European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 170

Integrative Political Strategies—Conceptualizing and Analyzing a New Type of Policy Field

these phenomena in a differentiated
manner. Second, in so doing, I strive to
contribute to the understanding of policy
fields as well as the constitution and
dynamics of contemporary policy systems
more generally.

I begin with a review of more recent
perspectives and research on IPS (Section
2). On the basis of several critical points
regarding the existing literature, I propose
an alternative conceptualization of IPS
as a new, “reflexive” type of policy field
(Section 3). Subsequently, the analytical
implications of this reconceptualization
are developed, and the contours of an
integration- and strategy-oriented policyfield analysis are outlined (Section 4). I
conclude this paper with some remarks on
the future perspectives of an integrationand strategy-oriented policy research
(Section 5).

2. Integrative Political Strategies: A
Critical Review of Recent Research

O

ver the last 20 years or so, IPS have
become significant phenomena
of contemporary policymaking
(Casado-Asensio and Steurer 2014).
Starting out from industrialized countries
in the early 1990s, they are now present
in many countries all over the world
(see, e.g., Swanson et al. 2004). Most
prominently, IPS have been developed at
the national level, but there are also IPS
at the subnational and supra-national
levels (Gouldson and Roberts 2000; Kern
2008; Schreurs 2008). IPS cover multiple
issue areas, mostly associated with the
environmental domain, such as land
management (Rayner and Howlett 2009b),
natural resource management (Howlett
and Rayner 2006), climate mitigation

and adaptation (Bauer, Feichtinger,
and Steurer 2012; Biesbroek et al. 2010;
Mickwitz et al. 2009), or sustainable
development (Brodhag and Talière 2006;
Steurer 2008). However, other cases of IPS
encompass nonenvironmental issue areas,
such as poverty alleviation (Cejudo and
Michel 2015; Gould 2005). Only recently
studies have started to relate the different
experiences from these various areas and
reveal similar patterns of policymaking
and governance (Casado-Asensio and
Steurer 2014; Nordbeck and Steurer 2015).

The emergence of integrative
strategies and their persistence are
explained in various ways. Some
observers view the development of IPS
as triggered by international obligations
and transnational diffusion processes
(Busch and Jörgens 2005; Casado-Asensio
and Steurer 2014), with the creation of
IPS resulting from the pressure to fulfill
international agreements. While this
mechanism might be plausible for some
IPS, it is insufficient for explaining other
IPS cases where international obligations
are absent (e.g., innovation and resource
management) or not directly relevant
(such as subnational IPS). Here, other
factors related to internal dynamics in
the policy system seem to be important.
Some authors argue that the development
of these strategies is a reaction to some
form of dissatisfaction of political actors
with the policy space where they operate.
For example, from a series of case studies
on integrative land-use strategies in
Canada, Rayner and Howlett (2009a,
166) conclude that such strategies “are
rarely adopted until there is widespread
dissatisfaction with the disorganized
character of the existing policy regime,”
which results from “long periods of

170