Acceso usuarios
Political science literature tends to depict the role of ideas in policy in two distinct ways:as strategic tools mobilised by agents to achieve pre-given preferences; or as structures imposing constraints on what is considered legitimate or feasible.Discursive institutionalism seeks to combine these insights,suggesting that while actors are indeed constrained by deeply entrenched ideas, they nonetheless enjoy some autonomy in selecting and combining ideas. This article seeks to further develop this approach in two ways. First, it identifies three discursive strategies through which policy actors can selectively mobilise ideas: they may foreground one level over others; exploit ambivalence in public philosophies; or link programme ideas over time by invoking ‘policy legacies’.Second,the article elucidates the mechanisms through which such strategic selections can in turn modify existing public philosophies and programme ideas, thereby influencing policy change.These claims are examined by comparing discourse on immigration policy liberalisation in Germany and the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2008. Evidence is found of all three discursive strategies. Moreover, the article shows how, in the German case, these discursive representations led to longer-term adjustments in underlying programme ideas and public philosophies on immigration.
