Advancing Policy Process Theory through Cross-fertilization: Proposing a Tool for Explicit Comparisons of Policy Theories

Theoretical comparisons constitute a major driver in the advancement of our knowledge about the policy process (Gupta, 2012). The development of new theories/approaches has been traditionally based on the implicit or explicit comparison of existing theories. This comparison may adopt two versions. On the one hand, what we could call ‘competitive comparisons’ where one theory is supported on the critique of other theories. For instance, Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993, 1999) supported the introduction of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in the theoretical (from an epistemological point of view) superiority of this framework over existing theories, mainly the stages model of the policy process. Comparisons of theories also adopt a ‘complementary’ (or synthetic) approach. Here, authors draw upon existing theories in order to create new brand theories or improve/amend existing ones. For instance, dominant approaches in the theory of policy dynamics during the last 30 years – ACF, PET, and the Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) – are deemed to be synthetic frameworks (John, 1998; 2012), connecting into coherent frameworks conceptual elements of existing theories, even outside the field of public policy or political science (i.e., the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ in the case of the PET, imported from paleontology, [Baumgartner, Jones and Mortensen, 2014]). However, more recently, policy scholars have also been warned about the pitfalls of comparing policy theories. Problems appear at two levels: theoretical (or, meta-theoretical, since they refer to the general aspects concerning theory comparability) and practical. Regarding the first type of problems, Cairney (2013) is probably the best argued example of the epistemic and ontological difficulties and traps inherent to theoretical combination and comparison, which, arguably, makes extremely difficult (if not impossible) the creation of new theories through synthesis. On the practical side, Weible (2014: 397) has also pointed out the practical problems of explicit theoretical comparison, particularly the difficulty of acquiring an adequate and comprehensive understanding of the working of more than one theory to provide a successful application (and, consequently, successful comparisons) of different theories. However, according to Weible himself, these practices are usually part of the know-how of specific group of scholars associated to the development of those theories, and their development and communication should be one of the areas of future development in the field (2014: 394-395, 398). So here we are witnessing a contradiction, between the necessarily comparison-driven advancement of theory, and the alleged difficulties for such advancement. This paper wants to be a contribution to solve this contradiction by investigating the adequate conditions for successful theoretical comparison (which may not be as unsurmountable as predicted) and proposing a meta-theoretical tool (actually, a template) to guide such explicit theoretically-driven comparisons in the context of empirical research.