University of California Transportation Center
UCTC- FR- 2010- 35
How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study
of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North America
Greg Marsden, Karen Trapenberg Frick,
Anthony D. May and Elizabeth Deakin
University of California, Berkeley
November 2010
How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30
policies in Northern Europe and North America
G. Marsden a, n , K. T. Frick b, A. D. Maya, E. Deakin c
a Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, UK
b University of California Transportation Center, CA, USA
c City and Regional Planning Department, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:
Policy transfer
Innovation
Urban transport
Policy learning
Implementation
a b s t r a c t
This paper reports on a study of current practice in policy transfer, and ways in which its effectiveness can
be increased. A literature review identifies important factors in examining the transfer of policies. Results
of interviews in eleven cities in Northern Europe and North America investigate these factors further.
The principal motivations for policy transfer were strategic need and curiosity. Local officials and
politicians dominated the process of initiating policy transfer, and local officials were also the leading
players in transferring experience.
A range of information sources are used in the search process but human interaction was the most
important source of learning for two main reasons. First, there is toomuch information available through
the Internet and the search techniques are not seen to be wholly effective in identifying the necessary
information. Secondly, the information available onwebsites, portals and even good practice guides is not
seen to be of mixed quality with risks of focussing only on successful implementation and therefore
subject to some bias. Officials therefore rely on their trusted networks of peers for lessons as here they can
access the ‘ real implementation’ story and the unwritten lessons. Organisations which have a culture that
is supportive of learning from elsewhere had strong and broad networks of external contacts and
resourced their development whilst others are more insular or inward looking and reluctant to invest in
policy lessons from elsewhere. Solutions to the problems identified in the evidence base are proposed.
City to city policy transfer is a very active process in the field of transport. Not enough is yet understood
about its benefits or the conditions under which it is most effective. Such understandings should help to
promote and accelerate the uptake of effective and well matched policies.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
There is considerable interest in identifying examples of good
practice in urban transport policy ( e. g. CfIT, 2001; Dunphy et al.,
2003; Knapp, 2005; Ison and Rye, 2008). Academics and practi-tioners
alike are interested in studying new policies, programmes
and projects and reporting on their actual or anticipated perfor-mance,
successful or otherwise ( Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984;
Rye et al., 2008). In contrast there is little tradition of studying the
process of the development and transfer of policy ideas ( Heichel
et al., 2005; Van den Bergh et al., 2007). This is particularly
important given the recent heightened focus at all levels of
government on sustainability and climate change in an era of
constrained financial resources, mounting traffic congestion and
deteriorating transport infrastructure.
Political scientists have, for many years, studied and attempted
to understand the transfer of policies ( e. g. Rose, 1991; Bulmer and
Padgett, 2004). Policy transfer is defined as
the process by which knowledge about policies, administrative
arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political system ( past or
present) is used in the development of policies, administrative
arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political system
( Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000, p. 5)
This work was largely borne out of the transfer of policies across
state boundaries in the US ( e. g. Mintrom, 1997) and across national
boundaries ( e. g. Stone, 2001). More recently however scholars have
been turning their attention to the role of cities as agents of change
capable of exerting influence across a range of administrative
governance scales from regional to supranational ( Betsill and
Bulkeley, 2004; Bulmer and Padgett, 2004). This has been parti-cularly
true within the European Union where the extra legislative
layer has generated opportunities and resources to bypass the
nation state level ( Marshall, 2005).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www. elsevier. com/ locate/ tranpol
Transport Policy
0967- 070X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
n Corresponding author.
E- mail address: G. R. Marsden@ its. leeds. ac. uk ( G. Marsden).
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Whilst there has been a strong institutional tradition to the study
of policy transfer other theoretical domains argue their legitimacy in
studying the movement of policies. Marsh and Sharman ( 2009) for
example discuss the importance of policy diffusion literature in
explaining how policies move over space and time ( see also
Rogers, 2003). The literature on policy diffusion comes from socio-logical
roots and focusesmore on the transfer of information through
social systems, sometimes to the exclusion of the influence of agency
within governance systems ( Marshand Sharman, 2009; Levi- Faur and
Vigoda- Gadot, 2006). DiMaggio and Powell ( 1983) highlight the
importance of the broader system within which policies are made
and note that there are pressures upon institutions to mimic other
institutions as a result of competitive forces and to reduce the costs
associated with uncertainty. Organisational learning literature also
has insights to offer the study of policy transfer as transfer implies the
exchange of knowledge ( Boonstra, 2004). The conditions under which
organisations are open to learning are important. This literature also
pays attention to the role of individuals engaged in the development
and operation of policies as they hold crucial aspects of the workings
of these policies internally ( implicit knowledge). Importance is placed
on themechanisms of exchange of information between these actors
and their learning counterparts ( Lam, 2002; Delbridge, 2003).
Wolman and Page ( 2002) suggest that whilst the policy transfer
and diffusion literatures have much to offer, they lack attention to
detail on the process of transfer. Taken together the literature on
the study of policy transfer implies the need to study the process,
the broader social system within which transfer is occurring and
the institutional conditions that influence it.
This paper describes a research project which was commis-sioned
to understand how cities find out about sustainable trans-port
policies and projects which are new to their context. Building
on a literature review ( Marsden, 2008), the project took an inter-view-
led approach to studying the process of policy transfer for
thirty innovations in eleven cities in Northern Europe and North
America. The purpose of the paper is to describe the key aspects of
policy transfer under investigation ( see also Marsden and Stead,
this issue) and to conclude on the importance of the transfer
process in the transport sector, the key elements of it and the
difficulties that cities face in seeking to learn from elsewhere.
Section 2 of the paper provides a brief review of the findings of the
literature review. Section 3 presents the data collection and
analysis process and explains how it links to the literature.
Section 4 provides a brief overview of key institutional differences
between the cities. Section 5 presents the key findings on the
different aspects of policy transfer. Section 6 concludes by sum-marising
the implications of the research for the practice and
research communities.
2. Key aspects of city learning
Dolowitz and Marsh’s framework of key components of policy
transfer provides a useful introduction to the range of issues that
might define any study of the phenomenon ( Dolowitz and Marsh,
2000).
2.1. Why transfer policy?
The literature addressing the process of policy transfer suggests
policy transfer occurs on a continuum from coercive ( such as EU
regulations on liberalisation of air movements) to voluntary ( where
administrations go in search of alternative policies). Coercive policy
transfer can occur through direct means such as regulation or more
indirect means such as financial conditions attached to funds
( Bulmer and Padgett, 2004). Policy transfer also occurs simply by
interesting examples providing an inspiration for change ( Rose,
2005). Voluntary learning appears to be stimulated by dissatisfac-tion
with the status quo and an inability to find suitable historical
policy lessons locally.
2.2. Who is involved?
A large range of potential actors are involved in policy transfer
including elected officials, government administrators, suppliers,
interest groups, residents, think- tanks, consultants, non- govern-mental
organisations and ‘ policy entrepreneurs’ ( who may be
located inside one of the aforementioned groups). It is suggested
that actors can work as receivers or senders of information ( and
potentially both). Of particular interest to this study is the notion of
‘ policy entrepreneurs’, individuals who are motivated to effect
policy changes. Kingdon ( 2003) for example suggest that the
presence of a political champion is critical to getting policies
implemented. Whilst Mintrom’s work ( 1997) shows that policy
entrepreneurs were influential in the extent to which school choice
policy was both considered and adopted, his work and that of
others ( e. g. Bulmer and Padgett, 2004) suggest that complex
governance arrangements and implementation issues can limit
their real effectiveness.
2.3. What is transferred?
There is some debate about the extent to which policies are ever
directly transferred from one place to another. It is suggested that
direct borrowing ( emulation) is rare as the local institutional contexts
of the ‘‘ exporter’’ and ‘‘ importer’’ of policies are important in
implementation ( Rose, 2005). This research covered cities which
had implemented policies and projects and thosewhich were seeking
to do so. Of those that had implemented policies the process of
learning was revisited as well as discussing the extent towhich other
cities came to visit them and what they appeared to be looking for.
