Ogee. fe aie eee a ' ee eR te rules eee tie teers ee ae See Ee ene sic te =e ra Eee ee were do thes rest nls cone fom, ad Coca eee ig) Cee ee SUG ee ees mes rater Fo Urea oN Grn oe en en ee Se peered BEEN hance! See a OXFORDDismantling Public Policy Policy dismantling is a distinctive form of polley change, which involves the ‘cutting, reduction, diminution or complete removal of existing policies. The perceived need to dismantle existing policies normally acquires particular poignancy during periods of acute economic austerity. Disinantling is thought to be especially productive of poltical conflict, pitting those who benefit from the status quo against those who, for whatever reason, seek change, However, scholars of public policy have been rather slow to offer a comprehensive account of the precise conditions under which particular aspects of policy are dismantled, grounded In systematic empirical analysis, Although our overall understanding of what causes policy to change has accelerated a lot in recent decades, there remains a bias towards the study of either policy expansion ar policy stability, Dismantling does not even merit a ‘mention in most public policy textbooks. Yet without an account of both ‘expansion and dismantiing, our understancing of policy change in general, and the polities surrounding the cutting of existing policies, will remain frustratingly incomplete, This DOoK seeks to develop a more compazative approach to understanding policy dismantling, by locking in greater delal a the dynamics of cutting in two different policy fields: one (social policy) which has been subjected to study before and the other (environmental policy) which has not. On the basis of a systematic analysts of the existing literatures in these two fields, it develops a nevr analytical framework for measuring and explaining policy dismantling. Through an analysis of six, fresh empirical cases of dismantling. ‘written by leading experts, it reveals a more nuanced picture of change, focusing on what actually motivates actors 0 dismantle, the strategies they use to secute thelr objectives and the politically significant effects they ultim- ately generate, ‘Dismantling Public Policy is essential reading for anyone wanting to better understand a hugely important facet of contemporary policy and politics. It will informy a range of student courses in comparative public policy, politics, social and environmental policy.Dismantling Public Policy Preferences, Strategies, and Effects Edited by Michael W. Bauer, Andrew Jordan, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and Adrienne Héritier OXFORD ‘UNIVERSITY PRESSOXFORD reat Cleon Street, Orford, OX2 SDP, nied ngdom | Oxiord Univers Pras departrneat of te vest of Oxo, IRhuthes the Utiveatys objective ofexelerce in esary eoleship, find edsenon by publish Wosaoide Oxo isa ester tae ak of ‘Sad Untverty res In the Od in cata ber counts (The several contebutors 2012 “The soul ights ofthe authors have been aseted ‘st ton pubs in 2012 ret pubished in pipertnoe 2014 Alrights ered. No prt of tls pubistion may be rprodsce, coed a ‘etlevel temo nse, ary four by any mens, withost the hor peaniasion in vetingof Oxford Universi Pres, x expressly peti) Fito by licens or water tens ree with he appropiate reprograpics, "ys oefntaton, Eagles conceningvpredtion ould the scope he shove sald te seat to tae Right Department Oxford Univesity Pros at he “Msrest above You sat not cease this workin any otber em nd you st pose thls ne canditon on any sealer ‘Print nthe Unite totes of Amerie by Ox ves 198 Rican Avenue, New You, NY 10016, Uae Sates of Amica it Library Cataloguing ia Publaton Dat Data value brary of Congess Cataloging in Pubiestion Dats Date avalable ISON 978-0-19-965664-6 07) {SBN 978-0.19-871876-1 (PON) Links to thi pty wate are provide by Cod in good fh anc {er afoumstion ony, Oxtordcbeiains any fesponstiy torte meer fomtuined in any thd patty webnte eference in ths ook Preface ‘This book is about the dismantling of public policy. By policy dismantling we ‘mean a particular type of policy change, Le. the cutting, reduction, ditnin- tution, or even complete removal of existing policies. Policy dismantling 1 something often associated with periods of economic hardship, when poli ticlans are more likely to come under econsmic pressure to generate financial savings. Finding themselves wedged between the ‘rock’ of putting up taxes and the hard place’ of cutting policies, many reluctantly choose to cut poticies that were probably originally adopted in better times. Newer entitely moti- vated to cutin the first place and then facing a phalanx of disgruntled pollcy supporters, many politicians not surprisingly seek to hide what they are doing ‘or seek to pin the blame for the cuts on others. Orat leas, that is how we are used to thinking about dismantling. Scholars ‘of public policy have, however, been ratker slow to offer a comprehensive account of the precise cond! which particular aspects of policy are dismantled and why, grounded in comparable empitical analysis of different countries and/or policy sectors. Although our overall understanding of what causes policy fo change has matured a lot in recent decades, there remains a bias towards studying elther policy expansion or policy stability. Policy ais ‘mantling tends to be neglected; in fact, it does not even merit an entry in the index of most textbooks on public policy. Yet without an account of both expansion and dismantling, our understanding of policy change will always remain Incomplete, (Of cours, there are some areas of policy analysis where the academic debate about