Third Generation Policy Diffusion Studies and the Analysis of Policy Mixes: Two Steps Forward and One Step Back?

Abstract Three features of Gilardi and Meseguer's recent announcement of the start of a “third generation” of diffusion research in Europe require evaluation. First, conceptualization of policy diffusion is considered a task completed by the first two “generations”. Second, the work of the second generation is located against the background of globalization, democratization and the trend towards the adoption of market instruments. And, third, methodological sophistication is equated with the development of large-n empirical methodologies. Each of these features is discussed in turn. We argue that diffusion studies remain seriously hindered by a lack of clarity about the dependent variable under examination; second, that the peculiar interest of the second generation in measuring the impact of large scale diffusion mechanisms such as democratization, globalization and market orientation has led to an unfortunate focus on the adoption of particular instruments and “settings” as the sole indicators of diffusion; and third, that when we expand “what” is being diffused to include policy goals and objectives, advancing beyond the second generation requires a more plural methodological framework sensitive to context, including both the thick descriptions and the comparative small-n case studies which were a feature of earlier “first” and “second” generation studies. These points are illustrated with contemporary examples involving the development and diffusion of new “integrated” and “coherent” mixes of regulatory and market instruments in the form of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe.