Atelier PACTE-LET

The problem of Time in policy change: a dia-synchronic perspective of the book-mark

To understand policy change, the researcher needs to integrate the variable of time because policy change is the dynamic between policy in two different periods. Change and Time are thus consubstantial concepts. To observe policy dynamics, we look at policy histories and observe variations in policy elements as if policy was a self-defining object. The punctuated equilibrium and the path dependency models often used to understand policy movements, like their physical science counterparts, attempt just this feat of observing and analyzing an object in motion. But the problem of these and other similar diachronic perspectives in the social realm is that they are too often contingent and reliant on the subjective observations of specific participants. This problem is often ignored in long-term policy studies since as the period under study lengthens, the influence of the subject (participant-observer) appears to lessen and has less influence on the object (policy) which can thus appear to have a more autonomous movement. The paper suggests, however, that the disappearance of the subject constitutes a paradox in both the punctuated equilibrium and path dependency models and proposes a new approach to policy dynamics which combines the diachronic perspective with the synchronic stake: a "dia-synchronic perspective of the mark-page" which is better able to shed light on the actual conditions and motives of policy change. 

Lire l'intervention au format PDF.

Path Dependency and Punctuated Equilibrium as Generational Models of Policy Change: Evaluating Alternatives to the Homeostatic Orthodoxy in Policy Dynamics

Path Dependency and Punctuated Equilibrium as Generational Models of Policy Change: Evaluating Alternatives to the Homeostatic Orthodoxy in Policy Dynamics. 

History is a difficult subject for students of policy-making. Although most policy studiesfocus on changes which occur in government actions over time, the need to carefullyexamine the often implicit theories of history behind identified patterns of policydevelopment has only been recently recognized. Studies of policy change have advancedto the point where the basic contours and factors driving policy change are nowreasonably well identified and understood. While there is a great deal of empiricalevidence pointing to the prevalence of punctuated equilibrium processes in policydynamics, however, the reasons why such processes occur is less well understood. Thispaper addresses the conceptual challenges required to provide a solid grounding for theunderstanding and analysis of long-term policy dynamics focusing on the ideas of pathdependency and process sequencing as alternatives to the current 'homeostatic orthodoxy'.

Lire l'intervention au format PDF.

Past and Present: History, Interpretation and Generational Change in the Policy Sciences

Generational change has traditionally been studied as an historical phenomenon.Histories are full of "periods" and "eras"; historical texts commonly have titles such as"The Age of X" or refer to conventional periods such as "The Victorians" or "TheEnlightenment". I shall argue that the renewal of interest in periodization in policystudies and the suggestion that a new "round" of policy change is best studied as amodification of previous rounds rather than a new event on a blank slate are bothmanifestations of the revival of historical methods in the policy sciences. As such, theysuffer from the well-known limitations of such methods and their sphere of applicationneeds to be carefully delineated and distinguished from superficially similar butmethodologically distinct approaches.

Now, the claim that we are currently witnessing a "revival" of history in policystudies1 is likely to provoke the indignant retort that history never really went away. Itwas, after all, the distinguished nineteenth century historian Thomas Babington Macaulaywho coined the phrase "that noble science of politics" and defended its historical basisagainst the deductivism of James Mill (Collini et al. 1983). The first academicappointment in political science in the United States was the Prussian, Francis Lieber,who occupied a chair of "History and Political Science" at Columbia College from 1857(Oren 2007: 216). Even in the latter half of the twentieth century, supposedly the heydayof behaviourism and hard social science, there were plenty of studies of policy andadministration over the longue durée undertaken by historians or by social scientistsusing the techniques of history as traditionally practiced, including archival research andnarrative presentation. Nonetheless, I want to argue that there is something different andinstructive about the latest rapprochement between history and policy studies.