SUPPORTING PUBLIC POLICY MAKING

THROUGH POLICY ANALYSIS AND

POLICY LEARNING
Print ISBN 978-92-9157-635-7 doi:10.2816/141606 TA-01-15-580-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-9157-636-4 doi:10.2816/721877 TA-01-15-580-EN-N

© European Training Foundation, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

The contents of this paper are the sole responsibility of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the EU institutions.

2
SUPPORTING PUBLIC POLICY MAKING
THROUGH POLICY ANALYSIS AND
POLICY LEARNING
Dr Madlen Serban

1. INTRODUCTION Policy learning takes place within a sound policy

culture and environment, based on accountability
(not externally imposed (Fullan, 2012)) and
This paper aims to bring conceptual and the ownership of local stakeholders; it is also
methodological clarification to the way the a reflective policy-making process in which
European Training Foundation (ETF) approaches creativity and local capacities are used to their
policy analysis and policy making, with a view fullest extent, encouraging innovation at all levels
to supporting the ETF’s results-oriented work of VET system governance, while also valuing
and its predictability. The paper builds on the international experience.
ETF Yearbook 2012: evaluation and monitoring of
vocational education and training (VET) systems. This paper does not discuss the role of
evidence in policy analysis and policy making,
Concepts such as policy analysis and policy although this is critical to the success of these
making are certainly not new. The challenge for processes, at least in terms of reducing their
us at the ETF is to identify which of the many politicisation or with regard to discretionary
perspectives and approaches are the most decision making.
suitable for our mandate, which explicitly states
the need to align ourselves with the goals of
building and improving institutional capacity in
order to embed effective public policies in VET. 2. WHAT IS POLICY?
In other words, our task is to ensure that policy
analysis better supports policy making, with the WHY DO WE WORK
ETF acting as a catalyst and a learning facilitator
in the policy dialogue, rather than a reviewer or ON POLICY?
evaluator through externally run processes.
We define policy as a “purposive course of
Based on years of ETF experience, policy learning action followed by an actor or set of actors”
is considered as part of the solution1. (Anderson, 1975). Policy should be acknowledged
as a new perspective with regard to social
At the ETF, beginning in 2003, Peter Grootings transformation, and one which entails a shift
and Søren Nielsen proposed policy learning as towards the ownership and responsibility of the
a method of work that refers mainly to practice- actors involved in the reforms and modernisation
driven, continuous improvement approach to VET processes.
reforms.
This extends beyond documents or legislation
Policy learning emphasises not simply and includes activities on the ground. Public
the involvement but, rather, the active policy can be generally defined as a system of
engagement of national stakeholders in laws, regulatory measures, courses of action,
developing their own policy solutions, and funding priorities concerning a given topic
and is based on the understanding that promulgated by a governmental entity or its
there are no universally valid models that representatives. Public policies are one of
can simply be transferred or copied from the main means through which order is set in
one context to another. At best, there is societies and systems are governed.
a wealth of international, though context-
specific, experience in dealing with Public policies also play a key role in introducing
similar policy issues that can be shared changes to societies and in guiding individual and
(ETF, 2005). collective behaviour.

3
Policy is no longer a regulation imposed by an is clearly in tension with a greater demand for
impersonal “state”, but an improvement initiative participation in the development of policy from an
proposed by multiple actors, through negotiated increasingly fragmented and sophisticated polity.
collective agreements and implemented through
collective actions. A policy should integrate, add Some interesting alternative approaches to
to or consolidate the micro, meso and macro policy making are emerging out of Europe
levels (Parsons, 1996). based on creating a role for governments in
managing policy networks. But in order to better
Therefore, analysing the process through which understand the complex process of policy
public policies are shaped and implemented and making, and to improve the process of policy
detecting its strengths and weaknesses are the making itself, much effort is dedicated to policy
first steps in understanding how we may design analysis.
policies to improve order and governance and
bring about effective change.

