European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 171

European Policy Analysis

incremental policy change characterized
by processes of layering and drift.” These
processes of policy layering have in turn
been promoted by an era of considerable
policy innovations that were brought in
by ever-diversifying forms of governance:
“With new actors came new ideas, creating
a rich mix of policy elements that, in a
context of institutional ambiguity, proved
hard to gather up into optimal policy
designs” (Rayner and Howlett 2009b,
101). According to this interpretation,
integrated strategies often represent
conscious efforts to combine multiple
policy elements in a more coherent way
and overcome the disorganized character
of the existing policy system (see also
May et al. 2005; May, Sapotichne, and
Workman 2006). In-depth case studies
on the national sustainability strategy
in Germany point to less ambitious
goals of policymakers. Besides following
international obligations, sustainability
strategies are perceived by policymakers
as opportunities to overcome existing
institutional constrictions and gain action
capacity within a highly institutionalized
and
fragmented
policy
system
(Bornemann 2011; 2014; Tils 2005; 2007).

There are obviously many different
empirical forms of IPS within and across
different fields and policy levels (see, e.g.,
Swanson et al. 2004). However, in various
reviews several recurring elements
have been identified (Bornemann 2014;
Casado-Asensio and Steurer 2014; 2008;
Steurer and Martinuzzi 2007). First, at
the core of an IPS, there is usually a (set
of) programmatic document(s), such as a
national sustainability strategy or a climate
adaptation strategy, in which problems,
goals, and means are defined. Second,
these strategies emerge and are enacted
in a certain organizational arrangement.

Typically, such an arrangement consists
of some interdepartmental coordination
structure that spans various administrative
departments and includes elements that
ensure consultations with scientific actors,
as well as the broader public. Finally, IPS
bear a procedural dimension as both
the organizational arrangement and the
strategy documents are subject to regular
revisions and adaptations over time.

Despite these g eneral empirical
commonalities regarding the form of IPS,
the academic literature has not offered
an unambiguous understanding of what
IPS are, how they can be distinguished
from other forms of policymaking,
and how they ought to be analyzed to
capture their peculiarities. In fact, there
are several conceptual propositions and
analytical perspectives on IPS. These are
based on various heterogeneous sources,
ranging from political agreements and
guidelines for practitioners prescribing
what administrators can and should do
to formulate and implement IPS (DalalClayton and Bass 2002) to empirically
informed
theoretical
reflections
(Meadowcroft 2007; Steurer 2007; 2010;
Tils 2007). These various perspectives
focus on different aspects of politics
and are based on diverse presumptions
regarding the functions of IPS, as well as
the forms they are supposed to take in
order to fulfill these functions.
Early
investigations
have
examined and analyzed IPS as a new form
of policymaking and steering that cuts
across various sectors but aims at solving
complex policy problems by setting longterm goals and defining measures (Jänicke
2000; Nordbeck 2001; Wurster 2013).
Following this policy perspective, IPS are
all about defining and solving problems
in a comprehensive and rational manner.

171