TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
228
Milan ŠINKO*
POLICY CHANGE – REVIEW OF CLASSIFICATION, 
MEASUREMENT AND FACTORS 
Abstract. Judging by bibliometric indicators there is an 
increasing interest in the topic of policy change and 
its explanation among policy analysts. However, there 
is no theoretical consensus on how to define the con-
cept of policy change, or which theoretical models best 
explain its occurrences. On one hand, there is a vari-
ety of conceptualisations of policy change, and on the 
other, a variety of approaches, theories and modes that 
seek to elucidate the process of change. Based on litera-
ture review, the paper compiles a repository of contem-
porary theories and classifications in the area of policy 
change, taking into account elements such as the degree 
of innovation, the dynamic and depth of change and 
similar. The second part offers a review of policy change 
models, taking Giessen’s classification of nine policy 
change factors as its general framework. The paper con-
cludes with a discussion on the fast developing field of 
policy change analysis, which requires careful consid-
eration when selecting a specific approach to analyse 
the policy change aspects of the policy process.
Keywords: policy change, policy process theory, classifi-
cation, measurement
Introduction
What is policy change and which factors are critical for its occurrence? 
How often does it occur? The review of the referential literature reveals 
two rather opposing standpoints. On one hand Baumgartner (2006: 193) 
argues that ‘most policies, most of the time, do not change much’, and often 
these kind of reforms are considered impossible to accomplish (Bannink 
and Resodihardjo, 2006: 1). On the other hand there is the argument that 
‘all policy is policy change’ (Capano and Howlett, 2009b: 3). With such a 
vast distance between opposing opinions, in a period marked by acute 
social change, it is not surprising that the trend of policy change research 
* Milan Šinko, M. A., Senior lecturer, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana; Doctoral Student 
at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana.
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
229
is on the rise internationally. On enquiry about the entry of ‘policy change’ 
appearing in the title of publications, the Scopus bibliographical system 
listed 1,320 hits (0 for Slovenia) on 22 October 2015, with as much as 508 
of them published only in the past five years. There were 10,800 hits (15 
for Slovenia), when looking for the same entry appearing in the publica-
tions’ title, abstract and key words. Also in Slovenia the interest in inves-
tigating policy change seems to be increasing with 5 hits obtained on the 
Co-operative Online Bibliographic System and Services ̶ Cobiss for the past 
three years (all of them at the level of bachelor theses), when looking for the 
Slovenian entry of ‘javnopolitična/e sprememba/e’ (‘public policy change’). 
However, Slovenia seems to lack comprehensive scientific research studies 
of policy change, although the period of post-socialism offers an ideal ana-
lytical departure point to revitalise numerous theories of policy process in 
the conditions of radical, mainly institutional change.
For Cairney (2012: 30) examination of policy change is unavoidably 
biased, as scholars are necessarily confronting practical problems that 
demand subjective decisions. For example, they need to decide on how 
detailed (deep) or wide the analysis of a public change would be. Should 
its attention only be focused on a specific policy measure or on all those 
related to the area of analysis? Further, empirical and theoretical expecta-
tions are also important. They define the researchers’ criteria on how a 
public policy should be changed with regard to the salience of the prob-
lem in question or the degree of public attention. While on the side of pol-
icy actor’s standpoints to policy change are determined by their particular 
perspective. For example, governmental decision makers who make (‘top 
down’) policy decisions often overestimate the long term meaning of policy 
change in practice. Due to such biases, researchers should also be aware of 
the fact that their findings can be interpreted in various ways. Therefore, 
when investigating public policies, attention should be paid both to the way 
in which policy change is defined as well as the nature of the research sub-
ject and the methodological approaches that were used. 
Coming from this lack of unification, the article, in the first part, exam-
ines policy change as a ‘dependent variable’, and gives a systematic review 
of the range of definitions of policy change, its classification and measure-
ment. The ‘independent variable’ presented and dealt with in the second 
part contains the factors that influence policy change and that researchers 
can consider in the design of their research models. These factors were cho-
sen on the basis of the empirical review of independent variables included 
in the analyses of policy change in contemporary policy processes ( Giessen, 
2011). 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
230
Policy dynamics and policy stability
The introduction presents the key epistemological approaches in the 
examination of policy dynamics, and further on looks into the concept of 
path dependency that mainly highlights factors preventing policy change 
from occurring. Policy dynamics can be an effect of very diverse factors 
that lead to change in specific policy components. These are, for example, 
the way of problem construction, definition of goals based on beliefs and 
ideologies, choice of measures, selection of modes of decision making, 
power allocation or characteristics of the institutions involved (Capano and 
Howlett, 2009b: 4–5). For Bardach (2006) understanding policy dynamics 
suggests fundamentally understanding change or how ‘to get from here to 
there’ in the political process. 
The stages approach offers a theoretical framework for analysing the 
occurrence of new policies, primarily focusing on the phase of agenda set-
ting (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984; Parsons, 1995), while paying less attention to 
other stages of policy process. The theoretical emphasis lays in the evaluation 
of policy effects, with the model including the assumption that this makes the 
basis for decision making about their continuation. However, in some authors’ 
opinions there is no convincing evidence that evaluation, with its rational 
approach, would be the ‘motor’ of policy change (Parsons, 1995: 569). 
Numerous models, approaches and theories have so far been designed 
for policy research, with which analysts try to simplify the large complexity 
of policy processes. When deciding about the design of an appropriate the-
oretical research framework, Capano’s (2009: 13–18) classification, formed 
on the basis of the review of epistemological starting points, can be used. 
