You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items

  • Author or Editor: Olga Löblová x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Alexandru Rusu and Olga Löblová

Policy transfer failure is an understudied topic as literature tends to overemphasise successful examples of policy circulation. However, failure is as much a part of public policy as success and it is far from being the end of the story. In fact, the initial failure to reach a preferred policy objective will take its toll on the agents of transfer as well as on the policy itself. This chapter explores failed and partial policy transfer by focusing on the activities of its agents. It shows how the behaviour and choices of epistemic communities affect the fate of the circulated policy following an initial failure to push through their policy projects. The empirical basis for our analysis is the case of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), a region where HTA has been met with varying degrees of interest, resulting in varieties of non-adoption and partial adoption.

You do not have access to this content

Tom Baker, Mauricio I. Dussauge-Laguna, Roosa Jolkkonen, Olga Löblová, Pauline McGuirk, Sergio Montero, Michelle Morais de Sá e Silva, Alexandru Rusu, Titilayo Soremi, Jennifer Spence, Christopher Walker and Astrid Wood

Like philosophy, the study of policy circulation has become pluralistic and we too are faced with the question of how best to respond to such pluralism. This chapter, and the book it summarises along the way, offers one way forward. First, the chapter discusses a range of possibilities open to scholars of policy circulation in grappling with the plurality of their research field. Inspired by recent discussions in other heterodox fields of social scientific research, we argue that, to date, policy circulation studies have often been fragmented under the labels of policy diffusion, transfer, learning or mobilities. This exemplifies a form of ‘fragmenting pluralism’ that falls short of proper dialogic interaction across different research traditions and disciplines (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2012; McCann and Ward, 2012) and, indeed, often becomes an obstacle to advance knowledge on the what, how and why of policy circulation (Dussauge-Laguna, 2012; Cook, 2015). Following Bernstein (1989), we suggest that consciously embarking on a collegiate project of ‘engaged pluralism’ offers one route to a trans-disciplinary, not simply multi-disciplinary, research endeavour. Second, the chapter discusses the practices involved in creating the ‘trading zones’ (Barnes and Sheppard, 2010) through which engaged pluralism might take root in policy circulation studies, including a commitment to intellectual openness, the creation of venues for dialogue, and the (de/re)construction of coordinating concepts. We recount the circumstances involved in the creation of this book as a humble, and in many ways accidental, example of such practices.