%0 Journal Article %1 PSJ:PSJ466 %A Howlett, Michael %A Ramesh, M. %D 1998 %I Blackwell Publishing Ltd %J Policy Studies Journal %K change policy subsystem %N 3 %P 466--481 %R 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01913.x %T Policy Subsystem Configurations and Policy Change: Operationalizing the Postpositivist Analysis of the Politics of the Policy process %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01913.x %V 26 %X Over the past two decades thinking about the role of politics in the policy process has taken several different shapes. Analysts in the “positivist” school of policy analysis have tended to use restricted notions of politics in their search for policy determinants or causes of policy change. This approach can be contrasted usefully with “postpositivist” analyses, which emphasize the role played by policy discourses in the policy process. This article discusses the manner in which policy networks and policy communities integrate ideas and interests in public policymaking and provide an opportunity to overcome the positivist/post-positivist conceptual dichotomy. It proposes a model setting out how different subsystem configurations relate to paradigmatic and intraparadigmatic processes of policy change. The paper suggests that the identification of the nature of the policy subsystem in a given policy sector reveals a great deal about its propensity to respond to changes in ideas and interests and is therefore a good indicator of the likely effect “politics,” in either the restrictive or broad sense of the term, will have on policymaking.

@article{PSJ:PSJ466, abstract = {Over the past two decades thinking about the role of politics in the policy process has taken several different shapes. Analysts in the “positivist” school of policy analysis have tended to use restricted notions of politics in their search for policy determinants or causes of policy change. This approach can be contrasted usefully with “postpositivist” analyses, which emphasize the role played by policy discourses in the policy process. This article discusses the manner in which policy networks and policy communities integrate ideas and interests in public policymaking and provide an opportunity to overcome the positivist/post-positivist conceptual dichotomy. It proposes a model setting out how different subsystem configurations relate to paradigmatic and intraparadigmatic processes of policy change. The paper suggests that the identification of the nature of the policy subsystem in a given policy sector reveals a great deal about its propensity to respond to changes in ideas and interests and is therefore a good indicator of the likely effect “politics,” in either the restrictive or broad sense of the term, will have on policymaking.}, added-at = {2015-08-24T10:24:31.000+0200}, author = {Howlett, Michael and Ramesh, M.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/231683c19a8d7704614f0dfa7421bac81/lkammermann}, description = {Policy Subsystem Configurations and Policy Change: Operationalizing the Postpositivist Analysis of the Politics of the Policy process - Howlett - 2005 - Policy Studies Journal - Wiley Online Library}, doi = {10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01913.x}, interhash = {22270e4551acc9e34c3d6355215f59a1}, intrahash = {31683c19a8d7704614f0dfa7421bac81}, issn = {1541-0072}, journal = {Policy Studies Journal}, keywords = {change policy subsystem}, number = 3, pages = {466--481}, publisher = {Blackwell Publishing Ltd}, timestamp = {2015-08-24T10:24:31.000+0200}, title = {Policy Subsystem Configurations and Policy Change: Operationalizing the Postpositivist Analysis of the Politics of the Policy process}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01913.x}, volume = 26, year = 1998 }