European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 173

European Policy Analysis

Based on these rather pessimistic
assessments of the past performance of
integrative strategies, various options
of how to deal with them in the future
are discussed (see Casado-Asensio
and Steurer 2014; Meadowcroft 2007;
Nordbeck and Steurer 2015). First, the
optimistic view is to improve them so
that they can meet the standards. Second,
on the other end of the spectrum, critics
suggest abandoning these strategies
altogether. Since they have proven to be
unsuccessful for a long time, there is no
reason to expect better performance in the
future. Other authors suggest retailoring
integrative strategies. Rather than
trying to set up comprehensive and allencompassing strategies, policy designers
should focus on sectoral strategies, which
are less complex and, therefore, can serve
as “real” leverages for policy change.
While this choice implies abandoning the
idea of integrati on, a different suggestion
is to revise integrative strategies in such a
way as to strengthen their core function of
communication.

Overall, previous research on
IPS has contributed rich and detailed
empirical knowledge, mostly involving
country case studies, about the many
forms IPS can take and their performance
with regard to several functions. Some
conceptual accounts also attempt to
theorize about IPS or at least offer a more
general understanding of the phenomena.
Some more recent stock-taking articles
have promoted rather skeptical views on
IPS and argue that these have by and large
failed in practice. Based on my own indepth analysis of national sustainability
strategies in Germany (Bornemann 2011;
2014), I agree on much of the skepticism
regarding the IPS performance in solving
pressing policy problems and making

the policy system coherent. However,
I also claim that it might be too early to
sing the farewell song on IPS since parts
of the empirical skepticism might result
from the way IPS are conceptualized and
analyzed. My concerns about much of the
research related to IPS are twofold.

First, current approaches for
analyzing IPS are based on a rather
confined conceptual basis. Despite
an increasing number of conceptual
propositions and some attempts to embed
IPS in policy theory (Rayner and Howlett
2009a; 2009b), there is limited theorizing
on what IPS are and how their particular
form and functioning can be analyzed in
relation to other forms of policymaking.
In fact, prevalent conceptualizations are
structured by normative presumptions,
which are based on certain idealized
models of policymaking (originating from
management studies and policy design,
etc.). Accordingly, IPS are understood as
means to fulfill particular expected (and
taken-for-granted) goals for the policy
system which are associated with “strategy”
(i.e., solving long-term problems) and
“integration” (i.e., creating some form of
policy coherence in a disordered policy
system).

Second, as a consequence of the
first point, empirical analyses tend to focus
on the performance of IPS with regard
to the assumed functions. This entails
evaluations of the policy and governance
performance of IPS, as well as explanations
for deviations from an optimal policy
design, that is, the coherence between
overall and specific policy goals, as
well as the consistency between goals
and targets. Moreover, these functionoriented analyses are based on rather
decontextualized and hermetic project
views focusing on the strategy documents,

173