Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T02:21:23.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning to Depart from a Policy Path: Institutional Change and the Reform of German Labour Market Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2012

Timo Fleckenstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While new institutionalism with its path-dependence theory has proved to be an especially powerful device for explaining the stability and inertia of public policies, its focus on the stickiness of institutions has contributed to conceptual deficits in grasping and explaining actually occurring policy change which have attracted much criticism. With reference to the critical case of German labour market reforms, policy learning is identified as a key mechanism in the paradigmatic transformation of social policy. Pursuing the argument that learning does not happen in a vacuum and is institutionally embedded, policy learning is conceptually enriched with insights from new institutionalism to develop an institutional account of learning. Such an approach to policy learning and a stronger emphasis on ideas address the stability bias in new institutionalism and its path-dependence theory by accounting for knowledge-based institutional change.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 55 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Timo Fleckenstein is Lecturer in Social Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science; [email protected].

References

Béland, D. (2006), ‘The Politics of Social Learning’, Governance, 19: 559–583.Google Scholar
Béland, D. (2009), ‘Ideas, Institutions, and Policy Change’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16: 701–718.Google Scholar
Béland, D.Cox, R.H. (2011), ‘Introduction: Ideas and Politics’, in D. Béland and R.H. Cox (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011): 3–20.Google Scholar
Berman, S. (2001), ‘Ideas, Norms, and Culture in Political Analysis’, Comparative Politics, 33: 292–310.Google Scholar
Bleses, P.Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2004), The Dual Transformation of the German Welfare State (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Blyth, M. (2001), ‘The Transformation of the Swedish Model’, World Politics, 54: 1–26.Google Scholar
BMAS (2009), Bilanz im Bereich Arbeit und Soziales in der 16. Legislaturperiode (Berlin).Google Scholar
Brady, D., Beckfield, J.Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2005), ‘Economic Globalization and the Welfare State in Affluent Democracies’, American Sociological Review, 70: 921–948.Google Scholar
Bundesregierung (2003), Entwurf eines Vierten Gesetzes für Moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt: Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung (Berlin).Google Scholar
CDU, CSU and SPD (2005), Gemeinsam für Deutschland (Berlin).Google Scholar
Campbell, J.L.Pedersen, O.P. (2011), ‘Knowledge Regimes and Comparative Political Economy’, in D. Béland and R.H. Cox (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (New York: Oxford University Press): 167–90.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. (2005), Reforming European Welfare State (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Collier, R.B.Collier, D. (1991), Shaping the Political Arena (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Cox, R.H. (2001), ‘The Social Construction of an Imperative’, World Politics, 53: 463–498.Google Scholar
Cox, R.H. (2009), ‘Ideas and the Politics of Labour Market Reform’, in I. Dingeldey and H. Rothgang (eds), Governance and Welfare State Reform (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 200–218.Google Scholar
Crouch, C. (2005), Capitalist Diversity and Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag (2001), Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Reform der arbeitsmarktpolitischen Instrumente: Gesetz der Fraktionen SPD und Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. Drucksache 14/6944 (Berlin).Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag, (2002), Entwurf eines Ersten Gesetzes für moderne Dienst–leistungen am Arbeitsmarkt. Drucksache 15/25 (Berlin).Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag, (2003), Entwurf eines Gesetzes für Reformen am Arbeitsmarkt. Drucksache 15/1204 (Berlin).Google Scholar
Dolowitz, D.P.Marsh, D. (2000), ‘Learning from Abroad’, Governance, 13: 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, K. (2005), ‘Binding Hands as a Strategy for Economic Reform’, German Politics, 14: 224–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, B. (2005), Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? MPIfG Discussion Paper 2 (Cologne).Google Scholar
Eckstein, H. (1975), ‘Case Study and Theory in Political Science’, in F.I. Greenstein and N.W. Polsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science (Reading: Addison-Wesley): 79–137.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996), ‘Welfare States without Work’, in G. Esping-Andersen (ed.), Welfare States in Transition (London: Sage): 66–87.Google Scholar
Fleckenstein, T. (2004), ‘Policy Learning in der Arbeitsmarktpolitik’, Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 50: 646–675.Google Scholar
Fleckenstein, T. (2008), ‘Restructuring Welfare for the Unemployed’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18: 177–188.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. (1988), ‘Ideas, Institutions and American Trade Policy’, International Organization, 42: 179–217.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A. (1993), ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State’, Comparative Politics, 24: 275–296.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A.Soskice, D. (2001), Varieties of Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hassel, A.Williamson, H. (2005), The Evolution of the German Model (Berlin: Anglo-German Foundation).Google Scholar
