European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 182

Integrative Political Strategies—Conceptualizing and Analyzing a New Type of Policy Field

is about relating at least two dispersed
parts (integrands) to each other in such
a way that they constitute an integral
whole (a third) (Bornemann 2014).
Furthermore, the literature presents three
understandings of integration; each can
be associated with a certain qualifier—
as a process (integrating), a structure
(integrated), or a function (integrative). A
procedural perspective highlights relating
the parts and forming the integral whole.
A structural perspective offers a static
understanding of integration as a stable
arrangement of related parts and an
integral whole. The functional perspective
emphasizes integration as the potential
or the capacity to relate parts such that
they form an integral whole (Bornemann
2014, 85f.). These understandings come
with more specific “modes of integration,”
meaning the interpretations of how (and
with what effects) elements are related
and form an integral whole. Out of the
many integration modes that can be
distinguished (Bornemann 2014, 87ff.),
the following three will illustrate what
these are all about and how they imply
a variety of interpretations and forms of
policy integration.

First, the structural criterion,
integration directionality, refers to the
kinds of ties established among the
integrated parts, a factor that carries
implications for the appearance of the
integral whole. This criterion involves the
question of whether the parts are related in
a one-directional or a reciprocal manner.
A mode of unidirectional integration
implies that the relating of parts proceeds
as a one-sided hegemonic penetration
in which one or more parts unilaterally
constrain the autonomy of another part
or other parts, causing the integral whole
to adopt a shape that mainly reflects the

dominant parts. In contrast, reciprocal
integration is characterized by the
establishment of mutual relations between
the parts and a mutual agreement on the
limits placed on their autonomy. Within
the current discourse and practice of PI,
unidirectional integration is represented
in many concepts of environmental policy
integration, which envisions injecting
environmental concerns or goals into
other nonenvironmental policy processes.
However, there are also some concepts
of reciprocal PI that highlight mutual
relations between policies (Briassoulis
2005; Collier 1994).

Second, as a functional criterion,
integration productivity captures the
net effects of changes in the autonomy
of the integrated parts and the integral
whole. According to a rather common
understanding, integration, in general,
and PI, in particular, yield positive net
effects. This assumption of positive policy
integration is observed in synergistic
ideas, such as the whole being more than
the sum of its elements, or with reference
to “positive-sum games” or “win-win
solutions” (Collier 1994). However,
from a critical perspective, it becomes
clear that this optimistic description is
merely one possible interpretation of the
productive function of PI. There could
be other interpretations according to
which integration brings with it a net
loss of autonomy, in which the whole
becomes less than the sum of its parts
(Luhmann 2009, 188)—a mode of
negative integration that has also been
described as over-integration (Lange and
Schimank 2004). Regarding policy, these
dysfunctional forms of integration are
rarely explored but are both logically and
empirically relevant. In some instances,
an integrated policy arrangement (e.g.,

182