Capano distinguishes between four cognitive approaches of policy change 
analysis: the Multiple Streams Approach (Kingdon, 1995), the Punctuated 
Equilibrium Framework (PEF) (Baumgartner and Jones, 1991), the Advo-
cacy Coalition Framework (ACF) (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993) and 
Path Dependency Framework – PDF) (Pierson, 2000). 
Past development of theories and approaches to policy research show 
some common aspects that Howlett and Cashore (2009: 35–36) define as an 
‘orthodox’ way of the examination of policy change, which are defined by a 
broad consensus that:
• policy analysis should have a historic nature and focus on long time peri-
ods (of several years or even decades),
• primary mechanisms of policy reproduction are institutions and policy 
subsystems,
• paradigmatic change is only possible with the simultaneous change of 
institutions ̶ if institutions remain unchanged, policy change can only be 
gradual,
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
231
• paradigmatic change in a policy subsystem require exogenous shocks 
that cause radical disintegration of the existing policy ideas, beliefs, 
actors, institutions and behavioural practices.
Naturally, there is also the possibility that policy change does not occur, 
despite changes in some important elements in the internal or external 
environment. In this case, policy stability is spoken about. Policy stability 
is influenced for example by the process of ‘feedback loop’ and the related 
path dependency approach and close networks. Due to self-reinforcing 
effects the positive feedback loop brings to a lock-in or policy immutability. 
However, the positive feedback effect is not automatic or spontaneous, but 
rather requires mobilisation of policy actors that use their powers and influ-
ence to maintain the status quo (Howlett, 2009).
The path dependency approach highlights current policy decisions as 
being dependent on past policy decisions, so the well-established general 
orientations as such are difficult to change (Marier, 2013). This is why, as 
indicated by the path dependency approach, only rarely policies design 
entirely new activities and new policy networks (Kay, 2006; Knoephel et al., 
2007), and are rarely not linked to past policies (such as those made during 
socialism). Path dependency mechanisms are mainly the following ( Howlett 
and Ramesh, 2002):
1. Past policy creates or promotes the emergence of large organisations 
which produce large formation expenses. These expenses in turn influ-
ence current policy-makers’ decisions despite having the nature of sunk 
costs.1
2. Public policy is of indirect or direct benefit to large organised groups or 
founding organisations.
3. Public policy contains permanent commitments that make the basis of 
the existential and organisational decisions of their users
4. Institutions and expectations created by policy are closely intertwined 
with the wider characteristics of the economy and society, which creates 
interconnected networks of complementary institutions.
5. The social environment finds it more difficult to accept and respond to 
policy outcomes that are unexpected or unwanted. 
Therefore, path dependency strongly influences the outcomes of policy 
processes, which applies even in the circumstances of such radical change 
as existed in transition countries. In accordance with this theory, the begin-
ning of the democratic political system and market economy did not 
1 Sunk costs are those incurred in the past and that cannot be influenced by current decisions, so they 
are not important in the decision making. 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
232
create a vacuum in which completely new policies could have been shaped 
(McFaul, 1999). As indicated by the path dependency model, current policy 
decisions are restrained by structures represented by past policies. 
Policy change as dependent variable
Definition of policy change
As mentioned before, in the continuation the article examines policy 
change as a dependent variable in terms of analysing different ways in 
which researchers and theorists ‘grasp’ or define it as the object of analysis. 
The very concept of ‘change’ refers to an empirical observation of differ-
ence in form, quality or state in time of a specific entity. Generally speaking, 
policy change occurs with the change of the intrinsic properties of a policy. 
However, due to the complexity of the concept of public policy the object 
of analysis needs to be clearly defined. Namely, rather than ‘policy’ as such, 
what changes is its certain specific components. Let us therefore confront 
the problem of how to define the dependent variable, which is among the 
most important problems that need to be solved when dealing with policy 
dynamics (Capano and Howlett, 2009b: 2–3). 
In the context of policy analysis the literature often also offers expressions 
such as policy innovation, reform and change. The concept of innovation 
was mainly asserted in business management and refers to ideas, practices or 
objects that individuals or organisations adopt from elsewhere and perceive 
as new (Rogers, 2003: 12; Hoberg, 2001b: 11–12). In this sense they are sep-
arated from inventions that represent innovation, when it is first introduced 
in any framework. Innovations contain new behaviour, habits, expectations, 
patterns of rules, and have numerous social functions: maintenance of social 
patterns through hindering or preventing change, adaptation to changed envi-
ronment and resources, achievement of social aims and an increase in the abil-
ity to establish connections in society etc. (Deutsch (2001: 19). Innovations can 
also influence the change of social objectives or social structure in a way that 
does not bring about the complete change of the system’s identity. For exam-
ple, for a government an innovation can be the introduction of a programme 
that has already been used in other countries. In general, it can be said that in 
the recent period innovation in the public sector became the subject of huge 
interest, following the model of promoting innovation in the private sector 
(Bekkers et al., 2011; Koch and Hauknes, 2005: 9; Mulgan and Albury, 2003). 
According to Hogwood and Gunn (1984) policy innovations are less 
likely to occur in areas that governments and policy space perceive as ‘new’. 
It is more likely that ‘new’ policies are framed in the context of pre-existing 
ones. The problem of ‘new’ issues is that they first need to gain support and 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
233
be placed on the agenda, which depends on the existing policy environ-
ment and institutions. Therefore innovation can be considered a controlled 
process of change on the continuum of policy maintenance. 
The literature addressing policy dynamics also often involves the concept 
of policy reform (Bannink and Resodihardjo, 2006: 4). This is ‘the fundamen-
tal, intended, and enforced change of the policy paradigm and/or organisa-
tional structure of a policy sector’. Therefore reform can be characterised as:
• fundamental: ‘it implies a deviation from the existing structure or para-
digm with the changed organisational structure, its paradigm or both’ – a 
change in priorities.
