Dolowitz And MarshEdit
Dolowitz and Marsh are central figures in the policy studies literature on how governments borrow and adapt ideas from other places. Their work, especially the influential article Who learns from whom? A review of policy transfer studies, helped crystallize the idea that governments do not simply copy policies lock, stock, and barrel. Instead, transfer is a selective, context-sensitive process in which ideas, structures, and practices are imported, adapted, or resisted according to local political calendars, institutions, and preferences. The scholarship has become a go-to reference for scholars and practitioners who want to understand why a policy from one jurisdiction appears in another, and how it actually takes shape in practice.
This article explains the core concepts associated with Dolowitz and Marsh, their framework for analyzing policy transfer, and the debates that surround this line of inquiry. It presents the arguments from a perspective that emphasizes practical governance, accountability, and the benefits of testing ideas against local conditions. It also nods toward the controversies—especially the critiques from some quarters about how transfer can flatten differences between places or empower top-down reform agendas—and it explains why, from a market-friendly, reform-minded vantage, careful transfer can be a tool for improving public services without surrendering autonomy or democratic accountability.
Policy transfer and policy learning
Dolowitz and Marsh’s work centers on how and why policymakers look to other jurisdictions for ideas, and how those ideas are converted into action in a different political and administrative setting. They frame policy transfer as a deliberate, endogenous activity rather than a purely accidental one. The core claim is that transfer is shaped by political incentives, institutional capacity, and the domestic policy environment, so the same foreign idea can produce very different results when applied in different places. policy transfer is thus not synonymous with imitation; it is a selective process that must contend with local constraints and opportunities.
The Dolowitz–Marsh framework
A key contribution is a practical framework for analyzing policy transfer. The framework invites analysts to ask a series of questions that illuminate the pathways, motives, and outcomes of transfer. In short, it asks: What is being transferred? From where? Why is transfer taking place? Who is involved in the transfer process? How is the transfer implemented? What is the nature and degree of uptake? What is the evidence of success or failure? What political and administrative conditions shape the transfer? The emphasis is not only on the existence of borrowing but on the mechanisms, actors, and governance contexts that determine whether borrowed ideas take root, are modified, or fail to fit local needs. lesson-drawing and the broader policy diffusion literature are closely related in this regard, offering several overlapping lenses for study.
Typology, mechanisms, and sources
Dolowitz and Marsh distinguish among different mechanisms by which transfer can occur—from formal legislation and administrative reform to informal administrative practices and normative influences. They also discuss sources of ideas, noting that transfer can come from other countries, from regional bodies, or from international organizations. The typology helps map whether a policy is adopted wholesale, adapted to fit local institutions, or merely inspired as a guiding principle. The idea of a spectrum—ranging from hard, legally binding changes to softer, more interpretive adoption of ideas—has become a staple in subsequent scholarship. soft policy transfer and hard policy transfer are terms that frequently appear in summaries of this approach.
Degrees and directions of transfer
The literature recognizes that transfer operates along multiple axes: the depth of adoption (whether a policy is copied exactly or altered to fit local conditions), and the direction of learning (from higher levels to lower levels, or from peers across jurisdictions). Some policies move through top-down channels (a central government imposes reforms on subnational units), while others emerge from bottom-up experimentation and referenda-like processes within particular agencies or municipalities. In practice, many policy changes are hybrid—partly borrowed, partly invented anew, and partly left untouched where local conditions render them unsuitable. top-down policy transfer and bottom-up policy transfer frameworks are frequently cited to describe these dynamics.
The framework in practice and its limits
The Dolowitz–Marsh framework has proved enormously influential because it provides concrete questions and categories that help policy analysts compare different cases of transfer. It also emphasizes the important role of political context, administrative capacity, and the willingness of actors to engage in learning communities across jurisdictions. Yet the framework is not a panacea. Critics have argued that it can underplay power asymmetries, ideological contestation, and the messy realities of politics. Some scholars contend that transfer research can overstate the degree to which policy ideas are transferable in practice, ignoring the fact that institutions, interests, and cultures may resist even seemingly straightforward borrowings. Others point out that the literature can overemphasize the success stories of transfer, neglecting the cases where borrowed policies collide with local incentives or fail to deliver promised outcomes.
Controversies and debates from a center-right perspective
From a governance standpoint that stresses accountability, fiscal discipline, and the value of local control, several debates about policy transfer matter a great deal:
Local autonomy and accountability: Advocates argue that transfer should be a catalyst for improving services without surrendering democratic oversight. The emphasis is on ensuring that any borrowed policy is aligned with local budgets, constitutional constraints, and performance metrics. This line of thinking often privileges subsidiarity and the tailoring of reforms to local conditions, rather than uniform prescriptions from outside. federalism and governance topics provide analytic tools for examining how power and responsibility are distributed in transfer processes.
Competition and experimentation: A market- or reform-oriented view tends to favor policies that can be tested, compared, and ranked by outcomes. Transfer is most credible when it introduces competition, choice, or streaming of public services in ways that empower users and create accountability through results.
Skepticism toward one-size-fits-all models: Critics caution that borrowing a policy from another place can overlook distinctive institutional features, such as regulatory frameworks, labor markets, or public finance arrangements. The proper response is to demand rigorous local pilots, transparent evaluation, and clear sunset clauses that let systems revert if a policy fails to fit. Proponents argue that the right approach is to borrow what works, while adapting it to local conditions and safeguarding taxpayers’ interests.
Woke criticisms and their limitations: Critics from some corners of the policy debate contend that policy transfer can erase local history and create uniform reforms that neglect vulnerable groups. From a pragmatic standpoint, proponents respond that transfer is not about mindless copying but about selective uptake guided by evidence, capacity, and accountability. They argue that legitimate criticisms should focus on the design and evaluation of implementations rather than dismissing transfer as a concept. In this view, the real test is whether projects improve outcomes and are aligned with legitimate constitutional and fiscal constraints, not whether they match some ideological blueprint. The claim that all borrowed policies carry the burden of a broad, uniform moral imperative is considered by many to be an oversimplification of what is, at its best, a calibrated policy experiment.
Applications and examples
The framework has been applied across a wide range of policy domains, including education, welfare and social policy, health care, and governance reforms. Policymakers and analysts use the approach to compare how different jurisdictions tackle similar problems, such as promoting work incentives, expanding public services, or reforming regulatory regimes. The emphasis on local fit and accountability leads to a practical approach: borrow the tools that have earned credible results elsewhere, but insist on local testing, transparent reporting, and adjustment in light of performance data. Examples often discussed in the literature include activation policies that seek to reduce long-term dependence on state support by encouraging work and skills development, as well as administrative reforms that streamline service delivery without compromising public accountability. activation policy and public policy discussions frequently surface in policy transfer studies.