In recent years there has been a growing body of literature within political science and international studies that directly and indirectly uses, discusses and analyzes the processes involved in lesson-drawing, policy convergence, policy diffusion and policy transfer. While the terminology and focus often vary, all of these studies are concerned with a similar process in which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or present) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political setting.Given that this is a growing phenomenon, it is something that anyone studying public policy needs to consider. As such, this article is divided into four major sections. The first section briefly considers the extent of, and reasons for, the growth of policy transfer. The second section then outlines a framework for the analysis of transfer. From here a third section presents a continuum for distinguishing between different types of policy transfer. Finally, the last section addresses the relationship between policy transfer and policy "failure."As the introduction to this collection emphasized, in recent years there has been a growing body of literature within political science and international studies that directly and indirectly uses, discusses and analyzes the processes involved in lesson-drawing, policy convergence, policy diffusion and policy transfer. While the terminology and focus often vary, all of these studies are concerned with the process by which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political system (past or present) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political system.Given that policy-makers appear to be increasingly relying upon policy transfer, it is something that anyone interested in, or studying, public policy needs to consider. However, to date there has been little conceptual work on the process: this article is one contribution to efforts to correct this omission. More specifically, our aim is to develop further the conceptual

No abstract

No abstract

This article has two aims. First, we develop a dialectical model of the role that policy networks play in any explanation of policy outcomes. Our model is based upon a critique of existing approaches and emphasizes that the relationship between networks and outcomes is not a simple, unidimensional one. Rather, we argue that there are three interactive or dialectical relationships involved between: the structure of the network and the agents operating within them; the network and the context within which it operates; and the network and the policy outcome. Second, we use this model to help analyse and understand continuity and change in British agricultural policy since the 1930s. Obviously, one case is not sufficient to establish the utility of the model, but the case does illustrate both that policy networks can, and do, affect policy outcomes and that, in order to understand how that happens, we need to appreciate the role played by the three dialectical relationships highlighted in our model.Discussions of policy networks are common in the analysis of public policy in Britain, Europe and the USA. Of course, there are major distinctions in the approach to networks within this literature. So, whilst many agree on the utility of the concept, there is less agreement on the nature and role of networks. In particular, the German and the Dutch literature is much more ambitious, treating networks as a new form of governance; in this sense as an alternative to markets and hierarchies. In contrast, most British and American literature is narrower in focus, concentrating upon the role networks play in the development and implementation of policy. 1 Our approach here is firmly located in this latter literature. More specifically, in the context of this literature, we shall argue, contra Dowding's claim that analyses of policy networks have no theoretical basis, 2 that there are different approaches to policy networks which have different strengths and weaknesses but which can be used to develop a more useful explanatory framework; what we shall call a dialectical approach.The paper is divided into two main sections. The first section outlines our dialectical approach, building on brief critiques of the existing literature. The second section then examines the development of the agricultural policy network in Britain since the 1930s to demonstrate some of the advantages of our approach.

Claims that a particular policy has been a 'success' are commonplace in political life. However, a few of these claims are justified in any systematic way. This article seeks to remedy this omission by offering a heuristic which practitioners and academics can utilize to approach the question of whether a policy is, or was, successful. It builds initially on two sets of literature: Boyne's work on public sector improvement; and the work of Bovens et al. on success, failure and policy evaluation. We discuss the epistemological issues involved in whether it is possible to produce an objective measure of 'success'. Subsequently, we present a framework for assessing success, focusing on three dimensions: process success; programmatic success; and political success. We then move on to raise a series of what we term complexity issues in relation to success for whom; variations across time, space and culture; and methodological issues.