European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 155

European Policy Analysis

and its top-down bias proponents do not
easily let go of “a useful friend” (Sabatier
and Weible 2014). Regardless of all efforts
to capture the temporal complexities of
the policy process, the very thought of a
stage based, cyclical mechanism which
informs and rationalizes policymaking,
strengthens its “evidence-base” and
enhances its “policy analytical capacity”
cannot be underestimated in its influence
on both policy analysis and policymaking
up to this day (Howard 2005; Howlett
2009; Straßheim and Kettunen 2014). We
are returning to this subject in Section 6.

A further set of theories in this
group emphasizes the embeddedness of
policymaking in some sort of structured
sequencing (Howlett and Goetz 2014;
Howlett and Rayner 2006). Theories of
path dependency draw on institutional
mechanisms that lead to a “lock-in” of
policymaking on a specific trajectory
that cannot be easily left without high
costs, loss of legitimacy, or deviating
from the ordering force of narratives
(Abbott 1992). Although the beginning
of the trajectory may be contingent or
even random and its results may be
suboptimal, following the path—even if it
is a “crooked path” meandering between
different constellations of actors, ideas,
and interests—is a rational strategy until
a “turning point” or “critical juncture” is
reached (Djelic and Quack 2005; Mahoney
2000; Pierson 2004). These moments
of contingency have been highlighted
in process models, identifying causal
mechanisms such as “bandwagon effects”
or “social cascades” that can explain why
at some tipping point temporal dynamics
go in a completely different direction
(Baumgartner and Jones 2002; Gersick
1991) . While these models do not deny
the contingency of social processes, they

are based on the assumption that even
the most revolutionary punctuations
of former trajectories follow a certain
causal logic. Proponents emphasize the
superiority of this model in comparison
to path dependency or other sequential
approaches as it shows that “continuities
across temporal cases can be traced in part
to enduring problems, while more or less
contingent solutions to those problems
are seen as reflecting and regenerating the
historical individuality of each period”
(Haydu 1998, 354).

How do we know our future?
Theories of policymaking in time answer
this question by arguing that political action
is embedded in institutions or structures
of meaning, following suboptimal
trajectories or quickly changing at certain
turning points depending on the context
or period of time. Still, political action
is both driven by and capable of rational
problem solving. Thus, in order to know
the future it needs to be anticipated based
on evidence and information.

4. Policymaking by Time

A

second group of theories
conceptualizes
politics
as
“organized anarchy” (Cohen,
March, and Olsen 1972; Kingdon 1984;
Zahariadis 2003; Zohlnhöfer, Herweg,
and Rüb 2015). Rational problem solving
is seen as the exception, not as a norm.
Policymaking is characterized by unstable
participation in decision making, high
turnovers of political or administrative
actors, and a considerable influence of
nongovernmental organizations such as
unions or civil society groups. Preferences
and problems are not well articulated, not
least because of often-opaque decision-

155