Analysing policy formulation as an ongoing, 4. WHAT IS POLICY

dynamic, interdependent and contextual process
is essential and a prerequisite to achieving good ANALYSIS?
results.
Policy analysis can be defined, in this specific
An initial indication of maturity in the system case, as the systematic investigation of
would be the existence of a policy approach with alternative policy options and the process of
reference to educational reforms. Subsequent gathering and integrating the evidence for and
signs are related to the external coherency and against each option. It involves a problem-solving
internal consistency of this approach, ensuring approach, establishing the means of collection
that the step can be taken from isolated policy and interpretation, and some attempts to predict
initiatives to making the entire policy system the consequences of alternative courses of
functional and efficient – in a position to deal with action.
existing improvement needs and able to plot the
path towards future goals. The policy literature suggests a plethora of
perspectives and frameworks for policy analysis.
A culture of quality policy will certainly pave the
way towards better results. Although various approaches to policy analysis
exist, three general approaches (so general
that they are also found in Wikipedia), can

3. WHAT IS POLICY be distinguished: the analycentric, the policy

process, and the meta-policy approaches.

MAKING? ƒƒ The “analycentric” approach focuses on

individual problems and their solutions; its
Policy making is a complex ongoing process that scope is the micro-scale and its problem
stretches over long periods and involves many interpretation is usually of a technical nature.
interests and participants, and which may vary The primary aim is to identify the most effective
along the course of time. Policies are influenced and efficient solution in technical and economic
by context and are therefore embedded in terms (e.g. the most efficient allocation of
national, economic, political, cultural, and social resources).
structures. ƒƒ The “policy process” approach puts its focal
As a result, policies, like soft systems (Checkland, point onto political processes and stakeholders
1981), are highly dependent on and specific to involved; its scope is the meso-scale and its
actors, context, sector, site and issue. For these problem interpretation is usually of a political
reasons it is important to ensure that policy nature. It aims at determining what processes
options are differentiated and adapted to the and means are used and tries to explain the
country’s context-specific needs. role and influence of stakeholders within the
policy process. By changing the relative power
Traditional approaches to policy making have and influence of certain groups (e.g., enhancing
assumed that policy-making processes are, and public participation and consultation), solutions
ought to be, centralised and hierarchical. This to problems may be identified.

4
ƒƒ The “meta-policy approach” is a system and 1993; Colebatch, 2005). This defines the
context approach; its scope is the macro-scale limits of the institutional policy model that
and its problem interpretation is usually of is determined by political institutions, which
a structural nature. It aims at explaining the give policy legitimacy. The political institutions
contextual factors of the policy process; i.e., are the executive, the legislature and the
what are the political, economic and socio- judiciary.
cultural factors influencing it. As problems may
3. Its focus is on the bureaucratic process
result from structural factors (e.g. a certain
while disregarding aspects related to
economic system or political institution),
content and context (Everett, 2003) and
solutions may entail changing the structure
intergovernmental relations (Jenkins-Smith
itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_
and Sabatier, 1993).
analysis).
As a model for policy analysis, the policy cycle
We are essentially questioning how separate
also adheres too much to normative processes
these approaches need to be and suggest
and imposes schematic stages on what actually
considering the borders between them as
happens (Hill, 2005).
indistinct. Consequently, we propose, for
the benefit of the policy analysis itself, using Despite criticism, we consider that this concept
elements of the last two approaches in setting is still useful for disaggregating the web of policy
the policy priorities, and adding the first approach transactions and for examining the process
when formulating the policy option. through which policies are made (DeLeon, 1999;
Pielke Jr, 2004).
From the angle of other criteria, we can also refer
to policy analysis as public policy creation and
implementation. But, as mentioned earlier, at the
ETF policy implementation is part of the policy-
making process rather than policy analysis. The
6. THE POLICY
policy cycle framework and the policy networks NETWORKS
PERSPECTIVE
perspective are examined below in relation to the
above three models.

