Original
Why Some Critical Junctures Lead Nowhere: Exploring Dynamic and Static Policy Paths
Abstract
ABSTRACT Some critical junctures fail to cause significant change in practice. Inspired by historical institutionalism, this article develops the concept of dynamic and static policy paths to explain why some critical junctures do not lead to change, while others do. Combining insights from policy process literature and policy implementation, it conceptualizes critical junctures through four elements: framing, targets, instruments, and actors/institutions. Based on two case studies, the article argues that the importance of framing and targets has been overexaggerated, and that a dynamic path will not occur unless there is also a significant change in instruments and actors/institutions. In Denmark, a climate policy agreement created a new policy direction for agriculture in which climate policy is a key component. In Norway, a climate policy agreement did not change the trajectory of sectoral policy and climate policy development has remained stagnant. Thus, differences in the critical junctures led to different policy paths.
中文
为何有些关键节点未引发变革：动态与静态政策路径探析
摘要
摘要：某些关键节点在实践中未能引发显著变革。受历史制度主义启发，本文提出动态政策路径与静态政策路径的概念，以解释为何有些关键节点未导致变迁，而另一些却导致了变迁。结合政策过程文献与政策执行的洞见，本文将关键节点概念化为四个要素：框架、目标、工具以及行动者/制度。基于两个案例研究，本文认为框架与目标的重要性被高估了，并且除非工具与行动者/制度也发生显著变化，否则不会出现动态路径。在丹麦，一项气候政策协议为农业创造了新的政策方向，其中气候政策成为关键组成部分。在挪威，一项气候政策协议并未改变部门政策的轨迹，气候政策发展始终停滞。因此，关键节点的差异导致了不同的政策路径。
关键词
关键节点、政策路径、历史制度主义、政策变迁、政策执行、气候政策、农业政策、丹麦与挪威