Call for Papers: International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP4) – June 26-28, 2019

The 4th edition of the International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP4) will take place at the University of Concordia from 26th to 28th June 2019 with a pre-conference the 25th June.

Following the success of the previous editions of the Biennial International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP) (Grenoble 2013 – 900 attendees; Milan 2015 – 1 300 attendees, Singapore 2017 - 1300 attendees) during which public policy researchers from around the world came together over a period of three days, the International Public Policy Association is pleased that the 4th International Conference on Public Policy will now move for the first time to North America

General Objectives, Research Questions and Scientific Relevance

Causal claims and inferences have become important criteria for research design and methods in comparative policy analysis (CPA). “Why”-questions are often present in CPA, for instance to address why policies on related policy problems are most similar or most different. Degrees of similar or different causes may be the answer. Yet the concept of causality often remains implicit and scholars conceive it in a different way — either as patterns of regularity, counterfactuals or causal forces— according to their philosophical and scientific ontology. Some argue that explicit causal inferences should be at the core of CPA while others contend that causation is not to be explained but, at best, interpreted.

These similarities and discrepancies affect the very theory and practice of CPA, when it comes to address “Why” questions about agenda-setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation or evaluation. Why does a government put a problem on the agenda? Why is a policy mix preferred to another? Why is a policy adopted or not? Why is there a gap in a policy implementation? Why does a policy produce unexpected outputs or outcomes?

Such questions are given a partial treatment by conventional analytical frameworks. For instance, the advocacy coalition framework and the multiple stream approach focus on the agenda-setting, while policy design focuses on the instrumentation; comparative historical analysis and political economy have produced strong theories of policy change, while econometrics has been more thorough to assess policies impacts. Yet while the theoretical statement made by these frameworks are conspicuous, their methodological foundations are not always explicit and their procedures often suffer from a lack of transparency.

Two logics of causation currently coexist in CPA —probabilistic and deterministic— hence raising a problem of alignment between ontology and methodology at the time of selecting a comparative method for confirming or disconfirming purposes. On one hand, the probabilistic logic has produced theories of causation based on mean causal effects, general trends and symmetric causation, which commands variable-centered research designs for large-n comparisons.

On the other hand, the deterministic logic has produced theories of causation based on differences in kind, necessity claims and asymmetric causation, which commands case-based research designs for small-n comparisons and within-case studies. The dilemma extends to the conceptualization of causal conditions (necessity and sufficiency), the status of set membership and even the techniques to measure variations in kind or degree. Whatever their choice, scholars´ research agenda derives from different designs and practices, and ultimately ends up making symmetric or asymmetric causal claims, which produce formal models or causal mechanisms, and so on and so forth. Some may contend that only co-variance in large-n comparisons allows to establish a causal relation in a policy process, or that small-n comparisons are a better way to identify the causal forces at stake in that process. Some may advocate for experiments or quasi-experiments while others would object these as inaccurate for practical or even ethical reasons. Eventually a growing number of comparative policy studies advocate for a multi-method research design.

Call For Papers

The objective of this workshop is to discuss the theoretical implications of different concepts of causal inferences and causal claims in CPA, and in particular how scholars and practitioners identify and deal with causation in theory and practice. Participants are expected to contribute to the discussion with an 8,000 word paper based on a small-n or a large-n comparison of substantive policies within or in-between social units.

The following questions may be addressed as guidelines for the discussion:

1. What is the nature of causality in your comparative framework?
2. What theory (or theories) of causation has it been supported or produced by?
3. How was this theory operationalized?
4. Which comparative methods have been favored to assess the causal inferences or causal claims?
5. How have these methods combined with others in the research design?
6. What contribution does the research make to CPA methods? The workshop will be sponsored by the ICPA-Forum scholarly society and the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Routledge on its 20th anniversary, to advance this important CPA issue. Submitted papers may be shortlisted for publication in the JCPA following the journal's standard blind fold reviewing process.

Workshop Information

Key Dates (TBA):

• Abstract submission: February 10th, 2019 - NEW DATE
• Joint workshop steering committee will review the abstracts and announce selection result

• Submission of accepted papers:
• Registration deadline: February 10th, 2019
• Internal review by conveners and feedback (which will be discussed in detail at the workshop)