IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v54y2021i3d10.1007_s11077-021-09430-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy

Author

Listed:
  • Kasper Ampe

    (Delft University of Technology
    Ghent University)

  • Erik Paredis

    (Ghent University)

  • Lotte Asveld

    (Delft University of Technology)

  • Patricia Osseweijer

    (Delft University of Technology)

  • Thomas Block

    (Ghent University)

Abstract

Environmental problems are usually not tackled with path-departing policies but rather with incrementally adjusted or unchanged policies. One way to address incremental change is the policy feedback approach, which initially focussed on self-reinforcing feedback and path-dependency. Today, self-undermining feedback is also increasingly being studied, centring on agency and change. However, it is unclear precisely how actors use power in policy feedback processes. Therefore, this study applied a power perspective and the policy arrangement approach to a case study of the reorientation towards a circular economy in Dutch wastewater policy between 2008 and 2018, which resulted in incremental instead of fundamental policy change. Here it was observed that self-undermining feedback was generated from 2008 onwards but the balance quickly shifted back to self-reinforcing feedback, indicating that the analysed power struggles led to incremental change. These dynamics resemble a shift from the so-called paths and forks (i.e. fork in the road) towards the boomerang pattern (i.e. returning to its original position) of policy change. The patterns are explained by focussing on powerful actors that resist change through the use of incremental reforms, the ongoing struggles of these actors in facilitating self-reinforcing feedback and the role of interpretation in using feedback as a resource. Overall, this study provides a nuanced understanding of incremental change by directing attention to the power struggles of actors in policy feedback processes. For practitioners, the study emphasises the importance of power struggles in enabling a circular economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-021-09430-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-021-09430-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-021-09430-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-021-09430-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Grin, 2012. "The politics of transition governance in Dutch agriculture. Conceptual understanding and implications for transition management," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1/2), pages 72-89.
    2. Weaver, Kent, 2010. "Paths and Forks or Chutes and Ladders?: Negative Feedbacks and Policy Regime Change," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 137-162, August.
    3. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Loeber, Anne M.C. & Grin, John, 2021. "Politics of complexity: Conceptualizing agency, power and powering in the transitional dynamics of complex adaptive systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    4. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy & Peter Karnøe, 2010. "Path Dependence or Path Creation?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 760-774, June.
    5. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    6. Kirsi Kotilainen & Pami Aalto & Jussi Valta & Antti Rautiainen & Matti Kojo & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2019. "From path dependence to policy mixes for Nordic electric mobility: Lessons for accelerating future transport transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 573-600, December.
    7. Andrew Jordan & Elah Matt, 2014. "Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 227-247, September.
    8. Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    9. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    10. Sebastian Sewerin & Daniel Béland & Benjamin Cashore, 2020. "Designing policy for the long term: agency, policy feedback and policy change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 243-252, June.
    11. Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
    12. Anna P. Durnová & Christopher M. Weible, 2020. "Tempest in a teapot? Toward new collaborations between mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 571-588, September.
    13. Bauwens, Thomas & Hekkert, Marko & Kirchherr, Julian, 2020. "Circular futures: What Will They Look Like?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    14. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    15. Tobias S. Schmidt & Sebastian Sewerin, 2017. "Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 1-3, June.
    16. Bas Arts & Jan Tatenhove, 2004. "Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 339-356, December.
    17. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Binz, Christian, 2018. "Global socio-technical regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 735-749.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. White, Lee V. & Hughes, Llewelyn & Lyons, Chell & Peng, Yuan, 2021. "Iterating localisation policies in support of energy transition: The case of the Australian Capital Territory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Nof Afghani & Johannes Hamhaber & Jos Frijns, 2022. "An Integrated Assessment Framework for Transition to Water Circularity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roberts, Cameron & Geels, Frank W., 2019. "Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 221-240.
    2. Matthew Lockwood, 2022. "Policy feedback and institutional context in energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 487-507, September.
    3. Sebastian Sewerin & Daniel Béland & Benjamin Cashore, 2020. "Designing policy for the long term: agency, policy feedback and policy change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 243-252, June.
    4. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    5. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    6. Eicke, Laima & Weko, Silvia, 2022. "Does green growth foster green policies? Value chain upgrading and feedback mechanisms on renewable energy policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    7. Grace Skogstad, 2020. "Mixed feedback dynamics and the USA renewable fuel standard: the roles of policy design and administrative agency," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 349-369, June.
    8. Omri Carmon & Itay Fischhendler, 2021. "A friction perspective for negotiating renewable energy targets: the Israeli case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 313-344, June.
    9. Matthew Lockwood & Caroline Kuzemko & Catherine Mitchell & Richard Hoggett, 2017. "Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 312-333, March.
    10. Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
    11. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    12. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    13. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "The Geography of Technology Legitimation. How multi-scalar legitimation processes matter for path creation in emerging industries," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2034, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    14. Marco Di Giulio & Giancarlo Vecchi, 2023. "How “institutionalization” can work. Structuring governance for digital transformation in Italy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 406-432, May.
    15. Chanchai Tangpong & Michael Abebe & Zonghui Li, 2015. "A Temporal Approach to Retrenchment and Successful Turnaround in Declining Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 647-677, July.
    16. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Battke, Benedikt & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Do deployment policies pick technologies by (not) picking applications?—A simulation of investment decisions in technologies with multiple applications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1965-1983.
    17. Melissa K. Merry & Rodger A. Payne, 2024. "Climate fatalism, partisan cues, and support for the Inflation Reduction Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 379-402, June.
    18. Christoph H. Stefes, 2020. "Opposing Energy Transitions: Modeling the Contested Nature of Energy Transitions in the Electricity Sector," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 292-312, May.
    19. Kivimaa, Paula & Rogge, Karoline S., 2022. "Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    20. Jonas Meckling, 2019. "Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(2), pages 317-338, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-021-09430-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.