dismantling has been more dynamic and intensive; for example, in relation to the welfare state or the removal of regulation (‘de-regulation’). ‘The broad challenge we set ourselves in writing this book was to draw together the state of the art on social policy dismantling and take it in anew, that Is, more comparative direction, by looking at how the polities of dismantling play out in what is often assumed to be a very different policy field, namely ‘the envionment. Paul Pierson first popularized the term ‘dismantling’ in the 1990s; his 1994 book Dismantling the Welfee State? pretty much defined the field and has been extensively cited. But most of his work (both then and since) is about welfare state retrenchment, not policy dismantling, His workPreface cetabished many of the standard assumptions in that field of analysis, and snotivated a generation of scholars to analyse cus in welfare state provision, Te was sensitive to the importance of poicy type in affecting the directions and consequences of csmnanting in his ea, but he mostly concentrated on dierent types of social policy #8 opposed to diferent types of policy. Those ‘who followed in his wake have opted to concentrate on other foct and measures of dismantling, bat his preoccupation with social policy has emained, As a general factor shaping the polities of dismanting across a suite of polly aexs ‘policy type” has rather fallen out of the equation Camparing policy dismanting in two dtferent fields ses our book apart feom others in the Feld of public policy analysis. We aim to say something new about policy dismanting, but we have not written it exclusively for policy rea specialists (although we sinerely hope it advances thei specialist Tovedge). Rather, we hope it appeals to a more general audience of com- pustive policy analysts, whom we think will benefit fom incozporating policy dismantling into their analytical frameworks and empirical studs, ‘We wil fel that the effort we have invested in patting this book together will have been worthwéhile if some of ther jofa us in pursuing. a more ‘comparative approach fo understanding policy dismantling, “Tals book has its origins in a seminar on policy texination that Michaet Sauer gave to his Master's students in Konstanz in 2005, His discussions with those students encouraged Bauer ané his colleague Christoph Krill to dig deeper into the topic, beiewing that there Wasa gap in the iteatuce. Funding twas secured ftom the Landsstitung Bacen-Wakttember, which pad for fle ‘Tosun to do more exploratory warkand, aftr two years of studying the policy termination and ated iterates, more concrete esearch agenda emerge ‘ae this point, three more of us—namly Adsienne Herties, Chrstofter Green- Pedersen, and Andy Jordan-—joined the group, and together we succesflly applied for BU Famework 7 funding for a project known as CONSENSUS, of ‘Conftonting Social and Environmental Sustainability with Economic Pees sure: Balancing Trade-Offs by Policy Dismantling or Expansion?® (2008-2911; ‘No. 217239), under the lendersip of Christoph. In 2008, we (gether with seatly enlarged team comprising senior and more junior researcher), Embatked upen the next stage of our intellectual jousney which eventually ‘clminoted in the writing ofthis book, aswell as another vom, Social and Environmental Policy Under Economic Presure (Cambridge Univesity Pres), authored by Christoph Knil, Sophie Schmitt, Kal Schulze, and Jale Toson. “The wony was that much ofthe thinking and writing that informs bth books vvas completed before the onsst ofthe global financial recession in the Jate 2000, In many ways, that has unexpectedly (and athe ironically) given ous ‘work far greater political salience than we had originally expected Preface Collectively and individually we have incurred! many debts in the couse of the last few years. Furst of all, we would like to thank Chuistoph Knill for Jeading the CONSENSUS project and Jale Tosun for shouldering much of the administrative burden. We would also like to thank the European Commis- sion for funding the CONSENSUS project, At Oxford University Press, Dorn Inic Byatt and Sarah Parker helped to bring this book to fruition, They also collected sb anonymous referee reports on drafts of some of the chapters, which really helped us to improve our approach. We would lke to thank all six referees for thelr insightful and penetrating assessments. We remain ‘entirely responsible for any remaining errors of fact or interpretation, Stefan. Becker and John Turpenny helped to format the chapters and produced the index, and David Benson commented on Chapters 1 and 9. Last, but certainly not east, we owe a huge debt of gratitude tothe authors of the six case studies, who were amazingly patient and good natured to work with, even afterseveral ‘rounds of extensive revision, Without them, this book would simply not have been written, Michael W. Bauer, Andrew Jordan, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and Adrienne Heritier February 20124 Contents Nate on Conttars Listof Fgunes and Tables List of Abbreviations Part |. Dismantling Debates and Analytical Approaches 1. Policy Dismantling: An Introduction Andres Jordan, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and John Tumnpenny. 