European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 175

European Policy Analysis

analysis while remaining open to different
interpretations. In fact, the notion of
policy field has played a role in policy
analysis for some time, but debates on its
meaning continue to evolve (Blätte 2015;
Blum and Schubert 2011; Döhler 2015;
Loer, Reiter, and Töller 2015; Massey and
Huitema 2013).

Generally, policy fields can be
regarded as relevant spheres for organizing
and analyzing public policymaking
(Döhler 2015). Policy fields are assumed
to make a difference: political problem
solving is not only the result of political,
institutional, social, or cultural conditions,
but it is also subject to a specific policyfield effect (Heinelt 2009; Rehder, Winter,
and Willems 2009). Conceiving the policy
system of a certain political community
(such as a nation state, a region, or a
local municipality) as representing the
entirety of its public problem-solving
activities, a policy field denotes a specific
structured partition of this comprehensive
policy system that has developed around
a certain issue area and is endowed with
relative autonomy in functioning vis-à-vis
neighboring policy fields (Döhler 2015).
A policy field is different from a mere
political program (a policy in the strict
sense). Whereas a political program is
the concrete result of a certain problemsolving activity, a policy field represents a
structured and relatively stable problemsolving arrangement (Windhoff-Héritier
1987)—a meeting and interaction space
for different actors who deal with a certain
type of issue (such as environmental,
social, or family issues). A policy field
may form around a particular policy, but
not every policy serves as a crystallization
seed of a policy field (Kay 2006).

There have been several attempts
to define the fundamental dimensions or

elements that constitute a policy field. Loer,
Reiter, and Töller (2015), for example,
define policy fields in terms of specific
enduring constellations of problems,
actors, institutions, and instruments.
Other authors refer to similar sets of
elements (Döhler 2015; Howlett, Ramesh,
and Perl 2009). Drawing on general field
theory, some authors highlight the socially
constructed nature of policy fields (Stecker
2015). Following this view, one can only
meaningfully speak of a policy field when
actors themselves regard it as an important
condition for their actions (Fligstein and
McAdam 2012; Martin 2003). A “policy
field” is, therefore, bound to its actionguiding effects. It is a sphere of public
action that multiple policy actors regard
as relevant for their own actions and the
collective regulation of certain issues;
therefore, it organizes their thinking and
doing of policy.

Against the backdrop of these
conceptual reflections, can IPS be
considered policy fields? My answer is
yes—but with additional qualifications. On
the one hand, IPS can be clearly subsumed
under the general definition of a policy field
as they refer to problems, involve actors,
build on some organizational structure,
and deploy instruments. Moreover, they
come with some enduring time frame,
and they seem to be of relevance for
policy actors themselves. On the other
hand, IPS seem to somehow overstretch
the definitional boundaries of established
policy-field concepts since they refer to
rather complex problems constellations
that cut across the boundaries of other
established policy fields; they involve
policy actors who are also engaged in other
policy fields; they build on organizational
structures that link the institutional
infrastructures of various existing policy

175