Between substantive and symbolic influence: diffusion, translation and bricolage in German pension politics

Abstract

Diffusion, transfer and translation literatures assume that policy ideas are conceived exogenously, while domestic perspectives such as bricolage consider policy innovations as reactivated local ideas. Cases where foreign ideas do not shape local actors' preferences, but still feature saliently in public discourse therefore appear in a conceptual blind spot. The paper develops a distinction between the symbolic and substantive functions of foreign ideas. For the case of German pension politics it argues that foreign ideas can be causally consequential as (symbolic) framing devices, even if their underlying ideas had (substantively) long been conceived and advocated in the domestic context. The analysis finds that the foreign-frame 'Anglo-American pension funds'-a most likely case for translation and diffusionwas initially employed by change agents to advance their longstanding preference for more financialized pension policies. During the ensuing political struggles, continuity agents successfully reinterpreted and utilized the same frame to prevent pension financialization and veneer continuity as the transfer of a foreign policy innovation in what is best described as label localization. Thinking of foreign ideas in substantive and symbolic terms specifies how ideas emerge and how they are used in political conflict, which bridges global and domestic perspectives on policy change.

How GDP spread to China: the experimental diffusion of macroeconomic measurement

“…Our findings also speak to IPE literature about the translation and localization of transnational ideas and policies (e.g. Ban, 2016;Dafe, 2020;Eimer et al, 2016;R€ oper, 2020). Modified or hybridized versions of foreign norms and ideas are often assumed to be the outcomes of localization or translation by domestic actors (e.g.…”

“…Ban, 2016;Sell & Prakash, 2004), policies (e.g. Bell & Feng, 2019;R€ oper, 2020), and institutions (e.g. Thomassen, 2017).…”

Capitalists against financialization: The battle over German pension funds

“…This is important in highlighting that divergent preferences among PFSAs make for a key battleground contributing to the advancement and impediment of (pension) financialization. The existing literature, however, merely takes stock of preferences and does not engage with the strategies that factions of finance employ to win political struggles amongst themselves and with others (for an exception, see Röper, 2020). The importance of a more nuanced understanding of the political dynamics that bring about cohesion or discord among factions of capital can hardly be overstated, as the ‘degree to which the business community is united or divided in the policymaking process has long been understood as a key element in influencing the capacity of business groups to shape regulatory policies’ (Young and Pagliari, 2017: 3).…”

China and the Political Economy of the Green State

“…given questions as to whether this umbrella term captures all paths of adaptation (Röper, 2021). Some adaptation scholarship appeared well before the global financial crisis (Campbell, 2005;Kjaer & Pedersen, 2001), but the focus on adaptation picked up pace only following it.…”

“…Numerous additional mechanisms have been identified in the adaptation literature: Ban (2016) showed how neoliberalism is 'translated, ' Lai et al (2017) introduced the concept of 'grafting' with partial diffusion resulting from the contestation of ideas, Röper (2021) distinguished between the 'symbolic and substantive functions of ideas, ' Berge and St John (2021) identified 'asymmetric diffusion, ' Bell and Feng (2019) showed how local agency leads to 'selective diffusion, ' Thomassen (2017) explored an ideational approach to 'translation strategies, ' and Béland et al (2018) (Helleiner, 2021;. Recent literature has shown how small developing countries can 'punch above their weight' using professional networks to promote their interests (Hearson et al, 2022).…”