2, Understanding Policy Dismantling: An Analytical Framework Michael W. Baver and Christoph Krill Part i, The Dynamics of Policy Dismantling. Active Dismantling 3, Sequences of Active Policy Dismantling? Path Dependency in Pension Reform Processes Sophie Schmitt 4, Active Dismantling Under High Institutonal Constraints? Explaining the Bush Administration’s Aitempts to Weaken US Alr Pollution Control Poticy Stefunie Korte and Helge Jérgens Dismantling by Default 5. From Dismantling by Default to Arena Shifting? Child Benefits Policy in Spain Andrea Bieweuli, iole Jenne, and Jacint Jordana 6. Dismantling by Default? The Indexation of Social Benefits {in Four Countries, CChristofer Green-Pedersen, Fleraming jul Christiansen, -Eva-Maria Buckner, Carsten Jensen, aid Joh Turngermy x 30 87 a1 105 129Contents Dismantling by Symbolic Action 7. When the Distnantling of an Ineffective Policy Becomes, Increasingly Costly: Default Strategies, Arena Shifting, and Symbolic Action in Gerrnan Waste Policy Dominik Bernaver and Christaph Kedlt 8, From Dismantling by Default to Symbolic Dismantling? ‘Water Policy in the United Kingdom “Andrew Jordan ane folm Turapenny Part ll, Comparative Conclusions 9, Dismantling Public Policy: Preferences, Strategies, aud Effects Michael W. Baer, Andrew Jordan, Chistoffr Green Peersen, ‘and Adrienne Héritier Index 185 176 203 Notes on Contributors ‘Michae! W. Bauer was a profesor a the Hurnbold-Universitit 2 Resin and the University of Konstan, both in Germany, and recently joined the German Univesity of Adininistrative Sciences Speyer. He san expest on comparative public administration and polleyanalyss and works on isues of European ancl multilevel governance Dominik Bernauer sa junior research fellow atthe Chait of Comparative Puble Policy And Administration, Department of Politics and Publle Administation, Univesity of Konstanz, Germany. He i interested {a environmental governance and saeagement processes within ministies, Andrea Biancull ia Postdoctoral Reseach Fellow at the Institut Batcelons Estudis Intemacionals (SE, Spain. She holds a PRD in Political and Sota Sciences from the Universitat Pompeu Pabra, Barcelona. Her rseatch interests ie in he Hels of| ‘comparative and Intemational politcal economy, governance, regional integration, luade and regulation. lemming ul Christiansen isan Assistant Profesor atthe Department of Ptieal Science, Aarhus University, Denamack, His primary interes sin how political parties ‘manage to agree to gover together by agzesing to publie polices. He bas also written Bitiles on interes groups Eva-Mara Euchner is Junior Research Fellow at the Chair of Comparative PublicPolicy and Pablic Administration, Department of Politics and Public Administeation, University of Konstant, Germany. Her research Intsest lies a the intecsection of ‘comparative polls and comparative publi poticy with a parila focus on socal problems and moral poltical sues, Christer Greon-Pedersen is Profesor of Public Policy atthe Department of Political Sclence, Aachus University, Denmark He has long-time intezest in the comparative politics of welfare state reforms, His recent research focuses on comparative political agendesetting ‘Adrienne Héritier is a Professor of Political Science in the Department of Political and Social Science andthe Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies, Futopean University Institute, Hoxence. Fler research extends to theotles of institutional change in the Buropean Union, comparative public policy, Hstopean policy making, uropeanization, regulation, and new modes of governance. Nicote Jenne isa PhD candidate at the Department of Social ancl Polite Sciences atthe Buropean Univesity institute in rence, Hay. At the te the earch forthe contzfbution to tis volume was dome, she was working asa cesearch asstant at the Institut Barcelona o”FstudisIntemationals (SED, Span,Notes on Contebutors Corsten Jensen Is an Assistant Profesor of Pubic Policy, Aarhus University, Denmark He is inteested ln comparative social policy snd party behavior. [Andrew Jordan is Professor of Bnviconmental Politics inthe Tyndall Cente for Climate ‘Change Research, School of Eaviconmen'al Sclencs, University of rast Angi, United Kingdom, He is interested inthe governance of envizonmental problems ju many dlfferent contexts, but specially the Puropean Union. Jacint Jordana is @ Profesor in the Department of Political and Social Scences at the Universitat Pompea Fabra, Barcelona and at the Institut Barcelona d'Estucs Internacionats (EN, Spain, tls esearch Interest are inthe Deld of public pottey analysis, with a special emphasis on regulatory governance and institutional development. Helge Jbrgene i Senior Lecturer at the Department of Political and Socal Sciences ant ‘Managing Disector ofthe Environmental Policy Research Centre FFU) tthe Freie ‘Universitit Berlin, Germany. His researek focuses 9n comparative environmental _gowemance the cross-national diffsion and convergence of polices, and the ole and influence of international organizations in environmental policy making Christoph Knil is Professor af Comparative Public Policy and Public Administration, Department of Politics and Public Adroiristation, University of Konstanz, Germany, His main research focus is on the comparative analysis of policy and institutional change, including, in particular, cnvizon mental, social, and morality policies Stefanie Kort is reseatch fellow atthe Environmental Policy Research Centse (FFU), Department of Pllc! and Social Scences Pele Univestat Hein, Germany, Her primary research interests He in the gove-nance of environmental problems, a8 Well as Climate change pottics and polices In Industrialized countses. Sophie Schmitt isa Postdoctoral Resercher atthe Institute for Research Jnformation andl Qualty Assurance, Berlin. Germany, Het research foes i on comparative public policy as well as policy, change and intemational policy diffusion in environmental ‘and soctal pots. John Turnpenny isa Senior