THE COMPARATIVE TURN IN POLICY STUDIES

 

                                  Nikolaos Zahariadis, University of Alabama at Birmingham

 

 

The fall of the Berlin wall and the advent of the post-Cold War era have brought significant changes to the field of policy studies. One of the implications of the “victory” of capitalism has been that government and private business have become far more interested in seeking the advice of “free market” experts, particularly in the areas of economic, health, and environmental policies. But these developments have also exposed the complexity of policy problems and the intellectual difficulties encountered by narrowly defined disciplines, such as political science or economics, in solving these problems.

One way to make problems less opaque is to conduct comparative research. Comparing similar problems in relatively similar contexts enables researchers to dispose of the aspects that cloud the conceptualization process and to get to the essential core of the problems. By the term comparative, I mean research conducted in more than one national contexts. I am aware that this is a restrictive definition - surely comparing policy in different U.S. states is a valid analytical form of comparison - but the major benefits of comparisons will come only when policy studies become truly international in scope, just as many of the problems have become of global concern. Comparison increases the generalizability of findings - or to put it in methodological terms it reduces threats of external validity. But at the same time it increases problems associated with prediction and variable measurement - in other words it increases threats of internal and construct validity. While the field of policy studies began in the late 1960s with a significant comparative slant (e.g., Peters, 1977), comparative projects were later set aside in favor of more focused, narrower, and more contextual studies. Today much of the research tends to be context-specific, i.e., health care or environmental policy, and largely American in orientation, with notable exceptions of course. This article discusses some of the problems associated with comparative policy research and aims to serve as a springboard to begin the resuscitation of a serious debate on the conduct of comparative public policy.

While the benefits of comparative policy research are many and self-evident, the problems are significant and not well known. I focus on two types: methodological and theoretical problems. I then briefly mention the institutional inertia that has prevented the infusion of comparative studies in policy curricula and conclude by offering recommendations as to how we can fruitfully recapture the comparative turn in policy studies.

 

Methodological Concerns

Comparative research raises two very serious methodological problems that need to be overcome. The first is the problem of research design. I assume the analyst is engaged in qualitative research. When scholars analyze similar problems in more than one contexts, they by necessity lose specificity by introducing additional variables and complexity to the problem at hand. For example, health care in the United States involves a set of actors and relationships that may not be encountered elsewhere. By comparing health care policy in the United States, where private health insurance is the norm, to the British system of largely state-funded care delivery, the number of variables for an assessment of the system’s effectiveness or efficiency increases dramatically. Is ineffectiveness attributable to state mandates, insurance malpractice, poverty and inaccessibility, or something else? Radically different contexts make a simple answer unlikely. But this may be a blessing in disguise because it forces us to question our assumptions and “cut to the chase.”  We need to limit our area of inquiry to manageable proportions where structures are similar or at least equivalent. For example, effectiveness may be viewed in terms of patient satisfaction with care delivery. This conceptualization bypasses the issue of access and is reasonably easy to assess through survey techniques that are similar across countries.

Of course there are other designs that address different kinds of analytical problems. The above design was a “most similar systems” design. There are also “most different systems” designs, which look for differences across systems with an eye toward highlighting the reasons why the variables of interest are similar across countries. The logic of research designs and some of the problems associated with them is are quite old. Unfortunately, despite major advances in quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques, there have been no corresponding breakthroughs in research designs for the last thirty years. For more information and a relatively recent survey of comparative designs and methods, see Collier (1992).

The second major problem of comparative research is the “issue equivalence” problem. Issues do not have the same meaning across cultures. This problem involves more than the usual politics over problem definition (Rochefort and Cobb, 1994). Take privatization as an example. Privatization in this country means largely the takeover by private contractors of services, such as refuse collection, previously offered by public agencies. Usually this term refers to local or state agencies. By contrast, privatization in most other countries means the sale of state-owned enterprises. When comparing privatization across countries, therefore, one needs to be very careful in circumscribing his/her area of inquiry. This can be a serious problem when comparing privatization policy even at the local level because if the government is involved in extensive privatization of both kinds (sales and contracting-out), its attention will necessarily be limited to the most politically visible and controversial aspects. This implies that enactment and implementation of certain types - in theory contracting-out is less controversial and certainly less visible - will be politically easier because it involves fewer actors, other things being equal. Were this fact not taken into consideration, conclusions about the ease of enactment or implementation may be seriously flawed.  Again this is a blessing in disguise because it forces analysts to define terms right from the start and to be more careful with their generalizations.

