Policy Coherence and Component-Driven Policymaking: Arctic Policy in Canada and the United States
Peter J. May
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorBryan D. Jones
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorBetsi E. Beem
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorEmily A. Neff-Sharum
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorMelissa K. Poague
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorPeter J. May
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorBryan D. Jones
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorBetsi E. Beem
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorEmily A. Neff-Sharum
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorMelissa K. Poague
Center for American Politics and Public Policy, University of Washington
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This research extends theorizing about the implications of political environments to the content of policy areas. We consider the case of Arctic policy in Canada and the United States as an example of what we label as component-driven policymaking. We show how the lack of a clear constituency and the lack of a stable policy subsystem for the Arctic create a policy environment for which the politics of particular issues dominate Arctic policymaking. The result is a policy space labeled Arctic policy that lacks policy coherence. We suggest that similar features of component-based policymaking help explain limited policy coherence for a variety of policy areas such as policies for children, families, rural areas, urban areas, and women in the United States.
References
- Baumgartner, Frank, and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Baumgartner, Frank, Bryan D. Jones, and John D. Wilkerson. 2002. “ Studying Policy Dynamics.” In Policy Dynamics, ed. Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 29–46.
- Bielawski, Ellen. 1996. “ Inuit Indigenous Knowledge and Science in the Arctic.” In Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge, ed. Laura Nader. New York: Routledge, 216–27.
- Bogenschneider, Karen. 2000. “Has Family Policy Come of Age? A Decade Review of the State of U.S. Family Policy in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (4): 1136–59.
- Bonnen, James T. 1992. “Why Is There No Coherent U.S. Rural Policy? Policy Studies Journal 20 (2): 190–201.
- Bradshaw, Michael. 1992. The Appalachian Regional Commission: Twenty-Five Years of Governmental Policy. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
- Browne, William P. 2001. The Failure of National Rural Policy, Institutions and Interests. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
- Canadian Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. 2004. Mandate, Roles, and Responsibilities, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Ottawa: DINA. http//:www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index_e.html (July 15, 2004).
-
Dery, David. 1998. “Policy by the Way: When Policy Is Incidental to Making Other Policies.
Journal of Public Policy
18 (2): 163–76.DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X98000087
10.1017/S0143814X98000087 Google Scholar
- Fuhrman, Susan H. 1994. “Clinton's Education Policy and Intergovernmental Relations in the 1990s. Publius, The Journal of Federalism 24 (3): 83–97.
- Gelb, Joyce, and Marian Lief Palley. 1996. Women and Public Policies: Reassessing Gender Politics. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
- Goggin, Malcolm L., Ann O’M. Bowman, James P. Lester, and Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr. 1990. Implementation Theory: Toward a Third Generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
-
Hoberg, George. 1991. “Sleeping with the Elephant: The American Influence on Canadian Environmental Regulation.
Journal of Public Policy
11 (1): 107–32.
10.1017/S0143814X00004955 Google Scholar
-
Howlett, Michael. 2000. “Beyond Legalism? Policy Ideas, Implementation Styles, and Emulation-Based Convergence in Canadian and U.S. Environmental Policy.
Journal of Public Policy
20 (3): 305–29.DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X00000866
10.1017/S0143814X00000866 Google Scholar
-
Keiser, Lael R., and Kenneth J. Meier. 1996. “Policy Design, Bureaucratic Incentives, and Public Management: The Case of Child Care Enforcement.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
6 (3): 337–64.
10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024316 Google Scholar
- Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
- Kristianson, G. 1996. “ Lobbying and Private Interests in British Columbia Politics.” In Politics, Policy, and Government in British Columbia, ed. R. Carty. Vancouver: UBC Press, 201–216.
- Laumann, Edward O., and David Knoke. 1987. The Organizational State: Social Change in National Policy Domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- May, Peter J. 1993. “Mandate Design and Implementation: Enhancing Implementation Efforts and Shaping Regulatory Styles. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12 (4): 634–63.
-
May, Peter J. 1991. “Reconsidering Policy Design: Policies and Publics.
Journal of Public Policy
11 (Part 2): 187–206.
10.1017/S0143814X0000619X Google Scholar
- Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Paul A. Sabatier. 1983. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
- Meucci, Sandra. 1997. “What Is Children's Policy, Anyway? Social Justice 24 (3): 105–24.
-
Myers, Heather. 2001. “Changing Environment, Changing Times: Environmental Issues and Political Action in the Canadian North.
Environment
43 (6): 34–44.
10.1080/00139150109604490 Google Scholar
-
Pralle, Sarah B. 2003. “Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy.
Journal of Public Policy
23 (3): 233–60.DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X03003118
10.1017/S0143814X03003118 Google Scholar
- Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. “ The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Assessment, Revisions, and Implications for Scholars and Practitioners.” In Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, ed. Paul A. Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 211–35.
- Schneider, Anne Larason, and Helen Ingram. 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
- Stone, Deborah A. 1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science Quarterly 104 (2): 281–300.
- Soroka, Stuart A. 2002. Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
- U.S. Department of State, Under Secretary for Global Affairs. 2004. U.S. Arctic Policy. Washington: Department of State. http://www.state.gov/g/oes/ocns/arc/ (July 15, 2004).
-
Young, Oran R. 1998. Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.7591/9781501711411 Google Scholar
