Policy instrument constituencies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.png)
A policy instrument constituency is a theoretical concept in political science and describes a network of actors (individuals and organizations) focused on developing, promoting, and maintaining a specific policy instrument (e.g., regulations, taxes, subsidies).[1][2] Instrument constituencies have been identified as the key drivers of the "policy stream" in the multiple streams framework. By actively promoting the benefits and effectiveness of the instruments they promote, instrument constituencies can significantly influence the policy agenda. This influence can lead to the adoption of an instrument even when other tools might be more effective for a given challenge. Likewise, the influence of instrument constituency can lead to problem chasing, which is the situation in which the coupling of an instrument to a policy problem is driven by the former rather than the latter.[3] On the other hand, encouraging the growth of instrument constituencies can also be beneficial, e.g. for fostering climate-friendly transitions.[4]
The concept first originated in the works of Jan-Peter Voß and Arno Simons, as a critique of studying policy instrumentation mostly from the perspective of policy choice.[2] The latter perspective tended to take the availability of policy instruments for granted, or to treat them as emerging from experiential learning. In contrast, Voß and Simons emphasized the "supply side" of policy instrumentation, by showing that a particular tool, emissions trading, has been developed in a more or less coordinated way by a network of environmental economists, consultants, think tanks, and economic actors being attracted by the promise of emerging markets for tradable permits. Voß, Simons and colleagues also applied the concept to analyzing the development of other instruments, including experimental sustainability management,[5] biodiversity offsets,[6] citizen juries,[7] and evidence-based policy.[8]
Policy scholars around the world picked up the notion of instrument constituencies and developed it further. For example, Daniel Béland and Michael Howlett fleshed out the notion of instruments "chasing problems" in virtue of their constituencies,[3] a point already made in passing by Voß and Simons in their original publication.[2] Another development of the concept was to compare instrument constituencies to other collective policy actors. Ishani Mukherjee and Howlett argued that instrument constituencies, together with epistemic communities and advocacy coalitions can be thought of as three driving actor groups in John W. Kingdon's famous multiple streams framework.[9] Another conceptual development was the application of the concept to studying meta policy instruments by Simons and Alexander Schniedermann who analyzed the emergence of evidence-based policy as driven by an transnational constituency.[8]