• intended: it has to involve a policy decision maker that intentionally 
strives for change and is capable of changing a policy’s direction or the 
organisational structure of a policy sector
• enforcement/adoption of the proposed policy reform, the criterion of 
which is the success of the reform proposal in all the stages of the policy-
making cycle, except its implementation.
Very generally, policy change means the replacement of one or more 
existing policies with one or more other policies. New policies can be 
adopted, the existing ones can be changed, or also terminated (Lester and 
Stewart, 1996: 136). Succession and innovation can be interconnected, 
particularly as the result of the efforts of policy makers to maintain, to the 
maximum extent, the existing policy measures and goals. To do so they con-
sciously influence change by introducing innovations that change goals and 
organisational structure only to the extent that provides a small change to 
the existing policy. Policy successions can come in different forms: a lin-
ear succession is a direct replacement of a policy or organisations and pro-
grammes with another policy, consolidation includes integration of policies 
or organisations and programmes into a unified arrangement, while split-
ting conversely involves the breaking down of previously unified policies 
into a number of components. A non-linear succession is a complex combi-
nation of other types of succession (Parsons, 1995: 572).
Lindblom (1979: 520) for instance, was an advocate of incremental 
change in democratic countries, which does not mean that in the end this 
cannot lead to a radical change. He distinguished small (incremental) change 
from radical change. The key finding here is that incremental changes which 
follow each other can rapidly lead to a radical change of the existing sta-
tus quo sooner than big, but irregular changes. This is why in considering 
policy change the speed or tempo of their occurrence is also important, that 
Durant and Diehl (1989: 195) defined as the incubation period.2 It can be 
2 In their work Durant and Diehl (1989) used the findings of palaeontology and evolutionary development.
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
234
fast (when policy initiatives are transferred from the starting concepts to 
their important role in policy communities rapidly and without ‘softening’) 
or long-lasting (‘frozen’ movement and long-lasting ‘softening’ within policy 
communities). Change can occur in the form of either pure mutations or 
evolutionary development. From the aspect of type and speed of change this 
can be rapid or gradual paradigmatic changes, and fast or slow incremental 
change (Howlett, 1999: 87).
Peters and Hogwood (1985: 239–240) further classify policy change into 
policy innovations (for example the government faces the problem or sec-
tor that is new to it), policy succession (the replacement of an existing policy 
with another one, which, however, does not include radical change, but the 
continuation of the existing policy), policy maintenance (adaptation of the 
policy to maintain its orientation and functioning) and policy termination 
(abolishment of all policy related activities and public financing). New pub-
lic policy and the termination of a policy are rare, with the policy most likely 
being transformed into a ‘new’ policy in the succession process. 
Therefore, the thematisation of policy change is complex, and accord-
ingly the formation of taxonomy of policy change is also problematic. 
Capano and Howlett (2009a) examine policy change from the aspect of 
their development and classify them in four theoretical groups of change: 
• cyclical (change occurs, but returns to the status quo)
• dialectical (change occurs through a process of negation and synthesis)
• linear (change occurs in evolutionary fashion without any clear end-
point)
• teleological (change occurs in the direction of a final identifiable goal).
The analysis of policy change also needs to take account of the charac-
teristics of change and processes in which they arise. While in their explana-
tions of the outcomes of these processes, cyclical and teleological models 
mainly highlight structural factors, dialectical and linear models foreground 
the importance of an individual subject (agency). In regard to factors of pol-
icy change in the environment, cyclical, linear and teleological models tend 
to focus on exogenous factors that change the homeostatic equilibrium, 
while the dialectical model tends to focus on endogenous factors. 
In his systematisation Sabatier identifies three types of policy change 
(Capano and Howlett, 2009b; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993) that stem 
from the Advocacy Coalition Framework: change of means, specific tech-
nical instruments (secondary aspect of beliefs), change of general political 
strategy (policy core) and change of fundamental ideological values and 
goals (the core component of policy). 
The most often stated approaches of policy change classification include 
Peter Hall’s (1993: 278–279; Howlett and Cashore, 2009: 36), that meant a 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
235
breakthrough in the study of change and its causes. Namely, his approach 
was the first to reach beyond the examination of public policy as a single 
dependent variable. Today, most analyses that investigate policy change use 
his approach of dividing policies into abstract/theoretical/conceptual ele-
ments, specific programme content or objectives and policy means. Policy 
change can be of the first order, when only the calibrations of policy instru-
ments change (while the hierarchy of goals remain unchanged); changes of 
the second order involve alterations of policy instruments (while the hier-
archy of goals remain the same), while third order changes involve overall 
change of instrument calibration, instruments and the hierarchy of goals. As 
of normal policy-making Hall understands the change of the first and sec-
ond order, while radical change is represented by the third order or para-
digmatic change. 
Kustec Lipicer (2007: 94–96) addressed policy change from the aspect 
of policy networks, namely in terms of radical policy reforms and the estab-
lishment of new public policies. Daugbjerg (2006: 2, 68) who largely draws 
on Hall’s definition, defines policy change as reform of the existing policies 
or the introduction of new ones to solve problems that the existing sectorial 
policies do not address. Policy reforms are a new way of addressing what 
the state is already involved in. The change can be radical or moderate: radi-
cal change introduces new principles as the basis of policy change. Moder-
ate policies do not contain shifts in principles, but either measures or goals 
are adapted to the existing policy or new ones are introduced. In regard to 
cost, Daugbjerg distinguishes low and high-cost policies. Low-cost policies 
involve the transfer of policy principles from the existing public policy to a 
new one. Political and economic cost is imposed through the measures on 
groups that are not those targeted by regulation, additionally policy goals 
do not oppose the existing sectorial goals. In high-cost policies new policy 
principles arise. Through policy measures cost is concentrated on the group 
that is regulated, while policy goals oppose the existing aims. The concept 
of cost is linked here to the perception of consequences of the policy by 
those on whom policy measures will be imposed (Kustec-Lipicer, 2007).
