What is it about?
This chapter looks at how the concept of ‘context’ is interpreted in complexity sciences, where it typically plays a very different role from that given to it in other branches of policy studies. When complexity theory is applied to social systems, we are typically dealing with self-organising systems, which do not have an obvious ‘leader’ or ‘network manager’. In particular, complexity theory applies to that class of systems, known as ‘complex adaptive systems’, where the interconnectedness of the agents produces a dynamic interaction of agents that simultaneously react to and create their environment. These are ‘systems which are “more than most” dynamic, self-organising, environment shaping (through dynamic interactions of agents) and sensitive to initial conditions’ (Teisman and Klijn, 2008). The environment of such systems is therefore not a ‘given’ but rather a co-created ‘fitness landscape’, in which the agents most likely to flourish are those who can most readily adapt to changing circumstances and influence the behaviour of others (Kaufman, 1995). This concept fits with the analysis of Weick (1995) and Luhmann (1995) on autopoiesis, although it is only one potential cause of autopoiesis. This chapter considers the implications of this phenomenon for public policy, and in particular for attempts to model public policy outcomes through ‘logic chain’ or ‘cause-and-effect’ analysis. It concludes by considering the extent to which public policy is likely to be dealing with complex adaptive systems in the real world.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The basic lesson from complexity sciences is that ‘Context Rules’ – not because it is more important than the 'priority goals', ‘target variables’ and ‘policy levers’ that we typically examine but because these have no meaning unless considered simultaneously with context. Putting substantial faith in clear cause-and-effect chains may work well in some parts of the service system, but it would be extremely stupid in other parts. Indeed, the collective construction of ‘context’ or ‘environment’ may be much more fundamentally important than the striving by organisational leaders or system planners after achievement of their own aims and desired outcomes.
Perspectives
Does all the fuss over complexity theory really matter? Clearly, not all policy systems are complex adaptive systems (CAS). Indeed, CAS are less likely to be found in the ‘command-and-control’ environments which have characterised traditional public services. Yet this is not a reassuring argument, when an increasing proportion of public spending appears to be passing from such command-and-control hierarchies to networks with strong self-organising properties. So, yes, the complexity perspective on ‘context’ probably does matter!
Professor Tony Bovaird
University of Birmingham
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Context in public policy: implications of complexity theory, Edward Elgar Publishing,
DOI: 10.4337/9781781955147.00020.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
