ABSTRACT
The quest for the identification of durable policy styles has a long tradition in comparative policy research. Traditional approaches have focused on the politics that underlie policy-making in order to classify country-specific styles of policy-making. In the absence of strong empirical evidence supporting the actual dominance and durability of these country-specific styles, more recent approaches focus on policy output in order to classify policy styles. Based on the restrictiveness of rules and sanctions, a two-dimensional concept allows distinguishing four styles of regulation: authority, lenient authority, permissiveness, and punitive permissiveness. This conceptualization of policy styles has been argued to have theoretical implications since explanations of policy change must account for two-dimensional developments. Moreover, the chapter discusses the assumption that different policy styles come with different levels of implementation burdens. While this assumption is widespread, its systematic empirical assessment can be a fruitful avenue for comparative research on implementation burdens.
