By David López García
The literature on the policy diffusion discusses the mechanisms through which policy innovations spread from one government to another (Shipan & Volden, 2008). Scholars have traditionally identified mechanisms based on two continuums. The first, the degree to which innovation responds to the government’s internal motivations as opposed to external pressures for change. The second, the extent to which innovations are the product of government’s rational choices as opposed to the output of bounded rationality processes (Drezner, 2001; Grossback, Nicholson-Crotty & Peterson, 2004; Shipan & Volden, 2008; Wieland, 2005). It’s the latter continuum that I will discuss in this précis. By discussing a case of policy diffusion in Guadalajara, Mexico, where the city adopted new policy transportation systems based on the experience of Bogotá, Colombia, I will argue that bounded rationality in policy diffusion is not a ‘natural’ phenomenon that exists per se. Instead, there are identifiable actors that engage in systematic efforts to bound rationality to their preferred policy outcomes. Thus, to what exactly rationality is bounded is also defined in a political struggle (Stone, 2012).
The discussion about the mechanisms at work explaining policy diffusion is far from settled. The literature offers empirical evidence supporting different and conflicting claims. Drezner (2001) and Grossback et al (2004) bring empirical evidence to support a rational approach to policy diffusion processes. Drezner (2001) argues that when policy harmonization has occurred, it has been a conscious choice of governments under the aegis of international organizations. Grossback et al. (2004) hold that states learn from each other, but that governments decide whether to adopt a policy innovation based on their assessment of the ideological similarity with the role model state.
Scholars have consistently put into question the rational choice approach to policy making (Forester, 1984; Lindblom, 1959; Simon, 1997; Stone, 2012). Instead, the field resorts to the concept of bounded rationality to explain how the scope of policy change is limited by the boundaries of policy-makers’ cognitive possibilities. In line with this scholarship, Wieland (2005) holds that policy diffusion does not result primarily from external imposition and diverges significantly from the norms of comprehensive rationality, showing instead empirical patterns of bounded rationality working through cognitive shortcuts employed by policy-makers. The literature is compelling in the argument that rationality is bounded, however, it helps little to understand to what exactly is it that rationality is bounded to, bounded by whom, and the specific mechanisms through which rationality gets bounded.
A case of policy diffusion in Guadalajara, Mexico, reported by Montero (2016), can shed light on these questions. In this case, different local public and private actors succeeded in introducing sustainable transportation into the local and state government agenda by making study tours to Bogotá, Colombia. Study tours are a policy learning mechanism defined as “short visits in which a delegation of people travels to another place to experience something with potential to improve their organizations or places of origin” (Montero, 2016: 5). Montero reports more than 10 study tours to Colombia between 2004 and 2011, that took over 100 local decision-makers and key actors from Guadalajara to learn from Bogotá’s sustainable transit experience. Montero reports that “study tours were a key practice in the adoption of Bogotá’s policies in Guadalajara thanks to their capacity to: (1) educate the attention of influential local policy actors through ‘‘experiential learning;’’ (2) expand local coalitions through the building of trust and consensus around a policy model; and (3) mobilize public opinion through references to already existing policy solutions in Bogotá” (2016; 8-9).
A key element in Montero’s analysis is identifying the actors organizing the study tours. The tours were first funded by an influential business-led group called Guadalajara 2020, then by a local environmental NGO called Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco using funds from the Hewlett Foundation, and finally by the local and state government. Montero concludes that “study tours are not just neutral learning devices but also important political mechanisms that create the legitimacy and trust networks needed to promote policy change” (p. 15). Eventually, Guadalajara implemented innovations learned from Bogotá like the Vía Recreactiva, a car-free street program in which more than 300,000 participants bike and walk the streets of the city every Sunday, and the Macrobús, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system similar to Bogotá’s Transmilenio.
As this case of policy learning and diffusion in Guadalajara shows, the adoption of policy innovations from Bogotá was not the outcome of a rational process. Instead, this case brings evidence to claim that policy diffusion processes are also embedded in what Stone calls the polis, where the criteria underlying rational analysis is defined in a political struggle (Stone, 2012). Instead of processes of bounded rationality that exist per se, this case of policy learning and diffusion in Guadalajara unravels actor’s efforts to bound rationality around a preferred policy outcome.
References
Drezner, D. W. (2001) Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1), pp. 53-78.
Forester, J. (1984) Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 44(1), pp. 23-31.
Grossback, L., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Peterson, M. (2004) Ideology and learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32(5), pp. 521-545.
Lindblom, C. (1959) The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19(2), pp. 79-88.
Montero, S. (2016) Study tours and inter-city policy learning: Mobilizing Bogota’s transportation policies in Guadalajara. Environmental and Planning A, 0(0), pp. 1-19.
Shipan, C. & Volden, C. (2008) The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), pp. 840-857.
Simon, H. (1997) Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. Fourth Edition, The Free Press.
Stone, D. (2012) Policy Paradox: The art of political decision making. Third Edition, Norton & Company.
Weyland, K. (2005) Theories of policy diffusion: Lessons from Latin American pension reform. World Politics, 57(2), pp. 262-295.