Mainly based on Hall’s division, Howlett and Cashore (2007; 2009: 39) 
developed a review classification of policy elements that can be the object 
of change and can therefore represent the dependent variable. The classi-
fication criteria that they use are policy content and focus. Policy content 
refers to the level of abstraction or operationalisation of content, while pol-
icy focus refers to more general policy objectives and means. 
As a result of the methodological problems encountered, when the first 
and second order change are tried to be distinguished in terms of their 
content, Hemerijck and Van Kersbergen (1999: 183–184) proposed a typol-
ogy of policy change in which these are divided into paradigmatic change, 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
236
instrumental adjustments and institutional adjustments. Paradigmatic 
change means a deviation from the existing policy goals and the mode of 
addressing and understanding policy problems. Instrumental adjustments 
include the precision in the calibration of measures (Hall’s first order 
change) and the change in measures as such (Hall’s second order change). 
Institutional adjustments can either consist of adding authority and proce-
dures to the existing institutions (patching) or the transfer of responsibility 
between institutions (transposition) or elimination of institutions. 
And finally, in the examination of the thematisations of the policy 
change concept, it needs to be pointed out that while, so far, analysts have 
mainly been developing the aforementioned classifications of change, new 
approaches have recently been developed in empirical research and meas-
urement of policy change. (e.g. Knill and Tosun, 2012a: 528). These involve 
the measurement that includes the definition of the measurement object, 
time frame, assessment of the degree of policy change (such as radical/
incremental) and the directions and dimensions of policy change (expan-
sion/reduction). In principle the dependent variable of ‘policy change’ can 
be any element of public policy, with policy measures being addressed 
most often. From the aspect of time, the measurement should examine at 
least two points in time over the period of several years or even decades 
to obtain data for the analysis of policy change. Policy change can have the 
characteristics of policy expansion or policy reduction. The empirical meas-
urement of policy expansion or reduction takes place on two dimensions: 
policy density and policy intensity (Bauer and Knill, 2014: 33; Knill and 
Tosun, 2012a: 262–263). Policy density is defined by the density of policy 
targets targeted by the activity of the state and the density of policy meas-
ures (such as penetration of legislation) in a certain policy area. A policy tar-
get density indicator is the difference between the number of policy targets 
that were introduced or abolished in the analysed timeframe. The instru-
ment density indicator is the difference in the number of instruments which 
were introduced or abolished in a specific timeframe. As the quantity aspect 
of the measurement of policies already in place in an area and the number 
of policy instruments do not describe the effects of a policy, the measure-
ment of policy change needs to be complemented by the measurement of 
policy intensity that is defined by the intensity of the level and the intensity 
of the scope of measures. The intensity level of measures refers to the set-
tings of the applied policy instruments (requirements of the policy towards 
the ‘targets’) and is described by the change of the indicator of strictness or 
generosity of measures in the period that is analysed. The indicator of inten-
sity scope is the change in the number of cases inside the targets targeted by 
the policy measure in that period. 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
237
Independent variables of policy change and policy stability
As indicated before the second part of the article will address the ‘inde-
pendent variable’, that is, the factors that influence policy change. A num-
ber of models, approaches and theories have been designed to explain the 
processes of policy making or policy process. General factors that enable 
the explanation of policy making and that can be understood as independ-
ent variables of policy change include the following: actors making choices, 
institutions, networks or subsystems, ideas or beliefs, policy context and 
events (Cairney and Heikkila, 2014: 364–365). The conceptual framework 
for our review will consist of Giessen’s (2011) classification of nine empiri-
cally used factors of change. 
1. Advocacy coalitions, values, beliefs and policy learning
Shared values and beliefs are among the most frequent analytical tools 
used in the contemporary study of policy change, mainly within the advo-
cacy coalition framework. Beliefs are the adhesive of advocacy coalitions, 
making the homogeneity of coalitions the key postulate of this approach 
(Nowlin, 2011: 46–47). Values and beliefs determine the political behav-
iour of the actors players that are included in the advocacy coalition with 
the aim of translating their beliefs into action. This is why the relationship 
between advocacy coalitions influences stability or change in a certain pol-
icy sub-system. In this model policy change is the result of the change in 
the relationships between advocacy coalitions that occur due to new expe-
riences or information that are the result of learning. Shared values of the 
advocacy coalition represent structural constraint for the process of policy 
learning and as such influence the possibility or impossibility of the occur-
rence or type of policy change. For policy learning to start, an external (such 
as crisis, change in public opinion) or internal (such as democratisation) 
shock is needed that leads to the change of belief at the secondary or policy 
level (Giessen, 2011: 250). In policymaking ‘learning is a process in which 
individuals apply new information and ideas for policy decision making’ 
( Busenberg, 2001). Therefore the concept of policy learning refers to a rela-
tively permanent change in thinking or action goals (Sabatier and Jenkins-
Smith, 1993: 41–45), which can lead to policy change. Learning is also an 
important dimension in the approach of policy diffusion (Gilardi, 2010). 
Theoretically and empirically the inclusion of learning in the research of 
policy change enables development in the area of theoretical definitions of 
the types of learning (e.g. Dunlop and Radaelli, 2013), measurements of the 
existence of policy learning (e.g. Radaelli, 2009) and the development of 
theoretical starting points of learning mechanisms (e.g. Heikkila and Gerlak, 
2013).
