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

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 policy
• harmonization
• imposition
• policy convergence
• policy 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; Kratochvil and Ruggie 1986; Rochester 1986; Hasenclever et al. 1997; Levy et al. 1995; Haggard and Simmons 1987). 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, 2003; Scharpf 1999).

2 Other related notions can be found in the literature: Dolowitz and Marsh (2000: 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; Nelson 1996; Nelson and Eglinton 1993; Olson 1979; Mosley et al. 1995). 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; Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier 2004; see also Grabbe 2002; Tews 2002b). For historical examples, see Dolowitz and Marsh (1996, 2000); Stone (1999).

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.