European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 184
Integrative Political Strategies—Conceptualizing and Analyzing a New Type of Policy Field
management presumes that policymakers
act as if they were managers. Such a
presumption is problematic since it
narrows down the focus (and criteria)
of analysis (and evaluations) to certain
managerial orientations and practices of
policymakers while blocking other forms
of strategic orientations and practices
that emerge from and within political
contexts.
To shed light on the boundary work
around integrative–strategic policy fields,
I draw on conceptualizations of strategy
that have been explicitly promoted for
the analysis of strategic action in political
contexts (Raschke 2002; Raschke and Tils
2013; Tils 2005; 2011). The corresponding
political strategy approach can be
qualified by three main principles. First,
it is actor oriented, which implies that it
puts strategic actors and their actions at
the core of its interest. Second, it presumes
a broad understanding of “the political”,
combining aspects of polity, politics,
and policy, to understand how actors
formulate and implement strategies. Third,
it combines rational with interpretive
paradigms in understanding the
orientations of strategic actors. According
to the political strategy perspective, actors
attempt to intentionally optimize their
action courses within certain subjectively
perceived action spaces (Tils 2005, 69).
Within the scope of these basic
principles, a political strategy is defined
as an action construct that relies on
situation-transgressing, success-oriented,
and dynamic calculations, which refer
to goals, means, and contexts (Tils 2005,
25). This definition suggests that actors
act strategically when they attempt to
achieve their goals by taking account of
available means and their action contexts.
More specifically, strategic action draws
on a certain orientation that combines
goals, means, and contexts in such a way
that the chances of success are increased.
Based on this general understanding, a
differentiated conceptual basis has been
developed covering various dimensions,
such as strategic capacity, strategy
formulation, and strategic steering,
as well as related subdimensions and
elements (Raschke and Tils 2013; Tils
2011). This conceptual basis has been
employed to analyze strategic capacities
of political parties or strategic steering
in party government (Nullmeier and
Saretzki 2002; Raschke and Tils 2013;
Tils 2011). These applications indicate
that the political strategy perspective is
neither confined to, nor was it developed
for analyzing patterns of policy-field
demarcation around IPS. However, given
its generic ambitions, some of its basic
categories shall be adapted to illuminate
how integrative–strategic policy fields are
demarcated. More specifically, assuming
that the boundary drawing around
integrative–strategic policy fields adheres
to a strategic, rather than an institutional
logic, strategic analysis shall shed light
on these patterns of strategic boundary
work.
Boundary work more generally
refers to drawing a line between the inside
and the outside (Gieryn 1983; Lamont
and Molnár 2002). In relation to policy
fields, boundary work is about defining
the coverage and scope of a certain policy
field vis-à-vis its policy and nonpolicy
environments. The definition of a policy
field’s boundaries has major strategic
implications. By defining what a policy
field is all about, actors set the stage for
political and policy processes in these
fields—and for attaining their individual
goals. Boundary work is of