In light of an increasing differentiation and institutionalization of policy systems, governments have begun to set up integrative political strategies. Instead of focusing on single and relatively well defined problems, these strategies are supposed to address comprehensive "ill structured" or even "wicked problems" that are associated with great societal challenges such as climate change and sustainable development. As these strategies cut across and relate various policies, they touch upon and activate societal conflicts that are represented in the policy system. However, by orienting conflicting policies towards common objects, they might also create new spaces for reflection and conflict resolution.
In our paper, we make an effort to interpret integrative political strategies in terms of "boundary objects". This is done to elaborate on the concept's analytical prospects and limits for understanding these strategies with regard to their potential of dealing with conflicts in the policy system. In what respects can we interpret political strategies as boundary objects? What does such an interpretation add to our understanding of these strategies? Do these strategies have the potential to reframe and transform societal conflicts that play out in the policy system? Where are blind spots of the concept with regard to the analysis of policy conflicts and integrative political strategies?
To address these questions, the proposed paper will draw on case studies about integrative political strategies in the field of sustainable development and climate adaptation in Germany.