European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 181

European Policy Analysis

references for defining the identity of one
policy versus another, hence delineating
the boundaries of policies.

First and most fundamentally,
a policy can be described as a certain
ensemble of substantive problems, goals,
and means. Problems, conceived of as
perceived difference between a given and
a desired state of the world, mark the
starting point of a certain policy and policy
actions (Dery 1984; Hoppe 2011). Policy
goals specify an envisioned end state of
policymaking; and a policy tool (as the
means) comprises a set of interventions
that is expected to transform a policy
problem into a policy solution. These
substantial policy elements span two
mutually constitutive layers, which can be
considered policy-related excerpts of the
subjective and objective worlds (Majone
1980). Policies are usually written in some
form of (symbolic) policy text (such as a
bill, a law, a regulation, or a manifesto).
These policy texts are interpreted and
enacted in some form of (material)
policy action “on the ground” (such as
the allocation of resources to build an
infrastructure and so forth).

Second, the social dimension
of a policy reflects the assumption that
“public policy is a matter of human
agency” (Schneider and Ingram 1997,
1). Following this, the policy substance
(problems, solutions, and means) cannot
be meaningfully understood in isolation
from the actors who make and interpret
a policy. These actions take place in some
form of policy arena (Ostrom 1999),
which includes various kinds of actors
who are part of specific, more complex
actor constellations, and engage with
one another in various spheres that
are characterized by either “opening”
(debates) or “closing” (decisions) forms

of interactions (Scharpf 1997; Stirling
2008).

Third, the temporal dimension
reflects the widespread assumption that a
policy is not a singularity or a static entity.
Rather than a “still,” a policy is understood
as a “movie” (Kay 2006), implying that
its substantial elements and social arena
evolve over time as a sequence of different
temporal states. Most prominently, this
notion has been expressed in models such
as the policy cycle (Jann and Wegrich
2007) or other temporal ideas highlighting
the chaot ic and contingent character of
policy developments (Kingdon 2014;
Zahariadis 2007). These different policy
temporalities can be captured according
to more general, time-related criteria
(Pierson 2004; Prittwitz 2007), such as
duration, dynamics, or velocity.

Similar to time, the spatial
dimension of a policy is fundamental as
it underlies the other dimensions. Most
prominently, the notion of policy space
is reflected in concepts, such as multilevel
policymaking, suggesting that a policy
may extend over several functional
or jurisdictional levels of governance
(Piattoni 2010). The many ways of
thinking about and conceptualizing
policy space can be reduced to two: a
vertical subdimension covering various
policymaking levels that are related in
some form of hierarchical order (from the
local to the international) and a horizontal
one referring to various policy areas at a
certain level, which are demarcated by
jurisdictional borders.

The second question (How
are policies integrated?) relates to the
modes of policy integration and can be
approached by more closely looking at
the meaning of “integration.” Following
a generic understanding, “integration”

181