2.4. From where are policy lessons learnt?
The extent to which policies can successfully transfer across
socio- political boundaries is of key interest. Heichel et al. ( 2005)
identified a strong national influence on the extent to which
environmental policies transfer. Kern et al. ( 2007) also supports
the notion that policy transfer is more prevalent across close
geographic and cultural neighbours ( sometimes referred to as
policy diffusion). Ward ( 2007) also identified the potential influ-ence
of strong philosophical neighbours noting the traditional ties
between the UK and the US in the planning sphere despite the UK
being closer to many important and potentially preferable compet-ing
European approaches. In one of the few transport studies of this
process, Matsumoto ( 2007) asks why, given Curitiba’s well known
success in 1974, it took so long for Bus Rapid Transit to spread to
Asia? He concludes that the success of BRT in a broader range of
institutional settings was important to generating trust in the
potential transferability of the system, although other factors such
as a worsening financial position made BRT more attractive than
fixed rail systems.
2.5. Does it work?
Rose ( 2005) is clear that when studying policies which have
been adopted in cities it is essential to learn from failed imple-mentations
and to ask questions of critics of the implementations
as well as to talk to those responsible for the policy. Marsh and
Sharman ( 2009) note that whilst the more voluntary search
processes imply a rational choice of effective policies there are
other mechanisms at play ( bounded rationality in choice, coercive
2 G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
forces and broader normative pressures) that lead to sub- optimal
policy choice ( see Wang, 2010). It should not be presumed that
transfer is synonymous with effectiveness.
2.6. Criticisms of policy transfer
Policy transfer is not without its critics. Evans ( 2009a) outlines
three main criticisms. First, that it is not possible to fully separate
out policy learning from normal policy making processes and so,
essentially, it adds little value. Second, insufficient attention is
given to whether policy transfer occurred or not. Third, that policy
transfer is descriptive in nature and fails to identify explanatory
theories for movement ( James and Lodge, 2003).
This project was designed to try and shed insights on the first
and second elements of this critique. Of course, transfer is not
separate from a policy making process so the in- depth qualitative
research described below investigated whether or not the transfer
processes appear sufficiently important to be worthy of further
study. Working with key actors in the processes provided a detailed
understanding of what information was used where in the deci-sion-
making process which addresses the second issue. The third
issue is not tackled here. As Section 1 and the review paper by
Marsden and Stead this ( issue) set out, there are a number of
potential theoretical frameworks to embrace. The study of policy
transfer is in its infancy in transport so this study offers insights
from the qualitative research to inform which theories and vari-ables
to test in future research ( Evans, 2009b). As Mintrom ( 1997)
showed in his investigation of the role of policy entrepreneurs, it is
possible to isolate and quantitatively test specific hypotheses about
the importance of different elements of the transfer process.
3. Methods
The study was conducted with eleven cities as shown in Table 1.
The selection of cities was based on those with a core population of
over 250,000 and a wider metropolitan area of at least 1 million
that are known to have pursued leading edge transport policies. The
focus was not solely on success stories as these cities have also
experienced some policy failures over time and these are equally
informative. In all, 30 policies were examined. The reasoning for the
selection of these cities was two- fold. First, the literature suggests
that policy innovations are most likely to be adjusted and tailored
more specifically to local needs by early adopters or ‘ pioneer cities’
( Kern et al., 2007) who take a more pro- active role in the policy
learning process. By contrast, later adopters tend to adopt policies
as a response to pressure to do so and are more likely to accept the
most common practices ( Westphall et al., 1997). It may therefore
be more productive to study early adopters to capture in- depth
thinking about policy transfer. Secondly, the literature suggests
that one enabler to adopting new policies may be greater personnel
and resource capacity within an organisation ( Berry, 1997). Whilst
we cannot confirm this hypothesis, two of the three cities that were
approached, but felt unable to participate, were small with a wider
metropolitan area closer to half a million than one million.
The cities are all in North America and North Europe. The
literature in Section 2 suggests that cities look to geographic or
philosophical neighbours so this seemed a logical approach to limit
the sources of variation in the study. However, this means that
extrapolations to other regions would be risky. In Europe the
selection of city sites was based on a review of cities involved in
innovative transport implementation projects funded by the
European Commission. This was supplemented by discussions
with experts. In North America the selection of city sites was
based on known innovations in aspects of sustainable transport
policy.
Data were collected for each city through interviews and
document review. The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured
approach which allowed interviewees to raise addi-tional
issues. The research is qualitative in nature and the interview
process allows for rich insights of the processes involved. There are
however some important limitations. The cities largely determined
who would be interviewed, which in turn was conditioned by the
types of innovation that were proposed. In all, 30 innovations were
discussed in detail and these are categorised by type of policy in
Table 1
Case study cities.
Site Population Innovations known about at time of site
selection
Lyon France 415,000 Larger
Met Area 1.78 M
Highly integrated public transport system
with bus, trolley bus, Metro and rail.
Advanced information systems and
ticketing. Early adopter of driverless Metro
system. Rent- a- bike system and school
travel initiatives. Home of research institute
CERTU
Nancy
France
260,000 Larger
Met Area 0.5 M
Rubber tyred tram, urban development
project
Edinburgh
Scotland
450,000 Larger
Met Area 0.78 M
Held a referendum on congestion charging,
early adopter of high priority bus corridors,
planning a tram implementation project
and UK’s first major car club city.
Leeds
England
443,000 Larger
Met Area 1.5 M
Early adopter of HOV lane, home zones and
safe routes to school. A major hub for
commercial car share. Involved in several
road pricing studies. Recent failed tram
proposal with trolley bus system now under
consideration.
Bremen
Germany
546,000 Wide Met
Area 2.37 m
Participant in CIVITAS Vivaldi project with
car sharing, introduction of some CNG
stations, environmentally friendly delivery
vehicles, tram- bus integration and
environmental residential zones.
Stockholm
Sweden
744,000 Larger
Met Area 1,95 M
Active adopter of sustainable travel
measures such as cleaner bus fleet ( Ethanol
buses), smart cards, car sharing, safe routes
to school. One of the few cities adopting
congestion charging. Environmental
restrictions around central urban area.
Copenhagen
Denmark
656,000 Larger
Met Area 1,6 M
High levels of cycle use, public cycle rental
and evidence of policy transfer to other
cities ( Copenhagenize). Urban rail, bus and
Metro system. Famous ‘ finger plan’ land use
approach. Major pedestrianisation of
historic core. Adoption of high quality bus
corridors.
Seattle USA 582,000 Larger
Met Area 3.9 M
High quality transit service and transit
information, early visioning process for
multiple dense centres ( 1970s and 1980s),
creative use of density bonuses for transit &
highway shoulders for bus lanes.
Dallas USA 1,230,000 Larger
Met Area 6.15 M
Healthy core downtown with high rise
buildings, free market transit- oriented
development sites along light rail, also TOD-like
sites along highway but without transit.
San
Francisco
USA
765,000 Larger
Met Area 7.3 M
Congestion pricing proposals, multimodal
transit and pedestrian/ bicycle planning and
issues, parking management, car sharing.
Complex institutional dynamics due to
numerous cities and transportation
agencies.
Vancouver
Canada
600,000 Larger
Met Area 2.5 M
Significant transit service, high quality
design for buildings and overall sites, long
term strategies for high density urban
development/ infill coordinated with transit
and to build markets for transit, traffic
calming, busways.
G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
Table 2. Different post- holders were therefore interviewed in
different cities. The responses from each city only represent the
views of these individuals. The key ‘ gatekeepers’ were interviewed
however and these individuals seem to exert strong influence over
implementation processes. Whilst consultants, suppliers and
operators were interviewed, the overwhelming majority of inter-viewees
were past or current local government officials. This will
inevitably colour the view of the relative importance of different
players in the process although we maintain that they are critical to
the implementation process.
