the German University of Administrative Sciences in Speyer. He is interested in multilevel governance, public administration at the European, the national and the regional level and in the comparative analysis of policy-making.Christoph KnillChristoph Knill is Professor of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of Munich. His main research interests include comparative public policy and public administration, with a focus on European Union policy-making, environmental policy, higher education, moral regulation as well international public administration.