Policy on Purpose?

Through my PhD research on UK irregular migration policy, I’ve started to explore the world of policy studies. Rather than analysing a particular policy’s impact, policy studies examines how policy is formed, travels and lands.

What follows is an overview of my reading on this subject so far.

From Transfer to Translation

Traditionally, policy studies has approached policymaking as ‘transfer’, reminiscent of a neat production line with a pre-defined start and end point, a clear source, route and destination. The policy is imagined as being created, then relayed, from source to destination, arriving unchanged at the end point, ready to be unwrapped and implemented as originally intended. The policy itself is envisaged as neutral, technical and objective, similar to the instructions for a simple electrical appliance. This ‘black box’ framing of policymaking is challenged by the authors of ‘Making Policy Move’ (Clarke et al., 2015) who observe policymaking as a process of ‘translation’ rather than ‘transfer’. They see policy not simply being moved from one place to another but affecting things and being affected in the process. The authors assert that policy is never static, nor immutable, constantly having an impact on the environment and context in which it finds itself, as well as being unavoidably shaped by the context of its creation.

Context is Everything

The places where contact can be made with policies, ‘policy spaces’, are temporary assemblages, the confluence of many varied factors and actors spanning both space and time. The context from which a policy emerges, as well as the ‘policy spaces’ within which it is encountered is crucial to understanding and interrogating its makeup and potential effects. Policymaking tends to use the framing of necessary movement away from a dark past (or present) towards a glorious future (which will be brought about by implementation of said policy). This wider context can tell us a lot about the nature of a policy, as policies don’t spontaneously generate within a vacuum; they are made. And the words which are used to construct policies go some way to articulating and advancing a particular worldview, as problems are framed, solutions sought, and in so doing, value is ascribed. Therefore, despite implicit claims to be so, policy is never neutral or objective but deeply ideological and political, with its source potentially significantly shaping its reception. Given the frequency and fervour with which migration policy has been implemented and politically weaponised in recent years, it is particularly important to locate this within its socioeconomic / historical context when analysing it.

photo credit: Markus Spiske

Performative Policymaking

With an important link to my research on the Border Spectacle, Clark et al. (2015), also examine policymaking in terms of performance metaphors. Their approach helps us to consider, in any given policy context, who the ‘actors’ are, what ‘scripts’ are being used, and who the ‘audience’ is. This raises the question of whether policies are intentionally or incidentally performative and what their ultimate goal is. This framing can also be used to reflect on whether the ‘target audience’ are real or imagined, current or historical, etc. Developing this theme, John Clark’s paper ‘Performing Like A State?’ (2025), explores how NGOs may engage in a performance of state-ness, as they receive funding / access to deliver and implement the responsibilities of the state. He goes on to highlight the messy and contradictory nature of arbitrary categorisations of the ‘statutory sector’ and the ‘voluntary sector’, when the reality is much more blurry.

Intention vs. Impact

As well as policies being a place where value and meaning are articulated (meaning-making), Clarke et al. (2015) argue that they can also be a place of fiction-making. The authors demonstrate how policy doesn’t necessarily always reflect reality but sometimes a hoped for and imagined present / future instead. Furthermore, the analysis of discourse within and surrounding a policy may be misleading as the potential impacts which are identified may not actually manifest in reality. In the same vein, they assert that a policy’s movement is no guarantee of its adoption or implementation. There will always be unpredictable outcomes and unintended consequences of policy, and so policymaking’s unpredictability is one of its few predictable characteristics. Policy assemblage and context is so complex, it’s impossible to accurately forecast the impacts of any given intervention. So, whilst a reflective policymaking approach is important, with strong understanding and openness to the broader historical, cultural context, this will never be enough to ‘control’ the outcome. Such an approach may have more influence on the outputs arising from a particular policy, but the ultimate outcomes are impossible to predict. This means both that well-intended policy could be harmful and malicious policy could (at least partially) result in something good.

Interim Conclusion

In the policy studies literature so far, I’ve read how policy is not merely conveyed but constantly interacts with its environment. I’ve seen how policies are significantly impacted by their origin and asymmetrical relations with their intended recipients. All the while, this is acted out with varying degrees of consciousness, and it seems the motivating factors of policy frequently bear little correlation with its impacts.

Such a complex soup of dynamics and interactions begs the question, how can we achieve positive social change through policy? We might start to wonder if this is even a realistic aim.

However, ever an optimist, I believe that positive social change is always possible.  It may just be that we need to reconsider the tools we use to try to achieve this end, and whether the time and resource given over to the current approach continues to be well invested.