4. City context- institutional structures and policy objectives
Institutional structures have an influence over the types of
policies and innovations that can be brought forward, the barriers
faced, and the ways in which projects are implemented ( e. g.
Rietveld and Stough, 2004). The case study cities all exist within
different institutional frameworks. Some key differences and
similarities are briefly highlighted below as they provide an
important context for interpreting the findings. The study was
not however, designed to isolate the role of specific institutional
factors in explaining the uptake of innovations.
The governance structure in the European cases varies widely.
Copenhagen is the most ‘ independent’ of the cities as it is
responsible for developing and funding its own transport policies.
Lyon, as with other French cities, is significantly devolved from
national government, although the state still contributes to funding
larger projects. Bremen also has a strong degree of control over
policy and spending locally; however, it must work within the
strong regional structures ( Lander) and national legal and regula-tory
frameworks, which can act as a constraint. The other EU cities
( Stockholm, Edinburgh, Leeds) each have a slightly different
structure but all feature a strong connection between the budget
setting process at the national level and the actions of the city.
Importantly, these cities are largely dependent on the approval of
individual bids to the respective national governments for major
new projects.
In the United States, cities work to varying degrees with their
regional transportation planning agencies, called metropolitan
planning organisations ( MPOs) and their state departments of
transportation. In most cases, the cities have local land use
authority, whereas federal transportation funds fall under the
purview of state departments of transportation and MPOs as
was the case in Dallas, San Francisco and Seattle. Vancouver, in
Canada, is fairly independent in setting its own policies and uses of
funds; however, it must defer to the Province of British Columbia
for intercity projects.
A major difference in formal institutional structures surrounds
the ownership and planning of public transport. In the UK, outside
London, the bus services are provided in a deregulated environ-ment
whilst other European cities have a local and/ or regional
agency responsible for specifying and planning service delivery and
setting fares. In all cities the provision is by the private sector.
Similarly in the Canadian case, Vancouver’s main public transit is
provided by Translink, a public agency that contracts out its
primary services. In contrast, major US public transit agencies
typically provide their main services and have primary control over
planning services and setting fares, as was the case in Dallas, San
Francisco and Seattle.
With this underlying institutional backdrop, interviewees were
asked what their principal policy objectives were and hence,
implicitly, what the underlying problems were which they faced.
Underlying the key challenges faced by all the cities is strong
projected growth in housing, population and employment over the
next two to three decades. However, the impacts on policy
objectives of accommodating this growth were expressed in
different ways by the interviewees as shown in Table 3.
The cities share a strong degree of commonality of overarching
key strategy elements such as reducing the need to travel, reducing
vehicle emissions or improving public transport supply. However,
the degree of emphasis varies from city to city. For example in the
EU, cities such as Stockholm and Bremen which face the most
extreme air quality problems are much more pro- active in clean
vehicle procurement. Clean vehicle procurement is a part of
strategies elsewhere ( e. g. Leeds) but not as dominant. Similarly
Bremen and Stockholm have important freight flows through their
ports which, combined with air quality problems, make freight
management strategies more important. Cities with historic cores
are more focused on minimising the impact of deliveries to the
core area.
5. Principal findings
Several key findings on policy transfer emerge from our
research. In this section, we review why cities undertake policy
Table 2
Different types of policies studied.
Policy Type Number Example
Public transport systems 9 Lyon driverless Metro Line D
Demand management 6 High occupancy vehicle lane leeds
Pricing 4 Stockholm congestion charging
Public transport
integration
3 Copenhagen metro- bus integration
Urban realm 2 Nancy station redevelopment ( Grand
Coeur)
Strategic planning 2 forwardDallas strategic plan
Cleaner fleets 2 Low emission taxis and buses in Bremen
Active travel 2 Edinburgh bike hire scheme
Table 3
Key policy objectives.
Lee Bre Cop Sto Edi Lyo Nan SFra Dal Sea Van
Growth/ Economy || || || || || || || | | | |
Congestion || | | || | || || || ||
Air quality | || || | || || || || ||
Climate change | | | | || || || ||
Safety | | | | | | | | |
Accessibility | | | | | | || | | | |
Built environment | | || | || || ||
Bus/ Tram subsidy reduction | | | |
|| A strong recurrent theme.
| Discussed. Note this table reflects the extent to which the objectives were discussed, not the degree to which they are covered in official policy documents.
4 G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
transfer, who is involved in initiating and transferring information,
what was learnt and how cities approach learning. A project report
( Marsden et al., 2009) also considers the implications of institu-tional
structure, the particular contribution of the academic
community and the role of cities as disseminators of policy. These
issues are not considered further in this paper.
5.1. Why undertake policy transfer?
Six main classes of motivation were identified and are broadly
consistent with the literature ( Marsden and Stead, this issue). The
findings here relate to the motivations reported by interviewees for
the particular innovations discussed.
5.1.1. Strategic need
The literature ( e. g. Rose, 2005) identifies ‘ policy failure’ as a key
motivator for looking for newpolicies. Policy failure occurs where it
is apparent that continuing with current policies will not lead to the
achievement of the organisation’s objectives. The term should not
be seen as implying a failure on the part of the city concerned, but
more positively a demonstration that there is a strategic need for
new policies.
Stockholm identified legislative change as an external trigger of
strategic need, in this case the likely breach of European air quality
standards for NOx and PM10. Technological change was also
identified as a trigger to seek new options either through the
replacement of existing stock ( e. g. the trolley fleet in Seattle and
Nancy) or through the integration of new systems ( e. g. the new
Metro and existing bus system in Copenhagen).
Most cities identified the current congestion problems and the
difficulties in accommodating future economic growth. Modelling
studies were commonly used to assess the degree to which these
more established strategic needs could be met. This typically
includes the development of a business as usual option based
around more intensive application of existing policies ( as described
in Leeds, Copenhagen and Edinburgh).
There is evidence to support the initial search for solutions as
being ‘ internal’ ( Ibid). For example, in Vancouver one respondent
concluded ‘‘ it is betteryto look to ourselves where there is a similar
situation within the city’’. The inability of current policies to meet
future needs is one motivator to search externally for solutions.
5.1.2. Project or policy collapse
Cities also have pressing cases where a search for new projects
or policies was instigated due to the failure of a planned project. The
search for alternative ideas can be more urgent, due to the political
difficulty generated by the failure of a previous plan. Examples of
this were seen in Leeds ( where funding for a tram scheme was
withdrawn) and Bremen ( where manufacturers did not deliver
clean vehicle technologies for vans). In both cases, funds had been
committed to the project so alternatives were quickly sought. In the
case of Leeds this has been a search to define a replacement high
quality bus- based system whilst in Bremen the funds were more
time limited and had to be diverted to other clean vehicle support
mechanisms. The search is not necessarily immediate or pressing.
Edinburgh triggered a major strategic review of options for the city
in the late 1980s when it became clear that funding for a proposed
Metro rail system was not going to be provided. The tram scheme
currently under construction was one element of that review.
5.1.3. Curiosity
Curiosity about the policies put in place elsewhere or seen on a
visit ( work or holiday!) often led organisations to consider new
policies which might not currently be in their plans. One inter-viewee
summarised this ‘‘ There is always an inspiration when you
travel to a new placeyyou always think is that somethingywould it
make sense to have it in your city?’’. This is in line with expectations
from the organisational learning ( e. g. Lam, 2002; Delbridge, 2003)
and epistemic community literature ( e. g. Stone, 2001; Dunlop,
2009). Salskov- Iverson ( 2006) examined trans- boundary learning
between local authorities in Denmark and outside of Denmark and
found that ‘‘ enthusiastic individuals’’ was one of the main sources
of motivation for participation in exchange.
Ideas were reported that had been identified by officials, elected
politicians or other agents such as suppliers and non- governmental
organisations. This was seen to be part of a natural cycle of
continuous self- improvement. For example, Vancouver and Copen-hagen
are continuously trying to improve their cycle and walk
networks even though they would already be the envy of many
cities. They still actively look elsewhere for lessons.
