How the transition towards a circular
economy emerged on the decision
agenda of the European Union.
Bachelor Thesis - Future Planet Studies 2015
International Organisation in a Networked World
Student: Noah Pierau
Number:
10349804
Word count: 8123
First Supervisor: Julien Jeandesboz
Second Supervisor: Rosa Sanchez Salgado
2
Content
Abstract ... 2
Introduction ... 3
1 Policy Analysis Theories ... 5
1.1 Advocacy Coalitions ... 5
1.2 Punctuated Equilibrium ... 7
1.3 Multiple Streams ... 8
1.4 Selecting the most suitable approach ... 9
2 Multiple Streams in the European Union ... 10
2.1 Methodology ... 13
3 Empirical research: the case of the Circular Economy ... 14
3.1 Problem Stream: environment and economy ... 15
3.2 Policy Stream: the idea of the circular economy ... 15
3.3 Politics Stream: consensus and a positive public mood ... 17
4 Reconstruction: Coupling and Agenda Setting ... 18
Conclusion ... 19
Implications and recommendations ... 19
Bibliography ... 20
Abstract
The transition towards a circular economy has recently emerged on the decision agenda of the European Union (EU). This thesis investigates the agenda setting process around the circular economy by using the multiple streams approach as analytical framework. It is argued that the transition towards a circular economy emerged on the decision agenda because the dynamics in the politics stream, most importantly the rotation of positions in the Commission, allowed the policy window to open. This opportunity has been used by policy entrepreneurs to publish a proposal that firmly established the transition towards a circular economy on the decision agenda of the EU. The results of this case study reinforce the validity of the multiple streams theory in the context of the EU and could inspire policy makers to accelerate the transition towards a more circular economy.
3
Introduction
The agenda setting process is one of the most important policy processes, for it determines whether issues receive serious attention from policy makers (Princen, 2012: 30). Agenda setting has been studied extensively on the national level, especially in the United States where it became a separate object of study (Baumgartner, Green-Pedersen & Jones, 2006: 961; Princen, 2007: 21; Banche, 2013: 22). The amount of academic literature that specifically investigates the agenda setting process on the level of the European Union (EU) has been growing recently (Princen, 2011: 927). Even so, the number of case studies that seek to explain how specific issues emerged on the political agenda of the EU has increased (Ackrill & Kay, 2011; Moschella, 2011; Banche, 2013; Edler & James, 2015). The added value of agenda setting research within the context of the EU is both theoretical and practical. First of all, it advances our understanding of the political and policy processes within the EU. Research can provide a basis to develop new theories and to validate existing ones. Secondly, it creates in-depth knowledge of the dynamics around a specific issue. The knowledge produced by empirical research can be used to inspire further policy making within the studied policy area.
This thesis investigates the agenda setting process in the EU around a trending topic: the transition towards a circular economy. This concept has received increasing attention of both national and EU policy makers. In a nutshell, a circular economy means that all resources are managed efficiently throughout their life cycle. Our current economy is based on a linear model with a “take-make-consume and dispose” approach (European Commission, 2015). In this model waste is inevitable. Contrastingly, in a circular model waste is seen as a resource, ideally there is no end-of-life scenario needed. A circular economy is best understood by looking into natural, living systems that function optimally because they are designed to sustain material flows and to keep the residual waste close to zero (DG Environment, 2014). The shift to a circular economy thus implies reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products, but also smarter eco-design to prevent waste in the first place (European Commission, 2015). The shift of a linear to a circular economy can be truly called a transition, which is defined by Rotmans, Kemp and Van Asselt (2001) as a gradual, continuous process of change where the structural character of a society transforms.
The vision that guides the most recent Environment Action Programme of the EU clearly demonstrates that EU policy makers pay serious attention to the transition towards a circular economy: "In 2050, we live well, within the planet’s ecological limits. Our prosperity and healthy environment stem from an innovative, circular economy where nothing is wasted" (European Parliament & Council, 2013: 176). Moreover, the previous Commission already proposed a legislative package called 'Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe', which was withdrawn by the new Juncker Commission in order to establish a more ambitious
4 circular economy strategy (European Commission, 2015). It can thus be concluded that the transition towards a circular economy has reached the decision making process, but it remains unclear how it emerged on the decision agenda in the first place.
The research question of this thesis is formulated as: how did the transition towards a circular economy emerge on the decision agenda of the European Union? The decision agenda is defined as a list of proposals ready to be decided upon (Kingdon, 2003). The academic relevance of this question twofold. Firstly, it is important to explore the applicability of agenda setting theories in the complex and ambiguous context of the EU (Zahariadis, 2014: 46-48). Secondly, similar to all agenda setting research, this thesis will advance our understanding of the political and policy processes within the EU. Moreover, investigating the agenda setting process of a trending issue like the circular economy is a novel practice, since it is common in most agenda setting studies to conduct an 'ex post' analysis (Banche, 2013: 21-22). The societal relevance of this thesis is linked to the studied policy area. The empirical findings of this thesis can be used to accelerate the transition towards a circular economy in the EU, which means significant step towards a society that truly operates within the planet’s ecological limits.
In order to investigate the main research question, the first chapter will conduct a literature review to identify which of the major policy analysis theories can function as a theoretical framework to analyse agenda setting. It will be argued that the multiple streams theory is most suitable for the scope of this thesis. The second chapter explores the multiple streams theory in more detail in order to construct the analytical framework that is used in the remainder of the thesis. The second chapter will also elaborate on the methodological aspects of the thesis. The third chapter will analyse data sources in order to construct a narrative of each different stream, as described in the analytical framework. The fourth chapter will build upon this data analysis in order to infer how the circular economy has emerged on the decision agenda of the EU. In the conclusion the main findings will be summarised, the implications of the research are explored and recommendations for further research are presented.
