1

Rethinking Policy Pilots in the 21st Century

As we navigate progress in the 21st Century, we must learn to see

policymaking as adaptive—more like gardening: muddy, attentive, and
experiential, because we really do not know what growing conditions
will prevail.
—Creating Adaptive Policies (Swanson and Bhadwal 2009)

Building a Case for Policy Experimentation and Piloting

Designing pilots is a common form of policy experimentation that allows
policy designs to be pretested before launching these on a wide scale. While
in theory, policy piloting is suggested as a promising means to innovate
and prepare for a range of anticipated and unanticipated changes in the
future policy context, its application in practice remains under-examined.
Formulating alternative policy designs can also aid in responding to some
unprecedented policy challenges of the 21st Century, be it climate change,
emergence of disruptive technologies, and more recently, the COVID-19
pandemic. Despite their technical merit, pilots—just as regular policies—are
prone to political influences, which can alter their expected performance on
implementation. This is then an interesting point of departure from a common
sentiment, ‘When in doubt, just pilot’. Studying the design features of pilots
and their outcomes in terms of how they translate into policies (or not) is thus
of value to advance the literature on policy formulation and forms the focus of
this book. On the cover of this book is a patchwork of diverse shapes, patterns
and textures, intended as a visual metaphor for pilots of various forms being
interspersed with routine policymaking.
While policy uncertainty is often ascribed to lack of accurate or complete
information about future policy context, the available information is also
prone to multiple interpretations and diverse perspectives of decision-makers
( Jones and Baumgartner 2005; Koopenjan and Klijn 2004; Morgan, Henrion,
and Small 1990). Current policy strategies designed to deal with anticipated
1
 rethinking policy piloting

future changes may also not continue to remain effective in the long term
(Swanson and Bhadwal 2009). Some errors in designing policies may only
become apparent in the implementation stage. Policymakers thus need to
operate as ‘continuous policy-fixers’ (Ingraham 1987). This idea resonates with
the concept of adaptive policymaking that emphasizes on the policymakers’
role in appropriately adapting policies in response to changing policy context
over time (Swanson and Bhadwal 2009).
Governments can address uncertainty in the policy context by continually
monitoring current policies and learning from policy experimentation (Shipan
and Volden 2012). The term ‘policy experimentation’ can be defined as a process
of testing specific policy designs at a microscale to validate their potential
as effective solutions to specific policy problems (Van der Heijden 2015).
Policy experiments are marked by their temporary and controlled nature
and intended to produce evidence for future policy decisions (Huitema et al.
2018). There is intentionality in trying out different methods and processes to
identify innovative solutions to predefined policy problems or those that come
to fore during the experimental phase. The intended goal of the experiment
itself is to introduce these solutions to official policymaking (Heilmann 2007).
Pilots can be considered as an advanced form of experimentation and involve
gradual introduction of policy initiatives to have these ‘tested, evaluated, and
adjusted’ prior to being launched fully ( Jowell 2003).
While examples of piloting at the micro level such as those initiated
in a small geographical unit with an objective to scale up are commonly
encountered in the literature on policy experimentation and piloting,
empirical evidence on piloting on a wider scale such as the national level is
scanty in comparison. In specifically covering national-level pilots, this book
explores the forms in which pilots and their outcomes can be manifested.
Intending to provide insights about future piloting, the key question under
investigation is: How do design features of pilots influence their diffusion?
Following Vreugdenhil, Taljaard and Slinger (2012), the term ‘diffusion’
captures expansion of the pilot beyond its original scale and moves from
simple replication to full institutionalization into new or ongoing policies.
A case-based approach is chosen to answer this question as pilots are driven
by the context in which they arise. The cases chosen are agriculture policy
pilots that have been launched by the Government of India to address diverse
risks and uncertainties to agriculture production owing to biophysical, socio-
economic and institutional changes affecting the sector. While the discussion
in this book focuses on Indian agriculture, the readers are encouraged to think
about the applicability of these insights to other agrarian countries and sectors
facing high uncertainties in the future policy context.
2
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

The agriculture sector is chosen for analysis as globally it faces the massive
task of not only providing nutritious food to over 9 billion people by 2050 but
also sustaining its viability as the primary source of income for agricultural
producers and workers as well as agriculture-based economies. Sustaining
agriculture is critical, especially as the sector struggles to maintain and improve
agricultural productivity amidst challenges such as changes in the weather and
climate patterns, pest and disease patterns, declining soil productivity, increase
in food demand, changing food patterns and farmers moving out of agriculture.
Climate variability and change is affecting agricultural production in several
developing and least-developed agrarian economies of Asia in particular,
with a high dependence on the sector for livelihoods and sustenance. While
current changes in the climate are affecting agriculture systems, the likelihood
of non-linear changes in the future and their limited predictability owing
to uncertainties in the climate system cannot be ignored (Field et al. 2014).
Institutions in agrarian developing countries such as India further grapple to
adequately support large number of farmers through safety nets to maintain
incomes during times of crop loss and distress.
The motivation for this book was a collaborative research project on Creating
Adaptive Policies (Swanson and Bhadwal 2009) that I was part of. Among its
many insights for dealing with uncertainties in the future policy context, the
project identified policy experimentation as a tool for allowing variation in
policy responses to help policies become adaptive and flexible to deal with
uncertainties in the future policy context. The project examined policies from
the agriculture sector in India and Canada to investigate how policymakers
typically responded to a host of anticipated and unanticipated changes in
the future policy context. Under conditions of uncertainty, policymakers may
choose to continue with business as usual or experiment with new strategies
to prepare for alternative futures. While this sounds rational, planning for
a future that is very different from the present is hard to imagine or even
accept and presents its own set of challenges, be it at the policymakers’ level
or the community level. I recall the puzzled look on the faces of farmers in a
drought-prone part of Allahabad district during one of my field visits trying to
explain to them scenarios of change in water availability in the district for the
next 20 to 50 years based on hydrological modelling, indicating reduced flows
of water in the district, as they watched a fast-flowing river stream nearby.
In about a decade of my research engagement with policymakers in India
since the start of the Adaptive Policies project (Swanson and Bhadwal 2009)
in 2004, I had the opportunity to closely observe the development of a few
important policy initiatives by the Ministry of Agriculture as well as some
State Agriculture Departments in India. This included the development of
3
 rethinking policy piloting

India’s first National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture, National Action

Plan on Climate Change, and state-level action plans on climate change
and environmental policy for a few agrarian states. These experiences fuelled
my curiosity in trying to understand how policymakers navigate risks and
uncertainties, and continue routine policymaking in a sensitive and dynamic
sector such as agriculture in terms of the sector’s importance to the national
economy and vulnerability to various shocks and stresses and the role of policy
experimentation and piloting therein.
The literature in policy sciences is divided in terms of considering
experimentation as a research method or as an ‘approach to governing’
(Huitema et al. 2018). Policy experimentation as an approach is different
from experimentation as a method because often the political practices of
governments involved in these experiments cannot be equated to the usual
components of an experiment, such as having a hypothesis that can be tested
through repeated trials, control groups, and randomization. Instead, the
experimental aspect of the former lies in the uncertainty of its applicability
to the policy problem and context of implementation and is not limited to
knowledge generation (but may well be a by-product of the experimental
process) (Anderson 1975) and the demonstration of the applicability of a
specific policy solution(s) and/or superiority of policy alternatives in addressing
a policy problem (Gardner 1995). As a method, experiments can be set as
Randomized Control Trials. As an approach, however, experiments such as
pilots do not necessarily consider a control group and allocation of people into
the pilot is not always random (Van Khanh and Sharon 2016).
Policy experiments have long served as a source of evidence for policymaking
across several countries and sectors such as education, healthcare, environment,
and social welfare among others (Bennion 2011), and generate new knowledge
for research and practice (Seyfang and Smith 2007; Hoffmann 2011; Cloutier
et al. 2015). Experimentation can help in the evaluation of impacts of new
initiatives such as subsidies and incentive programmes (Stromsdorfer 1985;
Bevir 2009; Sovacool 2012; Martin and Sanderson 1999) and technological
innovations in response to specific policy challenges such as climate change
(Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013). Experiments can also help in transitions
to explore pathways for change to routine policy goals and implementation
(Meadowcroft 2009; Farrelly and Brown 2011). Transitioning to new policy
goals such as enhanced sustainability goals can involve experimentation with
alternative means towards achieving sustainable futures. These experiments
have the ability to change existing policy regimes when the opportunity so
arises (Bettini et al. 2015). Policy experiments can also promote learning and
4
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

adaptive policy response based on experience gained over time (Swanson et

al. 2010). By generating learning outcomes and policy-relevant information,
policy experiments can help deal with the uncertainty and complexity within
which policy decisions are undertaken (McFadgen 2012).

