The advantage of paradigmatic contestation in shaping and selling public policies

Abstract

While contestation between competing policy paradigms is usually considered to hamper the policy-making process, this article develops an argument explaining how paradigmatic contestation can also help policymakers obtain their preferred policies. Based on a typology of three paradigm situationsparadigm dominance, paradigmatic contestation and paradigm mixesthis article introduces three different types of strategies (paradigm stretching, banking on inconsistencies and commensurability framing) and explains why more strategies become available when a policy field moves from a situation of paradigmatic dominance to one of contestation and paradigm mixes. An analysis of the introduction and development of direct income payments in the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, subsequently illustrates how a shift in paradigm situation affected the European Commission's discursive strategies and shaped the development of direct payments through consecutive reforms. Reflecting on sectoral and institutional variations, the article also discusses the applicability of these findings to other institutional settings and policy fields.

New is old? TheEU's Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy

“…Paradigmatic consensus means that a single paradigm shapes and constrains the policy debate, contributing to policy stability. Alons (2020) shows that a paradigm may dominate a policy field (the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU), but also that an area may experience contestation and overlapping paradigms. Paradigmatic contestation (different policy actors championing different paradigms) and paradigm mixing (a diverse mix of policy based on different paradigms) allow policymakers to use different strategies in public policy and to achieve gradual change (that may result in paradigmatic shift over time) (cf.…”

Attaining policy integration through the integration of new policy instruments: The case of the Farm to Fork Strategy

“…To be eligible for the “greening” payment, individual farmers were required to maintain permanent grasslands, practice crop diversification on arable land, and establish the so‐called “ecological focus areas” of at least 5% of their arable area (small farms exempted) (Greer, 2017). For the large majority of farmers, these requirements were relatively easy to comply with (Alons, 2020). Hence, cross‐compliance and greening made little difference in motivating farmers to introduce more environmentally friendly farm practices (Alons, 2017).…”

Policy paradigm modes: explaining USA antitrust law changes in the 1970s

“…There are currently two distinct perspectives on policy paradigms: (i) the classic theories depicting paradigms as ideas that strongly constrain policy options, stabilize a policy field, and create unbreachable differences between actors holding different paradigms (Hall 1993; Greener 2001; Blyth 2002); and (ii) the modified theories depicting them as a “loosely coupled network of ideas” (Princen and Van Esch 2016, p. 359), constantly changing in response to actors’ pragmatic needs, and amenable to negotiation and compromise between different paradigm-carrying actors (Carstensen 2011; Kay 2011; Wilder 2015; Princen and Van Esch 2016; Carstensen and Matthijs 2018; Alons 2020). The former approach conforms to the punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones 2010) and the latter to the gradual change theories (Mahoney and Thelen 2009) of institutional change.…”

“…Some scholars have modified paradigm theory to overcome these problems (Carstensen 2011; Wilder 2015; Princen and Van Esch 2016; Alons 2020). In these studies, like language or culture, paradigms structure the communication of ideas and the coordination of decisions by creating a collective interpretive framework, but they do not fully constrain them.…”