5
1 Policy Analysis Theories
There are several theoretical frameworks available that allow scholars to analyse policy making and policy change. As stated in the introduction this thesis focuses specifically on agenda setting, one of the most essential processes in policy making (Princen, 2012: 30). The literature review in this chapter will be based on work of Schlager and Blomquist (1996), who conducted a similar review. For the scope of this thesis their differentiation criteria have been transformed into four new criteria. Each theoretical framework has (1) assumptions about human behaviour, (2) an understanding of the functioning of institutions, (3) a specific scope of inquiry and (4) a unique explanation of agenda setting. The aim of this literature review is to compare three theoretical frameworks with each other in order to select the approach that is most suitable to analyse EU agenda setting processes. The next chapter will investigate the selected framework in greater detail, since the scope of this review is rather limited.
Three established policy analysis theories are compared: advocacy coalitions, multiple streams and punctuated equilibrium. There are two reasons behind this selection. First, these three theoretical frameworks have been established over a long period of time (Sabatier, 1999; Sabatier, 2007; Sabatier & Weible, 2014). This has allowed academics to review and develop these theories extensively. Furthermore, the theories have been used to analyse countless case studies, which implies that they are validated by empirical research as well. This demonstrates the robustness of these approaches. The second reason why these theoretical frameworks were selected is related to their starting assumptions. Each approach assumes contextual complexity (Zahariadis, 2013: 814). Furthermore, as Schlager (2007: 297-298) points out, they all assume that human rationality is bounded by the availability and accessibility of information, cognitive limitations, and/or the time available to make decisions. The remainder of the chapter will use the four criteria to review each theory in more detail.
1.1 Advocacy Coalitions
The advocacy coalitions theory was introduced in 1988 by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith. This theoretical framework was originally created to understand the role of scientist and science in the policy process (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2014: 207). The approach has been applied extensively in the 1990s, which led to significant revisions in 1993 and 1999 (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 189). Today, the theoretical framework can be best described as a lens that helps to understand how policy makers deal with the challenges of 'wicked problems', problems that involve substantial goal conflicts, contested knowledge due to uncertainty and ambiguity, and multiple actors from several levels of government (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 189).
There are two explicit assumptions about human behaviour in this theory . Firstly a model of the individual that is based on social psychology rather than the neoliberal rational
6 choice model. The framework assumes that there are normative belief systems which drive human behaviour. This normative belief system, or belief structure, can only be investigated empirically, which means that the framework does not a priori exclude the possibility of altruistic behaviour (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 194). It furthermore stresses that actors view the world through a set of perceptual filters, composed of beliefs that are difficult to change. The second assumption about human behaviour is that policy participants will connect with actors who hold similar policy beliefs to form informal networks (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 196). If these informal networks collaborate to achieve similar policy objectives they are called advocacy coalitions. Actors from different coalitions are likely to perceive the same information in very different ways, leading to distrust between coalitions (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 194). The tendency to view other coalition members as less trustworthy leads to more unity within each coalition and exacerbates conflict across competing coalitions.
Regarding institutions, the theory assumes that policy making occurs among actors within a policy subsystem, characterized by both a functional dimension (a particular policy area) and a territorial one (a specific spatial area). Within each subsystem the behaviour and grouping of policy participants is the central focus point, although their behaviour might be affected by external factors from the broader political and socioeconomic system (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 191). It should be noted that it is complicated to delimit the borders of each subsystem, since policy areas can overlap. One addition since the 1990s is the recognition of nested subsystems. When looking at the scope of inquiry, the advocacy coalitions approach is interested in policy change over a decade or more (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 192). It assumes that the beliefs of policy participants are stable over time, and that major policy change is thus difficult to achieve (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 192).
Originally the theory explained agenda setting and subsequent policy change in two ways: through policy-oriented learning and external shocks (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 198). It is important to recall the assumption that policy making happens in subsystems, policy change thus also happens here. Agenda setting through policy-oriented learning can be achieved as a result from evaluations and/or from new information provided to the subsystem by scientists or actors from the field. Change through external shocks can occur in several ways, including changes in the broader socioeconomic conditions or political regime, outputs from other policy subsystems, or (natural) disasters. Since 1999 two alternative paths to policy change were added: internal shocks and negotiated agreements (Sabatier & Weible, 2007: 204). The first is defined as events or disasters within the subsystem that affect the balance of power among the advocacy coalitions. The second alternative path is defined as agreements between previously contesting coalitions, involving changes in belief systems.
7
1.2 Punctuated Equilibrium
The punctuated equilibrium theory, inspired by paleobiology, was introduced by Baumgartner and Jones in 1993. The theory starts from the observation that policy systems are generally characterized by stability and incremental change, but that they occasionally produce large-scale departures from the past (Baumgartner, Jones & Mortensen, 2014: 59). Period of stasis are later punctuated by sudden and disruptive change. Punctuated equilibrium theory addresses these observations by capturing both policy process into one framework based on political institutions and bounded rationality in decision making. Institutions create friction in the policy process due to limitations in decision making. This pressures the system, which can lead to the punctuated dynamics (True, Jones, & Baumgartner, 2007: 177). In recent years it became clear that this approach, originally developed to explain U.S. policymaking, applies to a broader set of political systems (Baumgartner, Jones & Mortensen, 2014: 59).