Pilots: A Special Form of Policy Experimentation

Of the many interesting conversations with policymakers for this research,
I recall occasionally encountering the reaction ‘it is not an experiment, it is
a pilot’. It made me contemplate whether the word ‘pilot’ presented a more
palatable form of experimentation as understood in policy theory and thus
found more resonance with policymakers—perhaps as it suggests something
more actionable and scalable. In terms of policy process, pilots can be situated
between policy formulation and policy implementation. As part of policy
formulation, pilots enable evidence gathering to inform policy or validate
assumptions. Additionally, piloting does implement something, albeit limited
in spatial and temporal scope. In that sense, it is not surprising that piloting
is not different from time and space delimited policies (the policies limited
by their temporal and spatial scale of implementation) (Ettelt, Mays, and
Allen 2014; Ettelt and Mays 2015). Compared to routine policies, however,
pilots reflect more ambiguity and conflict around their conception and
implementation (Bailey et al. 2017). Making a distinction between experiments
and pilot initiatives, Rondinelli states that by testing the ‘applicability,
feasibility, and acceptability of innovations’ in new environments, pilots help
in expanding these beyond the experimental stage (1993). In general, the
terms ‘experiments’ and ‘pilots’ are found to be used interchangeably many
a times. Proper sequencing is also not apparent in practice in viewing pilot
and experiment as two separate policy forms (experiment only, pilot directly
without experiment, experiment leading into pilot, etc.).
Pilots are considered useful in providing insights for dealing with complex
policy issues and high uncertainty (Vreugdenhil et al. 2010). Pilots can be
deployed by governments to pretest future programmes and policies for their
likely impacts and the process of implementation and stakeholder acceptability
prior to launching these fully or on a large–scale (Nair and Vreugdenhil 2015).
Projects launched in a pilot mode are instrumental for testing new programmes
on a ‘controlled small-scale’ before introducing full-scale programmes (Weiss
1975; Swanson and Bhadwal 2009). These projects can help uncover and correct
operational challenges before national implementation (Harrar and Lee Bawden
1972). Learning through experimentation can often occur in a trial and error

5
 rethinking policy piloting

fashion with little knowledge cumulation that is followed by policy improvement.

This is often attributable to the constant movement of senior policymakers
across administrations with changes in parties in power (Pyle 1980; Peters 1998).
Similarly, while pilots form a useful means to investigate gaps, this intended
purpose is not met if errors or gaps identified in the pilot phase are not corrected
before scaling up of these pilots (K’Akumu and Appida 2006).
Though piloting can offer a policy learning mechanism through its
evaluation, in practice not all pilots are formally evaluated (Ettelt, Mays,
and Allen 2014). Unlike impact assessments and other ex-ante evaluative
methods that are formally mandated in many countries before projects can
be undertaken or policies formulated, pilot projects are characterized by their
large degree of freedom both in terms of who uses them and for which purpose
(Nair and Vreugdenhil 2015). The discussion of piloting in this book is nested
in the literature on policy experimentation. Pilots here are understood as a
form of governance experimentation initiated by national and sub-national
governmental agencies (Nair and Howlett 2018). In this book, while both the
terms—experiments and pilots—come up repeatedly, readers are reminded to
note that an experiment may essentially indicate a less formal, more unstable
and nascent strategy or idea that may or may not go on to become a pilot. In
addition, a pilot can be considered a more advanced, formal and intentional
form of experimentation to gauge not only whether things will work, but more
importantly, how they will work.
Launching programmes as pilots appears rather logical in large countries
with multiple levels of government such as in a federal set-up to reduce policy
risk by avoiding one-time full-scale implementation and facilitate any policy
learning. Sub-national governments here become laboratories for the national
government (Lee, Ma, and Zhou 2017). Asian countries are typically seen to
deploy policy pilots for broaching comprehensive ideas than narrowly defined
ones. A key question for those designing policy pilots and experiments though
pertains to the amount of usable knowledge that they can produce (Ko and
Shin 2017).
Some scholars have classified pilots in different ways depending on
the its intended purpose. To some extent, these classifications hint towards
the overlapping nature of technical and political aspects of designing and
implementing a pilot. Impact pilots can evaluate the likely effects of new
policies, measuring early outcomes as compared to a control population.
Process pilots on the other hand aim at assessing the practical aspects of policy
implementation, to gauge the delivery mechanisms or in terms of what’s cost-
effective ( Jowell 2003). In a study from England, well known for conducting
routine policy pilots, (Ettelt, Mays, and Allen 2014) summarize four purposes
6
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

of pilots. This includes (a) piloting for testing if the policy can reach intended
objectives in cost-effective ways, (b) pioneering or acting as an early form of a
new policy with the intention of national roll-out and policy mainstreaming,
(c) demonstrating policy success in selected sites with the capacity and aptitude
for it for others to emulate, and (d) finally acting as ‘trailblazers’ for constant
learning and development specifically with regard to policy operationalization,
understanding barriers, and improving the implementation process when the
full policy is launched. In another study in England, Martin and Sanderson
observed that pilots were used to identify ‘trail blazing local authorities’ and
share good practices rather than to inform policy change (1999). In this
sense, the pilots became an exercise in early implementation rather than an
opportunity to review the appropriateness of the policy.
Similarly, Vreugdenhil et al. also identify three types of pilots based on their
purpose (2010): Firstly, research pilots that focus on knowledge generation,
either to test innovations and improve them or evaluate policies that are
already underway. This links with evidence-based policy literature. Secondly,
management pilots can be used to start a dialogue between multiple stakeholders
similar to multi-stakeholder deliberation (Swanson et al. 2010) to solve existing
policy issues when current tools are inadequate or there is no consensus on
them. The idea is to increase acceptance of the solutions and reduce the risk of
failure. Thirdly, the less evident category of political-entrepreneurial pilots that
can be used to influence policymaking for personal or strategic reasons. This
links to the political-versus-technical aspects of piloting discussed later in this
chapter. McFadgen and Huitema further segregate experiments as technocratic
and involved in ‘fact-finding’ or knowledge generation, focusing on an objective
of having experimental findings masked from political influences, boundary
experiments where policy solutions are developed considering multiple
stakeholder value propositions, and advocacy experiments for generating evidence
to support predetermined policy stances (2017). As per these categorizations,
the cases studied in this book broadly resemble the characteristics of process
pilots though their specific purposes exhibit a wide range.
With constant monitoring, much can be learnt from conducting an
experiment in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of its design and
collaboration between those who design, implement, and benefit from the
experiment. In some cases, there is a clear intent to experiment and to learn
from it while in others there is an attempt to get it right the first time and
maintain the programme if it is right, or at least ‘good enough’ (Peters 1998).
The idea of creating experiments to generate policy learning shows that the link
between experiments and policy can be either direct wherein implementation
was done purposefully by policymakers or indirect wherein results of the
7
 rethinking policy piloting

experiments ultimately inform decisions on policy options (McFadgen and

Huitema 2017). This coincides with Campbell’s (1969) idea that policymakers
have a stake in policy direction even while experimenting given the investment
of political capital that goes with an experiment as with any full policy.
For bureaucrats, piloting might be an opportunity to initiate policy
change, demonstrate implementation of specific policy strategies, and gain
accolades. In the context of politics of climate initiatives and experiments
for decarbonization for example, Bernstein and Hoffmann caution that
experiments may also become a reason to lock in favourable policies (2018).
Researchers on the other hand often consider pilots as a chance for rigorous
experimentation with policy design with the intention of establishing
whether it is more effective than the incumbent or previous ones. These
purposes can coexist, often unknowingly, which could cause issues in
determining the aims and objectives of national evaluation and to do an
appropriate research design (Ettelt and Mays 2015). Policymakers generally
want to steer clear from accusations of error of judgement; thus, despite
impending uncertainty about the effectiveness of a programme, it cannot be
openly acknowledged and policy experiments can rarely (if at all) be seen as
a failure (Howlett 2012). The essence of the search for solutions to a policy
problem thus entails discovering not only which actions are technically
capable of addressing or correcting a problem but also which among these
is considered politically acceptable and administratively feasible (Howlett
et al. 2009).
Formal review of routine policies can provide a sheltered space in which to
pilot-test specific policy instruments and learn lessons with regard to intended
outcomes and improvements in implementation (Tomar and Swanson 2009).
Some scholars argue that pilots should continue even after scaling up and
diffusion as findings during their short-run may or may not corroborate with
long-term impacts thus running the risk of giving preterm or misleading results
(Breckon 2015). Proper evaluation of experimental initiatives free of political
influences is thus pivotal (Hildén, Jordan, and Huitema 2017). Labelling new
projects and ideas as pilots could also help in shielding them from any political
opposition. This is another demonstration of the high level of intentionality in
making pilots work (Farrelly and Brown 2011; Tassey 2013). While this works
well for much-needed policy reforms in the right direction, it leaves much
room for political manoeuvring to various extents. Making pilots work thus
requires a form of entrepreneurship and creativity on the part of policymakers
(Bailey et al. 2017).

