Has the paradigm really shifted? : Trying to explain the variation in policy changes of the EU15 countries

Policy change is an issue ranking high in many governmental and academic agendas, especially in the old common Europe. Face to the problems of economic growth that since the 1970s affect many countries, policy change is expected to maintain, if not to improve, citizens’ affluence and the availability of resources for enforcing social equity, however defined. Especially after Hall’s seminal work, this implies to focus on the change of the paradigm that lies beyond public policies: Namely, as the relevant paradigms for growth‐oriented policies are economic, on the shift from demand‐sided to supply‐sided frameworks of reference. The analysis is supposed to highlight the role that different modes of accounting and evaluation play in stabilizing the paradigm shift: as a (more or less) meaningful discipline of whose players’ behavior, and/or as a different arena where stakeholders, policy‐takers, administrative bodies and maybe executive bodies can clear their preferences up, align their framing, and finetune the implementation design to make it viable without losing the nature of change –i.e. fixing framing conflicts by argument and evidences, and allowing policy actors learning. The results could then link the research to the questions raised by detractors of the neoliberal paradigm when accusing it for harming democracy because of the narrower range of options it leaves to voters. This contribution could support the thesis for which the order that results from the paradigm shift is instead ‘differently democratic’, as it recognizes the need for a reauthorization of policy changes to come from the actors in the administrative field, in order to balance and refine the amorphous consent expressed by vote without reversing it. This would mean a different way for citizens to play political rights–not just as voters but also as those with a stake in the concrete way a “public” good is (poorly) produced and delivered here and now– and to deal with social conflict, in this way dispersed and at the same time attached to the concrete problem.