Theorising Post-exceptionalism: from Diagnostic Tool to Explanation

The concept of post-exceptionalism has gained attraction as a diagnostic tool to describe and understand the changes that have taken place in agri-food policies over the last three decades. Post-exceptionalism ‘denotes a partial transformation in which an exceptionalist policy sector has not been completely ‘normalized’ and in which old and new ideas, institutions, interests and policy instruments coexist’ (Daugbjerg & Feindt 2017). By providing a broad frame within which policy transition can be understood, the concept helps to provide a more complete and nuanced picture of the changes in agri-food policies than previous studies. However, the theoretical underpinning of the concept requires further elaboration to move from analytical diagnosis to explanation. A full-fledged theory of post-exceptionalism needs to spell out the theoretical foundations of its four key dimensions ­– ideas, institutions, interests and instruments – and how they interact. This is necessary to explain how and under which circumstances the interplay of the ‘four Is’ produces a dynamic situation in which new components are layered onto policy and old components are reinterpreted and repurposed, while at the same time, policy maintains a considerable legacy of the past and therefore does not undergo a complete transformation. As post-exceptionalist policy is dynamic, the concept needs to be underpinned by theory that can help explain policy trajectories that are characterised by continuity and change at the same time. Policy feedback theory and the concept of policy layering hold the key for such an endeavour. Reactions to the effects of policy instruments feed back into the policy process and activate old and new actors with interests that do not necessarily align well, so that farm interests must increasingly compete for political influence and ideational salience. With new interests activated, compartmentalised institutions and closed policy networks are likely to be challenged and some institutional opening and layering of new ideas and instruments onto the existing policy design may result. Gradually, these often marginal changes to the interest constellation, public ideas about the sector, institutional setting and feedbacks from policy changes question the ideational framework, relational patterns and instrumentation of policy but are unlikely to lead to full ideational or instrumental transformation. Rather, ideas are reformulated and instruments are recalibrated, but maintain their exceptionalist core. An open question is whether and under which circumstances change originates in one of the four dimensions, and how it ripples through an exceptionalist policy constellation, turning it post-exceptionalist. In this paper, we develop these arguments and illustrate them with analysis of the reform trajectory of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.