An Asian perspective on policy instruments: policy styles, governance modes and critical capacity challenges

Abstract

Does Asia have a distinct policy style? If so, what does it look like, and why does it take the shape it does? This article argues that in the newly reinvigorated emphasis of policy studies on policy instruments and their design lies the basis of an analysis of a dominant policy style in the Asian region, with significant implications for understanding the roles played by specific kinds of policy capacities. There is a distinctly Asian policy style based on a specific pattern of policy capacities and governance modes. In this style, a failure to garner initial policy legitimacy in the articulation of instrument norms often results in later mismatches between instrument objectives and specific mechanisms for their achievement. The formulation of payments for ecosystem services policy is used to illustrate the capacities required for policy designs and action to meet policy goals effectively.

Keywords:

• Asian policy style
• policy instruments
• governance modes
• policy capacity
• payments for ecosystem services
• environmental governance
• Cambodia
• China, Indonesia
• Nepal
• the Philippines
• Thailand
• Vietnam

Notes

1. A key notion in this regard is that of “layering” (van der Heijden, 2011) or the changes made over time only to some components of an existing policy arrangement through institutional patterns that emerge over long periods of time

2. The work on policy styles has resulted in a number of categorisations for analytically distinguishing between national policy patterns such as those favouring implementation that is defined by either enforcement or consultation, or based on whether policy change factors that are either radical or non-radical (Richardson, Gustafsson & Jordan, 1982; Gustafsson & Richardson, 1980; Freeman, 1985). This work has brought to light the numerous hurdles in the way of employing this lens for comparative work, as policy styles can vary within nations by problem areas and even by policy making stages (Freeman, 1985).

3. Civil service organisations have rules and structures affecting policy and administrative behaviour such as the constitutional order establishing and empowering administrators, as well as affecting patterns and methods of recruiting civil servants and how they interact with each other and the public (Bekke, Perry & Toonen, 1993). A parallel argument can be found in the field of regulation. Knill (1999) states that regulatory styles are defined by “the mode of state intervention” (hierarchical versus self-regulation, as well as uniform and detailed requirements versus open regulation allowing for administrative flexibility and discretion) and the mode of “administrative interest intermediation” (formal versus informal, legalistic versus pragmatic, and open versus closed relationships). van Waarden (1995) argues that “National regulatory styles are formally rooted in nationally specific legal, political and administrative institutions and cultures. This foundation in a variety of state institutions should make regulatory styles resistant to change, and hence from this perspective one would expect differences in regulatory styles to persist, possibly even under the impact of economic and political internationalisation”.

4. In work on social policy, for example, Esping-Andersen found “specific institutional arrangements adopted by societies in the pursuit of work and welfare. A given organisation of state–economy relations is associated with a particular social policy logic” (Rein, Esping-Andersen & Rainwater, 1987). Similarly, in work on US policymaking, Harris and Milkis (1989, p. 25) found regimes developed as a “constellation” of ideas justifying governmental activity, institutions that structure policymaking, and a set of policies. Eisner (1993, p. xv) defines a regime as a “historically specific configuration of policies and institutions which establishes certain broad goals that transcend the problems” specific to particular sectors.

5. Similarly, Allison (1971) and Smith, Marsh and Richards (1993) have argued that the “central state is not a unified actor but a range of institutions and actors with disparate interests and varying resources” and, therefore, there may not only be different degrees of coherence within the state, but also different cultures of decision-making and inclusion of outside actors with respect to policy development (collaboration, unilateral, reactive) in different sectors. There are agency-level organisational factors that affect policymaking, with policy being shaped by the nature and priorities of departments and agencies (Wilson, 1989; Richardson, Jordan & Kimber, 1978; Jordan, Wurzel & Zito, 2003) which have distinct organisational mandates, histories, cultures and programme delivery and front-line challenges (Lipsky, 1980; Hawkins & Thomas, 1989).