Integrative Political Strategies — Conceptualizing and Analyzing a New Type of Policy Field
fields ; and they deploy a particular class of instruments that address activities in already established policy fields ; finally , with regard to their substance matter , IPS seem to be rather flexible and transitory . Overall , the general concept of a policy field seems to fit , but it might at the same time dilute some of the peculiarities of IPS , that is , their cross-cutting and dynamic nature .
To capture these distinct features , I opt for conceptual differentiation and suggest understanding IPS in terms of a new , “ reflexive ” type of policy field that differs from an old , “ modernist ” type . 2 The differences among these types lie in the pattern of field formation , which plays out in two dimensions ( see Figure 1 ). 3 The first dimension refers to the genesis of the area that constitutes a policy field . A policy field can emerge by means of differentiation , that is , by breaking off from an existing policy field and forming a specialized area of problem solving , or it can be constituted by means of integration , that is , by combining various existing policies into a new policy field . The second dimension describes the mode of boundary delineation , that is , how a policy field attains and ensures autonomy vis-à-vis other policy fields . The multiple forms of boundary delineation that are theoretically conceivable can be boiled down to two ideal modes . On the one hand , policy boundaries can come in an institutionally fixed form , that is , demarcations that build on relatively stable and commonly accepted norms , which come to bear in some form of action-guiding and taken-for-granted organizational structure . On the other hand , the boundaries can be fluid and flexible — subject to constant struggles and strategic attempts to be ( re- ) adjusted or ( re- ) moved .
Based on these two dimensions of policy-field formation , 4 the old “ modernist ” type of policy fields reflects the dominant view of policy fields as the result of continuing differentiation and institutionalization in the policy system ( Blätte 2015 ; Döhler 2015 ). These policy fields arise in response to novel problem constellations by decoupling from existing policy fields and forming a more specialized problem-solving arena . The
2
To be clear , these qualifications are not meant to come with normative implications . Rather , they reflect a certain historical and , at the same time , logical sequence . The historical sequence implies that the new / reflexive type of policy field succeeds the old / modernist type . However , this succession does not take the form of a historical progression from old to new ( with the new replacing the old ). Rather , the logical sequence implies that new / reflexive policy fields cannot exist without old / modernist ones since the former emerge on grounds of the latter .
3
My focus on formation is descriptive only and does not attempt to explain why policy fields emerge . For explanatory perspectives on the formation of policy fields , see Haunss and Hofmann ( 2015 ) and Stecker ( 2015 ).
4
Only recently , Blätte ( 2015 ) has suggested a distinction of types of policy fields that is based on degrees of centralization / decentralization . He distinguishes among the “ normal ” case of concentrated policy fields on the one hand , and decentered fields on the other ( i . e ., cross-cutting action fields ). In the middle between these two extremes , he locates partially concentrated policy fields , that is , policy fields that are organized around an institutional center , but spread out to various areas . Blätte ’ s proposition is a highly valuable contribution to the long overdue typological discussion on policy fields . However , according to my reading , his conceptualization cannot sufficiently take account of “ integrative strategic
176