5.1.4. Legitimization and influence
Cities are also motivated to engage in policy transfer ( both in
seeking and providing information) in order to build support and
recognition for ideas and to influence future funding and policy
decisions ( Kern and Bulkeley, 2009).
Four of the cities ( Bremen and Stockholm, Dallas and San
Francisco) drew on policy experiences from elsewhere to demon-strate
that innovative ideas could work. One interviewee encapsu-lated
a key reason for this: ‘‘ We fly in people from London, from
Nantes from Rome from I don’t know where to tell our politicians our
journalists and via the journalists the citizens why they are doing
things in a certain wayy. if I would say the same thing it would be a
different result.’’ Similarly consultants and academics can some-times
be seen to be more neutral than staff and therefore able to
deliver difficult messages ‘‘ certain academics have a national
standing and ( policy) boards value their perspective.’’ ( brackets
added). By contrast, one authority noted that looking to other
cities was not ‘‘ terribly persuasive because more often than not the
response is welly we are not Berlin, or well London is much bigger
than us’’.
Some of the cities were also far more pro- active than others in
pushing their achievements into the policy exchange arena. Lyon,
Stockholm, Bremen and Seattle appeared particularly pro- active in
this regard. Bremen for example was interested in influencing the
European policy agenda and was leading the CIVITAS CATALIST
programme, which is a good practice exchange programme for
cities in Europe. It had won several national and international
awards. Stockholm noted that a side effect of the congestion
charging scheme innovation was the marketing this did for the
city. Both Bremen and Stockholm felt that, combined with other
cities, they could put pressure on vehicle manufacturers to bring
forward more advanced clean vehicles.
Other cities were less pro- active in promoting their achieve-ments
with one interviewee summarising ‘‘ we have not put effort
into telling the world that it is a success and it is because the priorities
have been about doing other thingsywe are not necessarily here to
change the rest of the world. Erm you know we have got we have got
lots of other things to do.’’ It was suggested that the extent to which a
city was outward facing was dictated by the leadership and that
this varied significantly over time.
5.1.5. Enhanced support
The availability of funding for at least part of any new policy or
project has acted as a catalyst for policy transfer, particularly in the
European context. In the European cities, the availability of EU
project funds has supported policy transfer. In the US, scanning
visits are funded by national agencies or groups such as the US
Federal Transit Administration or the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials. Whilst for some initiatives
G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
this has accelerated developments which were already planned
( e. g. HOV lanes in Leeds) and added greater potential to learn from
partner sites, for others it has provided the spark for investments
which might not otherwise have been made. This was also seen in
Leeds and Edinburgh where national government funding is more
important ( relative to other sources) and where national initiatives
brought forward schemes which might not otherwise have hap-pened
( such as the technological enhancements to the car club
system seen in Bremen which allowed its development in Edin-burgh).
Although the funding may not be sufficient to pay for
complete implementation, interviewees considered it to be a
significant bargaining tool to attract local funding by topping up
staff time, paying for feasibility study work, moving a project up a
priority list or simply creating a contractual and sometimes
political commitment to deliver that might otherwise be absent.
5.1.6. Political intervention
Local agency officials appeared to determine the majority of
proposals for new policies. 1 This is perhaps a feature of the greater
embedded awareness of options which the professional commu-nity
has and the limited ‘ visibility’ of many smaller transport
innovations. Iseki et al. ( 2007) for example identify the adoption of
Smart Cards in US Transit Agencies as ‘‘ characterized more as
planning decisions than as political board level decisions.’’ ( p. 52).
Ideas are however, also brought to the table by directly elected
politicians. These ideas have an initial momentum which staff- led
suggestions sometimes lack. The highest profile example is the
Stockholm Congestion Charge where the six- month trial was
decided as part of negotiations to form a national coalition
government and the solution was essentially imposed on the city
( see also Isaksson and Richardson, 2009). The Nancy station area
redevelopment project ( Grand Coeur) was also instigated by the
Mayor. In Edinburgh, a local elected official had tried the ‘ Ve ´ loV’
bike rental scheme whilst visiting Lyon and, through the Council’s
transport committee, instigated a feasibility study. One intervie-wee
stated that opposition to tram extensions in Bremen was
dropped by politicians when they went together with officials to
visit Karlsruhe, Zurich and Strasbourg ‘‘ It was one of these processes
where you really see the impacts of learning from other cities’’. This
mirrors the findings of Matsumoto ( 2007) where visits by politi-cians
to see other systems were key to unlocking progress.
5.1.7. Voluntary or coercive motivations?
Dolowitz and Marsh ( 2000) suggest a continuum from purely
voluntary and unbounded rational search for policies through to
more coercive motivations ( e. g. through direct political imposi-tion).
The case studies identified three examples of coercive
transfer processes driven by political interventions ( e. g. Stockholm
Charging, Nancy Grand Coeur and Edinburgh bike hire). Whilst
legislative change ( e. g. air quality regulations) also motivates a
search for solutions, the search process is not predefined.
Despite the influence of political intervention, the overwhelming
majority of innovations studied ( 232) were driven by ( e. g. Edinburgh
road pricing and car clubs, Leeds HOV lanes, Dallas transit oriented
development policies) or the search for preferred solutions strongly
influenced by ( e. g. CopenhagenMetro, Edinburgh Tram) local officials.
Funding streams attached to particular innovations ( e. g. San Francisco
charging) can influence the type of policy measures considered. The
search process is reviewed further in Section 5.3 but it is strongly
influenced by the individuals engaged in the process and is clearly
bounded in nature ( see Lodge, 2003).
5.2. Who is involved in policy transfer?
Seven categories of actor were identified as being involved in
the transfer of policies. The decision to consider, study and adopt or
reject a policy is a long process and different actors emerge as
important in different stages of the process. Fig. 1 below shows a
distinction between those actors engaged in the initiation of a
policy search and those involved in the details of the policy search
and the application of the results.
5.2.1. Elected officials
Elected officials play a more important role in the initiation of
the search for ideas than in the transfer process themselves ( see
Section 5.1.6). This is perhaps less true of more controversial
Fig. 1. Engagement of actors during the policy transfer process.
1 This may be a feature of the sample selection where local officials identified
the key individuals to be interviewed.
2 Four innovations were not able to be clearly classified as ‘ voluntary’ or
‘ coercive’ containing elements of both or not being discussed in sufficient detail.
6 G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
schemes such as congestion charging and major infrastructure
schemes where political intervention throughout the process can
be critical ( e. g. Matsumoto, 2007).
5.2.2. Local officials
Local officials dominate the search for ideas which reflects the
dominance of more voluntary transfer processes evident in the
North European and North American contexts. This is also a
reflection of the dominance of strong epistemic communities in
policy transfer processes ( Dunlop, 2009). Strong networks of
professionals were identified in the Nordic region, the UK, France
and North America. It was evident through some of the interviews
that the local officials felt an ability to judge the likely policy fit of
solutions to their areas and would therefore constrain the search
for solutions in some respect. One interviewee reflected on the
strategic transport review in Edinburgh and the decision to develop
a case for tram schemes: ‘‘ WasTrolley bus ever a serious option? Were
the alternativesy serious competitors or did they stick with the
Edinburgh vision?’’ An interviewee from Copenhagen noted the
important role local officials play in mediating what decision-makers
actually see: ‘‘ Nobody reads the thick reports. But the mayors
have relied on mey I can convince my colleagues in this system and
the politiciansy. They read the front pagey.’’ Regardless of the
provenance of the idea, there is a strong ‘ gatekeeper’ role for
officials in the mediation and development of externally
informed ideas.
5.2.3. Private suppliers
The next most prevalent actor in the system appears to be
private suppliers. They are engaged in around one quarter of policy
search initiations and over one half of all transfer processes.