Assumptions about human behaviour are not explicitly mentioned in the punctuated equilibrium theory. In any case it can be stated that bounded rationality also underpins this framework, although it differs from advocacy coalitions. The punctuated equilibrium theory assumes that individual decision alterations, including choice reversals, do not so much spring from belief systems, indecisiveness or basic irrationality, they rather originate from shifts in attention and serial information processing (True, Jones, & Baumgartner, 2007: 164). Reality is complex, changing, and multifaceted, but people can usually only focus on one aspect at a time. If actors process information this way, as opposed to parallel processing, it can lead to situations where alternatives are overlooked, even if they are well defined.
On the institutional level, the theory assumes that attention spans are just as limited in governments as they are in people. Institutions play an important role, although the notion of policy subsystems and 'venues' are used as well. Institutional venues have their own language, participants, and constraints (True, Jones, & Baumgartner, 2007: 162). Another central concept is the notion of 'policy images', the manners in which a policy is defined or understood. A new policy image attracts participants, much like the concept of advocacy coalitions. The venues in a political system may provide opportunities for change (True, Jones, & Baumgartner, 2007: 162). The scope of inquiry of the punctuated equilibrium theory differs per issue, since punctuations can be caused by large (external) events that cannot be ignored or by relatively minor events that add up over longer periods of time (True, Jones, & Baumgartner, 2007: 160). The unique insight into agenda setting is that the status quo can be altered by small frictions in the policy process that add up due to constant positive feedback. When the pressure on the system is high enough, political mobilisation can occur. However, the theory does not specify how the agenda setting processes are structured or how they can be influenced.
8
1.3 Multiple Streams
The multiple streams theory was introduced by Kingdon in 1984, largely inspired by the work of Cohen, March and Olsen (1972). This review of the multiple streams theory is based on the more recent second edition of his book, published in 2003, as well as contemporary additions outlined by Zahariadis (2007). The theoretical framework was originally designed to explain and analyse policy formation, which entails agenda setting and decision making, but according to Zahariadis (2007: 65) it could conceivably be extended to cover the entire policy process at various levels of government. In short, this theory identifies three 'streams' which flow through any policy system: problem recognition, policy proposals and political events. Each stream is assumed to be independent from the others, each with its own dynamics and rules. The coupling of the streams, which happens during moments of opportunity called 'policy windows', increases the chance that a specific policy will be adopted by policy makers.
Like the other two theoretical frameworks the multiple streams theory assumes human behaviour to be characterised by bounded rationality. Although some individual actors may show rational behaviour a fair amount of the time, due to cognitive limitations it is not possible to characterise the decision making process as rational (Kingdon, 2003: 78). Policy makers often act without predefined objectives or preferences and are limited in their work by significant time constraints (Zahariadis, 2007: 67-68). The theory furthermore assumes that individuals process information in a serial way. Central in this theory is the notion of 'policy entrepreneurs', individuals or groups of actors who attempt to achieve agenda setting by coupling the three streams. They are much more than advocates of particular solutions, they are the brokers and manipulators of the policy process (Zahariadis, 2007: 74). When a policy window opens, policy entrepreneurs must immediately act. The multiple streams theory thus considers human agency as an important part of the policy process.
The multiple streams theory distinguishes 'policy communities', networks composed of actors who are concerned with the same policy area (Kingdon, 2003: 117). This concept is very similar to the notion of policy subsystems. The extent to which a policy community is integrated determines its size, mode, capacity, and access. In general, highly integrated communities are smaller in size, have a consensual decision making mode, high administrative capacity, and more restricted access (Zahariadis, 2007: 73). Policy communities are diverse and also include actors from outside the government. Members of a community can work together as entrepreneurs to place an issue on the agenda when the policy window is open (Kingdon, 2003: 20). This happens when the three streams coincide, but policy entrepreneurs can also create policy windows by coupling the streams themselves. The scope of inquiry of this theoretical framework is flexible, because it differs per case when the policy window opens.
9
1.4 Selecting the most suitable approach
At the end of this brief literature it is possible to compare the three theoretical frameworks with each other. Table 1 provides an overview of how each approach fits the four criteria. Although the fourth criterion shows every approach provides a unique lens on agenda setting, it should be mentioned that the three policy analysis theories are very similar, an observation earlier made by Schlager (2007: 297). It might even be possible to integrate the three approaches into a single framework, but this is beyond the scope of this thesis. The objective of this thesis is specifically narrowed down to investigating EU agenda setting processes.
Advocacy coalitions Punctuated equilibrium Multiple streams Assumptions about human behaviour - Bounded rationality; - Focus on coalitions of policy participants. - Bounded rationality; - Focus on formal roles within institutions.
- Bounded rationality; - Focus on individuals and policy communities.
Functioning of institutions
Focus on coalitions in policy subsystems and formal institutions.
Focus on formal
institutions, venues and policy subsystems.
Focus on entrepreneurs in policy communities and formal institutions.
Scope of inquiry
Long periods of time, incremental view on the policy making process.
Long periods of policy stability in which disruptive change occasionally occurs.
Flexible time scales determined by opening policy windows.
Explanation of agenda setting
Policy-oriented learning, external and internal shocks and negotiated agreements.
Both incremental change and major policy
punctuations.
Coupling of the streams (problems, policies and politics), initiated by policy entrepreneurs.
Table 1: Overview of the literature review.
