Title: Policy Regimes Theory

Submitted by: Lora Cohen-Vogel & Michael McLendon
Alternate Names:

"The Policy Regime approach is the newest of the synthetic models, and grew out of the international relations literature (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 1997; Kratochwil & Ruggie, 1997). Though the bulk of work has concentrated on international regimes, other political scientists have applied the regime model to urban (Stone, C., 1989), presidential (Skowronek, 1993), and regulatory (Harris & Milkis, 1996) policy making in the United States. Policy regimes are organized around specific issue areas, like environmental protection, civil rights, or education, and consist of three dimensions: a power arrangement, a policy paradigm, and an organizational arrangement (Wilson, 2000).
In terms of its power arrangements, a policy regime may involve governmental and nongovernmental actors, single or multiple interests, traditionally friendly or competitive groups, and policy benefi ciaries. Next, policy paradigms shape both the way that problems are defined (e.g., its cause and severity) and how they should be solved (e.g., responsible party). Finally, organizational arrangements refer to the institutional and procedural contexts in which policy decisions get made and are implemented. A policy, therefore, will reflect the regime’s conception of the means and ends of governmental action, the institutional arrangements that structure policy making and implementation in the arena, and the goals of regime members (McGuinn, 2006).
According to Wilson (2000), each dimension of PR contributes to long-term policy stability. Power arrangements themselves tend to be stable. The paradigms of those in power are reinforced through media coverage and bully pulpits, and promote public perceptions that existing arrangements are rational. Finally, organizations, with their institutional rules, regulations and routines, tend to resist change and innovation (Wilson, 1989). Stability can be disrupted according to the PR model, however, when conditions become favorable for regime change. Policy regime changes themselves do not happen spontaneously. They occur gradually “when regimes become stressed, alternative policy paradigms arise, legitimacy crises occur, and shifts in power become evident” (Wilson,
2000, p. 266). Stressors consist of natural or man-made disasters, cumulative processes like demographic shifts, new discoveries, or scandals. Cobb and Elder (1983) refer to “trigger events,” Sabatier (1999b) to “external perturbations,” and Jones, Baumgartner, and True (1995) to “exogenous shocks.” They can generate stress on organizational arrangements, undermine dominant policy paradigms, and raise the visibility of new problems. Paradigm shifts occur when events or stressors arise that are inconsistent with the dominant policy narrative. If this occurs, new paradigms or discourses may emerge or existing (but dormant) alternatives may gain traction. Stressors and paradigm shifts sometimes interact, producing crises of legitimacy. By questioning the stories, images, and authority upon which established regimes are based, politicians and nongovernmental leaders may gradually propel a loss of public confidence in them (Stone, D., 1988, 1989). Power shifts are sometimes enabled by stressors, paradigm shifts, and legitimacy crises, but can also occur “naturally.” They can occur with changes in the composition of Congress or the White House, through the defection of a bloc of policy elite, or because of the mobilization of advocacy coalitions (Wilson, 2000)."

(Excerpt from Cohen-Vogel, L. & McLendon, M. (2009). New approaches to understanding federal involvement in education. In D. Plank, G. Sykes, and B. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research. A Handbook for the American Educational Research Association. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)

References:

Stone, C. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas

Skowronek, S. (1993). The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership From John Adams to George Bush. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Harris, R. A., & Milkis, S. M. (1996). The Politics of Regulatory Change: A Tale of Two Agencies (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press

Wilson, C. (2000). Policy regimes and policy change. Journal of Public Policy, 20, 247-274

References applying the framework:

Cohen-Vogel, L. & McLendon, M. (2009). New approaches to understanding federal involvement in education. In D. Plank, G. Sykes, and B. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research. A Handbook for the American Educational Research Association. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965-2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.