This perspective offers a different way to

5. THE POLICY CYCLE tackle some of the complexities involved in

policy-making processes. It considers the
FRAMEWORK above three models with their cross-border
interdependencies.
Based on the “policy process” model, mentioned Policy networks are often used as a metaphor
above, the policy cycle framework aims to (Dowding, 1995) to describe new forms of
disaggregate the complex phenomenon of policy governance beyond state control, involving both
formation into manageable steps (Bridgman and public and private actors. The policy networks
Davis, 2003). It suggests breaking down the perspective concentrates on the cluster of
process into its sequential stages and examining interests in the (meta-)policy process, as well
what happens in each stage separately, while as on the relations between the actors who
at the same time assuming that each stage participate in the (meta-)policy process – the
influences the following (Howlett and Ramesh, network – and seeks to explain policy outcomes
1995). in relation to these characteristics (Marsh and
Rhodes, 1992).
A critique of the policy cycle as a framework
for policy understanding highlights three main The literature on policy networks gives several
issues. theoretical reasons and empirical determinants
1. It lacks the theoretical ability to predict policy of how policy networks are formed and defines
outcomes (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, 1993), characteristics of certain types of networks
(Adam and Kriesi, 2007; Bogason and Toonen,
2. It holds that public policies are dominated 1998; Borell and Johansson, 1996; Börzel, 1998;
and led by administrators rather than by Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan, 1997; Marin and
other actors (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, Mayntz, 1991).

5
Mitigating the limits of the above mentioned and has become intensively engaged in capacity
institutional model, the policy network is also building and policy advice since 2013.
part of the solution in the case of organisational
mismatch between contemporary problems to be The ETF is proposing to combine the policy
solved and the organisational structures assigned cycle with the policy networks, the latter being
to solve these problems. For instance, while the approached as a model of collective decision
borders between different levels of governmental making, an exchange process between actors in
units as well as different policy sectors are a market for control and influence over resources.
administratively defined, societal problems are However, the above perspectives ignore some
characterised by their interdependent and cross- important aspects of policy making and are
scale nature (Berkes, 2002; Hanf and Scharpf, limited in their ability to explain and predict
1978; Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004; Scharpf, 1991). policy outcomes. How should we work with this
Each stage of any policy process is governed by limitation? What must be done to mitigate risks?
a specific network. This network structure and
characteristics are shaped by the institutions/
organisations and the procedures that govern
each stage, and by the interactions between 7. THE ETF APPROACH
actors who have an interest in the specific stage
The multi-faceted nature of policy analysis makes
and access to the relevant decision-making
it clear that there is no single, let alone ‘one best’,
forums. Furthermore, each stage network
way of conducting policy analyses.
operates in the context of, and in relation to,
other stages’ networks. Through the policy analysis, our role is to assist
policymakers (governments and relevant but
The outcomes of each policy stage can be
multiple key stakeholders, at all decision-making
explained by its network characteristics and by
levels) in choosing a course of action from among
the opportunities and constraints imposed by
complex alternatives under uncertain conditions.
other stages’ networks.