Hay, C. (2006), ‘Constructivist Institutionalism’, in R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder and B.A. Rockman (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 56–74.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1974), Modern Social Policy in Britain and Sweden (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Hemerijck, A.van Kersbergen, K. (1999), ‘Negotiated Policy Change’, in D. Braun and A. Busch (eds), Public Policy and Political Ideas (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 168–185.Google Scholar
Hicks, A. (1999), Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Jachtenfuchs, M. (1996), International Policy-Making as a Learning Process? (Aldershot: Avebury).Google Scholar
Kingdon, J.W. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.).Google Scholar
Knoepfel, P.Kissling-Näf, I. (1998), ‘Social Learning in Policy Networks’, Policy and Politics, 26: 343–363.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. (1983), The Democratic Class Struggle (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Krasner, S.D. (1988), ‘Sovereignty’, Comparative Political Studies, 21: 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, R.C. (2002), ‘Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order’, American Political Science Review, 96: 697–712.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (1959), ‘The Science of “Muddling through’”, Public Administration Review, 19: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000), ‘Path Dependence in Historical Sociology’, Theory and Society, 29: 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J.Thelen, K. (2010), ‘A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change’, in J. Mahoney and K. Thelen (eds), Explaining Institutional Change (New York: Cambridge University Press): 1–37.Google Scholar
Mares, I. (2003), The Politics of Social Risk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Marier, P. (2009), ‘The Power of Institutionalized Learning’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16: 1204–1223.Google Scholar
May, P.J. (1992), ‘Policy Learning and Failure’, Journal of Public Policy, 12: 331–354.Google Scholar
Metha, J. (2011), ‘The Varied Roles of Ideas in Politics’, in D. Béland and R.H. Cox (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (New York: Oxford University Press): 23–46.Google Scholar
Offe, C. (2001), ‘Institutional Design’, in P.B. Clarke and J. Foweraker (eds), Encyclopaedia of Democratic Thought (London: Routledge): 363–369.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G., Pierre, J.King, D.S. (2005), ‘The Politics of Path Dependency’, Journal of Politics, 67: 1275–1300.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2001), ‘Coping with Permanent Austerity’, in P. Pierson (ed.), The New Politics of the Welfare State (New York: Oxford University Press): 410–457.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2003), ‘Public Policies as Institutions’, paper presented at the Yale Conference on Crafting and Operating Institutions, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004), Politics in Time (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Popper, M.Lipshitz, R. (1998), ‘Organizational Learning Mechanisms’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34: 161–179.Google Scholar
Robertson, D.B. (1991), ‘Political Conflict and Lesson-Drawing’, Journal of Public Policy, 11: 55–78.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.A. (1988), ‘An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-oriented Learning Therein’, Policy Sciences, 21: 129–168.Google Scholar
Scheingate, A.D. (2003), ‘Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development’, Studies in American Political Development, 17: 185–203.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M.G. (2003), Political Institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2000), ‘Values and Discourse in the Politics Adjustment’, in F.W. Scharpf and V.A. Schmidt (eds), Welfare and Work in the Open Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 229–309.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2008), ‘Discursive Institutionalism’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 303–326.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2011), ‘Reconciling Ideas and Institutions through Discursive Institutionalism’, in D. Béland and R.H. Cox (eds), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (New York: Oxford University Press): 47–64.Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2001), Globalisierung und Sozialpolitik (Frankfurt, Campus).Google Scholar
Sikkink, K. (1991), Ideas and Institutions (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Stiller, S. (2010), Ideational Leadership in German Welfare State Reform (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press).Google Scholar
Streeck, W. (2003), No Longer the Century of Corporatism, MPIfG Working Paper 4 (Cologne).Google Scholar
Streeck, W.Kitschelt, H. (2003), ‘From Stability to Stagnation’, West European Politics, 26: 1–37.Google Scholar
Streeck, W.Thelen, K. (2005), ‘Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies’, in W. Streeck and K. Thelen (eds), Beyond Continuity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Strom, K. (1990), ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 34: 565–598.Google Scholar
Stryker, R.Wald, P. (2009), ‘Redefining Compassion to Reform Welfare’, Social Politics, 16: 519–557.Google Scholar
Swank, D. (2002), Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (1999), ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 369–404.Google Scholar
Thelen, K.Steinmo, S. (1992), ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, in S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth (eds), Structuring Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press): 1–32.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (1995), ‘Decision Making in Political Systems’, British Journal of Political Science, 25: 289–325.Google Scholar
Weir, M. (1992), ‘Ideas and the Politics of Bounded Innovation’, in S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth (eds), Structuring Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press): 188–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyland, K. (2008), ‘Toward a New Theory of Institutional Change’, World Politics, 60: 281–314.Google Scholar