Why Some Critical Junctures Lead Nowhere: Exploring Dynamic and Static Policy Paths

Abstract

Some critical junctures fail to cause significant change in practice. Inspired by historical institutionalism, this article develops the concept of dynamic and static policy paths to explain why some critical junctures do not lead to change, while others do. Combining insights from policy process literature and policy implementation, it conceptualizes critical junctures through four elements: framing, targets, instruments, and actors/institutions. Based on two case studies, the article argues that the importance of framing and targets has been overexaggerated, and that a dynamic path will not occur unless there is also a significant change in instruments and actors/institutions. In Denmark, a climate policy agreement created a new policy direction for agriculture in which climate policy is a key component. In Norway, a climate policy agreement did not change the trajectory of sectoral policy and climate policy development has remained stagnant. Thus, differences in the critical junctures led to different policy paths.