It is very important that the performance of

the policy network be managed and measured
by considering variables such as legitimacy, 8. HOW DOES THE
representation and internal and external
effectiveness. Cooperation, patterns of ETF ASSIST PARTNER
information flow, joined strategies, as well as
other characteristics of the actors’ inter-relations COUNTRIES?
in the network are the principal means by which
Our assumption is that policy analysis cannot
policy outcomes can be explained.
replace the judgement of the policymaker (any
For these reasons, during capacity building it more than a blood test is intended as a substitute
is essential to observe the success factors for for a doctor’s diagnosis). At the ETF, we propose
performance improvement and to act accordingly. that countries identify and define the policy
problem, decide on priorities and look for policy
The ETF already has relevant experience in this alternatives as a potential response, comparing
area and can call on several practices created their results in order to formulate the best policy
through its support to the partner countries option (‘formulating the problem’). In this way
to explore whether different types of policy policy outcomes can be formulated, compared
networks can explain differences in problem- and subsequently predicted.
solving capacities. We note here only two
examples: national observatories (ETF, 2009), and Through other actions, the achievement of
local development partnerships. predicted outcomes should be monitored during
the implementation process through various
In the article “Treating Networks Seriously,” actions, with a view to taking any required
O’Toole (1997) emphasized the importance of an corrective action. In the policy cycle these stages
empirical research agenda for a network approach can be also called “solving the problem”.
when studying inter-organizational policy-
making processes within complex policy areas. Russell Ackoff once said: “We fail more often
The ETF re-launched its action research in 2011 because we solve the wrong problem than

6
because we get the wrong solution to the right Why are we using the word “complex”?
problem”. Examination of a policy and designing a policy
change are carried out in complex environments.
And Einstein himself stated: “If I had only one The diverse stakeholders and their growing
hour to save the world, I would spend fifty-five expectations of the VET system, the multiple
minutes defining the problem, and only five inter-dependencies of the VET sector and
minutes finding the solution.” the quest for holistic approaches are only a
This means that a great deal of effort should go few elements to be considered. However, it
into the formulation of the policy problem. The must be noted that the degree and nature of
definition of problems and the identification of complexity varies greatly across countries and
policy solutions are not easily separable in the over time within the same country. In response
light of countries’ dependence on governance to this the ETF has adopted the so-called
structures to tackle such problems (Jann and “differentiated approach” in all its undertakings
Wegrich, 2007). in an effort to capture the specificity of both (i)
country environments – economic, social and
This is why the ETF focuses biennially in cultural models and public administration and
the Torino Process on the policy-cycle stage management practices, and (ii) the country’s
described as “formulating the problem”. stage of implementation of its public policies, by
Together with the policy evaluation which is considering the pace of development as defined
carried out for progress-tracking purposes as a by the absorption capacity of social systems.
first step in the Torino Process, all the stages in
“formulating the problem” are associated with “Uncertain” are not the policy changes, but their
“policy analysis”. effects. Thus in the potential effects analysis the
focus should be on what can happen instead of
The ETF annual interventions in its partner what will happen, or, in other words, on “what
countries are part of the process of “solving if”, including factors that might strongly affect the
the problem”, and are part of the policy-making policy outcomes.
process, as defined in the context of the ETF’s
work. Public policies have become more uncertain
and indeterminate in many respects, and the
Policy analysis deals with those priorities agreed difficulty of effectively steering and governing
on during the problem identification process. education and training and employment systems
All problems and priorities should be ranked has grown, in particular in the absence of clear
according to their urgency and importance. economic growth strategies.
Further, in the course of the analysis of the
policy alternatives, and based on ex-ante impact Under these circumstances, there is an
assessment, the policy choice(s) should be increasing need to professionalise the policy
formulated in relation to particular thematic areas, analysis and policy making and to ensure
as categorised by the ETF. effective governance of these processes marked
by the capacity to anticipate problems. Enhanced
The ETF will analyse the policy choice to ascertain knowledge, understanding and effective learning
the correct level of implementation before this are facilitated by the ETF through capacity-
work begins, and this will be accompanied by building actions, policy learning and policy
the necessary methodological work or a proposal networks empowerment (Torinets) in particular.
for such work to the European Commission’s Leadership is essential and the ETF contributes
programming services. As mentioned, ETF to developing leaders who will nurture other
interventions in partner countries are ongoing, leaders, believing that only through widespread
except in cases where the country’s cooperation leaderships is it possible to carry out a set
with the European Union has been suspended. agenda and create greater sustainability.