8
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

Agricultural Policymaking: A Testbed for Experimentation

For long-term policies related to the environment including the agriculture sector,
policymakers grapple with uncertainties in the policy-formulation stage owing to
a lack of complete understanding of the biophysical and social systems affecting
and being affected ( Jänicke and Jörgens 2000). Agriculture sector is one where
experiments and pilots abound and there is a huge scope and necessity for trying
out new models and new strategies for improving the productivity of the sector. In
Indian agriculture, experimentation conducted as a method has commonly been
seen. For example, those to test farmer attitudes towards risk (Binswanger 1980),
success of social assistance via pension schemes for agricultural workers (Gulati
1990), behavioural aspects of agriculture microcredit schemes (Bauer, Chytilová,
and Morduch 2012), and application of information and communications
technology to improve agricultural market efficiency (Parker, Ramdas, and Savva
2016) among others. As an approach to governance, there are several pilots that
have been launched at the state level in India including those being implemented
in partnership with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector,
research institutes and development agencies. These vary along several dimensions
and are often tightly controlled by state budgets and earmarked for time-bound
priority areas making their comparison rather difficult.
The role of India in contributing to world agriculture and food security
is significant with the country being the largest producer of pulses (25 per
cent of global production), the largest producer of milk and the second-largest
producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, cotton, and groundnuts as well as fruits and
vegetables globally.1 India has the largest land area under rainfed agriculture
(two-thirds of the total cultivated area) in the world but still ranks among
the lowest in terms of agricultural yields. Agriculture in rainfed areas in India
faces production risks associated with the changes in the amount and timing
of rainfall, temperature, and extreme events such as droughts and floods.
Furthermore, rainfed agriculture also suffers from decreasing soil productivity,
poor socio-economic status of the farmers, and land fragmentation (GOI
2011). What makes India an interesting case to study is also the fact that 70
per cent of its rural households are dependent on agriculture for livelihoods, of
which 82 per cent comprises small and marginal farmers.2 Small and marginal
farmers are highly risk-prone because of their high dependence on rainfed
agriculture and lack of proper assets and resource base for investments in
agriculture including irrigation facilities and mechanization and low capacities
to respond to and recover from years of poor crop yields.
While many risk management strategies can be undertaken by farmers
and farmer groups at the individual or community level informally, this book

9
 rethinking policy piloting

focuses on policy initiatives that are publicly provided by governments and/

or are market-driven (World Bank 2005). Nair (2019) presents a conceptual
framework to consider a range of pilots as responses designed in proportion
to the current or expected change in the policy context and operationalizes
it using the example of the agriculture sector and production risks due to
changes in climatic conditions. At low levels of change in climatic variables,
for example, responses could include small adjustments to regular land
and water management techniques to maintain or increase agricultural
productivity and efficiency of using inputs, thereby allowing marginal
adaptation to changes in the climate. These activities can be experimental
and small-scale with changes to farm-level inputs including water, energy,
and organic matter.
Pilots can also be designed to deal with sudden changes in the policy
context and deployed rather quickly with the objective of reducing or spreading
the risk to cope with the rapid change. An example of such a policy response
introduced to reduce the impact and hedge risk caused by a sudden change in
climatic variables, such as temperature extremes and untimely heavy rainfall,
includes risk-hedging pilots such as crop and weather-based insurance. Other
strategies can include loan pay-outs for farmers to substitute the impact on
farm-based incomes due to crop loss and raising Minimum Support Prices
for procurement of grains by the central government. These strategies are
essentially designed for the short-term and thus temporarily deployed as a
supplement to other ongoing schemes.
The data in this book is drawn from consultations and interviews
conducted between 2014–16 and analysis of policy documents relevant
to agriculture policy pilots in India. The consultations and interviews were
conducted with national and state government officials in key agrarian states
of India, researchers from national and international agricultural research
institutes in India, and international donor agencies involved with the design,
implementation, and/or evaluation of the pilot. These interactions and analysis
of policy documents were used to generate descriptive narratives of the selected
cases (discussed in Chapters 2 and 3).
Following Hoffmann’s (2011) argument that examining individual
experimental efforts may not be able to capture system-level characteristics
that are ‘emergent’ in nature, the analysis in this book studies design features
of pilots as a collective as well in a bid to better understand those that are
associated with higher levels of diffusion. Specific design features of selected
pilots are compared using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (discussed in
Chapter 4).

10
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

Contribution to Policy Literature

The discussion in this book aims to advance current literature on policy
formulation under uncertainty by studying the role of pilots in yielding
alternative policy options for addressing agricultural risk management,
potentially leading to a change in ongoing policies. Policy literature remains
rather inconclusive as to whether policymakers deploy experiments and
pilots to make incremental changes to existing strategies or use these as an
opportunity to innovate, take risks, and initiate major policy reforms.
A model is proposed to study cases of pilots by combining theoretical
insights on design characteristics of policy experiments and pilots and
possible new policy configurations that these could give rise to. From the
literature on policy experiments and pilots, certain factors that are found to
influence their outcomes in terms of their translation into policy are distilled.
This theoretical model is tested against 13 agricultural policy pilots in India
to understand how design characteristics of policy pilots affect their diffusion
and ascertain combinations of conditions that associate with high diffusion.
This book does not intend to evaluate the pilots and their effectiveness.
Rather it seeks to derive logic from otherwise sporadically occurring pilot
initiatives in terms of their initiation, development, and outcomes. Some
questions that helped structure the discussion in this book were: Why are
some schemes picked up while others are let go of ? Why do some seemingly
futile pilots still continue? Why are business-as-usual programmes
launched as pilots while they do not seem to break any new ground? When
and how does the government engage with non-governmental partners
and what role do these partnerships play in governing a pilot’s outcome?
Does policy change and end of piloting typically coincide and what logical
conclusions could be drawn from the experience of multiple policy pilots in
Indian agriculture? In seeking to answer these questions, this book is one
of the few in the comparative analysis of policy pilots studying their design
features. The book also adds empirical evidence to the scanty literature
from Asia on policy experimentation and piloting. The studies including
pilot evaluations on this topic to date have largely been limited to North
America and Europe.
This book is targeted at policy researchers and students at masters and
doctoral levels interested in studying policy experimentation and piloting and
policy formulation in Indian agriculture specifically. In general, the insights
from this research can be extended and adapted to a wide range of social and
environmental policy areas and sectors facing high uncertainty in the policy
context, such as water resources, healthcare, energy, social security, transport,

11
 rethinking policy piloting

housing, information technology and education among others across different

countries that have a federal governance structure.
Researchers and students would find the following insights useful for
related research:
1. What are the forms of diffusion and policy integration of pilots?
2. How can design features and diffusion of pilots be conceptualized
and operationalized?
3. What are some examples of pilots in Indian agriculture?
4. Is there a mismatch between experimentation and piloting in theory
versus practice?
Some of the discussion may also find equal resonance with both
governmental and non-governmental agencies who are involved in the design
and implementation of policy pilots. Specifically, insights on the following
would be useful:
1. How can pilots be used as a tool for risk management in the agriculture
sector?
2. What are some key design features of policy pilots in the agriculture
sector?
3. How do pilots integrate into routine policymaking (if at all)?
4. What are the opportunities and challenges for policy piloting in a
federal governance structure?

Diffusion of Policy Pilots

This section focuses on diffusion of a pilot- both as a process and as an
outcome and factors that can influence this diffusion. The outcomes of policy
pilots can be defined in many ways. In terms of uptake of a pilot, Van Buuren
et al. (2018) draw attention to gauging outcomes of a pilot in terms of its
integration within an ongoing policy regime. The word ‘upscaling’ or ‘scaling
up’ is commonly encountered in evaluating the outcomes of an experiment or
pilot. This mostly includes expansion of the pilot to reach more beneficiaries,
increasing the scope of the pilot, influencing the political agenda and
institutional frameworks and increasing capacity of organizations for the
diffusion of the pilot and implementation (Uvin 1995). Scaling up can be
considered as expansion, replication, adaptation, and sustaining of the pilot
over space and time to reach a higher number of beneficiaries (Hartmann and
Linn 2007; van Doren et al. 2018).

12
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

Pilots can diffuse or continue via initiation of new pilot projects or

management projects or scaling up that involves the original pilot turning
into an expanded pilot or management project or policy institutionalization,
that is, inclusion of the pilot into routine policymaking, for instance in a policy
or the formalization of a cooperation structure (Figure 1.1). The empirical
evidence on the characteristics of such pilots and the process of their diffusion
is, however, lacking (Vreugdenhil et al. 2010; Vreugdenhil, Taljaard, and
Slinger 2012). As the pilot scales-up with the addition of more elements, the
original pilot form ceases to exist (van Winden and van den Buuse 2017) at
least in theory. This theoretical classification of outcomes of a pilot is utilized
in this book and operationalized with selected cases from India. Scaling up is
subsumed within the diffusion process here.

Figure 1.1 Diffusion of Policy Pilots

Pilot Project Pilot Project Pilot Project

Management
project

Expanded Pilot/
Full-scale
management
project

Scaling-up

Policy

Source: Redrawn by the author from Vreugdenhil et al. (2012).

Scaling up can involve ‘expanding impact’apart from ‘becoming large’(Bloom

and Ainsworth 2010). Beyond physical expansion, the idea tested by a pilot
13
 rethinking policy piloting

can also bring about changes to an ongoing policy regime. More actors, policy
components and administrative layers are added as pilots scale up, increasing the
scope and thereby complexity of the pilot (Vreugdenhil et al. 2010). Scaling up
of pilots and experiments to benefit national-scale programmes has not received
much attention (Simmons, Fajans, and Ghiron 2007). National-government
driven scaling up holds importance to respond to issues such as climate change,
wherein policy initiatives begin with a broad strategic direction and overarching
principles that are dissected into specific measures such as carbon emissions
control also referred to as ‘scaling-down’ (Wellstead et al. 2016).
In this book, the term ‘scaling up’ is used to study the evolution of national
policy pilots as the process behind the diffusion of pilots remains the same in
terms of moving from small-scale to reach the national scale, even those that
are top-down in terms of how this navigation is supported and steered by
national governments instead of sub-national or non-governmental agencies.
Appadurai et al. 2015 terms this form of movement of pilots as ‘centralized
scaling’ involving horizontal and vertical spread and uptake of the pilot, as
depicted in Figure 1.2. Herein a pilot (A1) is launched by the government to
be implemented in the selected pilot site(s) (B). Learning from the pilot could
bring about policy changes at the meso or sub-national level (C) ultimately also
influencing policy regime at the national level (A2). At the local level, the pilot
can continue to replicate (B1, B2, and B3) and potentially lead to changes in
national policymaking (A3). Glimpses of pilots following centralized scaling
pathways can be seen across different countries and different sectors.

