Knowing the Future : Theories of Time in Policy Analysis
The article is structured as follows : Section 2 gives a brief overview on concepts of time in policy analysis and , more specifically , the concept of “ political time ” as a common denominator in current debates . Each of Sections , 3 , 4 , and 5 , focuses on a specific group of theories : Policymaking as it is both embedded in and structured by cycles , sequences , and temporal rules ( Section 3 : Policymaking in Time ), policymaking as contingent , selective , and manipulative action upon political events ( Section 4 : Policymaking by Time ) and time as historically changing and contextdepended cultural construction that is structuring and being restructured by policymaking ( Section 5 : Times of Policymaking ). Section 6 argues that theorizing time is of practical relevance . Especially theories of policymaking in time have become most influential . In order to rationalize policymaking multiple chronotechnologies have been established (“ synchronizing the past ”, “ extending the present ”, and “ colonizing the future ”). The consequences are highly problematic . Section 7 summarizes the results and ends with a plea for a ( self- ) critical reflection on the “ proper times ” of politics — and a more creative exploration of the multiple ways of knowing the future in both theory and practice .
2 . Political Time in Policy Analysis
Lamenting the lack of studies on time in policy analysis and political science has become a regular topos in research literature . Over the past two decades , however , the picture has changed ( Howlett and Goetz 2014 ; Schedler and Santiso 1998 ; Straßheim and Ulbricht
2015 ). Time has entered a prominent place on the research agenda :
This is especially true for research on time and democracy . Since Juan Linz ’ dictum that “ time and timing are […] the essence of the democratic process ” ( Linz 1998 , 34 ), studies have multiplied . Presidential and parliamentary systems can be systematically distinguished by their temporal structure , that is , “ the timetables of democratic politics , its time budgets , its point of initiation and termination , its pace , its sequences , and its cycles ” ( Schedler and Santiso 1998 , 8 ). Mandates , terms , tenures and time budgets of government , the rhythms of legislations , the role of filibusters and the time horizons embedded in decisionmaking procedures , the procedural pulse of parliamentary speeches , and the time investments of parliamentarians — all these temporal factors seem to significantly determine the character of democratic government ( Palonen 2014 ; Riescher 1994 ; Scheuerman 2001 ; Skowronek 2008 ). Autocracies , in contrast , tend to operate in a mode of timelessness ( Lechner 1995 ; Wright 2008 ).
In policy analysis , the insight that “ policymakers are heirs before they are choosers ” ( Rose 1990 , 263 ) has been fruitful for numerous studies on the legacy of institutional structures and on path dependency ( Pierson 2004 ). Beyond the linear concepts of stochastic analysis , models on multiple streams , historical narratives , or punctuated equilibriums have furthered the understanding of different modes of change ( Howlett and Rayner 2006 ; Zahariadis 2003 ). Public management studies are highlighting the role of administrative memory ( or loss thereof ), the cyclical dynamics of fashions
152