In the ETF logic of action, the primary job is to Having said that, we strongly advocate the
solve a problem rather than merely creating participation of a diverse range of stakeholders
methodologies and models, and therefore (governments, the private sector, civil society
empowering people and organisations is key to organisations, employers and trade unions
this goal. The ETF capacity-building function is in particular) as members of policy networks
conceptualised and operationalised to serve this created at all policy-cycle stages within a multi-
purpose. level governance perspective. With their capacity

7
to foster interactive contributions from a broad- However, Fullan (2012) delivers a word of
based membership, as well as their informal caution referring to policy dilemmas. He talks
patterns of communication, networks can present of the policy-overload dilemma, which can be
a valuable method for multi-actor collaboration summarized as follows:
across all stages of the policy process (Sutton,
ƒƒ Policy overload happens when governments
1999). According to some scholars, networks are
fall into the trap of developing plans that are
presented as a vehicle to address “governance
too complex, too vague and contain too many
gaps” identified as “operational gaps” (an inability
priorities.
to deal with complexity) and “participatory gaps”
(a large-scale democratic deficit)2. ƒƒ Policy overload results in (i) lack of focus, (ii)
fragmented priorities, and (iii) a sense of an
Although in real life it does not progress logically endless stream of ad hoc initiatives.
through these stages, the most inspirational and
influential approaches of the policy cycle for the Fullan suggests that the overall policy plan to
ETF’s work are those presented graphically in be actionable, reasonably clear and lead to
Figure 1 below. widespread ownership.

FIGURE 1. POLICY CYCLE

Policy Review Agenda Setting

1

6 Policy evaluation Problem identification

Agenda setting

Policy research
5 Policy accountability Policy options &
Policy monitoring
Policy monitoring strategies
Policy enforcement
Policy negotiation

Policy formulation
Policy implementation 2

Policy organisation

4 Policy Implementation Policy Formation 3

Graphical presentation based on the Policy Cycle proposed by Eco Informatics International Inc
(www.geostrategis.com/images/policycycle.jpg)

ETF definition:
actions 6 + 1 + 2 = policy analysis through the biennial Torino Process;
actions 3 + 4 + 5 = policy making through interventions in the annual Work Programme defined
based on the Torino Process.

8
The individual steps in the policy cycle process are described in detail by Findeisen and Quade
(1985) and by Quade (1989, Chapter 4 – cited in Walker, 2000). Other authors are proposing to name
the first two stages policy formulation and to make a distinction from the adoption stage since
other stakeholders, for example legislative bodies such as parliaments, are involved. Their option is
presented here in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2. PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS

The steps proposed by the ETF in the case of policy formulation, as a stage of the public policy
process (see Figure 2 above), are presented in Figure 3 below.

FIGURE 3. POLICY FORMULATION STEPS

Identify the objectives of the new policy – focus on

a small number of key strategic objectives3

Decide on (impact-oriented) criteria for alternative

policies

Select the alternative policies/policy options

Carry on an ex-ante impact assessment evaluation

of the alternatives

Describe the policy choice and related policy

outcomes/results

9
9. A FINAL WORD proof that maps were in fact used, as
anyone who’s taken a pleasant ramble in
OF CAUTION the woods can attest. But we presume
that our governments are doing more than
Distinguished scholars and administrators rambling, that they have a plan, that their
worldwide identify the economic challenges and journeys and their destinations are guided
pressures facing education and training, compare by policy. This presumption will often be
policy developments in numerous jurisdictions, proven wrong – government actions may
and demonstrate the ways in which networks be the result of accident, instinct or habit,
achieve results. However, as Pal (2010) suggests: rather than of policy. Once we understand
this, we understand the challenge of doing
In reflecting on the nature of public policy, policy analysis – it is an attempt to grasp
we also have to realize what it is not. an underlining structure of ideas that
It is not the implemented program, the supposedly guides action.
behaviours of public servants who put it into
effect, or indeed the reactions of citizens Policy analysis can pose core questions: What is
affected by it. If we take the definition, we the nature of the problem? What are we trying to
are forced to realize that public policy – as a achieve? How shall we go about in addressing it?
course of action – is not the action itself, in How do we know if we have been successful or
the same way that a map is different from not?
travelling. Policies are mental constructs, The conditions or factors of success for both the
strings of phrases, and ideas. The text of policy analysis and the policy making are also
a policy statement and the programs and relevant considering that this work is not that of
actions that follow it are simply evidence experts but that it is carried out by stakeholders
for the mental construct. Analysing policy as members of policy networks.
is akin to trying to figure out which maps
people used by studying the paths they However, institutionalisation of public policy
took on their journey. The fact that there analysis and policy making can contribute to
was a journey and a destination is not efficiency gains and improvements in results.

