1. Policy transfer ‘Every country has problems and each thinks that its problems are unique... However, problems that are unique to one country...are abnormal......confronted with a common problem, policy makers in cities, regional governments and nations can learn from how their counterparts responded’ Rose, R (1991) ‘What is lesson drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11, p 3

4. Why engage in policy transfer? Voluntary transfer Dissatisfaction with status quo whose problem? which problem? Extraneous factors eg elections Coercive transfer Direct One institution forces a policy on another Supra-institutional body forces a policy on another Indirect Interdependence Technological change International or supra-institutional influence Fear of ‘being left behind’

5. What is transferred? Policy goals Policy instruments Administrative techniques Institutions Ideas, attitudes, concepts Negative lessons

6. Degrees of transfer (Rose (1995)) Copying more or less intact Adaptation adjusting for contextual differences Hybridisation combining recognisable elements from different policies Synthesis combines elements into a distinctive new whole Inspiration a new approach, not a single transfer (often uncritical)

7. Who transfers policy? Elected members/politicians Non-elected members Political parties Bureaucrats/staff Pressure groups Policy entrepreneurs/experts Supra-national or supra-institutional organisations

8. Fungibility- what makes it likely to happen? (From Rose 1995) Transfer is more likely the fewer the elements of uniqueness the more substitutable are the institutions of programme delivery the greater the equivalence of resources between importers and exporters the simpler the cause and effect structure of a policy the smaller the scale of change the greater the interdependence between policies in different locations the greater the congruity between the values of policymakers and those of the policy

9. What makes it likely to happen? (Dolowitz and Marsh (1996), misquoting Rose (1995)) Transfer is more likely for programmes with single goals than those with multiple gaols the simpler the problem the more direct the relationship is perceived to be between the problem and the solution (policy) the fewer the perceived side effects of policy the more information agents have about how the policy operates elsewhere the more easily outcomes can be predicted

10. Persuasion and argument Persuasion (Majone, G (1991) Cross-national sources of Regulatory Policymaking in Europe and the United States, Journal of Public Policy, 11.1, 79-106) 'Major policy breakthroughs are possible only after public opinion has been conditioned to accept new ideas and new concepts of the public interest.’ Policy arguments succeed not just because of the evidence adduced, but because of the persuasive power with which they are argued - 'government by propaganda', the use of information dispensing ('spin doctors'). Administrative argument (Hood and Jackson Administrative Argument 1991) Advocacy of doctrines [neither theories nor policies] by reference to ‘common sense’ maxims and examples that ostensibly vindicate the maxims - 'buzz-words'

11. Successful persuasion Hood, C and Jackson, M (1991) Administrative Argument, Dartmouth symmetry: 'constructing a reality symmetrical with the perceived "problem”’ use of metaphor to 'tap into or build on shared modes of thinking' ambiguity - the ability to communicate the same idea to different groups in ways that each finds congenial the use of 'the public good' as justification selectivity in argument (including ignoring contradictory information) suspension of disbelief of opponents.

12. Reasons for the unexpected emergence in the late 1980s of the idea of a non-university sector 'Problems of the solution' Existing solution no longer working (overburdening of universities) New problems of existing solution (eg graduate unemployment) Financial constraint making existing solution uncomfortable 'Happy accidents' OECD 1988 study of alternatives to universities Key civil servants with international outlook Ambitious minister External factors Austria`s decision to join the EU EU directive on recognition of qualifications

13. Issues of policy transfer Asynchronous transfer - CNAA 1964 FHR 1994 FHS policy not the same as polytechnic policy -non state providers -accredits courses before institutions Differences of scale Evidence against transfer ignored Idealised and mistaken model transferred Wider aims - FHS policy - changing polity Importance of persuasion of wider publics Importance of implementation