Looking at table 1, the first differentiation criterion reveals no significant difference between the three theories. Bounded rationality is in each theory the main starting assumption. However, the second criterion shows that the punctuated equilibrium theory is significantly different from the other two approaches. Advocacy coalitions and multiple streams focus more on human agency within the context of formal institutions and policy subsystems/communities. The importance of human agency in the EU context is demonstrated by Zahariadis (2008: 527), who states that "institutions make this possible, but people make things happen". For this reason the punctuated equilibrium theory is not selected. The third criterion reveals why the advocacy coalitions framework is not selected. This theory attempts to explain policy change over long periods of time, usually over a period of a decade or more. This approach is thus not a suitable to explain the abrupt emergence of the circular economy on the EU decision making agenda. Based on this literature review it can be concluded that the multiple streams approach is the most suitable candidate to function as an analytical framework in the remainder of this thesis, where the case of the circular economy is examined.
10
2 Multiple Streams in the European Union
The previous chapter has selected the multiple streams approach to function as the analytical framework for this thesis. This chapter will investigate the multiple streams theory in more detail, in order to construct the analytical framework that is required to analyse the EU agenda setting processes around the circular economy. This in-depth review is structured around five key concepts already mentioned in the previous chapter. First each of the three streams will be studied separately (problems, policies and politics), after that the opening of policy windows and the role of policy entrepreneurs will be examined. The book chapters of Kingdon (2003) and Zahariadis (2007) are important, but recent research is also reviewed in order to understand how the framework can be adapted to the complex, transnational context of the EU. The final section of this chapter will elaborate on methodological aspects.
First of the three streams is the problem stream, which consists of various conditions that policy makers and citizens want to address (Zahariadis, 2007: 70). Problem definition and problem recognition are the most important processes in this stream. In the process of problem definition actors may compete to 'frame' a problem in their preferred way. Problems can gain recognition through the occurrence of a focus event (an earthquake), due to a shift in respected indicators (increase in CO₂ atmospheric concentration), or through the effects of policy feedback (outcomes of evaluation programs). Likewise, problems can fade if their 'growth rate' levels of, if people become used to the situation, or if the attention is redirected (Kingdon, 2003: 113). In short, the problem stream contains conditions that are defined and recognised as problems and which compete to attract attention of policy makers.
When considering the broader agenda setting process, the problem stream is of crucial importance. If a policy proposal is linked to a problem that is perceived as important, it increases the chance of moving up on the decision agenda (Kingdon, 2003: 115). Furthermore, as Ackrill and Kay (2011: 77) note, the problem stream increases the legitimacy of policies and political action. An important concept in this respect is problem load, the number of difficult problems occupying the attention of policy makers. Problems tend to appear more complicated when the agenda is already crowded with other problems (Zahariadis, 2007: 72). In the context of the EU this stream remains the same, with the remark that the levels of complexity and institutional ambiguity increase due to transnational problems and ‘boundary issues' which overlap different policy areas of EU institutions (Ackrill, Kay and Zahariadis, 2013: 877).
The second stream is the policies stream, the stream of policy ideas and alternatives. In this stream the notion of policy communities is important. As mentioned in the previous chapter the policy communities are networks composed of actors concerned with the same policy area (Kingdon, 2003: 117). The set of actors within a policy community is diverse and can range from policy specialists to politicians, academics, consultants or lobbyists. As noted the networks may
11 be fragmented or integrated, which determines its size, mode, capacity, and access, and this can all change over time. Kingdon (2003: 117) describes that a policy community contains a 'policy soup', defined as all the considered ideas that are 'floating around'. Policy entrepreneurs that promote a certain idea may aim to win the acceptance of the policy community. This is done by the process of 'softening up': organising conferences and lunches, writing speeches and papers, or even drafting legislation (Kingdon, 2003: 128-129). Some ideas survive this (long) process and remain basically unchanged, others are recombined into new proposals and some will just disappear (Zahariadis, 2007: 72). Although the number of ideas that float around in this stream may be large, only a few will receive serious attention from policy makers.
In the context of the EU the policy streams differs significantly. First of all, since the time of Kingdon the policy communities in many policy areas have become more transnational. The existence of transnational policy communities both within and beyond the EU should thus be recognised when conducting empirical research (Banche, 2013: 29). Furthermore, the process of softening up in the EU context will become more lengthy due to the nature of the institutional framework. The prospect for fast shifts in decision making in the EU is less than in national systems (Banche, 2013, 24). Language barriers in policy communities and formal institutions will also contribute to a more lengthy process of softening up, since speeches and texts have to be translated before they can have a real impact. Last but not least the 'soup' of ideas will become more complex in the context of the EU due to national and transnational input. Based on the changes of these main elements of the policy stream it can be concluded that this stream will become more complex and lengthy when applied on a case in the EU.
The third stream, the politics stream, is composed of the public mood, media campaigns and political debates, as well as formal events such as elections and changes in administration. When a large amount of people in a country think along the same lines, this is understood as the public mood. The public mood is susceptible to change, for example influenced by the problem stream. Politicians often try to monitor and respond to shifts in the public mood, moreover they even try to lead and shape the public mood (Zahariadis, 2007: 73). The media and 'organised political forces' also affect the politics stream by organising media campaigns or by stimulating a public debate. Organised political forces are defined by Kingdon as organised interest groups, citizen initiatives or political elites. These political forces will sometimes have opposing interests which can result in political debates. Events such as parliamentary elections or administrative changes are also important, since the rotation of key actors may create new opportunities for agenda setting (Kingdon, 2003: 163). In this stream policy entrepreneurs try to build consensus through bargaining rather than by persuasion.