10
REFERENCES
Adam, S. and Kriesi, H., ‘The network approach’, Burns, T. and Schuller, T., ‘Chapter I – the
in Sabatier, P. (ed.), Theories of the policy evidence agenda’, in Evidence in education:
process, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2007. linking research and policy, OECD Centre for
Educational Research and Innovation, 2007.
Anderson, J.E., Public policymaking: an
introduction, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, Checkland, P., Systems thinking, systems
1975. practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1981.

Arndt, C. and Oman, C., Uses and abuses of Ciolan, L., Towards a culture of quality
governance indicators, OECD, Development policymaking in transition countries: the case of
Centre Studies, 2006. education, UB Press, Bucharest, 2006, available
at http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00002799/
Bardach, E., A practical guide for policy
analysis: the eightfold path to more effective Clemons, R.S. and McBeth, M.K., Public policy
problem solving, CQ Press, Thousand Oaks, praxis: Theory and pragmatism: A case approach,
CA, 2000. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2001.

Bennett, C.J. and Howlett, M., ‘The lessons of Colebatch, H.K., ‘Policy analysis, policy practice
learning: reconciling theories of policy learning and political science’, Australian Journal of Public
and policy change’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 25, 1992, Administration, Vol. 64, No 3, 2005, pp. 14–23.
pp. 275–94.
DeLeon, P., ‘The stages approach to the policy
Berkes, F., ‘Cross-scale institutional linkages: process: what has it done? Where is it going?’, in
perspective from the bottom up’, in Committee Sabatier P. (ed.), Theories of the policy process,
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change et Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1999.
al. (eds), The drama of the commons, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002. Dowding, K., ‘Model or metaphor? A critical
review of the policy network approach’, Political
Bogason, P. and Toonen, T.A.J., Introduction: studies, Vol. 43, No 1, 1995, pp. 136–58.
networks in public administration, Public
Administration, Vol. 76, No 2, 1998, pp. 205–27. Dunn, W.N., Public policy analysis: an
introduction, 4th edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Borell, K. and Johansson, R., Samhället som Saddle River, 2008.
Nätverk, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1996.
ETF (European Training Foundation), Grootings,
Börzel, T.A., ‘Organizing Babylon – on the P. (ed.), ETF yearbook 2004: learning matters,
different conceptions of policy networks’, Public Office for Official Publications of the European
Administration, Vol. 76, No 2, 1998, pp. 253–73. Communities, Luxembourg, 2004.

Boswell, C., ‘The political functions of expert ETF (European Training Foundation), Grootings,
knowledge: knowledge and legitimation in P. and Nielsen, S. (eds), ETF yearbook 2005:
European Union immigration policy’, Journal of teachers and trainers: professionals and
European Public Policy, Vol. 15, No 4, 2008, pp. stakeholders in the reform of vocational
471–88. education and training, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities,
Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J., ‘A framework Luxembourg, 2005.
for comparative analysis of performance
management’, Paper for presentation to the ETF (European Training Foundation), ETF MEDA
Study Group on Productivity and Quality in the Observatory Function Project 2001–2008:
Public Sector, Conference of European Group of inventory report, 2009.
Public Administration, Bocconi University, Italy,
2006. ETF (European Training Foundation), ETF yearbook
2012: evaluation and monitoring of vocational
Bridgman, P. and Davis, G., ‘What use is a policy education and training systems and the role
cycle? Plenty, if the aim is clear’, Australian of evidence-based policy in their reforms,
Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 62, No 3, Publications Office of the European Union,
2003, pp. 98–102. Luxembourg, 2012.