Research Associate inthe ‘Tyndall Centre for Cimate ‘Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, His research focuses on the reationship between science, evidence, anc public policy making & r List of Figures and Tables Figures 2.4 The study of policy dismanting: key analyteal elements 6.41 Maximum amount ofthe Danish unemployment insurance scheme asa ‘proportion of the average wage 62 The basic amount of the Danish national pensions asa proportion of the average wage 663 The Danish child famally allowance asa propotion ofthe average wage 64 The maximum amount ofthe Swedish unemployment benefit 3 proportion of the average Wage {65 The amount of UK unemployraent benefits based on maximum ‘contbutions relative to average wage, 1982-2008 66 The amount ofthe German unemployment insurance seherne for & ‘person eaming 980 D-mark (or equvalent in euros) and receving. ‘benefits forthe 2nd year as share ofthe average wage 7.1 Plate packaging end GDP in Germany, 1951-2005 Tables 2.1 Measurement of policy expansion and dismantling 2.2 Dimensions and indicators of policy dismanting 2.3 Dismanding strategies and thelr expected eects 3.4 Sequences of active dsmanling: the Amato and Betluscont reforms 3.2. Sequences of active dismanting: the Din! ard Prodi reforms 2.3 Sequences of active dismanting: the Swiss AVS reforms 5.1 Total family cash benefits tn Spain asa percentage of GDP 9.1 The effects of dismantling: a simeary 2 16 a7 140 1 aa 146 36 46 o B 107 208List of Abbreviations aevu Anvitsgemcinchaft Verpackung und Unwrelt ais Arbitslosengeld a” Alinea Popular ‘ccoo Comisiones Obreras cpu CCuistian Democratic Union cue Swiss Fane cora Contr of Pollution Act osu Chwstian Sodal Union PG Rovironment Directorate General for the Environment bsp uate System Deutschland He -Buopeen Community wu eonomnic and Monetary Union ENDS Environmental Data Services BA “nvionmental Protection Agency w ‘Buropean Union spp Fee Democatie Paty or Gross Domestic Pod INE Intemational Monetary Fund 1NpDAP Istituto Nazionale ci Previdenza peri Dipendentt dei Smministarione Publica Nes Istituto Nartonale dela PrevidenzaSoetale Ngo Non-governmental organization NsR New Source Review ose ‘Organization for Beonomie Cooperation and Development PayGo Payas yore » Partido Popular 1508 Partido Socilista Obrero Espatiol, RoeP Royal Commission on Environmental Polttion we, Rheinisch-WestilscesHektitatswerk LUst of Abbreviations sD vep ox weeco Social Democratic Party Unién de Centro Democritico United Kingaom, United States United States of America ‘Wisconsin Bleettic Power Company (Water Services AssocationPart | Dismantling Debates and Analytical Approaches1 Policy Dismantling: An Introduction ‘Adrow Jordan, Christoffer Green-Padersen, and John Tumperny 1.1 Policy change in hard times In the late 2000s many parts of the world entered an era of intense economic austerity. Governments of many different colouss were forced to make budget, ary cuts, which, in some of the most indebted nations, led to intense political conflicts and even civil unces, ‘Politics in hard times’ (Goureviteh 1986) was not simply back, but back with a vengeance, a trend which became even moze pronounced following the post-2010 debt cusis, Weiting over a quarter of a century earlier, Gourevitch persuasively argued that public policy in hard political times adopts a different dynamic to that which prevalls in easter times, It does 50 because it involves ‘imposing pain’ (Pal arid Weaver 2003) ‘on particular groups in society. ‘One of the ways that pollticlans have sought to zespond to the onset of the slobal recession since 2008 has been to raise general taxes—thereby sharing out the pain among taxpayers. Amore common approzch, attempted in many previous recessions, has been to try and save money by cutting, scaling back and even completely removing public policies that were originally introduced when economic times were easier. At a very general level, some of these activities have undoubtedly been rather popular. After all, who can possibly object to ‘etficlency savings’, the removal of undex-performing policies or the cutting of ted tape? However, once attention moves from general aspirations to specific policies that directly affect society, things do not always run quite so smoothly. This is because those who benefit from the status quo tend to stoutly defend their hard-won policy gains, claiming that the pain is unwar ranted or pethaps should be inflicted on someone else. In these clcumstances, the widespread conception of politics (who gets what, when and how’) (Lasswell 1936) appears t0 be reversed; the polities of policy cutting—orAndrew Jordan, Chiistoffer Green-Pedersen, and John Turnpenny shat we will term policy dismantin— seems to focus on something altogether different: who gets fess, when and how. ‘Caught between the Scylla of economic pressure and the Charybdls of polit. ical opposition, the sting Ilterature suggests that politicians with a preference to dismantle turn to a variety of strategies to avoid being blamed (Hood 2011), Indeed, the perceived need to avoic, deflect, or reduce blame forms one of the basic assumptions ot the welfare state xetrenchment literature (Levy 2010). In fact, dismantling policies Is widely perceived to be not just unpopular, but ‘inherently unpopular’ (Starke 2006: 105). In his widely cited book, Dismantling the Welfare State, Pietson (1994: 1) claims, pace Weaver (1986), that dismnantling {snot ‘a simple mirror image of wellae state expansion’; itis a politically much ‘more ‘treacherous’ undertaking (Pleson 1994: 1). Buttressing theit arguments ‘with insights drawn from