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
238
2. Ideas, narrations, frames 
Ideas or causal and normative beliefs about the content and process of 
public policy are the means of achieving the actors’ goals and are therefore 
understood as an important policy resource (Hoberg, 2001a: 11). While nor-
mative beliefs can refer to policy goals (desired states), causal beliefs refer 
to the choice of adequate measures to achieve the goals (what functions). 
A particularly important aspect in the examination of the influence that 
ideas have on public policy is the change of policy paradigm, as it solely can 
enable the change of the basic policy goals (Hall, 1993). New ideas can influ-
ence a number of policy changes in the way that they change the relations 
between interests or actors. The phenomenon of new actors (interests) and 
new ideas can lead to quick paradigmatic change, while the unchanged 
ideas and beliefs mainly cause incremental policy change (Howlett and 
Ramesh, 1998; Howlett and Ramesh, 2002: 35). Additionally, new actors that 
do not contribute new ideas to the policy network can influence the change 
of policy measures, as furthermore the existing actors/interests can bring 
the change of programmes or measures, based on either new or old ideas. 
From the aspect of the advocates of the historic institutionalism approach, 
ideas as normative structure restrict the range of possible solutions that can 
be adopted by political decision-makers, thus contributing to the stability 
of public policies. The power of ideas depends on how much support they 
receive from political parties, the business community, the influential aca-
demic community and other actors, as well as from the access of these actors 
to important policy-making arenas. On the other hand advocates of organi-
sational institutionalism highlight the role of cognitive structure in shaping 
policy questions and the proposed solutions – new ideas (Campbell, 1998: 
377). Based on the integration of both approaches the ideas at cognitive 
level can be translated to programmes and paradigms, and at normative 
level to public sentiments that represent the framework of possible solu-
tions for policy problems. The probability that a (new) programmatic idea 
will affect policymaking depends on its clarity and simplicity, when solving 
the problem to which it refers. It also depends on how much it is congruent 
with existing paradigms, in keeping with public sentiment and framed to 
fit a given social space. However, these conditions are not enough for the 
idea to succeed: they also need to be related to interests or their holders 
that are ready to dedicate the resources for the adequate framing of the idea 
( Campbell, 1998: 394–398). 
In this context we should also mention narrative analysis, the evolving 
theory of policy process that examines the influence of policy narratives on 
the results of policy process. The theory thematises policy narrative as a stra-
tegic story that has a plot, bad and good characters and a moral lesson (Jones 
and McBeth, 2010; Petridou, 2014: 24; Shanahan et al., 2013). For example, 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
239
policy stories can strengthen the existing viewpoints of members of a policy 
coalition or convert actors who previously had an opposing opinion. 
3. Individuals: policy entrepreneurs and issue experts
Policy change can also be explained by work of individuals or small 
groups (policy entrepreneurs) who are willing to invest enough time, 
knowledge and personal skills to change a policy through a policy process 
in accordance with their ideas, values and interests. They differ from the 
rest of policy actors mainly by their big desire to influence the change of 
action in their area of interest. Also important for the occurrence of change 
are experts who possess knowledge and expertise on technical and social 
aspects of the issue in question. These are two elements that are crucial for 
the change to occur, when policy design involves experts (Giessen, 2011). 
Policy entrepreneurs possess some characteristics that can make them 
successful in achieving their goals, namely: the ability to understand stand-
points of other policy actors, recognise social problems, form teams, and 
manage through role modelling. These characteristics enable them to estab-
lish connections between groups that are usually separated and link them 
with the policy makers. As has been pointed out by the advocates of the 
punctuated equilibrium approach, policy entrepreneurs reduce the signifi-
cance of the existing policy images simultaneously creating new ones with 
which they foreground their concrete problems and need for change. And 
the institutional approach points out that policy entrepreneurs can influ-
ence change mainly through possessing detailed knowledge of key proce-
dures and norms, with which they can recognise the limits of acceptable 
behaviour (Mintrom and Norman, 2009).
4. Policy networks, subsystems and their bureaucracy
Policy networks are the next factor that analysts see as an explanation 
for policy change, which can only be possible, when the policy network 
no longer supports the interests of those who strive to maintain the cur-
rent public policy (Kustec-Lipicer, 2007). This is why policy networks can 
also explain policy stability, insofar as they are ‘closed’ networks, where 
key actors prevent new actors from entering policy debates and discourses. 
Namely, all actors strive to create ‘policy monopolies’ dominated by the sta-
bility of interpretations and predictability in terms of who can participate 
in policymaking. Closed policy networks typically also involve veto players 
that can prevent changes from occurring (Howlett and Ramesh, 2002). 
From the aspect of policy sub-systems, spill-overs between sub-systems 
and the change of settings are also important for policy change (Howlett 
and Ramesh, 2002). With regard to borders a spill-over represents an exter-
nal factor of change, as the activities of the sub-system which previously was 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
240
separated reach beyond its borders and affect structures and the function-
ing of other sub-systems. The transgression of sub-systems’ borders can be 
influenced by technological change (such as information technology) or 
change in other sub-systems. 
Sub-systems involve a specific role of bureaucracy and individual bureau-
crats, which is exposed by the emerging theories of the policymaking pro-
cess (Nowlin, 2011: 54–55). In the circumstance of the excess of information 
in the political system, not only authority over policymaking, but also over 
processing of information is transferred to the bureaucracy by the lawmak-
ers, which enables the bureaucracy to encourage or block policy change. 
5. External shocks and crises
Within the conceptualisations of the factors of policy change an impor-
tant place is occupied by external events (shocks). These can significantly 
influence a policy sub-system and in turn policy change, as they establish 
new circumstances, due to which former policy goals and instruments 
become inadequate and the actors form new perceptions on how to posi-
tion themselves in the new situation (Giessen, 2011: 252). External shocks 
can also be an opportunity for mobilisation and learning (Birkland, 2006). 