Suppliers can initiate policy developments spontaneously and then
approach and attempt to convince local government partners to
adopt. For example Veolia had developed mobile phone based
public transport information services in Bordeaux and was pro-moting
the inclusion of this in the negotiation of other franchises
around France. In the policies discussed, the suppliers rarely acted
alone as there was either a benefit in sharing the risk of an
innovation ( e. g. in the development of guided bus infrastructure
in Leeds to match the vehicle innovation) or a potential cost ( e. g. in
new technology adoption) which would need to be passed through
in public transport provision contracts.
Suppliers were more prevalent during the search process as
local authorities sought to understand the range of commercially
available opportunities on the market. Leeds reflected on their
experience in developing an alternative to the failed tram proposal
‘‘ everybody and anybody new from the trolley bus world knows we are
herey’’ The officials in Copenhagen examining the feasibility of
congestion charging had conducted several tours of London and
Stockholm ‘‘ both with the suppliers and with the municipalitiesyOf
course with the supplier’s side they are quite interested in talking with
Copenhagen because they know that perhaps we will be a future
customer with them.’’
5.2.4. Consultant firms
Consultant firms were rarely identified as initiators of policy
transfer. One notable exception was in Nancy where demand
responsive transport and freight management policies were appar-ently
included in the transport plan for the city by the consultants
who prepared it. It was suggested that these ideas appeared in
many such plans prepared by consultants, and there appeared to be
little interest in pursuing many of them.
Consulting firms though clearly have a crucial role to play in
transferring experience once relevant policies are identified. Various
motivations for using consultants were identified. First, staffing levels
were generally ‘‘ lean’’ within the local governments and consultants
offer important capacity captured by one interviewee who stated
that: ‘‘ you can’t keep up to date with absolutely everythingyand that’s
what we pay consultants for’’. Secondly, consultants work across a
range of clients and therefore offer firsthand knowledge of innova-tions
fromelsewhere ( identified as important for example in Dallas in
strategic plan developmentwhere experience of Portland Oregon and
Denver was used). Finally, consultants have a degree of external
independence which can provide legitimacy or force to arguments
particularly where these challenge long- held positions.
There are, however, limitations to the extent to which consultant
firms can fulfil the transfer role. One interviewee noted that ‘‘ It’s so
easy now to throw money at consultants and say – do a survey – do a
screening. Then you get all these papers. They’re probably just lying
somewhere in the corner.’’ Many interviewees reflected the importance
of seeing the innovation or talking directly with the people respon-sible
for its introduction. In Copenhagen a firm had visited a number
of cities to discuss public transport integration but the report was felt
to cover ‘‘ only about 5% of what they have learnt on those tripsy95% I
think is in their heads. So I think we should have been on some of those
trips to see what goes on and what does it look like and talk with the
people who work with it.’’. This encapsulates some key aspects of the
literature on organisational learning which suggests that the knowl-edge
of doing is held by individuals and is difficult to communicate
through written procedures ( e. g. Nonaka et al., 2000).
5.2.5. Other actors
Residents and interest groups were important initiators of
transfer for between five and ten per cent of the policies studied.
This included the development of community- led proposals ( e. g.
HomeZones in Leeds), community consultations ( e. g. strategic plan
development in Vancouver) and lobbying for solutions ( e. g. a pro-tram
interest group in Edinburgh). These groups have little
influence over the actual search and transfer once an idea enters
into the policy assessment process.
Academics were not identified as being initiators of policy
transfer directly, although it was noted that the graduate education
opens up professionals to considering innovation and to some of
the options. Academics were involved to varying degrees in just
under 20% of the policy search and transfer processes. This included
direct involvement ( e. g. as the head of evaluation of the Stockholm
Congestion Charging pilot and in the Leeds HOV lane) and as expert
advisors ( e. g. on the economic impacts of charging in Copenhagen).
Leeds, Edinburgh, Lyon, San Francisco Dallas, Vancouver and San
Francisco all have or recently had some form of more regular
academic liaison and engagement ( e. g. through expert commit-tees).
These links appeared stronger in North America. Respondents
in several cities noted the difficulty in accessing and translating
academic findings into useful policy messages.
5.3. What is transferred?
A very strong feature of the different policies studied was the
extent to which they are bespoke adaptations of policies, practices
and technologies from elsewhere. Four examples were found
where one main site was the source of inspiration and a further
three where lessons were largely drawn from one site. For the
remaining 23 ( 76%) of projects studied the lessons were a combi-nation
from various sites which Rose ( 2005) identifies as good
practice. Leeds for example saw the replacement for the failed tram
scheme as an opportunity to identify ‘‘ everything that’s good about
best practice in buses and bringing it together in one place’’. Staff in
Seattle look to Vancouver, Portland and occasionally Copenhagen
and other European cities for pedestrian and bicycle planning and
had recently examined transit systems in San Francisco,
G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
Philadelphia, Boston, and Vancouver for bus technology. This
makes tracing the details of exactly what is transferred from where
challenging.
There is some evidence that policy concepts or ideas were
transferred. The spread of urban bike hire policies ( Edinburgh in
our case studies) is a good example of this type of ideational
transfer. The adoption of HomeZones in Leeds was based loosely on
the Dutch ‘ Woonerf’ concept. Edinburgh, San Francisco and
Copenhagen all note the influence that the introduction of the
London and latterly Stockholm road charging systems had had on
the potential for such developments in their cities. Both of the
Edinburgh and San Francisco system proposals have been with-drawn
which suggests the limits which ‘ inspiration’ from else-where
may have in final adoption.
Interviewees were keen to point out the need to tailor solutions
to local circumstances which leads much of the remaining transfer
to be related to processes or system components which might be
adapted. For example, Copenhagen reported that the majority of its
learning about charging is focussed on the system functionality and
back office architecture as local conditions and negotiations will
necessarily determine the design of matters such as cordon
location and pricing structures. Stockholm reported learning
valuable lessons from London about the implementation process
and the evaluation but noted that the system itself was quite
different in nature to London. The Leeds HOV lane examined the
introduction of a similar scheme in Madrid but ultimately con-cluded
that only the enforcement lessons were relevant due to the
more urban nature of the Leeds scheme.
The difficulty in identifying the exact nature of the transfer
makes evaluating the benefits gleaned from the transfer process a
significant challenge also. However, the interviewees were all able
to identify benefits of seeking lessons from elsewhere and con-tinued
to actively seek such lessons. The evidence here concurs
with Evans ( 2009b) in identifying the need for greater clarity over
the nature and magnitude of these benefits. As Section 5.4
discusses, the tightening of budgets is placing such activities under
increasing pressure in some organisations.
5.4. How did they approach learning?
This section considers two dimensions of the approach to
learning. The first considers the issue of where geographically
people look for lessons, reflecting the political science framing of
the problem ( Evans, 2009a). The second reflects on how they
approach the learning task, drawing more on the social learning
perspective ( Wolman and Page, 2002)
5.4.1. Where do cities look for lessons?
The literature suggests that cities often look to close geographic
neighbours as a source of learning ( Rogers, 2003; Rose, 2005; Kern
et al., 2007). This was specifically mentioned in three of the cities.
An interviewee from Copenhagen suggested that the ease of lesson
transfer across contexts was a major motivation for this ‘‘ generally
it’s easy for me to compare with some societies and countries that I
understand and know which have democracy systems like ours who
have a political situation that sometimes looks ours – but maybe a little
different.’’ Whilst this is a free choice, Edinburgh explained that
looking abroad was often seen as an extravagance compared with
looking elsewhere in the UK and was harder to justify and obtain
funding for ( also found in Salskov- Iverson, 2006). National and
regional networks of transport planners and local government
were mentioned in almost every city as one source of information
about activities going on in similar contexts.
Geography alone though does not define comparability. In
particular, the commonality of policy context has some influence
on where staff and others are prepared to look for lessons and new
ideas. So, for example, Bremen saw other harbour cities with
similar size populations in northern Europe as good comparators.
