The issue of policy dismantling is linked to one of the most central topics in the study of public policy: the analysis of policy change. Under which conditions can we expect adjustments or transformations of existing policies? Why do some policies remain in place despite their limited effectiveness while others are changed? Do policies follow a sequential path of development over time? Why do policies change sometimes incrementally and sometimes radically? These are only just some examples of the many questions that have guided research throughout the last decades. Notwithstanding considerable progress in understanding policy change, we are still left with many open questions and challenges. There is a long tradition of political scientists and sociologists studying policy and institutional change, but it is fair to say that no consensus has been reached on how to conceive of ‘change’theoretically, let alone how best to operationalize it (Howlett and Cashore 2009; Capano 2009). 1 One factor that may account for this partially unsatisfactory situation refers to the fact that the analysis of policy change has so far primarily concentrated on the assessment and explanation of different degrees of change. The distinction between different orders of change (Sabatier and Weible 2007; Hall 1993), that is to say radical versus incremental (Baumgartner and Jones 1993), path-breaking versus pathdependent (Thelen and Steinmo 1992), or self-reinforcing (Pierson 2000; Hacker 2004) versus reactive sequences (Mahoney 2000; Streeck and Thelen 2005; Mahoney and Thelen 2010), lies at the heart of the debate, regardless of the specific theoretical perspective adopted. Yet the precise direction of policy