| Chapter 1: | Introduction |
|
|
To some extent, this is a misplaced controversy. In any given policy area, various actors and organizations either learn or supply knowledge to those who learn. Thus, the real question is not who learns, but rather who needs to learn in order for policy to change? Accumulated evidence from numerous empirical studies has made clear that the agents of learning vary depending on the locus of decision-making authority within a particular policy domain.37 For instance, foreign policy and macroeconomic policy are matters of system-wide importance typically entrusted to high-ranking national executives. In issue areas such as these, it makes sense that small groups of national leaders are the principal learners. In an area such as telecommunications regulation, however, policy questions are technically complex and only intermittently salient to the mass public. As a result, elected officials delegate substantial authority to administrative agencies, making organizational learning the norm in this context. In an issue area such as environmental policy, on the other hand, major policy disputes tend to be both complex and salient. The general public frequently expresses concern regarding the impacts of environmental policy, and scientific knowledge is fiercely contested among various competing interest groups. Legislators tend to delegate less decision-making responsibility to administrative agencies in these cases, and they themselves remain actively involved in the policy process. Under these circumstances, a range of state and societal actors must learn before there can be sufficient support for policy change.38
In addition to debating who learns, learning scholars have also sought to clarify what is learned. Most scholars agree that learning is indicated when policy change results directly from new knowledge and experience. Thus, policy change that is attributable only to political pressure or perceived self-interest cannot be categorized as learning. It is likewise accepted among