There is some support for the notion of looking to local neighbours
and cities which are close ‘ philosophically’ ( Dolowitz and Marsh,
2000). Thus Dallas was interested in learning from Denver, also a
growing city looking to transit- oriented development. Vancouver
and Copenhagen exchanged experiences in cycling improvements
and both looked to the Netherlands.
Cities had also searched for new ideas which stretched beyond
their most obvious comparators with some cities demonstrating a
substantial network of contacts in different areas of transport
policy. It seems that the European Union research programme has
been an important facilitator of contacts amongst cities which
would not otherwise have seen themselves as obvious partners.
This is also true in the US through, for example, the funding of
scanning exercises or federally sponsored benchmarking activities.
The degree to which participants in the different cities engaged in
these activities varied significantly with the learning styles of the
organisations and the culture of interaction between practitioners,
consultants and academics influencing the approach taken. Some
cities demonstrated a broad range of contacts across a range of
different transport applications. Others were more insular, not
wishing to burden others with requests for information or acting in
a pro- active fashion to share their own lessons. The potential
importance of the strength and depth of the networks emerges
through a consideration of the approach to information gathering
reviewed below.
5.4.2. Sources of information used
The interviews revealed that officials gather information about
innovations informally and sometimes quite randomly. For exam-ple,
they may read about an innovation when perusing an item ‘‘ in
print’’ ( particularly short form writing such as newspapers, profes-sional
journals and the technical press) or learn about it through
interactions with others through conference attendance, word of
mouth, formal strategy groups, and external contacts. E- news-letters
and mailings are also growing in use although it was
suggested in one city that such sources are not sufficiently relevant
or concise. In several cities the interviewees reflected the conten-tion
set out in Stockholm that ‘‘ The problem is not the lack of
information. The problem is the amount of information’’. It was also
suggested that academic literature is often difficult to read and
lacking in well thought through policy lessons for practitioners.
In our discussions on cities’ approaches to dissemination of their
own innovations, most respondents indicated that they did not
consistently disseminate their successes, and even less so their
failures. There was a general acceptance that the practitioner
community lacked a thorough and consistent evaluation evidence
base and this was reflected in their own use of it: ‘‘ you don’t really
know what is valid. Is this a good source of information or is it not a
good source? yis this true? ythat’s very hard to validate’’. Taken
together with the issues of too much information and significant
time constraints this suggests a poor match between written
sources and user needs other than in identifying potential ideas.
This may be a contributory factor in the increased use of con-sultants
and academics to provide expert reviews or inputs.
The main response to the problems with the volumes and
quality of information was for interviewees to look to contacts or
acquaintances in their professional networks for advice. Peer to
peer contacts are crucial sources of information and they appear to
be trusted and knowledgeable with an interviewee in Leeds
summarising that ‘‘ it all really depends on getting to a particular
individualyonce you get that particular individual it’s usually quite
straightforward’’. Trust is developed through relationships over a
8 G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
number of years: ‘‘ it’s talking from person to person to the people in
my position in other cities and really over time get to know them and
their system and see the weak and strong points.’’ Trusted peers
provide not just information but also intelligence on how to apply
the information such as ‘‘ political experience and implementation
experience’’ and ‘‘ the lessons learnt’’ and ‘‘ recommendations’’. This
seems to align itself well with the organisational learning literature
which identifies the focus around implicit knowledge and
exchange amongst practitioners as crucial in innovations ( e. g.
Nonaka et al., 2000; Boonstra, 2004). Peers also provide contacts
with experts in other fields which connect overlapping interests
[ the notion of ‘‘ boundary objects’’ ( Star and Griesemer, 1989)]. A
‘‘ snowball effect’’ then occurs in which an initial inquiry generates
substantially more information across a variety of fields.
Reflecting on the previous section on where cities look for
lessons, some cities were much more deeply embedded in peer
networks and therefore, it is presumed, better equipped to
exchange information on a range of topics. Even the most net-worked
cities noted that it could take a lot of time to find the right
people to talk to, that knowledge gets lost in the system when
people move on and that finding the right written resources is
difficult. It is also worth noting that some of the cities found
managing the volume of visitors to see their policies as time and
resource consuming and that there were limits to the degree of
reciprocity which was possible and useful.
Table 4 summarises the relative importance of the various
information sources across the different case study cities in the
innovations studied. Formal policy networks are used to some
degree in all of the cities, sometimes as a source of information
exchange but, as found from the literature, this was weak ( Betsill
and Bulkeley, 2004). The role of suppliers and consultants is
described in Section 5.2. It is interesting to observe that, despite
the limitations identified above, general literature such as govern-ment
guidance or resources found on Google are more likely to be
accessed than academic literature although there was a stronger
tradition of using academic sources in the North American case
study sites.
6. Barriers to learning
Through their descriptions of the processes adopted for the
development and subsequent implementation of policies and
projects, the interviewees provided evidence of barriers which
they face to identifying suitable examples and learning from other
cities. For many innovations the barriers were expressed through
the description of mechanisms which overcame them. The focus of
this study was on lesson drawing and the use of examples from
elsewhere in policy transfer and this section therefore focuses on
barriers to these parts of the process.
Barriers to implementation were also raised in particular
contexts ( e. g. Edinburgh congestion charge proposals). There is a
growing literature on implementation barriers ( e. g. Schade and
Schlag, 2003; Rietveld and Stough, 2004; Rye et al., 2008) and
further details on these aspects of the research are available in a
project report ( Marsden et al., 2009). The presence of barriers to
implementation does not necessarily prevent the search for new
ideas. Copenhagen for example was actively developing congestion
charging proposals despite lacking the local powers for implemen-tation.
Researching how policies are implemented and managed in
other contexts can be an important part of making the case for
change. Institutional differences can be important in determining
the extent to which policies are likely to be amenable to transfer
( Rose, 2005; Stead et al., 2008). Whilst undoubtedly important,
institutional differences were seen to impact on the nature of the
adoption of policies without necessarily precluding learning from
other sites ( e. g. Leeds adopted some enforcement lessons on HOV
lanes from Madrid whilst other aspects of the scheme were quite
different).
6.1. Organisational learning culture
The research reported here suggests that cities conduct a
significant amount of informal and formal scanning for new ideas
and good practice. The interviews also confirmed that there is a
substantial amount of city to city visiting to study new ideas. The
extent to which this occurs varies between cities and over time
within a city and is dependent partly on the organisational learning
culture which is strongly shaped by the attitude of key individuals
in senior management who encourage new ideas and active staff
learning and engagement. Cities can be classified as operating on a
scale from pro- active to passive information seekers. This was
demonstrated through the breadth of contacts with other cities, the
extent to which external lessons were spontaneously mentioned
and the degree of formal funding support available within an
organisation to participate in conferences and visits.
Given the preference for peer– peer learning expressed by
interviewees across all sites, a more open and outward looking
organisational culture would appear to provide greater chance of
accessing and exchanging with trusted peers. It also appears to be
important in arguing for the resources to support exchange
activities with an interviewee from one of the more passive
information seeking cities observing that ‘‘ Securing a trip for one
technical officer you know for a couple of days to you know whether it
is Copenhagen or Milan or Paris is like you know it is a monumental
political hurdle’’ and another from the same city that ‘‘ Quite a lot of
this is about attitudes of individuals that are at the top either politically
or within the organisations.’’ The emergence of the importance of
organisational learning culture ties in strongly with the literature
described earlier on social learning processes.
Table 4
Relative importance of information sources used in policy transfer.
Lee Bre Cop Sto Edi Lyo Nan SFra Dal Sea Van
Peer to peer contacts || ||| || ||| || || | ||| ||| ||| |||
Policy networks | || | | | | || || || || ||
Private suppliers | | | | | || || ||
Consultants | | || || || |
General literature | | | | | | | | | | |
Academic literature | | | | |
Academics | | | | | | |
||| Used significantly.
|| Often used.
| Sometimes used.