11
Etheredge, L., ‘Government learning’, in Long, S. Jann, W. and Wegrich, K., ‘Theories of the
(ed.), The handbook of political behaviour, Vol. 2, policy cycle’, in Fischer, F., Miller, G.J. and
Plenum Press, New York, 1981. Sidney, M.S. (eds), Handbook of public policy
analysis: theory, politics, and methods, CRC
Etheredge, L. and Short, J., ‘Thinking about Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL,
government learning’, Journal of Management 2007, pp. 43–61.
Studies, Vol. 20, No 1, 1983, pp. 41–58.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C. and Sabatier, P.A., ‘The
Everett, E., ‘The policy cycle: democratic process dynamics of policy oriented learning’, in Jenkins-
or rational paradigm revisited?’, Australian Journal Smith, H.C. and Sabatier, P.A. (eds), Policy change
of Public Administration, Vol. 62, No 2, 2003, pp. and learning: an advocacy coalition approach,
65–70. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1993.
Fazekas, M. and T. Burns T., ‘Exploring the Keane, W., ‘Self-interpretation, agency, and
complex interaction between governance and the objects of anthropology: reflections on a
knowledge in education’, OECD Education genealogy’, Comparative studies in society and
Working Papers, No 67, OECD Publishing, 2012. history, 45, 2003, pp. 222–48.
Findeisen, W. and Quade, E.S., ‘The methodology Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E-H. and Koopeenjan,
of system analysis: an introduction and overview’, J.F.M., Managing complex networks: strategies
in Miser, H.J. E. and Quade, E.S. (eds), Handbook for the public sector, Sage Publications, London,
of systems analysis, Part I: Overview of uses, 1997.
procedures, applications, and practice, Elsevier
Science Publishing, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. Koppenjan, J., and Klijn, E-H., Managing
117–50. uncertainties in networks, Routledge, London,
2004.
Florini, A.M. (ed.), The third force: the rise of
transnational civil society, Japan Centre for Marin, B. and Mayntz, R., Policy networks:
International Exchange and Carnegie Endowment empirical evidence and theoretical considerations,
for International Peace, 2000. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1991.

Fullan, M, ‘Transforming schools an entire system Marsh, D. and Rodhes R.A.W., Policy networks
at a time’, McKinsey & Company, 2012, available in British government, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
at www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/ 1992.
transforming_schools_an_entire_system_at_a_
time Moran, M., Reion M. and Goodin, R.E., The
Oxford handbook of public policy, Oxford
Hall, P.A., ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and University Press, Oxford, 2006.
the state: the case of economic policy making in
Britain’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 25, No 3, 1993, OECD, ‘Towards better measurement of
pp. 275–96. government’, OECD Working Papers on Public
Governance, 2007/1, OECD Publishing, 2007.
Hanf, K. and Scharpf, F.W., Interorganizational
policy making: limits to coordination and central O’Toole Jr., L.J., ‘Treating networks seriously:
control, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1978. practical and research-based agendas in public
administration’, Public Administration Review,
Heclo, H., Modern social politics in Britain and Vol. 57, No 1, 1997, pp. 45–52.
Sweden: from relief to income maintenance, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT, 1974. Pal, L.A., Beyond policy analysis – public issue
management in turbulent times, 4th edition,
Hill, M., The public policy process, 4th edition, Thomson Nelson, Toronto, 2010.
Pearson-Longman, Harlow, 2005.
Parag, Y., ‘A system perspective for policy analysis
Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M., Studying public and understanding: the policy process networks’,
policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems, Oxford University Centre for the Environment
Oxford University Press, Don Mills, Ontario, (OUCE), 2006.
1995.

