Policy conflict arises when there are differences. Actors and institutions pose different policy positions informed by conflicting values, beliefs and ideologies. In this paper, I present a conceptual framework for studying conflicts not as explicit engagement but implicit avoidance. Much of the literature has focused on conflicts that are explicitly expressed. They are easier to observe and therefore occupies much of the current analysis. Conflict avoidance on the other hand may emerge as a brief moment of conflict engagement and then die down. It can also occur in absolute silence whereby the conflicts are known but not laid out in the deliberation altogether.
The avoidance behavior may be rationally, normatively or habitually motivated. Rationally, policy actors would calculate the cost of conflict. They would retreat from conflict engagement because the anticipated benefits would be lower than the cost. Policy actors would scan for the usual rules for conflict engagement. If the rules do not permit deliberation, the actors would have to avoid the conflicts. Finally, actors can also be influenced by cognitive biases such as loss aversion and confirmation bias. They may exaggerate the costs for conflict engagement or seek out evidence that confirms their understanding of how conflict management may or may not turn out.
Through the examples of conflict avoidance among sustainability bureaucrats, I shall illustrate how the three logics mentioned above could enrich our understanding of policy conflicts. More acute is the illustration of how policy conflicts are not fought with guns - one shot at a time, but with rules – multiple categories altogether. To grasp the complicated dynamics between actions and inactions, it is proposed that research needs to examine both the shots that are fired and the battlefields that are avoided.
