The aim of this article is to explain current definition and application of punctuated equilibrium theory, which is as influential as any conceptual framework concerning policy process in political science, stimulating thought and research over the last two decades. Baumgartner and Jones borrowed the concept from studies of the evolution of species, but – as author shows – without operationalized definition, and turned it into a metaphor that can have mostly pedagogical use.
Author explains how punctuated equilibrium is useful for analyzing policy change in political systems other than the United States, but in the European political systems, political parties and their preferences must be taken into account. It is also presented how punctuated equilibrium is in fact a much-improved version of the incrementalism theory, rather than an application of biological insights to politics. Author differentiate successful application of the punctuated equilibrium in the description of the policy process from the explanation of Baumgartner and Jones about how those identified patterns in modern democracies were caused.

Łącząc inkrementalizm ze zmianą polityczną. Teoria przerywanej równowagi w naukach o polityce

Celem artykułu jest wyjaśnienie aktualnej definicji i pozycji teorii przerywanej równowagi, która jest jednym z najbardziej wpływowych podejść badawczych dotyczących procesu politycznego w naukach o polityce, stymulując koncepcje i badania przez ostatnie dwie dekady. Baumgartner i Jones inkorporowali pojęcie z badań nad ewolucją gatunków, ale – jak wskazuje autor artykułu – pozbawiając go pierwotnej operacjonalizacji, zamieniając w metaforę o bardziej pedagogicznym walorze.
Autor wyjaśnia, jak teoria przerywanej równowagi jest przydatna w analizie zmiany politycznej w systemach politycznych innych niż Stany Zjednoczone, ale w europejskich systemach politycznych konieczne jest uwzględnienie roli partii politycznych i ich preferencji. Zaprezentowano także, jak teoria jest faktycznie raczej znacznie poprawioną wersją teorii inkrementalizmu niż wykorzystaniem dorobku biologii w polityce. Autor odróżnia także pełną sukcesów aplikację teorii, która opisuje rzeczywistość procesu politycznego, od wyjaśnień i związków przyczynowych, które zdaniem Baumgartnera i Jonesa taki przebieg procesu zdeterminowały.

BIBLIOGRAFIA:

• Baumgartner F., Breunig C., Green-Pedersen C., Jones B., Mortensen P., Nuytemans M., Walgrave S. (2009). Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective. “American Journal of Political Science” 53 (3).
• Baumgartner F., Jones B. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Baumgartner F., Jones B. (2002). Positive and Negative Feedback in Politics. [in:] Policy Dynamics. F. Baumgartner, B. Jones (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Baumgartner F., Jones B. (2009). Agendas and Instability in American Politics (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Breunig C., Koski C. (2006). Punctuated Equilibria and Budgets in American States. “Policy Studies Journal” 34 (3).
• Cairney P. (2012). Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. Edinburgh: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Cashore B., Howlett M. (2007). Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry. “American Journal of Political Science” 51 (3).
• Dahl R., Lindblom C. (1953). Politics, Economics, and Welfare. New York: Harper & Brothers.
• Davis O., Dempster M., Wildavsky A. (1966). A Theory of the Budgetary Process. “The American Political Science Review” 60 (3).
• Davis O., Dempster M., Wildavsky A. (1974). Towards a Predictive Theory of Government Expenditure: U.S. Domestic Appropriations. “British Journal of Political Science” 4.
• Givel M. (2010). The Evolution of the Theoretical Foundations of Punctuated Equilibrium Theory in Public Policy. “Review of Policy Research” 27 (2).
• Heclo H. (1978). Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. [in:] The New American Political System. A. King (ed.). Washington: American Enterprise Institute.
• Howlett M., Migone A. (2011). Charles Lindblom is Alive and Well and Living in Punctuated Equilibrium Land. “Policy and Society” 30.
• Jones B. (1994). Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Jones B. (2001). Politics and the Architecture of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Jones B., Baumgartner F. (2005). The Politics of Attention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Jones B., Sulkin T., Larsen H. (2003). Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions. “American Political Science Review” 97.
• Kingdon J. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. London: Longman.
• Marsh D., Rhodes R. (1992). Policy Communities and Issue Networks: Beyond Typology. [in:] Policy Networks in British Government. D. Marsh, R. Rhodes (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nowak E. (2014). Ustanawianie agendy politycznej (policy agenda-setting) jako nurt badań politologicznych. “Athenaeum. Polskie Studia Politologiczne” 43.
• Prindle D. (2012). Importing Concepts from Biology into Political Science: The Case of Punctuated Equilibrium. “The Policy Studies Journal” 40 (1).
• Repetto R. (2006). Introduction. [in:] Punctuated Equilibrium and the Dynamics of U.S. Environmental Policy, R. Repetto (ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Simon H.A. (1957). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. [in:] Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting.
• A. Simon (ed.). New York: Wiley. Simon H.A. (1991). Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. “Organization Science” 2 (1).
• True J., Jones B., Baumgartner F. (2007). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. [in:] Theories of the Policy Process. P. Sabatier (ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.
• Walgrave S., Varone F. (2008). Punctuated Equilibrium and Agenda-Setting: Bringing Parties Back in: Policy Change After the Dutroux Crisis in Belgium. “Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions” 21 (3).
• Walgrave S., Varone F., Dumont P. (2006). Policy With or Without Parties? A Comparative Analysis of Policy Priorities and Policy Change in Belgium, 1991 to 2000. “Journal of European Public Policy” 13 (7).
• Wildavsky A. (1964). The Politics of Budgetary Process. Boston: Little Brown.
• Wood R.S. (2006). The Dynamics of Incrementalism: Subsystems, Politics, and Public Lands. “Policy Studies Journal” 34 (1).
• Worsham J. (1998). Wavering Equilibriums. Subsystem Dynamics and Agenda Control. “American Politics Research” 26 (4).