Figure 1.2 Centralized Scaling Pathway

A1 A2 A3
NATIONAL
(impact on policles)

C
MESO
(impact on institutions)

B[Pilot] B1 B2 B3
LOCAL
(impact on livelihoods)

Source: Appadurai et al. (2015).

14
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

In response to a policy problem on the policymaker’s agenda comes the

stage of policy formulation that involves identifying and assessing possible
solutions or alternatives for addressing a problem (Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl
2009). While some policy alternatives might lead to a dramatic policy change,
others may be rather incremental, calling for only marginal adjustments to
existing policies and programmes (Majone 1991). Similarly, in terms of their
policy integration, outcomes of policy experiments and piloting may range
from incremental to radical or transformative changes to status quo, and
run into the same issues as do full policies (Nair and Howlett 2016). Under
conditions of high complexity and uncertainty, incremental approaches i.e.
adjusting along the margins of business-as-usual strategies are better able to
address political conflict and deploy policy responses to adapt to the problems
‘we know we have now’ and can control while ‘factoring in a margin for them
becoming worse’ (Heazle et al. 2013).
Hall’s (1993) work on policy dynamics and policy change remains the
most quoted piece of literature on studying policy change. Through a study of
economic policymaking in Britain, Hall identified three orders of changes, in
which policy goals, instrument type and calibrations of these instruments varied,
leading to extremes of changes to ongoing policies, ranging from incremental
to paradigmatic. Policy scholars in the last decade have drawn attention to the
perils of studying policy change as an aggregate variable limited to these three
orders. The argument being that such aggregation can lead to a rather myopic
view of the more complex and granular processes of policy change that may
go beyond the incremental change versus paradigmatic change classification
(Cashore and Howlett 2007). In the process of policy formulation unexpected
and unusual combinations of means (policy instruments) and end (policy
goals) related components can arise (Thelen 2004; Hacker 2004; Béland
2007). Furthermore, means-related changes may occur in the absence of
corresponding shifts to policy aims and conversely ends may change without
any alterations to means of achieving them (Kern and Howlett 2009; Cashore
and Howlett 2007). When such novel policy configurations emerge, these
can often be unexpected and deviant from standard practice in terms of their
outcomes and effectiveness in meeting intended goals (Wilder and Howlett
2014). Glimpses of such unique configurational arrangements are seen in the
descriptive narratives of the cases of pilots studied in this book (discussed in
Chapter 3 and 4).
Policy strategies under uncertainty can also include innovations that
aim at increasing efficiency or performance even under low levels of change
in the current policy’s context. These are undertaken as an anticipatory and
preparatory step to plausible expected changes in the future policy context
15
 rethinking policy piloting

(Nair 2019). Several research institutes in India and in other agrarian parts of
the world are developing new crop varieties that are found to be tolerant to
extreme variations in climate variables such as rainfall and temperature. Many
of these pilots have, however, found success only at a village scale and may
involve radical changes to status quo policies including agriculture value chains
and market structures when scaled up. The design of such proactive pilots,
however, depends on existing capacities of the implementing governments
and their willingness to invest in innovation ahead of time, even when the
current policy context has not yet started changing.
Incremental changes form a realistic and fruitful method of policy change
when policymakers encounter difficulties in identifying and assessing future
policy challenges and pitfalls (Lindblom 1959). Incrementalism, however,
has been criticized for lacking a clear goal orientation and being inherently
conservative to large-scale change or innovation, top-down, promoting short-
sighted solutions due to lack of systematic analysis and mostly applicable in
stable political environments (Hayes 2013). Incremental strategies may also not
always be able to deal with unexpected non-linear changes in future conditions
affecting policy performance (Roggema, Vermeend, and Dobbelsteen 2012).
Another strand of literature on experimentation draws attention to
the process of experimental policy design, including the role of various
stakeholders compared to the earlier works that focused more on the
content of the experiments itself (Van der Heijden 2013). Also referred to
as ‘experimentalist governance’, it is an iterative process of setting provisional
goals with the intention of updating them based on the learning derived from
trying out alternate ways towards achieving the intended goals in different
contexts (Sabel and Zeitlin 2012).
Corrections to ongoing policies might often be limited to suggesting the
need for better clarity of goal in the original policy programme even after it
has been fully implemented. Consequently, such evaluation findings might
sometimes refine or reshape the goals, and these might only have limited
semblance to the original policy goals and objectives (Ingraham 1987). When
a specific policy problem is politically sensitive, and there is uncertainty about
the nature of the policy problem and the potential effects of policy decisions
around it, policymakers tend to innovate along the way with corrections
occurring in the implementation stage with little planning in the initial stages
(Deyle 1994).
Even after the launch of an experiment, corrective back iterations
into the experimental design can continuously occur, especially when the
experiment was a failure in practice or was not completely institutionalized
(Wilder and Howlett 2014). Lack of institutionalization implies that the
16
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

experiment or pilot has not been mainstreamed into ongoing policies during
the policy formulation process (Vreugdenhil, Taljaard, and Slinger 2012).
Institutionalization brings the experiment to everyone’s attention and ensures
resource allocation and stability. In the process, however, institutionalization
could also standardize the experiment’s original flexible design, running the
risk of becoming too rigid to change (Frantzeskaki et al. 2010).
While studying the diffusion of pilots, researchers should be mindful of
the push and pull between political and technical factors. In different contexts,
certain factors may assume a stronger position and in turn influence the overall
diffusion patterns of the pilot. Spicer et al. argue that ‘scaling up is a craft, not a
science’ alluding to the predominant political nature of the activity compared to its
technical aspects (2014). Experiments that are exploratory in nature, with modest
aspirations as tools to indicate the need for policy change rather than effecting
change themselves, are often found to gain more traction politically (Huitema et
al. 2018). Use of experiments to intentionally lead to large-scale political changes
are less commonly seen than those implemented for fine-tuning technical aspects
(Boeckmann 1976). Continuation and expansion of policy pilots can also be
stalled in case there is widespread opposition from key stakeholders (Vreugdenhil
et al. 2010). Political pressure can also hasten the process of evaluation of pilots
in a bid to obtain ‘evidential support’ for the implementation of certain decisions
(Sanderson 2002; van Buuren and Loorbach 2009).
Majumdar and Mukand (2004) modelled the impact of electoral
liabilities on a government’s decision to learn through policy experimentation
and argued that new governments may either tend to openly experiment
with new policies or be conservative by not altering the status quo. In either
case, however, over time, most governments are conscious of their reputation
via the performance of policies attributable to their tenure and thus exercise
caution in experimentation that is likely to bring change to the status quo.
In a similar effort (Callander and Hummel 2014) modelled why long-term
policy preferences of policymakers are often contrary to rational expectations.
They found that though political power is held by policymakers temporarily,
they can extend their policy influence for a long time through pre-emptive
policy experimentation to alter the ‘informational environment of their
successors and ensure the longevity of their preferred policy choices. By the
time experiments start to produce evidence, the political landscape around
them may have changed. Experiments might thus only be remnants of the
prevailing political sentiments and thoughts of those in power during that
time (Huitema et al. 2018).
Policymakers can be challenged on account of overriding equity and
fairness concerns by investing resources only on certain sections of the
17
 rethinking policy piloting

society as part of an experiment (Stoker 2010). Who participates and who

is excluded from an experiment thus raises ethical questions (Chien 2019)
and affects the design of experiments. For governments, it may not be very
appealing to appear in a mode of active and ‘constant experimentation’ for
certain policy issues as it runs the risk of the public not taking the specific
programme seriously or trying to influence the outcomes to suit their
interests, especially if it calls for investments (Peters 1998). Even when
knowledge is available on a subject, policymakers may not be aware of it
and thus undertake decision-making on the basis of uninformed ignorance
rather than informed awareness. This becomes more complex as knowledge
of a subject or phenomenon is lacking. Decision-makers may be aware of
this knowledge gap and function with prudent awareness, or when they are
unaware of their ignorance, with a hubristic attitude of over-confidence
(Becker and Brownson 1964) (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 Policymaker’s Knowledge and Comprehension Matrix

Nature of Existing Collective Knowledge of a
Phenomenon
Aspects of a problem and Aspects are unknown
possible solutions are
known
Nature of Aware Known-Known: Known-Unknown:
decision- Key policy actors are Key policy actors
makers aware of the known are aware that
awareness aspects of a phenomena certain aspects of
of existing (INFORMED the phenomenon are
knowledge AWARENESS) unknown
of a (PRUDENT
phenomenon AWARENESS)
Ignorant Unknown-Known: Unknown-Unknown:
Key policy actors are Key policy actors
unaware of known are unaware that
aspects of a phenomenon certain aspects of
(UNINFORMED the phenomenon are
IGNORANCE) unknown
(IMPRUDENT
IGNORANCE)
Source: Becker and Brownson (1964).