The influence of external factors can also be thematised by the theory of 
punctuated equilibrium (e.g. True et al., 1999), while the shocks as perturba-
tions are addressed by the theory of subsystem adjustment analysis ( Howlett 
and Ramesh, 2002: 36). Subsystem perturbation includes external and non-
cognitive factors of change that influence the policy sector by establishing 
new circumstances and events outside the sub-system. These factors can 
include macro-economic circumstances (e.g. democratic transitions, eco-
nomic and financial crisis), new systemic government coalitions and natural 
disasters amongst other things. New circumstances force actors to acquire 
views that reach beyond the existing frameworks, while a sub-system can 
also be influenced by external factors through the entrance of new actors in 
the policy process and the redirection of public attention.
6. Policy internationalisation and diffusion
While at the national level international actors and processes notably 
influence policy change, the related decision-making critically involves 
national institutions (Beland, 2009). The limited impact of the international 
environment is also highlighted by the low rate of policy convergence 
between the EU member countries that is not self-evident even at the level 
of common policies. Researchers cannot offer convincing proof of the exist-
ence of a convergence of policies, despite the fact that all countries experi-
ence a common pressure for change, due to new technologies, global com-
petition and common European policies. The way in which social systems 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
241
respond to common external pressure mainly depends on social norms and 
traditional practices, characteristic of individual social systems. For exam-
ple, research of the social policies in EU member countries (Roberts and 
Springer, 2001: 4–22), and environmental and biotechnological policies has 
not corroborated the existence of such convergence (Wallace and Wallace, 
2000: 55). Among the rare exceptions of convergence in the EU there is the 
single monetary policy.
Policy diffusion is also defined as a socially transmitted policy innova-
tion between political systems and within them, including the communica-
tion and processes of influence (Knill and Tosun, 2008; Rogers, 2003: 13). 
Mechanisms of policy diffusion are learning, emulation and economic 
competition (e.g. Maggetti and Gilardi, 2015: 4) and coercion (Dobbin et 
al., 2007: 455–456). Learning is a process in which the policy in one legal sys-
tem is influenced by the information about the outcomes of public policy in 
another legal system. Emulation stems from the countries’ need when they 
are adopting policy decisions to adjust to their normative environment and 
provide social acceptability of the new public policy (Maggetti and Gilardi, 
2015). Economic competition encourages countries to strategically adjust 
their policies to ensure economic competition in international economic 
connections that are based on the free flow of labour, goods and capital. 
Coercion is carried out by the governments of strong countries, interna-
tional organisations or non-governmental organisations that impose the 
acceptance of a new public policy on another country through condition-
ing, policy leadership or hegemonic ideas. 
7. Political parties
The next factor regarding policy change are political parties: consider-
able policy change in particular would be less likely without the inclusion 
of elected politicians (Hoberg, 2001a: 16). However, in literature the impor-
tance of political parties in policy design is often relativised. Although in 
democracy political parties are normatively a predominant factor of policy 
change, numerous researchers of policy change do not attribute them a cen-
tral role (Giessen, 2011: 253), although the participation of parties in pol-
icy design is said to be one of their more important functions (Krašovec, 
2002: 27). While political parties can establish policy change, the differences 
between two governments can be the result of circumstances beyond their 
control rather than their explicit intention (Howlett et al., 2009: 67). On 
the other hand, political parties can be the most important factor in policy 
change, when, for example, after elections, they are involved in replacing 
a former governing coalition. However, in this case political parties mainly 
influence public policy by providing staff for executive functions, and to a 
lesser extent through the legislative process. 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
242
8. Institutions
In the context of policy change, institutions are defined as rules and pro-
cedures through which jurisdiction is distributed in public policy and the 
structure of the relations between the actors in policy process is defined 
(Hoberg, 2001a: 11). While new institutionalism including informal rules 
and cultural practices among institutions has become the increasingly pre-
vailing approach in policy research, state order or institutional arrangement 
still features among the most important factors (country’s polity and its poli-
tics) of public policies (Knill and Tosun, 2012b: 41).
Institutions importantly co-determine the extent to which actors believe 
in the possibility of policy change (Cashore et al., 2001: 11), with the strategi-
cally oriented actors striving to also change institutions as such and trans-
form ideas in policy space to achieve their self-interests. For example, social 
transition is a great opportunity for institutional change, but, as Bannink 
and Resodihardjo (2006: 8) point out it is difficult for the reform actors to 
reform institutions in a wider sense. Namely, institutions consist of norms, 
rules and regular practices the result of which is both stability in preferences 
of actors and stability of interpersonal interactions. The actors know what to 
expect from each other, how to explain the acts of others, and how to act in 
interpersonal relations. Therefore, people in a certain policy space adjust to 
a certain way of work with which they achieve the stated goals and they do 
not want to renounce this predictability.
9. Veto points
Veto players are the last important factor of policy change to be men-
tioned that occurs in referential literature. Through their authority or power 
veto players can influence policy change and stability by either blocking the 
change and preserving the stability or accelerating the change and eliminat-
ing the stability by renouncing their veto (Tsebelis, 1995: 293). The larger 
the number of veto players and the smaller their mutual political corre-
spondence, the smaller the opportunity of policy change.
