Twenty-eighth Report Adapting Institutions to Climate Change Cm ...

PATH DEPENDENCY
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
Just like an oil tanker, it can be difficult to ‘turn around’ when we are locked into structures,
policies, technologies and ways of doing things: this is path dependency, the third challenge.
Path dependency4 means that current and future states, actions, or decisions depend on the path
of previous states, actions or decisions. iv Two categories of path dependency concern us here:
lock-in and self-reinforcement. In both, strong structural forces dominate and therefore progress
tends to be incremental rather than radical. Although path dependency can make it difficult
to identify or enable new ways of working, it is not inherently problematic. In many cases it is
unavoidable and the chosen path may be entirely appropriate. In some cases it could be unwise
to change the established path, because greater success may be achievable by modifying the
existing institutions.
However, path dependency means that institutions may acquire a political stability so strong
that considerable effort is needed to shift policy onto a new trajectory. 5 The Brundtland Report
recognised this when summarising the challenges of sustainability: 6
“… most of the institutions facing these challenges tend to be independent,
fragmented, working to relatively narrow mandates with closed decision processes
… The real world of economic and ecological systems will change: the policies and
institutions concerned must.”
We have observed evidence of regulatory path dependency. We were told by several organisations
that some European directives are inflexible. There is certainly a widespread perception of inflexibility.
When institutions believe that they are inhibited by a law, directive, policy or something
similar, they will maintain a set path with some vigour, whether or not these limits actually exist.
The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD, see Box 3C) is an example of a directive that has
been developed with deliberate and generic flexibility which should in theory at least support
adaptation, because it recognises that the nature of water bodies will change in the future.
However, whilst much of the WFD has the capacity for flexibility (despite widespread belief that
it does not), some of the tools that are being used in the UK to monitor compliance with the
WFD, such as RIVPACS, are more obviously path dependent (see Box 4A). It is important to
note that monitoring tools are not specified by the WFD but require appropriate development
and interpretation by regulatory bodies in the Member States. RIVPACS is an existing monitoring
tool focusing on ecological status; and it has been adopted by preference and is now embedded in
monitoring culture – but with insufficient attention to its relevance in a changing climate. Other
European countries are also struggling to develop flexible, responsive monitoring tools. We might
also note that, with its commitment to quantitative standards that are difficult to change, the
approach to chemical quality in the WFD is less amenable to flexible interpretation than other
parts of the Directive.
iv This is the common interpretation of the term ‘path dependency’, which has “four related causes: increasing returns,
self-reinforcement, positive feedbacks, and lock-in. Though related, these causes differ. Increasing returns means
that the more a choice is made or an action is taken, the greater its benefits. Self-reinforcement means that making a
choice or taking an action puts in place a set of forces or complementary institutions that encourage that choice to be
sustained. With positive feedbacks, an action or choice creates positive externalities when that same choice is made
by other people. Finally, lock-in means that one choice or action becomes better than any other because a sufficient
number of people have already made that choice.”
69
Chapter 4