18
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

Studying Design Features of Pilots

The outcomes of policy experiments and pilots are governed by an interplay of
several factors. Many factors influence the pilot dynamics, including specific
design features and the context in which it is launched. These factors can
reflect interests of stakeholders involved in the pilot that further influences
the availability of resources for scaling up, choice of the initial sites of piloting,
the mode of governance that in turn influences the nature of stakeholder
engagement and learning, convergence or divergence of the pilot from the
current policy context, and consideration of local conditions in the pilot
design among others (Vreugdenhil et al. 2009, 2012). It must be noted that
key features of the pilot remain at the risk of being lost in the process of
expansion, thereby impacting the replication of the results obtained from the
small-scale pilots (Simmons, Fajans, and Ghiron 2007).
Policy pilots usually operate for short period of time with one-time
evaluations to measure success (Stoker and John 2009). The factors leading
to the success of a pilot and links between the expansion of the pilot and
any policy change or transition are thus not well established, theoretically or
empirically, and often remain limited to ‘learning from failure’ (Vreugdenhil et
al. 2010). Lessons might indeed be one of the biggest contributions of failed
pilots (Mattingly 2008) and thus studying failed pilots are equally important
as the successful ones. Studying smart-city technology projects, van Winden
and van den Buuse argue that even in the absence of upscaling, pilots generate
lessons for future and may act as building blocks for more systemic changes
(2017). Some of the changes being pursued though may take time especially
when these involve changes to social, cultural, political, institutional, and
behavioural aspects.
Four factors are hypothesized to be causal conditions in influencing the
diffusion of these pilots as distilled from the literature on scaling up of policy
experiments and pilots. This includes (a) a vision for diffusion, (b) governance
of a pilot in terms of partners involved in the design and implementation, and
semblance of the pilot to an ongoing policy regime in terms of (c) semblance in
its policy goals or ends, and (d) semblance in its policy means or instruments.
It should be noted that while there are many conditions that can (or not)
influence diffusion of policy pilots, the conditions chosen to be investigated
further in this book are those that are understood to be very relevant for
piloting at a national scale. High diffusion refers to scaling up of the pilot and
potentially institutionalization into ongoing policies or development into a
new policy altogether.

19
 rethinking policy piloting

The theoretical rationale for selection of these conditions (design features

of the pilot) and the expected relationship between the outcome variable that
is the diffusion of pilots and the different causal conditions is discussed ahead
and again in Chapter 4. The four factors are identified as causal conditions
influencing the diffusion of pilots in general. Their directionality in leading
to high diffusion in the case of nationally driven pilots, however, may or may
not be as clearly established. A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
conducted in Chapter 4 gives insights into this dilemma.

Vision for Diffusion

A vision for diffusion is identified as an important factor for a pilot’s diffusion.
Pilots that are launched in small geographical units may or may not have
a set end target such as reaching the national scale or influencing national
policies and their experimental aspects focus on demonstrating success in
terms of achieving intended goals at the unit of piloting and then scaling up
if successful. Pilots that are promoted by national governments on the other
hand, could show a higher intentionality in scaling up to the national level,
often in terms of their geographical spread or influencing national policies, or
both. Similar to bottom-up pilots though, nationally promoted pilots also start
small and share the experimental aspect of demonstrating success at the site(s)
of piloting while considering national policy priorities adapted to reflect local
conditions on implementation (Wellstead et al. 2016).
Pilots that are found to operate well on a limited scale are often unable
to sustain a similar performance when expanded or replicated (Hartmann
and Linn 2007). Poor diffusion of pilots can be a result of a missing or poor
diffusion management strategy or if there is a lot of opposition from key
stakeholders. Initiators of pilots might assume a ‘wait and watch’ approach for
diffusion to happen organically. This could also indicate a lack of resources to
undertake diffusion (Vreugdenhil et al. 2010).
Clearly articulating what a pilot’s end goal would look like accompanied
by appropriate metrics and a plan of how it can be achieved can help a
pilot in achieving its intended impact (WHO 2011; Gillespie, Menon, and
Kennedy 2015). A vision of how to proceed and the appropriate scale of
intervention is important (Hartmann and Linn 2007). Many pilots fail to
sustain as they scale up as they do not account for the requirements of large-
scale implementation in their initial design (WHO 2011). A vision for the
pilot provides a foundation for policymakers and managers to determine
necessary institutional changes to facilitate scaling up (Bulthuis et al. 2020).

20
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

While flexibility in pilot design is desirable to some extent, flexible planning

differs from unspecific planning. In the former, objectives remain fixed while
the means to those ends are amenable to change. In unspecific cases, the
objectives themselves are left vague3 (Pyle 1980).
It is hypothesized that having a clear vision of the pilot in terms of its
intended end or goals and a plan to reach the same can lead to high diffusion.

Pilot’s Governance
Another important factor hypothesized to be influencing the diffusion
of pilots is the governance of the pilot in terms of partnerships with non-
governmental actors. Pilot projects can be used for multiple purposes by one
actor. Alternatively, different actors can use the same pilot differently (Ettelt,
Mays, and Allen 2014). The pilots considered in this book are national-level
pilots which may or may not have been launched in partnership with non-
governmental agencies in terms of design and implementation while the lead
authority for the pilot remains the central government.
Given these are pilots intended to scale up to the national level or
influence national policies, the governance structure for each pilot can be rather
complicated in terms of the stakeholders that are involved in the design as well
as the implementation of the pilot. There can be many stakeholders involved
in centrally initiated pilots. This partnership can be in terms of framing the
design and participating in the implementation of the pilot. The partners in
centrally driven pilots apart from state governments who implement them can
include non-governmental agencies such as NGOs, donor agencies, and the
private sector. These actors can be identified by the state or at the central level.
Similar to full policies being implemented at a national scale, pilots too are
bound by a tension between the concentration of the pilot’s governance with
central and state governments only in terms of their design and implementation
versus its flexibility in engaging non-governmental stakeholders. Participation
of a wide number of agencies in the pilot process is a key factor for the scaling
up of the pilot (Anyonge et al. 2001). Experiments that are designed for
exploring transition pathways, such as efforts towards enhanced sustainability
goals note the presence of a shared vision in a network of multiple actors as a
facilitating factor for diffusion (van den Heiligenberg et al. 2017). Partnerships
are important in terms of active engagement of multiple stakeholders and
ideas in implementation of the project (Hughes, Yordi, and Besco 2018), and
also to potentially share risks associated with the implementation of new ideas
(Timeus 2019).

21
 rethinking policy piloting

Much of the learning in pilot projects also occur through interaction

with actors apart from learning through the formal means of monitoring
and evaluation. Learning between stakeholders during the piloting
process is considered important for the sustenance of the pilot (Nair and
Vreugdenhil 2015).
While the governance of the pilot considered in terms of partnerships is an
important influencing factor for a pilot’s diffusion in general, its directionality
is ambiguous in relation to the pilots that are driven by central governments.
While the partnership with non-governmental agencies could be an avenue
for risk sharing, additional financing, and open more avenues for innovative
experimental models to emerge and successfully diffuse, central and state
control might also end up being adequate for national-level diffusion to occur
in some cases.

Semblance to Existing Policies: Pilot’s Ends (Goals)

Policy experiments and pilots can aid in the development of new policy
designs or building on earlier designs. Their scaling up, however, depends on
their outcome which are an indicator of their ‘fit to practice’ if these were to
be converted to policies (Howlett and Rayner 2013). Presence of supportive
policies (Hartmann and Linn 2007) being set within the current national
context (Anyonge et al. 2001) and compatibility of pilot’s outcomes with the
general direction of the incumbent policy regime (van Buuren et al. 2018) can
ensure a better fit. Pilots launched in federal set-ups are placed in a precarious
position of fulfilling broad goals identified nationally yet implemented sub-
nationally.
Pilots and policy change need to survive and navigate in a space with pre-
existing policy mixes that have developed over time, often through a series
of incremental changes (Thelen 2004; Van der Heijden 2011; Howlett and
Rayner 2013). Any change in policy response will typically be faced with
resistance by stakeholders, particularly those with vested interests. This makes
it difficult to introduce any radical changes in the policy mix even if new policy
objectives are put forth (Kern and Howlett 2009). Whether integration of
insights from a pilot will be feasible has been an oft-cited argument in favour
of continuing incrementalism and sticking to status quo policies (Peters 1998).
If policy change involves significant costs it is likely to deter policymakers
from undertaking the change and thus increase policy ‘stickiness’ (Callander
2011). It is risky to change and implement something new that might turn out
wrong, and worse still if the impacts of the error are significant (Tassey 2013).

22
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

In the late 1990s, research on policy design remained rather stagnant

as it was assumed that changes in policy design ‘predetermined policy
specifications’. In recent years, however, the policy design field has revived its
role and ability in consciously exploring improved designs depending on the
policy context through the greater use of experimentation, flexibility in design
and policy mixes inter alia (Howlett 2014). One way of looking at semblance
is through coherence of a new policy vis-à-vis an existing one. Policy goals are
coherent if they logically relate to the same overall policy aims and objectives
and can be achieved simultaneously without any significant trade-offs. Policy
goals are considered to be incoherent if they contradict the previous goal
(Howlett and Rayner 2007).
Cashore and Howlett segregate policy ends into broad abstract goals,
programme-level objectives and on-ground requirements of the policy
(2007). Characterizing the ends (goals) put forth by a policy pilot in a similar
manner allows the capturing of finer details of the intended goals of the
pilot. This characterization for all the selected pilots is discussed further in
Chapters 3 and 4.
Cashore and Howlett’s categorization as applied in this book to answer
the set research question, also helps in capturing centre-state dynamics that
can influence the pilot’s diffusion to some extent. Implementation of these
policies at the state and local levels would mean that these pilots also need to
consider state and local conditions. A certain degree of flexibility in the pilot’s
design as well as the implementation thus becomes imperative. The central
government relies primarily on the feedback from local governments as a
criterion to judge whether policy experimentation is successful, sustainable,
and a suitable contender for expansion (Zhu and Zhao 2018). Setting broad
policy priorities, allocation of resources including manpower and approval
for continuation of pilot projects may be centrally controlled in some federal
governance set-ups while sub-national units are allowed discretion to facilitate
policy innovation reflective of the local context (Yang 2008).
Flexibility to make changes to reflect local conditions is a key condition
for the diffusion of pilots and their scaling up (Binswanger-Mkhize and Aiyar
2003; Vreugdenhil et al. 2010; Vreugdenhil, Taljaard, and Slinger 2012).
Decentralization of decision-making can help policy solutions to better
reflect and be suited to local conditions and capacities, especially when policy
implementation demands for local variation are to be considered (Barg and
Tyler 2009). Strong control from the government on the content and process
of experimentation at the local level can sometimes act as an impediment
for innovative solutions to emerge via active experimentation and thus may
remain limited to being a form of ‘intentional policy design’ (Kaufman, Erli,
23
 rethinking policy piloting

