Premium
Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry
Author(s) -
Cashore Benjamin,
Howlett Michael
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
american journal of political science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.347
H-Index - 170
eISSN - 1540-5907
pISSN - 0092-5853
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00266.x
Subject(s) - orthodoxy , public policy , policy studies , institution , state (computer science) , institutional change , political science , population , policy analysis , theme (computing) , public administration , economics , public economics , sociology , geography , law , demography , archaeology , algorithm , computer science , operating system
A key theme among seminal contributions to policy studies, including Baumgartner and Jones (1993; 2002) , Sabatier and Jenkins‐Smith (1993) , and Hall (1989; 1993) , is that “external perturbations” outside of the policy subsystem, characterized by some type of societal upheaval, are critical for explaining the development of profound and durable policy changes which are otherwise prevented by institutional stability. We argue that these assumptions, while useful for assessing many cases of policy change, do not adequately capture historical patterns of forest policy development in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Differences in policy development concerning state and federal regulation of private and public forest lands governing the same problem, region, and population challenge much of the prevailing orthodoxy on policy dynamics. To address this puzzle, we revisit and expand existing taxonomies identifying the levels and processes of change that policies undergo. This exercise reveals the existence of a “thermostatic” institutional setting governing policy development on federal lands that was absent in the institutions governing private lands. This thermostatic institutional arrangement contained durable policy objectives that required policy settings to undergo major change in order to maintain the institution's defining characteristics. Policy scientists need to distinguish such “hard institutions” that necessitate paradigmatic changes in policy settings from those that do not permit them.