Conclusion
According to the bibliometric data, mentioned at the beginning of this 
article there is an increasing interest among the scholars in the field of pol-
icy analysis for the subject of policy change and the analysis of its occur-
rence. As the analysis in the first part of the article allows us to conclude 
there is no theoretical consensus either on how to define the concept of 
policy change or about which theoretical approaches best explain its occur-
rence. With regard to the conceptualisation of the concept of policy change, 
on one hand the comparative analysis shows that the definition of this 
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
243
concept changes or develops from one- into multi- dimensional classifica-
tions. On the other hand, the analysis of the occurrence of policy change 
reveals a number of approaches, theories and models trying to explain the 
process of the occurrence of policy change, while new approaches are con-
stantly evolving, which highlights the rapid development of policy change 
research. The framework used in our review of explanatory factors of policy 
change was Giessen’s classification of nine empirically perceived factors 
of policy change. The introduction of the empirical measurement of policy 
change seems to be important characteristic of the former period. It goes 
beyond consideration only at the level of policy measures and takes target 
groups into account in analysis. This reduces the reasons for criticism (Knill 
et al., 2010 and Giessen, 2011) according to which policy change research 
is not based on clear definitions and measurements of the research object. 
Nonetheless, theoretical diversity of the existing and newly emerging mod-
els of explaining policy change reveals the large complexity of policy pro-
cess, in turn pointing to the need for a more substantial judgement, when 
using individual approaches or their combinations in the examination of 
concrete policy process for policy change. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bannink, Duco and Sandra Resodihardjo (2006): The Myths of Reform. V Liesbet 
Heyse, Sandra Resodihardjo, Tineke Lantink and Berber Lettinga (ur.), Reform 
in Europe: breaking the barriers in government, 1–20. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Bardach, Eugene (2006): Policy dynamics. V Michael Moran, Martin Rein and 
Robert E. Goodin (ur.), Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, 337–365. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press.
Bauer, Michael W. and Christoph Knill (2014): A Conceptual Framework for the 
Comparative Analysis of Policy Change: Measurement, Explanation and Strate-
gies of Policy Dismantling. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research 
and Practice 16 (1): 28–44.
Baumgartner, Frank (2006): Epilogue: Friction, Resistance, and Breakthroughs. V 
Liesbet Heyse, Sandra Resodihardjo, Tineke Lantink and Berber Lettinga (ur.), 
Reform in Europe: breaking the barriers in government, 193–200. Hampshire: 
Ashgate.
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones (1991): Agenda Dynamics and Political 
Subsystems. The Journal of Politics 53 (4): 1044–1074.
Baumgartner, Frank R., Christoffer Green-Pedersen in Bryan D. Jones (2006): Com-
parative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy 13: 959–
974.
Bekkers, Victor, Jurian Edelenbos and Bram Steijn (2011): Innovation in the public 
sector: linking capacity and leadership. Basingtone: Palgrave MacMillan.
Beland, Daniel (2009): Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European 
Public Policy 16 (5): 701–718.
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
244
Birkland, Thomas A. (2006): Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change After Catastrophic 
Events. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 
Busenberg, George J. (2001): Learning in Organizations and Public Policy. Journal 
of Public Policy 21 (2): 173–189.
Cairney, Paul (2012): Understanding Public Policy. Theories and Issues. Basing-
stoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 
Cairney, Paul and Tanya Heikkila (2014): A Comparasion of Theories of the Policy 
Process. V Paul Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible (ur.), Theories of the Pol-
icy Process 3rd, Chicago: Westview Press. Https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.
com/2013/08/cairney-heikkila-2014-theories-of-the-pp.pdf. 22. 10. 2015.
Campbell, John L. (1998): Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political 
Economy. Theory and Society 27 (3): 377–409.
Capano, G. (2009): Understanding Policy Change as an Epistemological and Theo-
retical Problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11: 7.
Capano, G. and M. Howlett (2009a): Introduction: The Determinants of Policy 
Change: Advancing the Debate. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11: 1.
Capano, Giliberto and Michael Howlett (2009b): Introduction. The multidimen-
sional world of policy dynamics. V Michael Howlett and Giliberto Capano (ur.), 
European and North American Policy Change: Drivers and Dynamics, 1–12. 
Oxon: Routledge 
Cashore, Benjamin, George Hoberg, Michael Howlett (2001): In Search of Sustain-
ability: British Columbia Forest Policy in the 1990s. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Cashore, Benjamin and Michael Howlett (2007): Punctuating Which Equilibrium? 
Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry. 
American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 532–551.
Coleman, William, D. (2001): Agricultural Policy Reform and Policy Convergence: 
An Actor-Centered Institutionalist Approach. Journal of Comparative Policy 
Analysis: Research and Practice 3: 219–241.
Daugbjerg, Carsten (1998): Policy Networks under Pressure. Pollution Control, Pol-
icy Reform and the Power of Farmers. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Deutsch, K. W. (1985): On Theory and Research in Innovation. V R. L. Merrit and A. 
J. Merrit (ur.), Innovation in Public Sector, 17–38. London: Sage.
Dobbin, Frank, Beth Simmons and Geoffrey Garrett (2007): The Global Diffusion 
of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning? 
Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 33,: pp. 449–472.
Dunlop, Claire A. and Claudio M. Radaelli (2013): Systematising Policy Learning: 
From Monolith to Dimensions. Political Studies 61 (3): 599–619.
Durant, Robert F. and Paul F. Diehl (1989): Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Pol-
icy: Lessons from the U.S. Foreign Policy Arena. Journal of Public Policy 9 (2): 
179–205.
Giessen, Lukas (2011): Reviewing empirical explanations of policy change: 
Options fot its analysis and future fields of research. Allg. Forts. u. J.-Ztg. 182 
(11/12): 248–259.
Gilardi, Fabrizio (2010): Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes? 
American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 650–666.
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
245
Hall, P. A. (1993): Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State. Comparative 
Politics (April): 275–296.
Heikkila, Tanya and Andrea K. Gerlak (2013): Building a Conceptual Approach to 
Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars. Policy Studies Journal 
41 (3): 484–512.
Hemerijck, Anton and Kees van Kersbergen (1999): Negotiated Policy Change: 
Towards a Theory of Institutional Learning in Tightly Coupled Welfare States. 