 

Theoretical Problems

A comparative approach to policy studies raises one major theoretical concern: systemic equivalence. Systemic equivalence refers to (dis)similarities across political systems that render theories developed in one system highly (in)appropriate to the other. Consider, for example, Sabatier’s advocacy coalitions framework (1993). It places a premium on the ability of coalitions to change the secondary beliefs of other coalitions through policy brokers. Information is at a premium, particularly when technical issues are involved. This conceptualization works well for democratic systems where coalitions are well identified and policy is made in the (relative) open. But in non-democratic systems such as those of China, Cuba, or even many of the Developing World’s so-called democracies, information is far less important than position. In such systems, hierarchy is important in that policies are not decided on the basis of technical expertise, policy learning, or (relatively) open debates, but rather by specific individuals in positions of power on the basis of connections, formal rules, or personalities. This does not mean that the advocacy coalition framework cannot be adapted to accommodate policy-making in non-democracies. Working out the institutional dimensions of coalition formation, for example, would be a good way to start. But the point I am making here is that our policy theories do not travel well in other systems, because many of them were developed with the United States in mind. A serious reconceptualization and comparative adaptation can only enhance their explanatory power.

Comparative work can be taken one step further. There is absolutely no reason why the study of public policy should remain focused on issues of domestic policy. Even in cases where issues of concern clearly travel beyond national borders, such as environmental policy, much of the theoretical work of the policy process continues to be national (domestic) in orientation. This is a shame because the field did not begin with such strict divisions. Allison’s (1971) classic work on the Cuban missile crisis, for example, was a study of foreign, not domestic, policy. I am not aware of many theoretical attempts published since the late-1970s that aim to explicitly transcend the divide between domestic and foreign policy. In fact, there is little dialogue between foreign and domestic policy scholars, perhaps because they operate within different sub-fields, American politics and international relations. I have tried to bridge the gap in some of my own work (Travis and Zahariadis 1997; Zahariadis 2000).

The notable exception, as the editor of Policy Currents reminded me, is research in international political economy, “especially as it relates to trade flows and the impact these flows have had on international relations and international trade agreements” (e.g., Kenen, 1994; Cohen, 2000). Although the point is well taken and many analysts would certainly concur, I disagree because I consider political economy, be it international or domestic, and public policy to be two different things. One refers mostly to substance, the other mostly to process. The best way I can explain the difference between the two streams of research is to use an example from my own work (Zahariadis, 1995). In it, I looked at the politics of privatization in the UK and France from a policy perspective (multiple streams theory). As I was finishing writing it, I realized I could look at the same question from two different angles. I could talk about political economy, that is, the way that governments aim to roll back the frontiers of the state, reestablish control via regulation, the future of nationalized industries and the like. I could also talk about the issue of privatization as a public policy question, that is, look at the implications of my cases on the conduct of policy, the issues raised regarding the model I was using, the instances under which a policy could be in search of a rationale, etc. All that could have absolutely nothing to do with political economy or the substance of my cases. That's when I concluded that public policy and political economy are two different theoretical ways that may examine the same issue. Perhaps many policy analysts disagree with my position. I hope this article can help start a debate on this issue and the merits of this kind of scholarship.

 

Curricular Issues and Recommendations

Policy studies continue to be content-specific and largely American-oriented. A comparative approach will enrich our theories and enhance their explanatory and predictive power. All the methodological issues and concerns outlined above are difficult but not impossible to overcome. But they do require significant, and in many instances, collaborative effort to carry out successfully.

However, merely intensifying our research efforts in this area is not enough. The curriculum will have to be changed to reward individuals who wish to pursue this line of research. This not only means teaching more courses with a comparative slant, but also hiring comparative analysts. I know this is easier said than done. Institutional inertia precludes radically redefining positions in order to rebuild or reinvent departments. For example, the overwhelming majority of public policy positions advertised in the APSA personnel newsletter are for analysts who also specialize or can teach courses in American politics. While this has served us well in the past, it is clearly not enough in a global economy. Unless there is an accompanying demand for comparative policy specialists, calling for comparative work will be easy, doing comparative research will be difficult, and sustaining the comparative turn in policy studies nearly impossible.

 

References

Allison, Graham. 1971. Essence of Decision. Boston: Little, Brown.

Cohen, Jeffrey E. 2000. Politics and Economic Policy in the United States. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Collier, David. 1997. The Comparative Method. In Nikolaos Zahariadis (Ed.), Theory, Case and

Method in Comparative Politics (pp. 35-46). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Kenen, Peter B. 1994. The International Economy 3^rd edition. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Peters, Guy B. 1977. “Developments in Comparative Policy Studies: A Brief Review.” Policy

Studies Journal, 5 (Special Issue), pp. 616-628.

Rochefort, David A., and Roger W. Cobb (eds.) 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition:

Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (eds.) 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An

Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Travis, Rick, and Nikolaos Zahariadis. 1997. “A Multiple Streams Explanation of U.S. Foreign

Aid Policy.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Studies Association, Toronto, Canada.

Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2000. Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy. Unpublished book

manuscript.

Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 1995. Markets, States, and Public Policy: Privatization in Britain and

 France. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.