The international sources of policy convergence: explaining the spread of environmental policy innovations

Abstract

Abstract Abstract How do international processes, actors and institutions contribute to domestic policy change and cross-national policy convergence? Scholars in the fields of international relations and comparative politics have identified a wide array of convergence mechanisms operating at the international or transnational level. In order to categorize this wide array of possible causes of policy convergence, we propose a typology of three broad classes of mechanisms: (1) the co-operative harmonization of domestic practices by means of international legal agreements or supranational law; (2) the coercive imposition of political practices by means of economic, political or even military threat, intervention or conditionality; and (3) the interdependent but uncoordinated diffusion of practices by means of cross-national imitation, emulation or learning. We illustrate and substantiate this claim through the empirical analysis of the international spread of three different kinds of policy innovation: national environmental policy plans and sustainable development strategies, environmental ministries and agencies, and feed-in tariffs and quotas for the promotion of renewable electricity. Keywords: Environmental policyharmonizationimpositionpolicy convergencepolicy diffusion. Acknowledgements This article is based on findings from a research project on the Diffusion of Environmental Policy Innovations as an Aspect of the Globalization of Environmental Policy which has been financed by the German Volkswagen Foundation. We would like to thank Christoph Knill and Volker Schneider for detailed and very helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. We also thank the participants of the preparatory workshop on 23 and 24 April in Hamburg for their constructive criticism and helpful suggestions. Notes 1 The research on harmonization of policies forms an important element in the study of international co-operation and regimes which has been central to international relations (Simmons and Martin 2002 Simmons, B. and Martin, L. L. 2002. “‘International organizations and institutions’”. In Handbook of International Relations, Edited by: Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B. London: Sage Publications. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Kratochvil and Ruggie 1986 Kratochvil, F. and Ruggie, J. G. 1986. ‘International organization: a state of the art on an art of state’. International Organization, 40(4): 753–75. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Rochester 1986 Kratochvil, F. and Ruggie, J. G. 1986. ‘International organization: a state of the art on an art of state’. International Organization, 40(4): 753–75. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Hasenclever et al. 1997 Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P. and Rittberger, V. 1997. Theories of International Regimes, Cambridge, , UK: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Levy et al. 1995 Levy, M. A., Young, O. R. and Zürn, M. 1995. ‘The study of international regimes’. European Journal of International Relations, 1(3): 267–330. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Haggard and Simmons 1987 Haggard, S. and Simmons, B. A. 1987. ‘Theories of international regimes’. International Organization, 41(3): 491–517. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Within the European context extensive research has been conducted by the European Union (EU) to analyse the impact of supranational regulations on domestic policy-making (Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999 Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. 1999. The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, Edited by: Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. London: Routledge. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Kohler-Koch, 2003 Kohler-Koch, B. 2003. Linking EU and National Governance, Edited by: Kohler-Koch, B. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Scharpf 1999 Scharpf, F. W. 1999. Governing in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). 2 Other related notions can be found in the literature: Dolowitz and Marsh (2000 Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. 2000. ‘Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making’. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1): 5–24. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 14–15) use the term ‘coercive transfer’, Bennett's notion of ‘penetration’ is quite similar to imposition (1991a: 227–9) and Ikenberry speaks of ‘external inducement’ (1990: 99–101). Imposition has been studied most extensively in the realm of development aid (Keohane and Levy 1996 Keohane, R. O. and Levy, M. A. 1996. Institutions for Environmental Aid: Pitfalls and Promise, Edited by: Keohane, R. O. and Levy, M. A. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]; Nelson 1996 Keohane, R. O. and Levy, M. A. 1996. Institutions for Environmental Aid: Pitfalls and Promise, Edited by: Keohane, R. O. and Levy, M. A. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]; Nelson and Eglinton 1993 Nelson, J. M. and Eglinton, S. 1993. Global Goals, Contentious Means, Washington, D.C: Overseas Development Council. [Google Scholar]; Olson 1979 Olson, R. S. 1979. ‘Economic coercion in world politics: with a focus on north-south relations’. World Politics, 31(4): 471–94. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Mosley et al. 1995 Mosley, P., Harrigan, J. and Toye, J. 1995. Aid and Power: The World Bank and Policy Based Lending, London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). More recently, an increasing number of studies analyse imposition in connection with the enlargement of the EU to Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, such as the special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy on ‘External Governance in the European Union’ (see Schimmelfennig and Wagner 2004 Schimmelfennig, F. and Sedelmeier, U. 2004. ‘Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe’. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4): 661–79. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier 2004 Schimmelfennig, F. and Sedelmeier, U. 2004. ‘Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe’. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4): 661–79. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; see also Grabbe 2002 Grabbe, H. 2002. ‘European conditionality and the acquis communautaire’. International Political Science Review, 23(3): 249–68. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Tews 2002 Tews, K. 2002. ‘Politiktransfer: phänomen zwischen policy-lernen und oktroi. Überlegungen zu unfreiwilligen umweltpolitikimporten am beispiel der EU-osterweiterung’. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht, 25(2): 173–201. [Google Scholar]b). For historical examples, see Dolowitz and Marsh (1996 Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. 1996. ‘Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer literature’. Political Studies, 44(2): 343–57. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2000 Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. 2000. ‘Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making’. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1): 5–24. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]); Stone (1999) Stone, D. 1999. ‘Learning lessons and transferring policy across time, space and disciplines’. Politics, 19(1): 51–9. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. 3 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the USA. 4 Albania, Belarus, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Ukraine. 5 The major criteria are that policy innovations have to be of nation-wide scope (i.e. regional or state policies are not counted) and that they have to be adopted formally by governmental or parliamentary decision. 6 The reason why not all adoptions of national sustainable development strategies are reflected in the proliferation curve in Figure 3 is that many countries had already adopted an environmental strategy at an earlier time, and only this first national adoption of an environmental strategy is shown in the graph. 7 Owing to the resistance in particular of the German and Spanish governments this draft was not agreed upon. In September 2001 the European Commission finally adopted a framework directive leaving the decision on which policy should be implemented to the national governments until 2012.