What is wrong with positivist policy process theories? Controversies over empirically grasping policy complexity

Debates between positivist and interpretivist Policy Process Theories are typically framed as either irreconcilable or easily combinable. Rather than addressing the underlying ontological and epistemological differences between the two approaches, this essay singles out one dimension relative to the debate: how the two approaches empirically grasp policy complexity differently and what this means for policy process theory. Toward this end, I examine two controversies: identifying ‘collective entities’ (coalitions, networks, beliefs) and delineating ‘policy subsystems’ versus ‘policy micro-arenas.’ Through shale gas and urban infrastructure cases, I show how positivist approaches simplify reality by constructing stable entities and unified subsystems for causal inference, while interpretive approaches observe micro-level interactions and emergent configurations to capture complexity and uncertainty. I then show how interpretive approaches observe actors’ multipositionality and emergent configurations to capture complexity and uncertainty. Interpretive inquiry reveals unstable coalitions, fragmented configurations, multiple circulations, and unpredictable pathways that simplified concepts necessarily obscure. These empirical controversies demonstrate that grasping policy complexity requires approaches capable of observing details that reveal how policies actually unfold, rather than imposing stable, bounded entities and systems that obscure this complexity.