G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
6.2. Unsystematic search
When asked to reflect on the how they learnt about ideas from
elsewhere the interviewees generally described the approach as
‘‘ unsystematic’’ or ‘‘ ad hoc’’. Whilst such an approach is likely to lead
cities to uncover policies that they had not necessarily been looking
for the search process was described in tones of frustration ‘‘ trying
to find something useful to you is like a needle in a haystack
sometimes’’.
The search for new ideas is also constrained by staff time and
resources: ‘‘ time’’, ‘‘ nothing but time’’, ‘‘ time and resources’’, ‘‘ there’s
fewer and fewer people with sort of in- house knowledge’’. This is in
terms of finding the time both to scan effectively for new ideas
( informal information gathering) and to investigate ideas which
seem interesting ( initial scoping). This supports the notion from the
literature that the degree of ‘ slackness’ of institutional resources is
important ( Berry, 1997). This is potentially important when
considering the implication of these findings for smaller cities
where resources will be even tighter. Whilst cities increasingly use
consultants to assist with scoping out policy ideas the evidence
from Section 5.2.4 suggests that this may limit what is learnt.
The combination of unsystematic search processes, large
volumes of information and limited staff resources suggests the
opportunity to provide better resource bases and improved search
tools and this was suggested by some of the interviewees. A
significant degree of personalisation was noted as being essential
as there were already too many e- mail listings and websites and it
was ‘‘ intelligence’’ not ‘‘ information’’ that the interviewees wanted.
The written data is usually only an entry point to peer to peer
contact.
6.3. Quality of the evidence base
The search for new ideas is also constrained by the lack of
available and accessible information on innovations elsewhere.
This relates in turn to the willingness of cities to evaluate and
disseminate their own innovations. There was a significant differ-ence
between cities in the extent to which they posted information
about their innovations. The evidence base will be dominated by
those cities that invest in promoting their achievements. Whilst
there is nothing inherently wrong with this, there are two caveats
which result and affect the overall robustness of the evidence base
on new policies. First, other more effective solutions may exist but
not be obvious to individuals seeking information. Second, the
cities themselves noted that they were more likely to make
information available about successes or successful aspects of
projects than they were to discuss failures or problems: ‘‘ It is quite
easy to go on a conference and present something as best practiceyit
is much harder to say we have spent 40,000 euro on a project and it
didn’t work’’. This produces an optimistic implementation picture
when there are equally valuable lessons to be learnt from problems
and failures.
Several potential solutions were discussed but with little
consensus. Benchmarking, if conducted effectively, can enable
cities to compare their performance with cities in similar circum-stances,
identify areas in which they are performing less well than
their peers, and seek evidence of policy interventions which might
help them improve. More independent and robust knowledge
bases were mentioned although currently available resources were
often not identified. It was noted that academic reviews could
provide an independent overview of innovations but, particularly
in the North European cities these were not frequently accessed
and felt to be too long and lack sufficient attention to lessons for
practice. Shorter summaries of research findings which gave clear
practical lessons were identified as helpful. Expert workshops and
taught short courses which involve policy learning ( e. g. CIVITAS-CATALIST,
www. civitas- initiative. net/) were also promoted by a
city involved in delivering them as these focus on the peer to peer
exchange that practitioners identify as critical.
6.4. Risk aversion
New policies carry with them a degree of implementation risk
which was identified as a barrier to taking them forward from an
initial search stage to a more pro- active review of options and
implementation practice. Several examples were provided of the
extent to which the provision of funding from national bodies to
support some part of the search or potential implementation
process were able to facilitate the uptake or search process ( e. g.
Car Clubs in Edinburgh, Congestion Charging in San Francisco and
Guided Bus in Leeds). A nationally or internationally supportive
funding regime which provides encouragement and support for
seeking policy lessons may play a role in progressing lesson
drawing and policy transfer. DiMaggio and Powell ( 1983) suggest
that convergence around particular policies and practices is a
natural and sometimes state induced response to uncertainty
which may be sub- optimal. Whilst this may be borne out in some
of the innovations studied, there is sufficient evidence of diver-gence
of policy choice for this not to be a strong concern.
7. Conclusions
This paper reports on a study of current practice in policy
transfer and ways in which its effectiveness can be increased. The
study was conducted in larger cities in North Europe and North
America and these conclusions should only be extrapolated beyond
this context with caution.
Cities are actively looking to learn from one another and the
search for policies and practices across cities in the transport sector
is an important process in policy development. There is evidence
across the policies and practices studied of all the main dimensions
of policy transfer identified through studies in other policy sectors
( Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000; Evans, 2009a).
The overwhelming majority of searches for new policies are
spontaneous, bottom- up actions driven either by identified short-comings
in urban strategies ( which will not be solved by applying
current tools) or by curiosity and a desire for continual improve-ment
amongst staff. Some searches are driven by political inter-vention,
legislation or the availability of funding streams. Political
intervention in particular can provide impetus to a search process.
Local government officials are the dominant players involved in
both the initiation and search for new policies ( though this finding
may have been influenced by our sampling approach). Politicians,
residents and interest groups play a role in initiating the search for
new policies whilst consultants and suppliers are more engaged in
the consideration of different options.
Lessons range from inspiration and consensus building activities
( which helped bring a policy to the discussion table or overcame
implementation barriers) through to the nuts and bolts of system
architecture and operation ( which improve system design). Around
three- quarters of the innovations studied were ‘ hybrid’ solutions,
drawing on lessons frommultiple sites. This study did not attempt to
assess the benefits of the resulting policies. The difficulty in tracing
exactlywhat is learnt from where and the absence of a counterfactual
which allows comparison with a solution developed in isolation may
explain why the literature across all public policy fields has yet to
clearly demonstrate the benefits of transfer ( Evans, 2009b). Research
looking at the benefits of different system configurations may draw
out some of the system design benefits of transfer but would not
address the inspirational or deadlock breaking role that examples
10 G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
from elsewhere bring. Clearly the city practitioners believe there to be
benefits as they continue to invest scarce resources in looking for new
policies.
Our findings strongly support the notion of policy learning being
a social process built around curiosity, exchange and trust.
Although officials heard about new developments through shorter
media articles in newspapers and the technical press, written
material was largely used as support. Informal networks and
information sharing through professional contacts were the pre-dominant
methods of initial knowledge transfer. This suggests the
need to give greater weight to the study of the movement of policies
as a social process as advocated by Wolman and Page ( 2002).
Two principal reasons were identified which contribute to the
reliance onhumaninteraction as a source of learning. First, there is too
much information available through the Internet and the search
techniques are not seen to be wholly effective in identifying the
necessary information. Secondly, the information available on web-sites,
portals and even good practice guides is not seen to be of mixed
qualitywith risks of focussing only on successful implementation and
therefore subject to some bias. Officials therefore rely on their trusted
networks of peers for lessons as here they can access the ‘ real
implementation’ story and the unwritten lessons.
The presence of an organisational learning culture which is
supportive of external engaging emerged as an important support
to learning about policies elsewhere. Some cities have strong and
broad networks of external contacts and resource their develop-ment
whilst others are more insular or inward looking and
reluctant to invest in policy lessons from elsewhere. This study
was confined to larger cities where these resources are likely to be
in greater abundance and it is of interest to know the extent to
which this creates a self- selecting network of innovators. It was
however evident that the culture of engagement may vary sig-nificantly
from place to place and over time and size is not the sole
determinant of this culture.
Two main solutions emerged from the discussions with practi-tioners.
First, there are opportunities to improve the quality and trust
worthiness of the evidence base and to provide better search tools and
training to access that information. This may generate a more
effective, representative and useful entry point when looking for
new ideas. Within this, the academic research base could provide
shorter and more policy relevant summaries. Secondly, the reliance
on social learning processes suggests the need to support peer- peer
exchange networks as a means for promoting the detailed exchange
of information on the workings of a policy in practice.
