Conference Agenda

Policy transfer is a wide-ranging concept. Since it was moulded in a 1996 literature review , scholars clarified and categorised the numerous processes of learning, adopting and transferring policies by using the concept of policy transfer in almost all fields of interest in political science. However, there is a lack of research on historical transformations of policy transfer within a post-colonial era. In the conclusion of their book Carroll and Common (2013, p. 192) acknowledge that during colonisation and in the early phases of decolonisation processes there is a substantial, predominantly coercive transfer from the imperial power to the – former – colony. This conclusion is based on scarcely available research on policy transfer in former colonies, which is also highlighted in by other authors. An even less frequently addressed subject in the academic literature is the effect on the policy transfer processes in the context of residual interdependency between the former colonial power and the former colony. This especially refers to small non-independent jurisdictions in the Caribbean and the Pacific, but also to Greenland.

Based on a first exploratory analysis of the available literature, a knowledge gap seems to be caused by a lack of empirical research on policy transfer in non-sovereign jurisdictions. Neither seems the academic literature to offer an analysis of the implementation of security policy in a post-colonial setting. With this conference paper, which I will base on academic literature research, I seek to substantiate whether and if so, how policy transfer takes place between sovereign and non-sovereign jurisdictions within former colonial powers with a special focus on security governance and law enforcement. And if transfer occurs, to what extent policy transfer can be identified as coercive, semi-coercive or voluntary. This analysis will be conducted based on the criteria identified in the academic literature. The paper will be input for a literature review as well as the theoretical framework on policy transfer of sovereign jurisdictions on their former colonies. This paper is part of a PhD study on security policy transfer within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Why do street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) risk their lives in times of acute crisis? The literature refers to several factors that may explain SLBs decision to risk their lives, such as personal ideology, incentives and sanctions from their organization and pressure from the public. Nevertheless, the factors that lead them to put themselves in the line of fire in times of crises may differ from their daily duties.

To explore our research question, we use the case of the October 7 attack in Israel. In this attack, Hamas's armed forces entered the southern border of the State of Israel and murdered more than 1,200 civilians and troops. In these events, police officers, some on duty and some off duty, were first responders in several locations. 62 police officers lost their lives in these events. We have conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 police officers who actively risked their lives in this event.

Our findings suggest that while SLBs are exposed to risk on everyday interactions with clients, and while they are willing to risk their lives in return for incentives, in the name of their ideological beliefs and due to their personal status, in times of acute crisis, their motivations are more intrinsic: saving life, saving their comrades and their family, performing their duty and their mission in life. These motivations are strong enough to bring people to stand in the actual line of fire – facing threats they are not familiar with, in extreme high-pressure situation such as the October 7 attack.

Our study offers several contributions to the literature. First, while life risking behavior of street-level bureaucrats have been studied in daily interactions with clients, responses to acute crisis have not been studied before. Second, exploring reactions to the October 7 attack in Israel offers a chance to explore SLBs' reaction to a massive terror attack, in scales only similar to those of the 9/11 attack on the United States. Lastly, on a practical level, understanding what factors influence SLBs to risk their lives as part of their job in acute crisis situations can assist public organizations better prepare for such events.