The literature on the policy diffusion discusses the mechanisms through which policy innovations spread from one government to another (Shipan & Volden, 2008). Scholars have traditionally identified mechanisms based on two continuums. The first, the degree to which innovation responds to the government’s internal motivations as opposed to external pressures for change. The second, the extent to which innovations are the product of government’s rational choices as opposed to the output of bounded rationality processes (Drezner, 2001; Grossback, Nicholson-Crotty & Peterson, 2004; Shipan & Volden, 2008; Wieland, 2005). It’s the latter continuum that I will discuss in this précis. By discussing a case of policy diffusion in Guadalajara, Mexico, where the city adopted new policy transportation systems based on the experience of Bogotá, Colombia, I will argue that bounded rationality in policy diffusion is not a ‘natural’ phenomenon that exists per se. Instead, there are identifiable actors that engage in systematic efforts to bound rationality to their preferred policy outcomes. Thus, to what exactly rationality is bounded is also defined in a political struggle (Stone, 2012).
The discussion about the mechanisms at work explaining policy diffusion is far from settled. The literature offers empirical evidence supporting different and conflicting claims. Drezner (2001) and Grossback et al (2004) bring empirical evidence to support a rational approach to policy diffusion processes. Drezner (2001) argues that when policy harmonization has occurred, it has been a conscious choice of governments under the aegis of international organizations. Grossback et al. (2004) hold that states learn from each other, but that governments decide whether to adopt a policy innovation based on their assessment of the ideological similarity with the role model state.
Scholars have consistently put into question the rational choice approach to policy making (Forester, 1984; Lindblom, 1959; Simon, 1997; Stone, 2012). Instead, the field resorts to the concept of bounded rationality to explain how the scope of policy change is limited by the boundaries of policy-makers’ cognitive possibilities. In line with this scholarship, Wieland (2005) holds that policy diffusion does not result primarily from external imposition and diverges significantly from the norms of comprehensive rationality, showing instead empirical patterns of bounded rationality working through cognitive shortcuts employed by policy-makers. The literature is compelling in the argument that rationality is bounded, however, it helps little to understand to what exactly is it that rationality is bounded to, bounded by whom, and the specific mechanisms through which rationality gets bounded.
A case of policy diffusion in Guadalajara, Mexico, reported by Montero (2016), can shed light on these questions. In this case, different local public and private actors succeeded in introducing sustainable transportation into the local and state government agenda by making study tours to Bogotá, Colombia. Study tours are a policy learning mechanism defined as “short visits in which a delegation of people travels to another place to experience something with potential to improve their organizations or places of origin” (Montero, 2016: 5). Montero reports more than 10 study tours to Colombia between 2004 and 2011, that took over 100 local decision-makers and key actors from Guadalajara to learn from Bogotá’s sustainable transit experience. Montero reports that “study tours were a key practice in the adoption of Bogotá’s policies in Guadalajara thanks to their capacity to: (1) educate the attention of influential local policy actors through ‘‘experiential learning;’’ (2) expand local coalitions through the building of trust and consensus around a policy model; and (3) mobilize public opinion through references to already existing policy solutions in Bogotá” (2016; 8-9).
A key element in Montero’s analysis is identifying the actors organizing the study tours. The tours were first funded by an influential business-led group called Guadalajara 2020, then by a local environmental NGO called Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco using funds from the Hewlett Foundation, and finally by the local and state government. Montero concludes that “study tours are not just neutral learning devices but also important political mechanisms that create the legitimacy and trust networks needed to promote policy change” (p. 15). Eventually, Guadalajara implemented innovations learned from Bogotá like the Vía Recreactiva, a car-free street program in which more than 300,000 participants bike and walk the streets of the city every Sunday, and the Macrobús, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system similar to Bogotá’s Transmilenio.
As this case of policy learning and diffusion in Guadalajara shows, the adoption of policy innovations from Bogotá was not the outcome of a rational process. Instead, this case brings evidence to claim that policy diffusion processes are also embedded in what Stone calls the polis, where the criteria underlying rational analysis is defined in a political struggle (Stone, 2012). Instead of processes of bounded rationality that exist per se, this case of policy learning and diffusion in Guadalajara unravels actor’s efforts to bound rationality around a preferred policy outcome.
References
Drezner, D. W. (2001) Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1), pp. 53-78.
Forester, J. (1984) Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 44(1), pp. 23-31.
Grossback, L., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Peterson, M. (2004) Ideology and learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32(5), pp. 521-545.
Lindblom, C. (1959) The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19(2), pp. 79-88.
Montero, S. (2016) Study tours and inter-city policy learning: Mobilizing Bogota’s transportation policies in Guadalajara. Environmental and Planning A, 0(0), pp. 1-19.
Shipan, C. & Volden, C. (2008) The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), pp. 840-857.
Simon, H. (1997) Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. Fourth Edition, The Free Press.
Stone, D. (2012) Policy Paradox: The art of political decision making. Third Edition, Norton & Company.
Weyland, K. (2005) Theories of policy diffusion: Lessons from Latin American pension reform. World Politics, 57(2), pp. 262-295.