The large volume of city– city interactions regarding policy
implementation and the evidence provided here on the extent to
which this influences the design and uptake of policies confirms
policy transfer to be an important research area. Whilst this study
has provided new insights into processes there remains much to be
done to understand the benefits of policy transfer, the most
effective means of looking for new policies and the conditions
under which transfer works best.
References
Berry, F. S., 1997. Innovation in public management: the adoption of strategic
planning. Public Administration Review 54, 322.
Betsill, M., Bulkeley, M., 2004. Transnational networks and global environmental
governance: the cities for climate protection program. International Studies
Quarterly 48, 471– 493.
Boonstra, J. J., 2004. ‘ Conclusion: some reflections and perspectives on organizing,
changing and learning’. In: Boonstra, J. J. ( Ed.), Dynamics of Organizational
Change and Learning. John Wiley& Sons Ltd., England, ISBN: 0- 471- 87737- 9, pp.
447– 475.
Bulmer, S., Padgett, S., 2004. Policy transfer in the European Union: an institution-alist
perspective. British Journal of Political Science 35, 103– 126.
CfIT ( Commission for Integrated Transport), 2001. A Study of European Best Practice
in the Delivery of Integrated Transport. CfIT, London.
Delbridge, R., 2003. Knowledge, innovation and institutional change. Work, Employ-ment
and Society 17 ( 1), 187– 196.
DiMaggio, P., Powell, W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review
48, 147– 160.
Dolowitz, D., Marsh, D., 2000. Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in
contemporary policy making. Governance 13 ( 1), 5– 24.
Dunlop, C., 2009. Policy transfer as learning: capturing variation in what decision-makers
learn from epistemic communities. Policy Studies 30 ( 3), 289– 311.
Dunphy, R., Myerson, D., Pawlukiewicz, M., 2003. Ten Principles for Successful
Development Around Transit. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC,.
Evans, M., 2009a. Policy transfer in critical perspective. Policy Studies 30 ( 3),
243– 268.
Evans, M., 2009b. Newdirections in the study of policy transfer. Policy Studies 30 ( 3),
237– 241.
Heichel, S., Pape, J., Sommerer, T., 2005. Is there convergence in convergence
research? An overview of empirical studies on policy convergence. Journal of
European Public Policy 12 ( 5), 817– 840.
Isakson, K., Richardson, T., 2009. Building legitimacy for risky policies: the cost of
avoiding conflict in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A 43 ( 3), 251– 257.
Iseki, H., Yoh, A., Taylor, B., 2007. Are smart cards the smart way to go? Examining their
adoption by US transit agencies. Transportation Research Record 1992, 45– 53.
Ison, S., Rye, T., 2008. The Implementation and Effectiveness of Transport Demand
Management Measures: an International Perspective. Ashgate, Dewsbury, ISBN:
978- 0- 7546- 4953- 3.
James, O., Lodge, M., 2003. The limitations of ‘ policy transfer’ and ‘ lesson drawing’ for
contemporary public policy research. Political Studies Review 1 ( 2), 179– 193.
Kern, K. K., Malte, C., Malte, S., 2007. The diffusion of Local Agenda 21 in Germany:
comparing the German Federal States. Environmental Politics 16 ( 4), 604– 624.
Kern, K., Bulkeley, H., 2009. Cities, Europeanization and multi- level governance:
governing climate change through transnational municipal networks. Journal of
Common Market Studies 47 ( 2), 309– 332.
Kingdon, J. W., 2003. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy, 2nd ed. Addison-
Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., New York,.
Knapp, K., 2005. Improving local road safety with lessons from Europe. Public Works
Management Policy 10, 69– 76.
Lam, A., 2002. Alternative societal models of learning and innovation in the
knowledge economy. International Social Sciences Journal, 67– 82.
Levi- Faur, D., Vigoda- Gadot, E., 2006. New public policy, new policy transfers: some
characteristics of a new order in the making. International Journal of Public
Administration 29 ( 4), 247– 262.
Lodge, M., 2003. Institutional choice and policy transfer: reforming British and
German railway regulation. Governance 16 ( 2), 159– 178.
Marsden, G., 2008. Good practice in the exploitation of innovative strategies in
sustainable urban transport: a review of evidence, Project Report Volvo
Research and Educational Foundation, / www. its. leeds. ac. ukS.
Marsden, G., Frick, K. T., May, A. D., Deakin, E., 2009. Good practice in the exploitation of
innovative strategies in sustainable urban transport: city interview synthesis, Project
Report Volvo Research and Educational Foundation, / www. its. leeds. ac. ukS.
Marsden, G., Stead, D., Policy transfer and learning in the field of transport: a review
of concepts and evidence. Transport Policy, this issue, doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol.
2010.10.007.
Marsh, D., Sharman, J. C., 2009. Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Studies 30
( 3), 269– 288.
Marshall, A., 2005. Europeanization at the urban level: local actors, institutions and
the dynamics of multi- level interaction. Journal of European Public Policy 12 ( 4),
668– 686.
Matsumoto, N., 2007. Analysis of policy processes to introduce Bus Rapid Transit
systems in Asian cities from the perspective of lesson- drawing: case studies of
Jakarta, Seoul and Beijing. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,
/ www. strategies. orgS.
Mintrom, M., 1997. Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American
Journal of Political Science 41 ( 3), 738– 770.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N., 2000. SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of
dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning 1 ( 1), 5– 34.
Pressman, J. L., Wildavsky, A., 1984. Implementation: How Great Expectations in
Washington are Dashed in Oakland. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California,.
Rietveld, P., Stough, R., 2004. Barriers to Sustainable Transport: Institutions,
Regulation and Sustainability. Routledge, ISBN: 0415323622.
Rogers, E., 2003. The Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York,.
Rose, R., 1991. What is lesson drawing? Journal of Public Policy 11, 3– 30.
Rose, R., 2005. Learning from Comparative Public Policy: A Practical Guide.
Routledge, Oxon, ISBN: 0- 415- 31741- 8.
Rye, T., Gaunt, M., Ison, S., 2008. Edinburgh’s congestion charging plans: an analysis
of reasons for non- implementation. Transportation Planning and Technology 31
( 6), 641– 661.
Salskov- Iverson, D., 2006. Learning acrossborders: the case ofDanishlocalgovernment.
International Journal of Public Sector Management 19 ( 7), 673– 686.
Schade, J., Schlag, B., 2003. Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies.
Transportation Research Part F 6, 45– 61.
Star, S. l., Griesemer, J. R., 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘ Translations’ and Boundary
Objects: amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology, 1907– 39. Social Studies of Science 19, 387– 420.
Stead, D., de Jong, M., Reinholde, I., 2008. Urban transport policy transfer in Central
and Eastern Europe. disP— The Planning Review 44 ( 1), 62– 73.
G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 11
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006
Stone, D., 2001. Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of
policy ideas, CSGR Working Paper No. 69/ 0, April 2001, University of Warwick,
/ http:// www. csgr. orgS.
Van den Bergh, J., Leeuwen, E., Oosterhuis, F., Rietveld, P., Verhoef, E., 2007. Social
learning by doing in sustainable transport innovations: ex- post analysis of
common factors behind successes and failures. Research Policy 36,
247– 259.
Wang, R., 2010. Shaping urban transport policies in China: will copying foreign
policies work? Transport Policy 17, 147– 152.
Ward, S. V., 2007. Cross- national learning in the formation of British planning
policies 1940– 99: a comparison of the Barlow, Buchanan and Rogers Reports.
Town Planning Review 78 ( 3), 369– 400.
Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., Shortell, S., 1997. Customization or conformity? An
institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of
TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 366.
Wolman, H., Page, E., 2002. Policy transfer among local governments: an informa-tion-
theory approach. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Admin-istration,
and Institutions 15 ( 4), 477– 501.
12 G. Marsden et al. / Transport Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Please cite this article as: Marsden, G., et al., How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in
Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy ( 2010), doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol. 2010.10.006