The Role of Theories in Policy Studies and Policy Work
predicts convergence of theories and institutionalized , routinized practices through suppression of questions and autonomization of answers , and thereby shaping of — organizationally embedded — predispositions to act or habits . Both Turnbull ( 2013 , 121 ) and Hoppe ( 2010 , 4 , 243 – 244 ) point to the question suppressing or problemstructuring qualities inherent in both theories and ordinary practices as the sources of performativity .
Whatever be the social mechanisms through which the selective affinities in ( co- ) performation come about , we could ( and should ) study the performation of policy studies / sciences — the downward arrow in Figure 1 — as distinct “ object ” of research . For example , we could ask how public choice informed policy analysis ( as in Weimer and Vining 1998 ) really works out in policy practice when applied to regulating the salmon fishery system in Canada , or auctioning radio spectrum licenses ; and how this feeds back into the “ theory and methods ” courses and new research in academia . Or we could ask how the theory and methods of ( regulatory ) impact assessment are translated in bureaucratic standard operating procedures ; and how this does or does not feed back into policymaking theory and methods of policy analysis ( Dunlop , Maggetti , and Radaelli 2012 ; Hoppe 2009 ; Staroñová 2010 ; 2013 ). In this way , we would lay the foundation of sociology or anthropology of innovations in governance . This would systematically interrogate the relationship between disciplinary policy scientific knowledge and policymaking practices as innovation and stabilization “ journeys ” of policy ideas and derived policy instruments . Such innovation pathways of performation have been explored already for a number of policy instruments : carbon emission trading , disentangling railway infrastructure management and train transportation of passengers and goods in public / private participation schemes , and the idea of “ transition management ”( Voss 2007 ; 2014 ).
However , a first task , one that can be performed in this article , is an exploration of modes or types of policy work and their selective affinities with the three basic representational approaches to the policymaking process . In this analysis , for practical reasons , we focus on institutional requirements and organizational settings , but also on the person-level skills required if policy work is primarily framed according to one of the three basic approaches .
Performation of Authoritative Choice
One may hypothesize that the “ stubborn ” permanence of the stages account of policymaking is due to at least a number of important ideas infusing policymaking practice . First , the stages idea corresponds to a commonsense notion of rationality inherent in the notion of “ policy ” itself ( as shown above ). This idea fits the practice of citizens delegating decision-making powers in nested accountability forums to bureaucratic or scientific experts and elected politicians . Experts — either as skilled and experienced civil servants , or as well-trained and high-reputation scientists — are the “ rational actors ” who as decision support specialists , having mastered lots of scientific methods and techniques of policy analysis ( Dunn 2011 ), help elected leaders make policy decisions . The rationality idea also serves
134