European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 172

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

More recently, policy-oriented observers
have come to regard IPS as representing
more than “just” policy instruments. For
example, Rayner and Howlett highlight
two functions. Aside from setting and
pursuing “substantive policy objectives,”
they regard IPS as means of policy design,
that is, “attempt[s] to create or reconstruct
a policy domain with coherent policy goals
and a consistent set of policy instruments
that support each other in the achievement
of the goals” (Howlett and Rayner 2007;
Rayner and Howlett 2009b).

A second perspective that has
dominated empirical research on IPS
falls under the category of “strategic
management” (Steurer 2007; Steurer and
Martinuzzi 2005). Drawing on models
from management studies and the
literature on new public management, the
management perspective broadens the
policy view in a process-oriented direction
(see Tils 2007). It focuses on management
cycles and highlights functions, such as
the monitoring, controlling, and revision
of governmental activities. Following
the strategic management perspective,
IPS are an expression of strategic public
management and, thus, pave the middle
way between failed policy-planning
approaches and incrementalism (Steurer
2007).

Following a different interpretation,
IPS can be regarded as manifestations
of reflexive governance (Meadowcroft
2007). This interpretation emphasizes the
democratic and participatory dimension
of IPS, specifically the inclusion of
stakeholders and citizens in governmental
policymaking. According to his view, IPS
are expected to facilitate learning processes
directed at reflecting on and transforming
established governance routines.

Most recently, Casado-Asensio

and Steurer (2014) seem to combine
various perspectives when they emphasize
three basic functions of IPS. First, their
policy function consists of setting goals
and defining measures to address complex
problems. Second, their management and
governance function refers to improving
governing processes by enhancing vertical
and horizontal policy integration, as well
as learning through a cyclical governing
process that involves monitoring and
reporting. Finally, their communication or
capacity function relates to raising public
and media awareness of the issues addressed
in these strategies. Taken together, these
functions render IPS as meta-governance
activities, in other words, “comprehensive
governing processes” that “aim to achieve
policy objectives more effectively by
providing direction, structure, and
control with regard to governance modes
(e.g., hierarchy, networks, market), policy
instruments and actors” (Casado-Asensio
and Steurer 2014, 441).

Concerning these ideal–typical
functions, the empirical performance
of IPS is regularly assessed as weak or
almost nonexistent. Integrative strategies
do not meet the functional expectations
regarding policy, governance, and capacity
building (Casado-Asensio and Steurer
2014; Nordbeck and Steurer 2015) or other
sets of success criteria (Meadowcroft 2007;
Steurer and Martinuzzi 2005). Overall,
“[they] have proved to be comparatively
weak administrative routines (or
informational policy instruments) and
preoccupied with low-key communication
rather
than
high-profile
policy
coordination. Consequently, they are
usually not capable of implementing the
policies necessary to meet the targets they
specify” (Casado-Asensio and Steurer
2014, 459).

172