V Dietmar Braun and Andreas Busch (ur.), Public Policy and Political Values, 
168–188. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hoberg, George (2001): Policy Cycles and Policy Regimes: A Framework for Study-
ing Policy Change. V Benjamin Cashore, George Hoberg, Michael Howlett, 
 Jeremy Rayner and Jeremy Wilson (ur.), In Search of Sustainability, 3–30. Van-
couver: UBC Press.
Hoberg, George (2001b): Globalization and Policy Convergence: Symposium 
Overview. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 3 (2): 127.
Hogwood, Brian, W. and Lewis Gunn, A. (1984): Policy Analysis for the Real World. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Howlett, M. and B. Cashore (2009): The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study 
of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem. 
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11: 33.
Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh (1998): Policy Subsystem Configurations and Pol-
icy Change: Operationalizing The Postpositivist Analysis of the Politics of the 
Policy Proces. Policy studies Journal 26 (3): 466–481.
Howlett, Michael (1999): Policy learning and Policy Change: Reconciling knowl-
edge and interests in the policy process. V Peter Glück, Gerhard Oesten, Heiner 
Schanz and Karl-Reinhard Volz (ur.), Formulation and Implementation of 
National Forest Programmes, 85–98. Freiburg: European Forest Institute. 
Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh (2002): The Policy Effects of Internationalization: 
A Subsystem Adjustment Analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 4 (1): 
31–50.
Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh and Anthony Perl (2009): Studying Public Policy. Pol-
icy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. 298.
Jones, Michael D. and Mark K. McBeth (2010): A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear 
Enough to Be Wrong? Policy Studies Journal 38 (2): 329–353.
Kay, Adrian (2006): The Dynamics of Public Policy. Theory and Evidence. Chel-
thenham: Edward Elgar Pub. 
Kingdon, John, W. (1995): Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: 
Harper Collins College Publishers. 
Knill, Christoph and Jale Tosun (2012): Public Policy. A New Introduction. Basing-
stoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 
Knill, Christoph and Jale Tosun (2008): Policy Making. V Daniele Caramani (ur.), 
Comparative Politics, 495–515. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knoephel, Peter, Corinne Larrue, Frederic Varone (2007): Public policy analysis. 
Bristol: The Policy Press.
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
246
Koch, Per and Johan Hauknes (2005): On innovation in the public sector. Publin 
Report 20: 102. Http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/226573/
d20-innovation.pdf?sequence=1 (22. 10. 2015).
Krašovec, Alenka (2002): Oblikovanje javnih politik. Znanstvena knjižnica. Lju-
bljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. 
Kustec-Lipicer, Simona (2007): Javnopolitična omrežja. V Danica Fink-Hafner (ur.), 
Uvod v analizo politik: teorije, koncepti, načela, 87–99. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za 
družbene vede.
Lester, J. and J. Stewart (1996): Public Policy. An Evolutionary Approach.: West Pub-
lishing Company. 
Lindblom, Charles E. (1979): Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administra-
tion Review 39 (6): 517–526.
Maggetti, Martino and Fabrizio Gilardi (2015): Problems (and solutions) in the meas-
urement of policy diffusion mechanisms. Journal of Public Policy FirstView: 1–21.
Marier, Patrik (2013): Policy feedback and learning. V Eduardo Araral, Scott Fritzen, 
Michael Howlett, M Ramesh and Xun Wu (ur.), Routledge Handbook of Public 
Policy, 401–414. London: Routledge.
McFaul, M. (1999): Institutional design, uncertainty, and path dependency during 
transitions: Cases from Russia. Constitutional Political Economy 10 (1): 27–52.
Mintrom, Michael and Phillipa Norman (2009): Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy 
Change. Policy Studies Journal 37 (4): 649–667.
Mulgan, Geoff and David Albury (2003): Innovation in the public sector. Strategy 
Unit. Http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100125070726/http://cabi-
netoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/innovation.aspx (22. 10. 2015).
Nowlin, Matthew C. (2011): Theories of the Policy Process: State of the Research 
and Emerging Trends. 39: 41–60. 
Parsons, Wayne (1995): Public policy. An introduction to the theory and practice of 
policy analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Peters, B. Guy and Brian W. Hogwood (1985): In Search of the Issue-Attention 
Cycle. The Journal of Politics 47 (1): 238–253.
Petridou, Evangelia (2014): Theories of the Policy Process: Contemporary Scholar-
ship and Future Directions. Policy Studies Journal 42: S12-S32.
Pierson, Paul (2000): Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of poli-
tics. The American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–267.
Radaelli, C. M. (2009): Measuring policy learning: Regulatory impact assessment in 
Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (8): 1145–1164.
Roberts, Ivor and Beverly Springer (2001): Social Policy in the European Union: 
Between Harmonization and National Autonomy. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. 
Rogers, Everett (2003): Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (1993): The Dynamics of Policy-oriented 
Learning. V Paul A. Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (ur.), Policy Change and 
Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach, 41–56. Boulder: Westview.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, Mark K. McBeth (ur.) (2013): An Angel on 
the Wind: How Heroic Policy Narratives Shape Policy Realities. Policy Studies 
Journal 41 (3): 453–483.
Milan ŠINKO
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 53, 1/2016
247
True, James L., Bryan D. Jones and Frank R. Baumgartner (1999): Punctuated-Equi-
librium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in American Policymaking. V 
Paul A. Sabatier (ur.), Theories of the Policy Process, 97–115. Boulder: Westview 
Press.
Tsebelis, George (1995): Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Pres-
identialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Jour-
nal of Political Science 25 (3): 289–325.
Wallace, Helen and William Wallace (2000): Policy-Making in the European Union. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.