On the level of the EU a few aspects of this stream change. First of all the national mood is a problematic notion. Academics investigating the EU are debating heavily whether there is such
12 thing as a European public (Bellamy, 2012). If it is assumed that a European public mood exists, the Eurobarometer surveys seem to be the most reliable sources for monitoring purposes. There are also several European news platforms that can help shape the European mood and generate a public debate, although most of them operate online. Apart from the debate about a European public, it is also debated whether the EU needs political contestation (Hix & Bartolini, 2006). It is nevertheless safe to state that most organised political forces are represented at the European level. There is even a transparency register to keep track of lobbying in Brussels, although this register is not obligatory and therefore not an accurate image of political contestation in the EU. As for formal events, the institutional framework of the EU does allow rotation of key actors to happen, for example the positions in the Commission rotate every five years. Positions in the European Council and in the Council of the EU also rotate due to national elections, and of course the European Parliament has its own elections. The politics stream in the EU can be regarded as dynamic as any national system, although the existence of a European public mood and the desirability of open political contestation are still debated.
According to the multiple streams theory, the three streams develop largely independent from each other, each with its own rules and dynamics. Streams interact during policy windows, defined by Kingdon (2003: 166) as opportunities for agenda setting within a specific policy area. Windows usually stay open for short periods of time (Kingdon, 2003: 169). Windows are opened by dynamics in the problem stream or in the politics stream. Some windows open predictably, for example during a rotation of key actors, others open unpredictably, in the form of focusing events. Policy entrepreneurs must act quickly during these open windows in order to move their proposal on the agenda. Emergence on the decision agenda is accelerated if an already worked out proposal from the policy stream is brought forward during an open window. Entrepreneurs can dramatically increase the chance of agenda setting if they manage to couple all three streams together (Kingdon, 2003: 178; Zahariadis, 2007: 74). Because the multiple streams theory starts with the assumptions of bounded rationality and complexity, the exact mechanisms of coupling and agenda setting have to be analysed empirically.
The interaction of human agency, EU institutions and dynamics in the problem stream that occurs during policy windows is a major strength and novelty in the study of EU policy processes (Ackrill, Kay & Zahariadis, 2013: 878). An addition on the EU level is the importance of framing and reframing (Moschella, 2011: 262). It is easier and faster to frame a policy proposal in a different way than to wait for another open policy window. Another addition is that the Commission can take up the role of an entrepreneur (Moschella, 2011: 263; Banche, 2013: 33). Since the Commission has the only right to propose legislation, this puts the institution in a unique position regarding the policy process of the EU. Apart from these additions the notion of streams coupling remains largely the same on the EU level.
13
2.1 Methodology
This section will elaborate on the methodological aspects of this thesis. The introduction already revealed that a case study is conducted. The topic was also introduced: the transition towards a circular economy, an idea that recently emerged on the decision agenda of the EU. The first chapter selected the multiple streams theory as the most suitable theoretical lens, and this second chapter has constructed the analytical framework that will be used. The empirical part that follows will use this framework in order to reconstruct how the circular economy emerged on the decision agenda. The next chapter will conduct a data analysis to create narratives of how each stream developed, as explicated in the next section.
The narrative of the problem stream will be constructed by identifying the relevant problems. This can be done by making use of indicators and focusing events. The narrative of the policy stream will be constructed by analysing the policy community of the circular economy and by analysing how the idea of a circular economy survived in the policy soup. This is done by conducting an actor analysis, exploring whether the community is fragmented or integrated and by looking at the process of softening up. The narrative of the politics stream will be constructed by looking at the rotation of key actors, as well as how the European public mood (as far as it exists) responded to the idea of a circular economy. The data sources on which the narratives are based include news and opinion articles, interviews, public consults, position papers, issue specific reports and official EU policy documents.
The fourth chapter will build upon the data analysis conducted in the third chapter. This chapter will combine the three narratives to infer how the circular economy has emerged on the decision agenda of the EU. In doing so, this chapter aims to reconstruct why the policy window opened, how the three streams were coupled, and identifies the role that policy entrepreneurs played in this process. Research of Moschella (2011) and Banche (2013) demonstrates that empirical research can produce valuable insights about the agenda setting process. When applicable, the fourth chapter will also highlight these novel insights.
14
3 Empirical research: the case of the Circular Economy
This chapter analyses how the problem, policy and politics streams developed in the EU around the case of the circular economy. Prior to the analysis, this section will explicate what a circular economy entails by giving a more complete definition of the concept as well as an oversight of some of the key actors in this policy area. The ideal definition of a circular economy in Europe was presented by Commissioner Vella (Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) in his speech at the 2015 European Circular Economy Conference, held in Brussels: "In a circular economy, almost nothing is wasted. Re-use and remanufacturing is standard practice, and sustainability is built into the fabric of that society. There is less waste to deal with, and more is generated from limited resources. The new technologies created then bolster the competitive position on the world stage" (Vella, 2015: 1).
This definition of an ideal circular economy is of course not unique, and is largely based on the legislative proposal 'Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe', which was withdrawn by the Juncker Commission in order to propose a more ambitious plan later in 2015 (European Commission, 2015). In this proposal it was stated that circular economy systems keep resources within the economy when a product has reached the end of its life, so that they can be productively used again and again and hence create further value (European Commission, 2014: 2). Furthermore, it states that the transition to a circular economy requires "changes throughout value chains, from product design to new business and market models, from new ways of turning waste into a resource to new modes of consumer behaviour. This implies full systemic change, and innovation not only in technologies, but also in organisation, society, finance methods and policies" (European Commission, 2014: 2). The same denotation of a circular economy guides the analysis in this chapter.
