The evolutionary model provides important insights into the causal mechanisms of policy change. This works particularly through the notion that the introduction and success or failure of new ideas is a key element in instigating these policy change processes.
The survival of an idea is also dependent on key temporal and spatial factors. An idea therefore urgently requires a method of propagation in order to reproduce itself. One means of this idea transmission is through the ‘enlightenment function’, whereby an effective policy network may gradually alter the assumptions and idea ‘images' of policy makers over time.
For example, the interrelationships between ideas, established epistemic communities and time emerge as key variables in determining the enlightenment function in implementation arenas. Time emerges as a vital multi-dimensional independent variable, and in one crucial dimension approximates with a state of readiness as outlined in Vickers' appreciative system.
The article employs the case study of the limits of the privatisation idea in British trunk roads policy, and concludes that, even in seeking stability, actors tend to generate unpredictable change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press).
2.
BevirM.RhodesR. A. W. (1999) ‘Studying British Government: Reconstructing the Research Agenda’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1:2, 215–239.
3.
BrundtlandG. H. (1987) Our Common Future. The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
4.
Cm 693 (1989) Roads for Prosperity (London: HMSO).
5.
Cm 1200 (1990) This Common Inheritance. Environmental Strategy (London: HMSO).
6.
Cm 2200 (1993) Paying for Better Motorways: Issues for Discussion (London: HMSO).
7.
Cm 2426 (1994) Sustainable Development. The UK Strategy (London: HMSO).
8.
Cm 2674 (1994) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Eighteenth Report. Transport and the Environment (London: HMSO).
De LeonP. (1997) The Missing Link Revisited: Contemporary Implementation Research. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, unpublished.
11.
DETR (2000) Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan (London: DETR).
12.
DohertyB. (1998) ‘Opposition to Road Building’Parliamentary Affairs, 51:3, 370–383.
13.
DohertyB. (1999) ‘Paving the Way: The Rise of Direct Action against Road-building and the Changing Character of British Environmentalism’, Political Studies, 47:2, 275–291.
14.
DowdingK. (2000) ‘How not to use Evolutionary Theory in Politics: A Critique for Peter John’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2:1, 72–80.
15.
DudleyG. (1999) ‘Transplanting Ideas in Policy Networks: Reinventing Local Government and the Case of Steel Action’, Local Government Studies, 25:3, 76–89.
16.
DudleyG. (2003) ‘Ideas, Bargaining and Flexible Policy Communities: Policy Change and the Case of the Oxford Transport Strategy’, Public Administration, 81:3, 433–458.
17.
DudleyG.RichardsonJ. (1996) ‘Why Does Policy Change Over Time? Adversarial Policy Communities, Alternative Policy Arenas and British Trunk Roads Policy 1945–95’, Journal of European Public Policy, 3:1, 63–83.
18.
DudleyG.RichardsonJ. (1998) ‘Arenas Without Rules and the Policy Change Process: Outsider Groups and British Roads Policy’, Political Studies, 46:4, 727–747.
19.
DudleyG.RichardsonJ. (2000) Why Does Policy Change? Lessons from British Transport Policy 1945–99 (London: Routledge).
20.
DunsireA. (1978) Implementation in a Bureaucracy (Oxford: Martin Robertson).
21.
FeigenbaumH.HenigJ.HamnettC. (1999) Shrinking the State: The Political Underpinnings of Privatisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
22.
FestingS. (1996) ‘The Third Battle of Newbury—War in the Trees’, Ecos, 17:2, 41–49.
23.
FreemanR.ShawJ. (eds.) (2000) British Railway Privatisation (London: McGraw-Hill).
24.
HaasP. M. (1992) ‘Introduction. Epistemic Communities and International Policy Co-ordination’International Organisation46:1, 12–35.
25.
HallP. (1993) ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: the Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain’, Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–294.
26.
HamerM. (1987) Wheels Within Wheels. A Study of the Road Lobby, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
27.
HarrisN. G.GodwardE. (1997) The Privatisation of British Rail (Crystal Palace: The Railway Consultancy Press).
28.
HayC. (2001) ‘The ‘Crisis’ of Keynesianism and the Rise of Neo-Liberalism in Britain: An Ideational Institutionalist Approach’ in CampbellJ. L.PedersenO. K. (eds), The Second Movement in Institutional Analysis (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press).
29.
HC 476 (1998) Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, The Private Finance Initiative: The First Four Design, Build, Finance and Operate Roads Contracts (London: National Audit Office).
30.
Highways Agency (1997) DBFO-Value in Roads: A Case Study on the First Eight DBFO Road Contracts and their Development (London: Central Office of Information).
31.
HoodC. (1976) The Limits of Administration (London: John Wiley).
32.
Jenkins-SmithH. C.SabatierP. A. (1993) ‘The Study of Public Policy Processes’ in SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (eds), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Boulder: Westview Press), 1–9.
33.
JohnP. (1998) Analysing Public Policy (London: Pinter).
34.
JohnP. (1999) ‘Ideas and Interests; Agendas and Implementation: an Evolutionary Explanation of Policy Change in British Local Government Finance’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1:1, 39–62.
35.
JohnP. (2000) ‘The Uses and Abuses of Evolutionary Theory in Political Science: A Reply to Allan McConnell and Keith Dowding’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2:1, 89–94.
36.
KayA. (2003) ‘Evolution in Political Science: A Reply to Kerr,’The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5:1, 102–111.
37.
KerrP. (2002) ‘Saved from Extinction: Evolutionary Theorising, Politics and the State’The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4:2, 330–358.
38.
KerrP. (2003) ‘Keeping it Real! Evolution in Political Science: A Reply to Kay and Curry’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5:1, 118–128.
39.
KingdonJ. W. (1995) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Second Edition (New York: Harper Collins).
40.
MarshD. (1991) ‘Privatisation Under Mrs Thatcher’, Public Administration, 69: 459–480.
41.
MazeyS.RichardsonJ. (1992) ‘Environmental Groups and the EC. Challenges and Opportunities’, Environmental Politics, 1:4, 109–128.
42.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (1973) Implementation (Berkeley: University of California Press).
43.
RichardsonJ. (2000) Government, Interest Groups and Policy Change’, Political Studies48:5, 1006–1025.
44.
Road Management Group (1998) A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester DBFO Contract.
45.
Road Management Services (2000) The Road Over the Hills: Archaeological Excavations Alongside Roman Ermin Street.
46.
SabatierP. A. (1993) ‘Policy Change over a Decade or More’ in SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (eds), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Boulder: Westview Press), 13–39.
47.
SACTRA (The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment) (1994) Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic (London: HMSO).
48.
VickersG. (1984) The Vickers Papers (edited by the Open Systems Group) London: Harper and Row.
49.
WallD. (1999) Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement. Radical Environmentalism and Comparative Social Movements (London: Routledge).
50.
WardH. (1989) Evolution and Regulation: Economism Rediscovered. Essex Papers in Politics and Government, No. 64.
51.
WardH. (1997) ‘The Possibility of an Evolutionary Explanation of the State's Role in Modes of Regulation’ in StanyerJ.StokerG. (eds), Contemporary Political Studies 1997, Vol. 1. Exeter: PSA.
52.
WeissC. (1977) ‘Research for Policy's Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research’, Policy Analysis, 3: 531–545.