and Zhenming 2006; Mei and Liu 2014). Strong centralization could constrain
innovative designs and useful feedback to emerge from experimentation at the
local level (Shipan and Volden 2012). Decentralization could occur in terms of
governance, geographic scope, decision-making scope, access to revenues and
spending capacity of the decentralized body, allocation of staff and resources,
and autonomy and entrepreneurial capacity for the decentralized body (Barg
and Tyler 2009). In a federal governance structure, this could include having
sub-national governments put out a range of innovative policy solutions to a
larger policy issue laid down at the union/central level (Heilmann 2008).
The scaling up of policy experiments and their translation to full policies
faces several challenges (Stoker 2010), especially in cases that the findings
of these experiments do not reaffirm a preferred policy direction of the
Government (LSHTM 2013), and in how the pilot converges or diverges
from the current policy context (Vreugdenhil et al. 2010; Vreugdenhil,
Taljaard, and Slinger 2012). For the successful uptake of pilot results, it is
important that the pilot does not move too far from the dominant thought
and general direction of the ongoing regime but builds on or improves it (van
Buuren et al. 2018).
It is thus hypothesized that high semblance of the pilot’s ends (goals) to
that of an ongoing policy that the pilot seeks to modify, replace, or build can
lead to high diffusion of the pilot.

Semblance to Existing Policies: Pilot’s Means (Instruments)

Another way to capture semblance to existing policies is the consistency
of policy instruments between that of new and old or existing policies.
Sometimes the experiment or pilot may be conducted with a different set of
instruments to reach the same goal and turn out (or not) to be more effective.
Specific types of instruments may be preferred or considered convenient and
might influence the pilot’s diffusion. Following Hood’s NATO framework
(1983), there can be four broad categories of policy instruments deployed
by governments to solve policy problems. This includes: (1) Nodality policy
instruments that involve the use of information by the governments, (2)
Authority policy instruments wherein governments exert legal control,
(3) Treasure policy instruments wherein governments deploy available or
allocated fiscal resources, and (4) Organization policy instruments wherein
governments use the available formal organizations within their ambit for
problem-solving.
Similar to policy ends, Cashore and Howlett also segregate policy means
(instruments) to achieve specific policy ends into instrument logic or the idea
24
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

that governs the choice of the instrument to achieve specific policy goals, the
type of instrument, and the specific manner in which the instrument is used at
the ground level (2007). Characterizing the instruments put forth by a policy
pilot in a similar manner allows the capturing of finer details of the instruments
of the pilot and how these relate to ongoing policies. This characterization for
all the selected pilots is discussed further in Chapters 3 and 4.
Policy instruments are considered to be consistent when they complement
each other and work in combination towards meeting a policy goal, and
inconsistent when they work at cross-purposes (Kern and Howlett 2009).
Governments that want to experiment should be careful with their selection
of instruments for delivering the policy. Firstly, instruments can create
commitments, generate expectations among beneficiaries, and thus be harder
to terminate as opposed to sticking around in some form (Peters 1998).
Thus, the choice of instruments and their utilization in implementing the
pilot is associated with resources and political commitment, and therefore,
just like ‘stickiness’ is preferred to policy goals, commitment to policy means
(instruments) can be preferred in pilots.
It is hypothesized that high semblance of the pilot’s instruments to that
of an ongoing policy that the pilot seeks to modify, replace, or build can lead
to high diffusion of the pilot.

Organization of the Book

The remainder of the book is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the case context of agriculture
policymaking in India in which these pilots and experiments come up.
The chapter gives an overview of Indian agriculture and sectoral risks and
uncertainties and the federal structure of agriculture governance along with
key policies and priorities for Indian agriculture. The criteria for purposive
sampling of pilots for analysis and approach to data collection is provided.
Chapter 3 presents a landscape of selected policy pilots through detailed
case descriptions teasing out various design features and the risk context
in which these pilots emerge. This chapter prepares the cases for further
comparative analysis of selected design features in Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 conducts a fuzzy-set QCA for the 13 pilots and presents the
necessary and sufficient conditions for diffusion. The causal configurations
related to high and low diffusion are presented and discussed.
Chapter 5 draws insights for theory and practice regarding policy piloting
in the agriculture sector for India. This chapter draws key recommendations
and ideas for policymakers and researchers on opportunities for better
25
 rethinking policy piloting

understanding the role of policy pilots in policy formulation and its

importance in the 21st century and how to deal with some of the challenges
that lie therein.

Notes
1. Figures for 2017–18. Retrieved from ‘Food and Agriculture Organization in
India: India at a Glance’. See http://www.fao.org/india/fao-in-india/india-
at-a-glance/en/ (accessed on 15 April 2020).
2. Refers to difference based on landholding size; about 85 per cent of the
total landholdings in India fall in the small (1–2 hectares) and marginal (<
1 hectare) categories. The small landholding sizes also constrain the ability
of farmers to undertake large and risky investments towards improving crop
production and land productivity. 1 hectare = 2.47 acres.
3. Test a take-home feeding approach for those under three years of age
distributed via the health system. This was a pilot study to determine the
operational feasibility, efficiency, impact, and economics of the scheme.

References
Anderson, Andy B. 1975. ‘Policy Experiments: Selected Analytic Issues’.
Sociological Methods & Research 4(1): 13–30.
Anyonge, T. M., Christine Holding, K. K. Kareko, and J. W. Kimani. 2001.
‘Scaling Up Participatory Agroforestry Extension in Kenya: From Pilot
Projects to Extension Policy’. Development in Practice 11(4): 449–59. DOI:
10.1080/09614520120066738.
Appadurai, A. N., M. Chaudhury, A. Dinshaw, N. Ginoya, McGray H., L.
Rangwala, and S. Srivatsa. 2001. Scaling Success: Lessons from Adaptation Pilots
in the Rainfed Regions of India. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Bailey, S., K. Checkland, D. Hodgson, A. McBride, R. Elvey, S. Parkin, K.
Rothwell, and D. Pierides. 2001. ‘The Policy Work of Piloting: Mobilising
and Managing Conflict and Ambiguity in the English NHS’. Social Science &
Medicine 179(April 2017): 210–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.002.
Barg, Stephan, and Stephen Tyler. 2009. Creating Adaptive Policies: A Guide for
Policy-Making in an Uncertain World. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Bauer, Michal, Julie Chytilová, and Jonathan Morduch. 2012. ‘Behavioral
Foundations of Microcredit: Experimental and Survey Evidence from Rural
India’. American Economic Review 102(2): 1118–39.
Becker, Selwyn W., and Fred O. Brownson. 1964. ‘What Price Ambiguity? Or the
Role of Ambiguity in Decision-making’. Journal of Political Economy 72(1):
62–73.
26
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

Béland, Daniel. 2007. ‘Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security:

Conversion, Layering, and Policy Drift’. Social Science Quarterly 88(1): 20–38.
Bennion, Elizabeth A. 2011. ‘21st Century Political Science: A Reference
Handbook’. In 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook, edited
by John T. Ishiyama and Marijke Breuning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Bernstein, S., and M. Hoffmann. 2018. ‘The Politics of Decarbonization and the
Catalytic Impact of Subnational Climate Experiments’. Policy Sciences 51(2):
189–211. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9314-8.
Bettini, Yvette, Rebekah R. Brown, Fjalar J. de Haan, and Megan Farrelly.
2015. ‘Understanding Institutional Capacity for Urban Water Transitions’.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 94(May 2015): 65–79.
Bevir, Mark. 2009. Key Concepts in Governance, SAGE Key Concepts. Los Angeles;
London: SAGE Publications.
Binswanger-Mkhize, Hans P., and Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar. 2003. Scaling
Up Community-Driven Development: Theoretical Underpinnings and Program
Design Implications Vol. 3039. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Binswanger, Hans P. 1980. ‘Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement
in Rural India’. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62(3): 395–407.
Bloom, G., and P. Ainsworth. 2010. ‘Beyond Scaling Up: Pathways to Universal
Access to Health Services’. STEPS Working Paper 40, Brighton: STEPS
Centre.
Boeckmann, Margaret E. 1976. ‘Policy Impacts of the New Jersey Income
Maintenance Experiment’. Policy Sciences 7: 53–76. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF00146021.
Breckon, Jonathan. 2015. Better Public Services Through Experimental Government.
London: Alliance for Useful Evidence.
Bulthuis, S. E., M. C. Kok, J. Raven, and M. A. Dieleman. 2020. ‘Factors Influencing
the Scale-up of Public Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income
Countries: A Qualitative Systematic Literature Review’. Health Policy Plan
35(2): 219–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czz140.
Callander, Steven. 2011. ‘Searching for Good Policies’. The American Political
Science Review 105(4): 643–62. DOI: 10.2307/23275345.
Callander,Steven,and Patrick Hummel.2014.‘Preemptive Policy Experimentation’.
Econometrica 82(4): 1509–28.
Cashore, Benjamin, and Michael Howlett. 2007. ‘Punctuating Which Equilibrium?
Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry’.
American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 532–51.
Castan Broto, V., and H. Bulkeley. 2013. ‘A Survey of Urban Climate Change
Experiments in 100 Cities’. Global Environmental Change 23(1): 92–102.
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005.

