Integrative Political Strategies — Conceptualizing and Analyzing a New Type of Policy Field
( March and Olson 1989 ). Historically , it can be related to a more fundamental transformation ( and reflexivization ) of the modernist institutional political order ( see Beck 2002 ; Hajer 2003 ). Following Hajer ’ s diagnosis of policymaking increasingly taking place in an institutional void , the turn to “ strategy ” reflects the emergence of “ new political spaces ,” that is , “ ensemble [ s ] of mostly unstable practices […] to address problems that the established institutions are for a variety of reasons , unable to resolve in a manner that is perceived to be both legitimate and effective ” ( Hajer 2003 , 176 ).
Together both countermovements give rise to a new type of policy field that can be called “ reflexive ” for three reasons . One , these policy fields emerge from the existing policy system in terms of an additional layer of policymaking . This means that they represent secondorder or meta-policy fields that refer back to , and , thereby , reflect other established first-order policies and policy fields . Two , as elaborated earlier , the emergence of these fields can be interpreted as reaction to two dominant movements in the policy system . More specifically , in line with propositions of “ reflexive modernization ”
( Beck et al . 2003 ), they come with a problematization of the modernist patterns of differentiation and institutionalization . Three , both integration and strategy are not solely descriptions by external policy analysts to refer to “ objective ” developments , but are also used by policy actors to reflect on their own orientations . Policy actors themselves claim that they organize policymaking in integrative and strategic ways . Accordingly , “ integration ” and “ strategy ” represent practical orientations for real-world policymakers ’ thinking and doing ( see Bornemann 2014 ; Tils 2005 ). Therefore , these concepts can be interpreted as commonly shared but contestable meanings of what this new type of field is all about , that is , the “ field force ” that organizes the form and functioning of integrative – strategic policy fields . 5 What follows from this conceptual
understanding of IPS as a new type of policy field ? First , conceptualizing IPS in terms of a policy field serves to overcome the functional presumptions of given perspectives on IPS . It implies examining IPS in a more analytical , de-normativized way . Rather than inquiring about what IPS are supposed to be ( i . e ., a certain
5
Integration and strategy also play a role in other conceptualizations of ( policy ) fields . In fact , some scholars use “ integrative ” to define policy fields per se ( May , Sapotichne , and Workman 2006 ). However , they use the term to refer to the inner cohesion of policy fields , rather than a pattern of field emergence , as I suggest . Similarly , by using the qualifier “ strategic ” in their general theory of social fields , Fligsten and McAdam ( 2012 ) imply that strategy , that is , the capacity of actors to “ vie for advantage ” by taking account of other actors in a field , is a definitional component of a social field as such . In contrast to this understanding , I refer to strategy as a specific pattern of field delineation that replaces an “ institutional logic .” This comes with the more general theoretical proposition that “ institutional logics ” are not to be regarded as ( conceptual ) alternative to social fields as Fligstein and McAdam ( 2012 , 10 ) seem to suggest . Rather , I suggest conceiving of institutional and strategic logics as two different logics of field delineation corresponding with March and Olson ’ s ( 1989 ) distinction between “ logic of consequences ” ( strategy ) and “ logic of appropriateness ” ( institution ).
178