psychological theory, Pierson and other adherents of what has become known as the ‘new polities’ school of welfare state reform, noted that part of the reason for this diiculty is that the prospect of losing something has @ much greater emotional impact on people than an equivalent gain (Kahneman and ‘Tversky 1979; 279), This intrinsic aversion to loss has been widely cited as @ reason to explain why people dislike even small cuts to ‘current policies, Consequently, famost always, retrenchment isan exercise in blame avoidance’ (Pierson 1994: 2) emphasis added), On the basis of these core assunaptions a whole subfield of social polley analysis began to form. To buylng off opponents compensation’, analysts such a5 Pierson (1994: 23) added other types of dismantling steategy. For ‘example, politicians can obfuscate ty diffusing the consequences of cuts over time (Pierson 1994: 19,23). Weaver (1986), for example, claimed that dls- ‘mua vcos wher nuuulual levels oF allowances ate kepe stable in spite of inflation, or when thenumber ofbeneficaries is cut by raising means-tested standards, Second, politicians can divide and conquer, e.g. by restricting the effects of reforms to certain segments of the voting population. Although Pierson did not produce an exhaustive lst, with even this many strategies and sach a seemingly obvious motivation to dismantle, national welfare states seemed doomed. However, subsequent empirical work revealed that many of these strategies ‘were not neatly a effective as had been originally thought. Some of them cost _money to employ, or did not generste savings before opponents had had time to mobilize against them. In addition to intense opposition from particular beneficiaries, syinpathetic implementing officials found ways to evade cuts. Consequently, while some individual policies were reformed and restructured, and there was a great deal of blame shifting and avoiding, the welfare state retrenchment literature revealed tha-overal, the welfare state was in fact rather resilient to significant reform (Lindbom 2001: $06; Pierson 1994: 179-82; Pierson 1996: 174). Indeed, the harder academies looked for clear-cut 4 Policy Dismantting evidence of policy dismantiing, the more they seemed to realize just how complex and contingent an activity it ealy was “This broad and slightly paradoxical finding has since been bome out by ‘numerous empirical studies conducted in many separate sub-ckls of socal (Starke 2006: 114-15) and housing policy (Lindborn 2001). Oa the basis of these insights, Person (2004) subsequent y pioneered a whole new account of politcs—historica insttutionalism—in which policy unfolésin a rather low. moving and incremental manner, feeding bock into pollcs jn ways that gradually lock it into place (Pierson 1993). Since then, the debate has moved ‘on from ‘large’ vs. ‘00! reform to seeking a more nuanced understanding of the precise conditions under which esttain kinds of social policy (©, pensions) ae dismantled in some jurisdictions but not athers (Weaver 2010). This has generated a fuller understanding ofthe differentiated pattern of change across different sub-fels (Bonolt and Palier 2007; Levy 2010), For example, systematic studies of budgets have confirmed that while large cut- backs are very rave, there have been cuts Gones etal, 2009: 859-64; Stake 2006). Moreover, poltilans do not necessarily have to assemble Tange win ning coalitions in order to dismante (Meson 2001b: 418). ‘Yet outside this particular subfield of poliey analysts, the academic debate about dismantling in genet, and policy dismantling i particular, has barely {got going, Standard textbooks on publi: policy barely mention the term. ‘Although there isa huge body of theoretical and empirical literature on policy change (and especially policy expansion)? the literature on polcy reduction (Gc dismantling), remalns a lot sparse. With some notable exceptions (Pet. son 2001b: 420-1; Howlett and Cashor> 2008), the precise direction and magnitude ot policy change tends not to be systematically considered, Jet alone measured. In fact these is not even a shared terminology that one ‘an realy employ. ‘Rerenchment’ Is 2 teem of art among social policy analysts who study changes in the welfe stats, and although it Includes some appreciation of policy aspects itis not employed by mainstream policy analysts. In fields such as competition cr environmental protection where regulation tends to be more dominant,’ another term deregulation’—s mote widely employed. There is of couse a third term—policy texmin- ation’—which emerged inthe 1970s but for various reasons bas never really taken. off. In effect, policy analysts have been reading the came empirical menu but have remained seated at entirely different analytical tables. 1.2. Anew perspective on policy dismantling For those of us who seek a more compaiative understanding of policy als- mantling, the absence of @ shared dialogue Is frustzating, It ts, after al, 5Andrew Jordan, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and John Tumpenny Policy Dismantling important to know what the outcomes and Impacts of previous attempts to tecminate, deregulate an retrench have been To the extent that they can be sneaningfally compared, is the pattem of limited change identified in the Social policy field replicated in other policy fies, or have the dynamics ane the overall effects played ut rather differently? Do the concepts of disinant= ling and dismantling strategies even travel to other policy field, or aze they too tightly tethered 1o the basic characteristics of social policy? At present, public policy analysis