27
 rethinking policy piloting

Chien, Colleen V. 2019. ‘Rigorous Policy Pilots: Experimentation in the

Administration of the Law’. Iowa Law Review 104(5): 2313–50.
Cloutier, Geneviève, Florent Joerin, Catherine Dubois, Martial Labarthe,
Christelle Legay, and Dominique Viens. 2015. ‘Planning Adaptation Based
on Local Actors’ Knowledge and Participation: A Climate Governance
Experiment’. Climate Policy 15(4): 458–74.
Deyle, Robert E. 1994. ‘Conflict, Uncertainty, and the Role of Planning and
Analysis in Public Policy Innovation’. Policy Studies Journal 22(3): 457–73.
Ettelt, Stefanie, and Nicholas Mays. 2015. ‘Advice on Commissioning External
Academic Evaluations of Policy Pilots in Health and Social Care’. Discussion
Paper, Policy Innovation Research Unit (PIRU), Department of Health
Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, London.
Ettelt, Stefanie, Nicholas Mays, and Pauline Allen. 2014. ‘The Multiple Purposes
of Policy Piloting and Their Consequences: Three Examples from National
Health and Social Care Policy in England’. Journal of Social Policy 44(2): 319–
37. DOI: 10.1017/s0047279414000865.
Farrelly, M., and R. Brown. 2011. ‘Rethinking Urban Water Management:
Experimentation as a Way Forward?’ Global Environmental Change 21(2):
721–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.007.
Field, Christopher B., Vicente R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D.
Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, T. Eren, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, and
R. C. Genova. 2014. ‘IPCC 2014: Summary for Policymakers’. In Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by C. B. Field, V. R. Barros,
D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.
L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White, 1–32. Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Frantzeskaki, Niki, Jill Slinger, Heleen Vreugdenhil, and Els Van Daalen. 2010.
‘Social-Ecological Systems Governance: From Paradigm to Management
Approach’. Nature and Culture 5(1): 84–98.
Gardner, James A. 1995. ‘The States-as-Laboratories Metaphor in State
Constitutional Law’. Symposium on the New Judicial Federalism: A New
Generation. Valparaiso University Law Review 30(2): 475–91.Gillespie, Stuart,
Purnima Menon, and Andrew L Kennedy. 2015. ‘Scaling Up Impact on
Nutrition: What Will It Take?’ Advances in Nutrition 6(4): 440–51.
Government of India (GOI). 2011. Report of the XII Plan Working Group on
Natural Resource Management and Rainfed Farming. New Delhi: Planning
Commission.

28
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

Gulati, Leela. 1990. ‘Agricultural Workers’ Pension in Kerala: An Experiment in

Social Assistance’. Economic and Political Weekly 25(6): 339–43.
Hacker, J. S. 2004. ‘Reform Without Change, Change Without Reform: The
Politics of US Health Policy Reform in Comparative Perspective’. In
Transatlantic Policymaking in An Age of Austerity: Diversity and Drift, edited by
Martin A. Levin and Martin Shapiro, 13–63. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Hall, Peter A. 1993. ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case
of Economic Policymaking in Britain’. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–96.
Harrar, William S., and D. Lee Bawden. 1972. ‘The Use of Experimentation in
Policy Formulation and Evaluation’. Urban Affairs Quarterly 7(4): 419–30.
Hartmann A., and J. Linn. 2007. ‘Scaling Up: A Path to Effective Development’.
2020 Focus Brief on the World’s Poor and Hungry People. International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Heazle, Michael, Peter Tangney, Paul Burton, Michael Howes, Deanna Grant-
Smith, Kim Reis, and Karyn Bosomworth. 2013. ‘Mainstreaming Climate
Change Adaptation: An incremental Approach to Disaster Risk Management
in Australia’. Environmental Science & Policy 33(November 2013):162–70.
Heilmann, Sebastian. 2007. ‘Policy Experimentation in China’s Economic Rise’.
Studies in Comparative International Development 43(1):1–26. DOI: 10.1007/
s12116-007-9014-4.
———. 2008. ‘From Local Experiments to National Policy: The Origins of
China’s Distinctive Policy Process’. The China Journal 59( January 2008):1–30.
DOI: 10.1086/tcj.59.20066378.
Hildén, Mikael, Andrew Jordan, and Dave Huitema. 2017. ‘Special Issue on
Experimentation for Climate Change Solutions Editorial: The Search for
Climate Change and Sustainability Solutions—The Promise and the Pitfalls
of Experimentation’. Journal of Cleaner Production 169(15 December 2017):
1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.019.
Hoffmann, Matthew J. 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting
with a Global Response after Kyoto. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hood, Christopher. 1983. The Tools of Government. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Howlett, Michael. 2014. ‘From the “Old” to the “New” Policy Design: Design
Thinking Beyond Markets and Collaborative Governance’. Policy Sciences
47(3): 187–207.
Howlett, Michael, Michael Ramesh, and Anthony Perl. 2009. Studying Public
Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Howlett, Michael, and Jeremy Rayner. 2007. ‘Design Principles for Policy Mixes:
Cohesion and Coherence in “New Governance Arrangements”’. Policy and
Society 26(4): 1–18.

29
 rethinking policy piloting

———. 2013. ‘Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy

Portfolio Design’. Politics and Governance 1(2): 170–82.
Hughes, Sara, Samer Yordi, and Laurel Besco. 2018. ‘The Role of Pilot Projects in
Urban Climate Change Policy Innovation’. Policy Studies Journal 48(2). DOI:
10.1111/psj.12288.
Huitema, D., A. Jordan, S. Munaretto, and M. Hilden. 2018. ‘Policy Experimentation:
Core Concepts, Political Dynamics, Governance and Impacts’. Policy Sciences
51(2): 143–59. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9321-9.
Ingraham, Patricia W. 1987. ‘Toward More Systematic Consideration of Policy
Design’. Policy Studies Journal 15(4): 611.
Jänicke, Martin, and Helge Jörgens. 2000. ‘Strategic Environmental Planning and
Uncertainty: A Cross-national Comparison of Green Plans in Industrialized
Countries’. Policy Studies Journal 28(3): 612–32.
Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How
Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jowell, Roger. 2003. Trying It Out: The Role of Pilots in Policy Making. Cabinet
Office London: Strategy Unit, Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office.
K’Akumu, O. A., and P. O. Appida. 2006. ‘Privatisation of Urban Water Service
Provision: The Kenyan Experiment’. Water Policy 8(4): 313–24. DOI: 10.2166/
wp.2006.044.
Kaufman, Joan, Zhang Erli, and Xie Zhenming. 2006. ‘Quality of Care in China:
Scaling Up a Pilot Project into a National Reform Program’. Studies in Family
Planning 37(1): 17–28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2006.00080.x.
Kern, Florian, and Michael Howlett. 2009. ‘Implementing Transition Management
as Policy Reforms: A Case Study of the Dutch Energy Sector’. Policy Sciences
42(4): 391.
Ko, Kilkon, and Kayoung Shin. 2017. ‘How Asian Countries Understand Policy
Experiment as Policy Pilots?’ Asian Journal of Political Science 25(3): 253–65.
DOI: 10.1080/02185377.2017.1360784.
Koopenjan, Johannes Franciscus Maria, and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2004. Managing
Uncertainties in Policy Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and
Decision Making. London: Routledge.
Lee, Celia, Liang Ma, and Yishu Zhou. 2017. ‘The Changing Dynamics of
Policy Experiment in Singapore: Does the 2011 General Election Make
a Difference?’ Asian Journal of Political Science 25(3): 287–306. DOI:
10.1080/02185377.2017.1351382.
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. ‘The Science of “Muddling Through”’. Public
Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). 2013. ‘Policy Pilots
and Evaluation’. In History and Policy Seminar: Summary Report. London:

30
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

Centre for History in Public Health with the Policy Innovation Research
Unit, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Majone, Giandomenico. 1991. ‘Cross-National Sources of Regulatory
Policymaking in Europe and the United States’. Journal of Public Policy 11(1):
79–106. DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X00004943.
Majumdar, Sumon, and Sharun W. Mukand. 2004. ‘Policy Gambles’. American
Economic Review 94(4): 1207–22.
Martin, Steve, and Ian Sanderson. 1999. ‘Evaluating Public Policy
Experiments: Measuring Outcomes, Monitoring Processes or Managing
Pilots?’ Evaluation 5(3): 245–58. DOI: 10.1177/13563899922208977.
McFadgen, Belinda. 2012. ‘What Is the Value of “Twisting the Lion’s Tail?”
Evaluating the Use of Policy Experiments in Adaptation Governance and
How They Can Facilitate Learning’. Institute for Environmental Studies,
Netherlands.
McFadgen, Belinda, and Dave Huitema. 2017.‘Are All Experiments Created Equal?
A Framework for Analysis of the Learning Potential of Policy Experiments
in Environmental Governance’. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 60(10): 1765–84. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1256808.
Meadowcroft, James. 2009. ‘What About the Politics? Sustainable Development,
Transition Management, and Long Term Energy Transitions’. Policy Sciences
42(4): 323.
Mei, Ciqi, and Zhilin Liu. 2014. ‘Experiment-based Policy Making or Conscious
Policy Design? The Case of Urban Housing Reform in China’. Policy Sciences
47(3): 321–37.
Morgan, Millett Granger, Max Henrion, and Mitchell Small. 1990. Uncertainty:
A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nair, S. 2020. ‘Designing Policy Pilots under Climate Uncertainty: A Conceptual
Framework for Comparative Analysis’. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis:
Research and Practice 22(4): 344–59. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2019.1695973.
Nair, S., and M. Howlett. 2016. ‘Meaning and Power in the Design and
Development of Policy Experiments’. Futures 76: 67–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.
futures.2015.02.008.
———. 2018. ‘Policy Pilots for Climate Adaptation in Indian Agriculture’.
In Innovating Climate Governance: Moving beyond Experiments, edited by
Bruno Turnheim, Frans Berkhout, and Paula Kivimaa, 166–81. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nair, Sreeja, and Heleen Vreugdenhil. 2015. ‘Policy Making: Pilot Projects as
Predictive Methods’. In Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public
Policy, 4, edited by Domonic A. Bearfield and Melvin J. Dubnick, 2623–27.
New York: Routledge.