Arguably the most prominent actor in the policy area of the circular economy is the Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission (DG Environment). The objective of this DG is to protect, preserve and improve the environment for present and future generations. It proposes environmental policies and makes sure that Member States correctly apply EU environmental law. The current head of the DG Environment is Commissioner Vella. Within the European Parliament the green parties have a strong voice, and other groups are also interested in the circular economy. In the Council some member states are active proponents of the circular economy, most notably Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK and Sweden, who are already legislating re-use and recycling (Braw, 2014). Besides the European institutions there are several interest groups active in this policy area. Most importantly the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which aims to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. Other examples include the Institut d'Économie Circulaire, Circle Economy and countless online platforms. This list will be extended in the analysis of the policy community.
15
3.1 Problem Stream: environment and economy
There are several big problems that the EU is facing. These problems can roughly be divided into environmental and economic problems. Relevant environmental problems in the context of the transition towards a circular economy include waste management and climate change. Relevant problems related to the economy are resource scarcity, unemployment and economic downturn. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to review these problems in detail, instead an overview of important indicators and focusing events is given.
Problems related to the environment are of vital importance to policy makers because of the enormous risks. The risks of poor waste management are soil, water and air pollution as well as additional greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission, 2015a). The risks related to climate change are extreme weather events, climate disruption and biodiversity loss (Houghton, 2009). The problems on the environmental side have some clear indicators and focusing events. Waste can be quantified in kilograms and climate change has atmospheric CO₂ concentration as the main indicator. Focusing events of waste management include oil spillage and dumps of electronic waste in developing countries. Focusing events of climate change include floods, melting icecaps, extinction of key species and large climate negotiations.
Economical problems are of great importance to policymakers because they have a direct impact on society. Risks related to resource scarcity are market volatility and high prices of raw materials. Europe is a net importer of raw materials, and therefore dependent on other countries and price stability. Risks related to unemployment are disruptions of society, as well as lower consumer expenses, and the risk related to economic downturn is a vicious circle of events which could eventually lead to a major economic crisis in the EU. Indicators for resource scarcity include estimations of total supply and resource prices. Unemployment is expressed in a percentage of the total population and economic downturn is expressed in a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP). Focusing events of these problems are the limited availability of several rare earth metals (most of the resources are controlled by China), the 2011 riots in London, and the 2008-2012 economic downturn in Europe.
3.2 Policy Stream: the idea of the circular economy
The policy community around the circular economy consists of more policy participants than the actors mention in the first section of this chapter. Actors representing EU institutions play an important role in this EU policy area, but the policy community is much larger. Within the formal context of the EU, the European Environment Agency (EEA) also produces reports about the circular economy (EEA, 2014). Then there are also actors from nongovernmental organisations such as the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) or Friends of the Earth Europe who have a role in this policy community. As mentioned there are also organisations that specifically aim to
16 promote the circular economy, most of which operate on the international level. Of course there are also business interests in this community. Private actors may be linked to FEAD (waste management industry), Europen (packaging industry) or BusinessEurope. There are also people who represent governments, either in their own formal function or through organisations like Municipal Waste Europe, representing the public waste management sector.
The people within the policy community meet on conferences, innovation workshops, and in the cloud, on online platforms. Furthermore, there are several influential networks that specifically address the circular economy. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has launched CE100, a programme that will bring 100 corporations together with emerging innovators and regions to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. Participants include Apple, Coca-Cola, H&M, Ikea, Philips, Renault, Unilever and Vodafone. For cities and regions there is the Covenant Circular Economy 2022, which aims to accelerate the transition towards a circular economy at a local level. The policy community around the circular economy is thus spatially divided and it became very large in size. The community is also easily accessible, the Commission is currently running a Public Consultation on the Circular Economy to gather input for the new proposal (European Commission, 2015). Based on this analysis it can be concluded that policy community around the circular economy is fragmented rather than integrated.
Since the circular economy emerged on the decision agenda, the idea has survived in the policy soup. The process of softening up has played a major role in this success. In order to understand how the policy community softened up, it is important to understand the history of the idea, which became popular around 2010. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation the idea of a circular economy has deep-rooted origins and cannot be traced back to a single author. The concept has been refined and developed by several schools of thought, including 'spaceship earth', regenerative design, Cradle to Cradle, industrial ecology, biomimicry, eco-design and the blue economy movement (Vella, 2015; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). The concept of a circular economy not only builds on multiple schools of thought, it also integrates several policy areas. Policies that promote resource efficiency, innovation, recycling or waste prevention are all part of the broader transition towards a circular economy.
Based on these observations it is concluded that the circular economy was promoted by a large group of policy entrepreneurs instead of a few. Policy entrepreneurs could fit their own policy proposals within the larger idea of a circular economy. This made it possible to soften up the European policy community around the circular economy in a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, the DG environment took a leading role in this process by developing policy proposals and by stimulating research (i.e. Vanner et al., 2014).
17
3.3 Politics Stream: consensus and a positive public mood
The policies stream revealed that the softening up process of the policy community happened in a relatively short period of time, roughly from 2010 to 2014, in which the first circular economy package was presented (European Commission, 2014). Interestingly, the year 2014 coincides with the European Parliament elections and the rotation of seats in the Commission. After the elections the Parliament remained interested in the transition circular economy, based on a briefing from December 2014 titled 'Turning waste into a resource : Moving towards a 'circular
economy'. The positions in the Commission changed significantly. The most relevant changes
were the presidential position, from Barroso to Juncker, the enactment of a Vice President in the person of Timmermans and the change of the environment Commissioner, from Potočnik to Vella. In the term of the Barroso II Commission the circular economy package was prepared and proposed. One of the first actions of the Jucker Commission was to withdraw this package in order to establish a more ambitious circular economy strategy. Vella (2015) has stated that this new proposal will be more country sensitive. Differences between countries are thus taken into account, most likely as a result of bargaining processes in the Council. These developments seem to point towards consensus building within EU institutions.