is stil remarkably l-equlpped to offer answers to these and other politically very salient questions. “The main purpose of this book i o start to think about policy dismanting in a more comparative manner, not least across different policy sectors. An obvious fics step isto establish how far the mai findings of the welfare state literature extend to other policy fields. Todo ths, analysts nee to go backand explore the analytical ots of that literature. Following the ‘policy determines politic’ logic orginally advanced by Lov (1964; 1972), Pleson (1994) and his co-workers argued that because socal policy adopts a ‘ee)stibutive’ log, {uring a period of policy expansion the costs wil be diffuse but the benehts will be concentrated. During a period of dismantling on the other hand, ‘cutbacks [will] pose concentrated costs in return for diffuse benefits’ (Per- son 1994: 13). As those relatively limited umber of people who suffer ere likely to suffer duecty, they are, glven the logic of collective action (Olson 1965), much mote likely to mobilize than those many millions of taxpayers ‘who are likely to see thelr tax bills diminish slightly (ora least not increase ‘quite so fast). Add in the well known tendency, noted above, for people to react morestrongly to losses than equivalent gains--prospecttheory—and the Iikelitood that existing policies tend to create new and supporting constt ences of interes! (eg, doctoss, nurses, socal workers, in addition tothe direct bbeneficiaries—what Person (1993) termed policy feedback), Its not ard see why cutting, being so inherently unpopular, would narnaly necessitate the use of strategies to avotd andor deflect blame. Pierson (1994; 2001e) was more sensitive to the Intinsie differences between different policy types than some of his contemporaries. Indeed, ane of his great accomplishments was to show that retrenchment could not be fully understood using only very broad system-level variables; analytically, scholars should break the welfare state down into its different component policy areas (lesson 1994: 175), so marked were the diferences between, 54, health policy, housing policy, or unemployment policy. In his analysts, he focused on three sub-areas of policy, namely old age pensions, housing, and Income support. He showed that dismantling in an area (e. health care) here the state fs distributing resources will not necessarily exhibit the same political dynamics as one (eg. labor markets) where the state i regulating ierson 200ta: 11) In other words, policy (ype) seemed to Inuence the politics of dismantling. However, te eect was not staightforward, For example, it was not the actual effects of dismantling that were decisive in the eany stages; rather (and to paraphrase Lowi (1972: 707) actor expectations about what the outcomes sight eventually be seemed to most heavily aifect the politics of dismanting Moreover, even within a particular sub-sector such as pension provision, the scope for dismantling seemed to be affected by policy legacy effects like the availablity of private sector altematives, the ability to bulld in indexation rules to hold down costs over time, or the design of the financing process (@ierson 1994: 172-5). Around this tnt other scholars working i shila ust different contexts were aso assimilating the structural difference between policy types into their analysis® (for example, Majone (1996: 64) on deregu lation), but afer the early 2000s and despite several subsequent efforts by son (1993: 617; 2006) to galvanize new work Ithas rater dropped out of the picture and has certainly not been taken up by scholas working on other policy types. Among social policy analysts, the debate moved onto the role of ‘macro-political factors such as globalization and Emopean integration, o¢ back to the relative importance of different ‘ld politics’ vasiables such a3 Political partes ana political institutions (Levy 2010: 563) tn effect, analysts stayed rooted at their own analytical tables, hus thorating hopes for a mote comprehensive undesstanding of policy dismantling. “The main purpose ofthis book sto explore how far an appreciation of the difference between the main {pes of policy* facilitates a more comparative understanding of policy dlsmaniing. We employ this term because we think it offers an analytically more viable way o think about such changes than the obvious altematives—termination, setrenchment, deregulation, ete. Of these, retrenchment and cutbacks are widely used in the socal policy literature but a, we suspect, too strongly tied to dynamics within this Sector. For example, they mainly conceive ofthe dependent variable in tezms of reducing the level and generosity of benefits, which of couse is cruca for studying sodal poliey, buts far less applicable in policy fields where regulation is more common. TE does so by taking the arca of socal policy and compazing it with a cassie area of regulatory poliey—the protection ofthe environment (Weale 1992: 6). “There are good reasons for believing that policy reduction dynamics in this fila will be different to those inthe social policy field, Buikding on Wilson (2980), during a period of expansion the costs of new environmental regula- tions are much mote Hkely to be concentrated on regulates, whereas the benefits (inthe form of greater environmental quality) ae likely to be more ‘widely difused across wiser society. In this vega, Daugbjesg and Svendsen (2001: 5) have argued that ‘the politics of the environment are dominated by the politics of cost distribution’, or what was earlier described as loss 7‘Andrew Jordan, Chrstoffer Greee-Pedersen, and John