Evolutionary theory is prevalent in policymaking studies and it can be useful if we overcome some initial barriers. First, ‘evolution’ comes with a lot of baggage when we move from a discussion of animals to people. We can blame ‘social-Darwinism’ for the racist/ sexist idea that some people are more evolved than others.
Second, the word ‘evolution’ is used frequently in daily life, and academic studies, without a clear sense of its meaning. When it is used loosely in everyday language, it refers to a long term, gradual process of change. However, evolution can also refer to quick, dramatic change; the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ is that long spells of stability and gradual change are interrupted by relatively short but profound bursts of instability. When we get into the details of studies, there are other sources of potential confusion about, for example, the nature of evolution (does it refer to advancement as well as change?) and the nature of ‘selection’ (do species simply respond blindly to their environments or help create them?).
This sort of confusion can be found in the study of public policy where evolution can refer to a wide range of things, including:
- the cumulative, long-term development of policy solutions;
- major disruptions in the way that policy makers think about, and try to solve, policy problems;
- the maintenance or radical reform of policy-making institutions;
- ‘emergent’ behaviour within complex systems
- the trial-and-error strategies adopted by actors, such as policy entrepreneurs, when adapting to their environment;
- the coming together of multiple factors to create the conditions for major policy change (which can be a creative, ‘window of opportunity’ style process, or a destructive, failure-related ‘perfect storm’ style process).
The most prominent theories of politics and policymaking draw on references to evolution in different ways. For example:
Multiple Streams Analysis (Kingdon). Although policymaker attention may lurch from one problem to another, problems will not be addressed until policy solutions have evolved sufficiently within a policy community and policymakers have the motive and opportunity to adopt them. ‘Evolution’ and the ‘policy primeval soup’ describe the slow progress of an idea towards acceptability within the policy community.
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (Baumgartner and Jones). ‘Incremental’ policy change in most cases is accompanied by ‘seismic’ change in a small number of cases – an outcome consistent with ‘power laws’ found in the natural and social worlds. Kingdon’s picture of slow progress producing partial mutations is replaced by Baumgartner and Jones’ fast, disruptive, pure mutation.
Complexity theory. People, institutions and their environments are interacting constantly to produce rather unpredictable outcomes (or outcomes that may ‘emerge’ locally, in the absence of central control). This might be broken down into three steps:
- Institutions, as sets of rules and norms, represent ways for people to retain certain ideas and encourage particular forms of behaviours.
- Complex systems represent (partly) a large number of overlapping and often interdependent institutions.
- New behaviours and rules arise from the interaction between multiple institutions and the actors involved.
In other words, different ‘worlds’ are in constant collision, producing new ways of thinking and behaviour that ‘emerge’ from these interactions. They are then passed down through the generations, but in an imperfect way, allowing new forms of thinking and behaviour to emerge.
To describe these processes as ‘evolutionary’, we should use the language of evolution – variation, selection and retention – to describe and explain outcomes. The idea in the natural world is that certain beings (including humans) want to do at least two things: (1) pass on their genes; (2) cooperate with others to secure resources and share them out to their kith and kin. In the political world, the equivalent is passing on ‘memes’ (as described in the 70s by Richard Dawkins) – the ideas (beliefs, ways of thinking) that we use to understand the world and act within it:
- ‘Variation’ refers to the different rules adopted by different social groups to foster the collective action required to survive.
- ‘Selection’ describes the interaction between people and their environments; particular environments may provide an advantage to some groups over others and encourage certain behaviours (or, at least, some groups may respond by adapting their behaviour to their environment).
- ‘Retention’ describes the ways in which people pass on their genes (memes) to ensure the reproduction of their established rules (we might call them ‘institutions’).
The distinctive aspect of applying evolutionary theory to policymaking relates to the idea of passing on memes through the generations. In nature, we think of passing on genes through the generations as a process that takes hundreds, thousands or millions of years. Passing on memes through the ‘policy generations’ is more like the study of fruit flies (months), viruses or bacteria (days or weeks). Ways of thinking, and emerging behaviour, change constantly as people interact with each other, articulating different beliefs and rules and producing new forms of thinking, rules and behaviour. Big jumps in ways of thinking may be associated with generational shifts, but that can take place, for example, as one generation of scientists retires (as described by Kuhn) or, more quickly still, one generation of experts is replaced (within government circles) by another (as described by Hall).
I have discussed in other ‘1000 words’ posts what happens when theories, derived from cases studies of US politics, are applied to other countries and cases. ‘Evolutionary theory’ is more difficult to track, because it is a body of disparate work, loosely related to work in natural science, applied in a non-coordinated way. The same can be said for studies of complexity theory.
To read more, see ‘What is evolutionary theory and how does it inform policy studies?’ PDF, weblink or Green.
8 responses to “Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: Evolution”
You have done a fine job of showing that “evolution” in public policy is as muddled a concept there as it is in biology. As in biology, some people want everything that happens in public business explained in terms of evolution, even if it takes a nonsensical view of reality to do it.
Pingback: Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Analysis: A New Research Agenda? | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Why does public health policy change? | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Whatever happened to multiple streams analysis? | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy change, convergence and divergence since Scottish devolution #POLU9SP | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: how do policy theories describe policy change? | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 Words: entrepreneurial policy analysis | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy in 500 Words: Peter Hall’s policy paradigms | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy