Comparing Policy Process Lenses: On the Conditions and Usefulness of Localized ‘shoot-outs’

In this paper I intend to deal with the issue of the convenience, possibility and, eventually, the theoretical usefulness of explicitly comparing different theoretical approaches to the explanation of policy dynamics. There are some obstacles that clearly difficult such endeavour. On the one hand, several authors have sensibly warned about the ontological and epistemological problems and pitfalls those comparisons imply (Cairney, 2013; Capano, 2009). According to these authors, these problems should prevent scholars from trying any general shoot-out exercise between theories of the policy process based on general criteria on the scientific quality of each approaches (see Eller and Krutz, 2009). On the other hand, there is also the practical difficulty related to the knowledge and skills required to perform scientifically valid comparisons (Weible 2014). In this paper I examine these issues focusing on the specific context of case-study research, trying to ascertain the conditions localized comparisons of several theories of the policy process (localized ‘shoot-outs’) may be performed avoiding those ontological and epistemological pitfalls and the eventual benefits these exercises may bring for theoretical development in the field. References: Cairney, Paul (2013) “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: How Do We Combine the Insights of Multiple Theories in Public Policy Studies?”, The Policy Studies Journal, 41:1, pp. 1-21. Capano, Giliberto (2009) “Understanding Policy Change as an Epistemological and Theoretical Problem”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11:1, pp. 7-31. Eller, Warren and Glen Krutz (2009) “Policy Process, Scholarship, and the Road Ahead: An Introduction to the 2008 Policy Shootout!”, The Policy Studies Journal, 37:1, pp. 1-4. Weible, Christopher M. (2014) “Advancing policy process research”, in Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible (eds.) Theories of the Policy Proccess, 3rd ed. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, pp. 391-407.