Turnpenny imposition, By contrast, when it comes to dismantling, the benefits are likely to be more concentrated (principally on regulates, who may benefit both. immediately and directly fom less onerous forms of control), but the costs could potentially be more diffusely distributed, in the form of reductions in environmental quality experienced by the wider public. ‘These of course ace just preliminary assumptions which will need to be ‘tegrated into an analytical framewcrk and, eventually, tested against empir- jal evidence. Ia practice, it may be that policy dymamlcs are shaped both by the distribution and the absolute magnitude of any costs and benefits (Wilson 1980: 366). Psychological theory also seminds us that the manner in which policy effects are experienced must aso be accounted for (Huikson and Stoker 2011). Mose specifically, effects that are J. visible, 2. tangible; 3. large; and 4 certain’ are likely to have a morc significant impact on actor preferences |Citeia and Green 1990: 18) than those that do not. IFthis is tue, those living. ‘close toa factory targeted for policy dismantling could be expected to respond in much the same way as those facing a cut in their child benefit payments, Policy differences can, in other woris, be expected to work through other ‘causal factors, Furthermore, the actors experiencing the variable effects of dismantling will not necessarily be the same; they may interact with policies in wholly different ways (eg, are they directly targeted by the policy or does it infigence them tn more incirect ways?). Some actors may also enjoy a more privileged bility to respond to cismanting threats than others, ‘Thinking about how the distribution and magnitude of dismantling effects play out in different contexts certainly challenges some of the implicit assumptions embedded in the soci policy literature. For example, in the ‘ase of unemployment benents It 15 almost axiomatic that dismaniing will not only generate concentrated costs and diffuse benefits, but costs that are visited upon some of the poorest and in many cases least poltically active sections of society. But for enviconmental policy, the costs (e.g. In terms of poorer air quality) could be so diffuse as to be almost invisible, whereas the benefits for lage and politically powerful polluters (such 2s heavy Industzy) ‘may well be very highly concentrated, The Lmplication of this difference could be profound: unlike many areas of social policy (Giger and Nelson 2010; Green-Pedersen and Haverland 2002 46), there could be very powerful votes, {in retrenching environmental policy. And if this is te, the preference to dismantle among politicians could be correspondingly much stronger and the strategies they employ to achieve it are more likely to be geared towards ‘claiming creat’ rather than ‘avoiding blame’ ‘nally if social and environmental policies affect actors in different ways, might they also feedback into society (Pieson 1993) in diferent ways t00? For Pierson, policy ‘takers’ (Offe 1985)—i¢, those who benefit from and have their Interests tansformed by a policy—are an extremely Important constraint on 8 Policy Dismanting politicians seeking to dismantle. But do they have a functional equivalent ia the environmental sector? Has the rise ofthe ‘ecostate since the late 1960 hhad a similarly distorting effect as the welfare state, generating its own poli tical support base that defends hard won policy gains against dismantling ‘threats? And taking this argument one stage further, how far does the more detailed ‘programmatic structure’ of these two fields (see below and Pierson (1994: 171-5) alter the politics that emerge around attempts to dismantle ‘them? Evidently there are fair few variables tc take on board, In order to ground these first Impressions a little mote firm'y, the remainder of this chapter proceeds as follows. The next section explores the evolution of acadernle work on dismantling from its origins in the early 1970s, through to the ‘more recent focus on deregulation and retrenchment. In an effort to develop ‘a more comparative approach, the following section first identifies a number ‘of important analytical elements that have arisen in these fields, then hegins to explore how they could be combined into a new analytical framework (@ challenge taken up in Chapter 2). These are politcal preferences, opportunity stracties, dismantling strategies, and dismantling effets. The final section ‘draws all this material together, identifies the main research questions, and gnposts the test of the book, 1.3 Policy dismantling: existing orientations 1.3.1 initia attempts: the policy termination approach ‘Some of the nrst attempts to study dismantling were made by Brewer (1974; 1978) and his associates. They saw policy “ezmnination or ‘death’ as the final piece in Lasswell’s attempt to understand the entire policy cycle (atter 2009: 1), Termination was very much the ‘neglected butt (Bel 1978: 413)—the bit, that everyone knew had to be there but no ane had really closely studied, Definitions and analytical categorizations were quickly developed. The following example 1s typical: termination is the ‘deliberate conchision or cessation of specific government functions, programs, policies ot organiza- tions’ (deLeon 1978: 370). It undoubtedly places termination ia the same analytical terrain as that of retrenchment but also includes polity vatiables aswell. Farly on, termination was viewed as a subset of the wider question of policy birth (Bardach 1976), Le. the former being a condition for the latter, But ‘working in the other drection were a set cf other