Abstract
This paper suggests that the policy model assumed by most writers on policy analysis neglects the implications of the fact that most “new” policies in contemporary Western political systems are in fact replacing old policies, and that this is increasingly likely to be the case. Similarly, the recent interest in “policy termination” is partly misplaced since it fails to follow through adequately the implications of the fact that most policy terminations lead to policy succession. Accordingly, there is a need to study and analyse the processes involved in policy succession. This paper places policy succession in the context of policy change, sketches a model which describes the distinctive features of the policy succession process, outlines the various kinds of policy succession which occur, and draws out some implications for policy makers resulting from the increasing importance of policy succession.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1980). The Federal Role in the Federal System: The Dynamics of Growth. Washington, DC: ACIR.
Bardach, E. C. (1976). “Policy termination as a political process,” Policy Sciences 7: 123–131.
Behn, R. D. (1977). “Policy termination and the Sunset Laws.” Prepared statement in Sunset Act of 1977, Hearings on 5.2 before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, 95th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Behn, R. D. (1978). “How to terminate a public policy: A dozen hints for the would-be terminator,” Policy Analysis 4: 393–413.
Biller, R. P. (1976). “On tolerating policy and organizational termination: Some design considerations,” Policy Sciences 7: 133–149.
Bothun, D. and Comer, J. C. (1979). “The politics of termination: Concepts and process,” Policy Studies Journal 7: 540–553.
Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, C. (1963). A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free Press.
Brewer, G. D. (1978). “Termination: Hard choices, harder questions,” Public Administration Review 38: 338–344.
Cobb, R. W. and Elder, C. D. (1972). Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Davis, H. and Salesin, S. (1979). “Evaluations and change,” in L. E. Datta and R. Perloff (eds.), Improving Evaluations, pp. 257–271. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
deLeon, P. (1978a). “A theory of policy termination,” in J. V. May and A. Wildavsky (eds.), The Policy Cycle, pp. 279–300. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
deLeon, P. (1978b). “Public policy termination: An end and a beginning,” Policy Analysis 4: 369–392.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
Hall, P., Land, H., Parker, R. and Webb, A. (1975). Change, Choice and Conflict in Social Policy. London: Heinemann.
Heidenheimer, A. J., Heclo, H. and Adams, C. T. (1975). Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice in Europe and America. New York: St. Martins.
Holden, M., Jr. (1966). “Imperialism and bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review 60: 943–995.
Lereuz, J. (1975). Economic Planning and Politics in Britain. London: Martin Robertson.
Levine, C. H. (1980). “More on cutback management: Hard questions for hard times,” in C. H. Levine, Managing Fiscal Stress, pp. 306–307. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
May, J. V. and Wildavsky, A. (1978). The Policy Cycle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miles, R. E., Jr. (1977). “Considerations for a president bent on reorganization,” Public Administration Review 37 (March/April): 157.
New Society (1976). “Killing a commitment: The cabinet versus the children,” New Society 36 (June 17): 630–632.
Peters, B. G. and Hogwood, B. W. (1980). “The Policy succession process: Implications of policy change.” Paper presented at the 1980 meeting of the American Political Science Association.
Pressman, J. L. and Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rose, R. and Peters, G. (1978). Can Government Go Bankrupt? New York: Basic Books.
Sandford, C. (1977). Social Economics. London: Heinemann.
Scharpf, F. W., Reissert, B. and Schnabel, F. (1978). “Policy effectiveness and conflict avoidance in intergovernmental policy formation,” in F. W. Scharpf and K. Hanf (eds.), Interorganizational Policy Making, pp. 57–112. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sunset Act of 1977 (1977). Compendium of statements in, Hearings on 5.2 before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, 95th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Szanton, P. (1981). Federal Reorganization. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Tarschys, D. (1977). “The problem of pre-planned society.” Paper presented to the 1977 Annual Meeting of the American Political Society.
Wehrmann, G. (1978). “A policy in search of an objective,” Public Administration 56: 425–438.
Wildavsky, A. (1979). “Policy as its own cause,” in A. Wildavsky, Speaking Truth to Power. Boston: Little, Brown.
Wurzburg, G. (1979). “What limits the impact of evaluations on federal policy?” in L. E. Datta and R. Perloff (eds.), Improving Evaluations, pp. 35–41. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hogwood, B.W., Peters, B.G. The dynamics of policy change: Policy succession. Policy Sci 14, 225–245 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136398
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136398