The Evolution of the Theoretical Foundations of Punctuated Equilibrium Theory in Public Policy

Abstract

Punctuated equilibrium theory in public policy replicated from biological punctuated equilibrium theory has concluded that public policies alternate between stasis and punctuation. However, recent research on Pacific Northwest forest policy, U.S. state tobacco policy, and U.S federal auto efficiency policy have found no punctuations despite an attempt to do so. What is the efficacy of using biological punctuated equilibrium theory to also explain punctuated equilibrium in public policy? Significant differences exist between biological and public policy punctuated equilibrium theory including time frames for change, what constitutes outside disturbances of equilibrium, venues of punctuated equilibrium, levels of analysis for change, and patterns of change. Most policy research on punctuation has focused on the "tone" of media coverage related to change. Some recent studies concluding no punctuation occurred have focused on government action or inaction. Proving strong inference in scientific research requires a clear and viable syllogism linked to appropriate methodology. Both of these crucial elements are now in question in punctuated equilibrium research in public policy. Copyright 2010 by The Policy Studies Organization.

Different but equally plausible narratives of policy transformation: A plea for theoretical pluralism

“…Note that Baumgartner and Jones (1993), regarded as among the most influential early PEq theoreticians, consider policy transformation as resulting from inadequacies in earlier institutional arrangements that make these arrangements unable to deal with such shocks. In short, not all shocks result in a 'punctuation', and not all periods of stability are equilibriums (Baumgartner and Jones, 2009 Baumgartner and Jones, 2009;Givel, 2010;Jensen, 2009) Historical institutionalism (e.g. Mahoney and Thelen, 2010b;Pierson, 2000;Streeck and Thelen, 2005a) Punctuated evolution (e.g.…”

“…measuring transformation in policy outputs such as laws, regulations or administrative procedures), face the difficult task of interpreting what should be considered a significant transformation and what should not (cf. Givel, 2010).…”

“…The narrative of a single policy transformation through different lenses Punctuated equilibrium (e.g. Baumgartner and Jones, 2009;Givel, 2010;Jensen, 2009) Historical institutionalism (e.g. Mahoney and Thelen, 2010b;Pierson, 2000;Streeck and Thelen, 2005a) Punctuated evolution (e.g.…”

Explaining policy change in the EU: financial reform after the crisis

“…Studies have focused upon veto points in different systems and the level of costs associated with different stages of the policy process to explain incremental shifts (ibid; ). Yet interestingly, there has been limited systematic evaluation within the EU PET literature of how, when and why actors seek to block policy change (also see Givel 2010). To address these shortcomings, this article is located within the qualitative small n tradition, and analyses two cases, strategically selected to include one case where we would expect change and it fails to emerge and one where we would not expect change but significant policy change occurs.…”

“…Without carefully drawing out and articulating clear hypotheses PET is in danger of being used as a post-hoc analytical heuristic that can capture some kinds of change but has limited traction when cases without change are analysed (Givel 2010). …”