31
 rethinking policy piloting

Parker, Chris, Kamalini Ramdas, and Nicos Savva. 2016. ‘Is IT Enough? Evidence
from a Natural Experiment in India’s Agriculture Markets’. Management
Science 62(9): 2481–503.
Peters, B. Guy. 1998. ‘The Experimenting Society and Policy Design’. In The
Experimenting Society: Essays in Honour of Donald T, edited by William N.
Dunn, 125–40. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Pyle, David F. 1980. ‘From Pilot Project to Operational Program in India: The
Problems of Transition’. In Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third
World, edited by Grindle, Merilee Serrill, 123–44. Princeton. N.J: Princeton
University Press.
Roggema, Rob, Tim Vermeend, and Andy Van den Dobbelsteen. 2012.
‘Incremental Change, Transition or Transformation? Optimising Change
Pathways for Climate Adaptation in Spatial Planning’. Sustainability 4(10):
2525–49.
Rondinelli, Dennis A. 1993. Development Projects as Policy Experiments: An Adaptive
Approach to Development Administration. Second Edition. Development and
Underdevelopment. London; New York: Routledge.
Sanderson, Ian. 2002. ‘Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-based Policy
Making’. Public Administration 80(1): 1–22.
Seyfang, Gill, and Adrian Smith. 2007. ‘Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable
Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda’. Environmental
Politics 16(4): 584–603.
Shipan, Charles R., and Craig Volden. 2012. ‘Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons
for Scholars and Practitioners’. Public Administration Review 72(6): 788–96.
Simmons, Ruth, Peter Fajans, and Laura Ghiron. 2007. Scaling Up Health Service
Delivery: From Pilot Innovations to Policies and Programmes. Switzerland:
World Health Organization.
Sovacool, Benjamin K. 2012. ‘Design Principles for Renewable Energy Programs
in Developing Countries’. Energy & Environmental Science 5(11): 9157–62.
DOI: 10.1039/C2EE22468B.
Spicer, N., D. Bhattacharya, R. Dimka, F. Fanta, L. Mangham-Jefferies, J.
Schellenberg, A. Tamire-Woldemariam, G. Walt, and D. Wickremasinghe.
2014. ‘“Scaling-up Is a Craft Not a Science”: Catalysing Scale-up of Health
Innovations in Ethiopia, India, and Nigeria’. Social Science and Medicine 121
(November): 30–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.046.
Stoker, Gerry. 2010. ‘Translating Experiments into Policy’. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 628(1): 47–58.
Stromsdorfer, Ernest W. 1985. ‘Social Science Analysis and the Formulation
of Public Policy: Illustrations of What the President “Knows” and How He
Comes to “Know” It’. In Social Experimentation, edited by Jerry A. Hausman
and David A. Wise, 257–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

32
 rethinking policy pilots in the 21st century

Swanson, Darren, Stephan Barg, Stephen Tyler, Henry Venema, Sanjay Tomar,
Suruchi Bhadwal, Sreeja Nair, Dimple Roy, and John Drexhage. 2010. ‘Seven
Tools for Creating Adaptive Policies’. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 77(6): 924–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.005.
Swanson, Darren, and Suruchi Bhadwal. 2009. Creating Adaptive Policies: A Guide
for Policymaking in an Uncertain World. Ottawa: SAGE Publications.
Tassey, G. 2013. ‘Innovation in Innovation Policy Management: The Experimental
Technology Incentives Program and the Policy Experiment’. Science and
Public Policy 41(4):419–24. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/sct060.
Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. ‘How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative
Historical Analysis’. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences,
edited by J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer, 208–40. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Timeus, Krista. 2019. ‘Passing the Buck? How Risk Behaviours Shape
Collaborative Innovation’. In The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the
Politics of Non-Coordination, 151–70. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tomar, Sanjay, and Darren Swanson. 2009. ‘Creating Adaptive Policies: A
Guide for Policy-Making in an Uncertain World’. In The Blind Spots of
Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non‐Coordination. Executive Politics
and Governance, edited by Bach T., K. Wegrich. London, Cham: Palgrave
Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76672-0_8.
Uvin, Peter. 1995. ‘Fighting Hunger at the Grassroots: Paths to Scaling Up’. World
Development 23(6): 927–39.
van Buuren, Arwin, and Derk Loorbach. 2009.‘Policy innovation in Isolation?’Public
Management Review 11(3): 375–92. DOI: 10.1080/14719030902798289.
van Buuren, Arwin, Heleen Vreugdenhil, Jitske van Popering-Verkerk, Gerald
Jan Ellen, Corniel van Leeuwen, and Bas Breman. 2018. ‘The Pilot Paradox’.
In Innovating Climate Governance: Moving beyond Experiments, edited by
Bruno Turnheim, Frans Berkhout, and Paula Kivimaa, 145–65. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
van den Heiligenberg, Harm A. R. M., Gaston J. Heimeriks, Marko P. Hekkert,
and Frank G. van Oort. 2017. ‘A Habitat for Sustainability Experiments:
Success Factors for Innovations in Their Local and Regional Contexts’.
Journal of Cleaner Production 169(15 December 2017): 204–15. DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.177.
Van der Heijden, Jeroen. 2011. ‘Institutional Layering: A Review of the Use of the
Concept’. Politics 31(1): 9–18.
———. 2015. ‘The Role of Government in Voluntary Environmental Programmes:
A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis’. Public Administration 93(3):
576–92.

33
 rethinking policy piloting

van Doren, Didi, Peter P. J. Driessen, Hens Runhaar, and Mendel Giezen. 2018.
‘Scaling-up Low-carbon Urban Initiatives: Towards a Better Understanding’.
Urban Studies 55(1): 175–94.
Van Khanh, Do Hoang, and Tham Sharon. 2016. ‘Randomised Controlled
Trials and Quasi-Experiments’. In Evidence-Based Policymaking, edited by
Anuradha Shroff, Thia Jang Ping, Elaine Tan, Do Hoang Van Khanh, Sharon
Tham, Leong Wai Yan, Lim Yong Long, and Eugene Liow, 37–47. Singapore:
Civil Services College.
van Winden, Willem, and Daniel van den Buuse. 2017. ‘Smart City
Pilot Projects: Exploring the Dimensions and Conditions of Scaling
Up’. Journal of Urban Technology 24(4): 51–72. DOI: 10.1080/
10630732.2017.1348884.
Vreugdenhil, Heleen, Jill Slinger, Wil Thissen, and Philippe Ker Rault. 2010.
‘Pilot Projects in Water Management’. Ecology and Society 15(3).
Vreugdenhil, Heleen, Susan Taljaard, and Jill H. Slinger. 2012. ‘Pilot Projects and
Their Diffusion: A Case Study of Integrated Coastal Management in South
Africa’. International Journal of Sustainable Development 15(1–2): 148–72.
Weiss, Carol H. 1993. ‘Where Politics and Evaluation Research Meet’. Evaluation
Practice 14(1): 94.
Wellstead, Adam, Michael Howlett, Sreeja Nair, and Jeremy Rayner. 2016.
‘Canada’s Regional Adaptation Collaboratives and Adaptation Platform: The
Importance of Scaling Up and Scaling Down Climate Change Governance
Experiments’. Climate Services 4(December 2016): 52–60.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2011. ‘Beginning with the End in Mind:
Planning Pilot Projects and Other Programmatic Research for Successful
Scaling Up’. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Wilder, Matt, and Michael Howlett. 2014. ‘The Politics of Policy Anomalies:
Bricolage and the Hermeneutics of Paradigms’. Critical Policy Studies 8(2):
183–202. DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2014.901175.
World Bank. 2005. Managing Agricultural Production Risk: Innovations in
Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yang, X. 2008. ‘Discussion of Ten Issues in Chinese Local Government
Innovation (Jianlun Zhongguo difang zhengfu chuangxin de shi ge wenti)’. J.
Public Management (Gonggong Guanli Xuebao) 5(1): 16–27.
Zhu, Xufeng, and Hui Zhao. 2018. ‘Experimentalist Governance with Interactive
Central-Local Relations: Making New Pension Policies in China’. Policy
Studies Journal (published online 7 March). DOI: 10.1111/psj.12254.

34