factors that were thought ‘0 Impede termination, or ese dissuade politicians from even contemplating its the sunk costs of existing policies; oppesition from Interest groups; theAndrew Jordan, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and john Turnpenny Cnwlingnes of polices to associat themes with fled decison; and the gente lato! appeal of move extng things Uke poleyinnoretion (Geach 1976 128-30; Besson and Jordan 2011. Hal, sone progres tvs main dsentangling the explanandu-—was iene policy Ranctons (Cg defence or wee sae spend, burenscratcogaitions or pee Poles deLeon 1976 leon 978) cael hat ths varton was wom Gf further werk-he expected that whole pole factions woud be the bust to twat, Bardach (1976, 128, on the other hand, prefered 10 degregae them al under te general category opal Gente « mbsequent fry of work on these nad cer themes, plcy venieion scl neve ely overcame tel ita appointment 3 tor Aning clea exapls of tennaton Ey on, Darah (976: 123) Ted of couse pred tat poly eination would be orate W appt Siistantvely unimportant and suggtcd tht "no generations il te poste buts wamings werent ede. Ati the pay of cases Seemed simulate schol to look more ei, ut when ths lle Uncover mae examples interest stat to wane, he bale proble Was at analy were never realy sure whether termination Was fly at Te #8 ardoch Ma suggested, or rather 2 fonction of where and how they were tooking Tn spt of several minc-revias (eg. den 1997, te topic never agin emerged va spose focus stl. wasat os wit the ncresngy ave stems bing made o study broder pole yar, cud the way which pole termination fed hugh o poi adoption Barack 1976: 129) Ureeventuiy, pole socesson ogo ad Petes 1982) In thee there wre Just oo many problems theoretic analyte and empl to ss nthe whole ener and eventual an out of sea ut athe ely yeas of enrinaton research were 0 enormously fet? (Boer 2002 important olen eso fom ther. For patel sand out st, weseueh neve rely explained hy polis might be rotate to feminatepoicesin other wow where thle preferences onginated fom. Badach 1976127) hal na tense sume aay this problem by dang that lastly atepte, He Wendie a namber of facto wht eppested to incense the probbty of sical termination thor ims attempted, incudng a change in goverment, changes nthe Prevling tong) ope of talence bought about by eng In the Economy, the valabty of ‘ishionng’ devs to soften the impact of femunaton (.tanslton pero employment suppor ad the use of poly design (eg sunset clawes ee) that facta temintion when 1s thse. Dutthesewererealy only enabling conditions not undeaying a. lated to this pot was ¢secend thee were neve enough ear emple Instances of ought termination to sustan the hot ene Whether or 10 Policy Dismantling ‘not this was a function of the approach adopted is hard to determine, but Its undoubtedly the case that relatively little empliieal work was undertaken outside the USA, which greatly limited the scope for comparative work (Bauer 2009: 9} Dut see Greenwood 1997), ‘Third, the termination literature failed to offer a convincing categorization of the main explanandum. By never realy facing up to itsdependent variable problem’ (Green-Pedersen 2004) it left the concept of termination with insu ficient analytical variation. There could, in principle, be emination and non- termination, but in between was a vacuum, which could include many degrees of change, including substitution, reduction, and elimination (Bauer 2009: 15). Moreover, should the main focus be on policy, or more polkty- relevant variables such as organizations and agencies (Bauer 2009)? The termin- ation literature never really provided a convincing response, And at what point does tetmination shade into the development of new polices Gmovation) or ‘the adjustment of old policies (succession) (Hogwood and Peters 1982)? Fourth, and with some exceptions (deLeon 1987), very litte effort was made ‘to engage with mainstream approaches in public policy analysis, covering inter alia the role of institutions, party politics, and interest groups (Howlett and Cashore 2009: 191-2), or to make connections with other stages of the polley process (fora useful attempt, see Bauer 2009; 14), There is certainly very little evidence that it informed the welfare state literature. Pierson (1994), for example, did not make a single reference to the tem termination in his book. In summary, despite a bright start, the termination literature failed to live up to ts early promise. By adopting a very narrow definition ofthe dependent ‘variable and failing to engage with wider debates in political science/publie ppolley, it ended up becalmed. The great irony was that this occurred at precisely the same time—the 19803—and place—the USA—when the politcal reference for deregulation and welfare state retzenchient was burgeoning, 1.3.2 Regulation, deregulation, and regulatory reform ‘ATiuge amount has been written’about regulation. A lot less is known about deregulation and its ‘twin’, regulation (Howlett and Ramesh 2006: 1), Very carly on, Bernstein (1955) noted the existence of a regulatory ‘fe cycle, moving from birth to decline, but he did not really tackle the end of the cycle. For Majone (1990: 3) deregulation is a process through which ‘rad: {tional structures of regulation and control...are...dismantled or radically reformed! (emphasis added). AS with welfare state retrenchment, political {demands for deregulation fist emerged in the USA in the 1960s, but really began to take hold in the more austere period ofthe early 1980s (Callie 1998), The 1980s are now known as ‘the decade of deregulation’ (Moran and Prosser 1994: 9) "