Apart from the rotation of key actors, the politics stream includes political debates and notion of the public mood. Based on an analysis of European new sources such as EurActive, the EUobserver and the Guardian, it seems that there is hardly any debate on whether the EU needs a transition towards a circular economy. These three platforms all report positively about the circular economy. However, based on the withdrawal of the previous package, the speed and focus points of this transition were debated. Apart from opinion articles no reliable data sources on this debate were found. This indicates that the organised political forces around the circular economy operated behind closed doors, a phenomenon that is not uncommon in the EU policy process. It remains unclear whether these political debates have affected the policy making process, but Vella (2015) assured that current recycling goals are kept.
The European public mood responds very well to the principles of the circular economy. The main evidence for this statement is a current Eurobarometer survey. A vast majority of the European public thinks that more resource efficiency will have a positive effect on quality of life, economic growth and employment opportunities (European Commission, 2014a: 4). However, when looking at their actions, roughly third of the respondent has tried alternatives to buying new products (European Commission, 2014a: 4). A possible explanation of the public mood in Europe is linked to the coverage of the circular economy. The investigated news sources all use positive frames when covering the topic, calling it 'Europe's next best thing' (Kirk, 2015). This may have contributed to the positive public mood.
18
4 Reconstruction: Coupling and Agenda Setting
This chapter builds on the data analysis of the previous chapter to reconstruct how the three streams were coupled and to identify the role of policy entrepreneurs in this process. When looking at the history of the circular economy it can be stated that it was originally developed to address several problems at the same time. First, a circular economy minimises the problems related to waste with its emphasis on reuse, recycling and remanufacturing. Second, the policies that promote a circular economy are in line with policies that address climate change since they reduce C0₂ emissions (Wijkman & Skånberg, 2015). Third, the circular economy was designed to promote resource efficiency, and thus anticipates on problems related to resource scarcity (EEA, 2011: 10). The focus was thus on environmental problems.
From the analysis of the policy stream it became clear that many policy entrepreneurs could fit their own proposals within the larger idea of a circular economy. This created a large group of proponents, which made it possible to soften up the environmental policy community in a relatively short period of time. The DG Environment, lead by Potočnik, can be seen as the main entrepreneur in this process. A turning point was MEMO/12/989 from 2012, stating that 'In a world with growing pressures on resources and the environment, the EU has no choice but to go for the transition to a resource-efficient and ultimately regenerative circular economy'. In the years that followed the focus on the environment changed.
Responding to the problems related to the economy, the circular economy was reframed to address unemployment and economic downturn. The circular economy could save European businesses more than 600 billion euro per year, while it also creates 2 million additional jobs (DG Environment, 2014: 4). Furthermore, the innovations needed for a circular economy can create a competitive advantage for businesses in the EU, which potentially means economic growth. The reframing of the circular economy has most likely caused the policy stream and the problem stream to couple, since the circular economy now addressed both environmental and economic problems. The positive reporting by European news sources strengthened the position of the circular economy.
All that was needed for an open policy window was a new development in the politics stream. Looking back at the events in this stream it is safe to state that the policy window opened because of the changes in EU institutions. The elections for the Parliament played a role, but most important were the rotation positions in the Commission. This has opened up the possibility for the policy entrepreneurs to publish the COM(2014) 398 final: 'Towards a circular
economy: A zero waste programme for Europe'. With this act the circular economy emerged on
the decision agenda of the EU: the new Commission had to respond to the proposal. Although the proposal itself was eventually withdrawn, the transition towards a circular economy was firmly established on the decision agenda.
19
Conclusion
The research question of this thesis has been formulated as: how did the transition towards a circular economy emerge on the decision agenda of the European Union? In order to investigate this question, this thesis has reviewed three similar policy analysis theories: advocacy coalitions, punctuated equilibrium and multiple streams. Based on its emphasis on human agency and the flexible scope of inquiry, the multiple streams theory has been selected to function as the main theoretical foundation. The second chapter has adapted the multiple streams theory to fit the context of the EU, which resulted into an analytical framework. This chapter also elaborated on the methodological aspects of the thesis.
Empirical research has revealed that the transition towards a circular economy emerged on the decision agenda of the EU because the dynamics in the politics stream, most importantly the rotation of positions in the Commission, opened the policy window. The open policy window has been used effectively by policy entrepreneurs to publish the COM(2014) 398 final, which proposed a legislative package that would stimulate the transition towards a circular economy. Although the new Juncker Commission withdrew this package, this act firmly established the transition towards a circular economy on the decision agenda. The Commission even promised to publish a more ambitious circular economy strategy (European Commission, 2015). It should be noted that before the policy window opened, the policy stream and the problem stream were already coupled. When the policy entrepreneurs witnessed the new developments in the politics stream they acted immediately, just as if they followed Kingdon's advice.
Implications and recommendations
The academic implications of this thesis are mainly linked to the multiple streams theory. This research has confirmed that the multiple streams theory is able to explain the agenda setting processes in the complex and ambiguous context of the EU. Although the scope of a Bachelor thesis does not allow in-depth research, based on this case study it can be concluded that the multiple streams approach is useful to analyse EU agenda setting processes. The thesis thus reinforces the validity of the multiple streams theory in the context of the EU.