12
Parsons, W., Public policy: an introduction to the Walker, W.E., ‘Policy analysis: a systematic
theory and practice of policy analysis, Edward approach to supporting policymaking in the
Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, UK, 1996. public sector’, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis, Vol. 9, 2000, pp. 11–27.
Perkin, E. and Court, J., ‘Networks and policy
processes in international development: a Weimer, D.L. and Vining, A., Policy analysis:
literature review’, ODI Working Papers, 252, concepts and practice, 4th edition, Upper Saddle
Overseas Development Institute, 2005. River, Prentice-Hall, 2005.
Pielke Jr., R., ‘What future for the policy Weyland, K., ‘The diffusion of innovations: a
sciences?’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 37, 2004, pp. theoretical analysis’, Paper presented at the
209–25. annual meeting of the American Political Science
Association, 2002.
Radin, B., Beyond Machiavelli: policy analysis
comes of age, Georgetown University Press, Weyland, K., Bounded rationality and policy
Washington, DC, 2000. diffusion: social sector reform in Latin America,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006.
Raffe, D. and Spours, K., ‘Three models of policy
learning and policy-making in 14–19 education’,
in Raffe, D. and Spours, K. (eds), Policy-making
and policy learning in 14-19 education, Institute of NOTES
Education, University of London, 2007.
1. There are large numbers of policy learning models:
Rose, R. ‘What is lesson-drawing?’, Journal of rational learning (Weyland, 2002; 2006); social learning
Public Policy, Vol. 11, No 1, 1991, pp. 3–30. (Hall, 1993); political learning (Heclo, 1974); instrumental
learning (Boswell, 2008); collaborative learning (Raffe
Rose, R., Lesson-drawing in public policy: a guide and Spours, 2007); lesson drawing (Rose, 1991; 1993;
to learning across time and space, Chatham 2005); government learning (Etheredge, 1981; Etheredge
House Publishers, Chatham, NJ, 1993. and Short, 1983); and systematically pinching ideas
(Schneider and Ingram, 1988). Attempts to unite some
Rose, R., Learning from comparative public
of these models have mainly failed in generating long-
policy: a practical guide, Routledge, Abingdon,
lasting consensus even on basic issues (e.g. Bennett and
2005.
Howlett, 1992). In the field of education policy research,
Sandström, A., ‘Policy networks: the relation three models of policy learning have been outlined by
between structure and performance’, Doctoral Raffe and Spurs (2007), which can be applied to a range
of education policies: (i) rationalist, (ii) collaborative, and
thesis, Lulea University of Technology, 2008.
(iii) politicised.
Scharpf, F.W., ‘Games real actors could play: the
challenges of complexity’, Journal of Theoretical 2. See works by Keane (2003), Florini (2000), and
Politics, Vol. 3, No 3, 1991, pp. 277–304. Sandström, 2008.

Schneider, A. and Ingram, H., ‘Systematically 3. Fullan, 2012.

pinching ideas’, Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 8, No
1, 1988, pp. 61–80.

SIGMA, The SIGMA programme, available at

www.oecd.org

Sutton, R., The policy process: an overview,

Overseas Development Institute Working Paper
118, Chameleon Press Ltd, London, 1999.

UNESCO, UNESCO handbook on education

policy analysis and programming, volume 1:
education policy analysis, UNESCO, Bangkok,
2011.
14
15
CONTACT US

TA-01-15-580-EN-N
Further information can be found
on the ETF website:
www.etf.europa.eu

For any additional information

please contact:
European Training Foundation
Communication Department
Viale Settimio Severo 65
I - 10133 Torino

E [email protected]
T +39 011 6302222
F +39 011 6302200