Societal implications of this thesis are linked to the case study. The empirical analysis shows that the public has a positive attitude towards the circular economy. It was also shown that both the environment and the economy would profit from a transition towards a circular economy. These results could inspire policy makers to accelerate this transition. It is therefore recommended to conduct more research on how the transition towards a circular economy can be facilitated by the multiple levels of government.
20
Bibliography
Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: the case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72-89.
Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of
European Public Policy, 20(6), 871-887.
Baumgartner, F. R., Green-Pedersen, C., & Jones, B. D. (2006). Comparative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7), 959-974.
Baumgartner, F.R., Jones, B.D. & Mortensen P.B. (2014). Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. In: Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. (eds).
Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press, third edition.
Beasley, J. & Georgeson, R. (2014). Advancing resource efficiency in Europe : Indicators and waste
policy scenarios to deliver a resource efficient and sustainable Europe. Brussels: European
Environmental Bureau.
Bellamy, R. (2012). The inevitability of a democratic deficit. In: Zimmermann & Dür (eds). Key
controversies in European Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Braw, E. (2014). Five countries moving ahead of the pack on circular economy legislation. Guardian sustainable business. Available at
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/29/countries-eu-circular-economy-legislation-denmark-sweden-scotland Consulted on 12 June 2015.
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.
Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission (2014). The circular
economy : Connecting, creating and conserving value. EU Publications Office. Available at:
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/the-circular-economy-pbKH0414408/
Edler, J. & James, A. D. (2015). Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme. Research Policy, 44(6), 1252-1265.
EEA (2011). Resource efficiency in Europe : Policies and approaches in 31 EEA member and
cooperating countries. European Environment Agency, report No 5/2011.
EEA (2014). Well-being and the environment : Building a resource-efficient and circular economy
in Europe. Copenhagen: EEA SIGNALS 2014. Available at
http://covenant2022.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Signals-2014.pdf Consulted on 25 June 2015.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). The circular model - brief history and schools of thought. Available at
http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/circular-economy/the-circular-model-brief-history-and-schools-of-thought Consulted on 24 June 2015 European Commission (2014). Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. Brussels: COM(2014) 398 final.
21 European Commission (2014a). Attitudes of Europeans towards Waste Management and Resource
Efficiency. Flash Eurobarometer 388. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/
flash/fl_388_en.pdf Consulted on 24 June 2015.
European Commission (2015). Moving towards a circular economy. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm Consulted on 9 June 2015. European Commission (2015a). Circular Economy Strategy. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/ smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2015_env_065_env+_032_circular_economy_en.pdf Consulted on 22 June 2015.
European Parliament & Council (2013). DECISION N. 1386/2013/EU of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’. Official Journal of the European Union, L 354, 171-200.
Hix, S. & Bartolini, S. (2006). Politics: The Right or the Wrong Sort of Medicine for the EU? Notre Europe Policy Paper, 2006/19.
Houghton, J. (2009). Global Warming: The complete briefing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, fourth edition.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M. & Sabatier, P.A. (2014) Advocacy Coalition
Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research. In: Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. (eds).
Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press, third edition.
Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman Classics in Political Science, second edition.
Kirk, L. (2015). The circular economy: Europe’s next big thing. Brussels: EUobserver. Available at https://euobserver.com/economic/127944 Consulted on 25 June 2015.
Moschella, M. (2011). Getting hedge funds regulation into the EU agenda: the constraints of agenda dynamics. Journal of European Integration, 33(3), 251-266.
Princen, S. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European Union: a theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 21-38.
Princen, S. (2011). Agenda-setting strategies in EU policy processes. Journal of European Public
Policy, 18(7), 927-943.
Princen, S. (2012). Agenda-Setting and the Formation of an EU Policy-Making State. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.). Constructing a Policy-Making State? Policy Dynamics in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15-31.
Sabatier, P.A. (ed.) (1999). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, first edition. Sabatier, P.A. (ed.) (2007). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, second edition.
22 Sabatier, P.A. & Weible, C.M. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and
Clarifications. In: Sabatier, P.A. (ed.). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, second edition.
Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. (eds) (2014). Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press, third edition.
Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49(3), 651-672.
Schlager, E. (2007). A Comparison of Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Policy Processes. In: Sabatier, P.A. (ed.). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, second edition. True, J.L., Jones, B.D. , & Baumgartner, F.R. (2007). Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. In: Sabatier, P.A. (ed.). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, second edition.
Vanner, R. et al. (2014). Scoping study to identify potential circular economy actions, priority
sectors, material flows & value chains. DG Environment Framework contract for economic
analysis ENV.F.1/FRA/2010/0044. Available at http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1410/ Circular_economy_scoping_study_-_Final_report.pdf Consulted on 19 June 2015. Vella, K. (2015). Speech by Commissioner Vella at the 2015 European Circular Economy
Conference. Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-4559_en.htm
Consulted on 23 June 2015.
Wijkman, A. & Skånberg, K. (2015). The Circular Economy and Benefits for Society: Swedish Case
Study Shows Jobs and Climate as Clear Winners. The Club of Rome. Available at
http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=8260 Consulted on 25 June 2015.
Zahariadis, N. (2007). The Multiple Streams Framework: Structure, Limitations, Prospects. In: Sabatier, P.A. (ed.). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, second edition. Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European
Public Policy, 15(4), 514-530.
Zahariadis, N. (2013). Building better theoretical frameworks of the European Union's policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 807-816.
Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In: Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. (eds).
