Table 2 Comparative analysis of the... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Comparative analysis of the proposed ITG Framework against Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and the Adaptive Governance Framework

Dimension/Characteristic	ITG framework (proposed)	Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET)	Adaptive governance framework
Main focus	Diagnostic: Explains why systems enter a state of inertia and become vulnerable	Descriptive: Describes the pattern of change (stasis and abrupt shifts)	Normative: Prescribes how governance should operate to be resilient
Focus of change	Endogenous: Interaction between systemic, institutional and cognitive levels	Primarily Exogenous: External shocks and changes in the “policy image.”	Dynamic: Continuous learning, adaptation and reorganization in response to changes
Role of administration	Often pathological, trapped in inertia and cognitive capture	Primarily reactive, maintains equilibrium until pressured by external forces	Proactive and adaptive, actively manages resilience
Primary strength	High diagnostic power, explains the mechanisms of adaptive failure	Strong descriptive power for the macro-historical dynamics of policy change	Provides a clear, practical guide for improving governance
Limitation	Less normative, does not offer immediate “solutions.”	Less explanatory regarding the mechanisms that maintain stasis	Less diagnostic regarding the reasons hindering its practical adoption

Dimension/Characteristic	ITG framework (proposed)	Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET)	Adaptive governance framework
Main focus	Diagnostic: Explains why systems enter a state of inertia and become vulnerable	Descriptive: Describes the pattern of change (stasis and abrupt shifts)	Normative: Prescribes how governance should operate to be resilient
Focus of change	Endogenous: Interaction between systemic, institutional and cognitive levels	Primarily Exogenous: External shocks and changes in the “policy image.”	Dynamic: Continuous learning, adaptation and reorganization in response to changes
Role of administration	Often pathological, trapped in inertia and cognitive capture	Primarily reactive, maintains equilibrium until pressured by external forces	Proactive and adaptive, actively manages resilience
Primary strength	High diagnostic power, explains the mechanisms of adaptive failure	Strong descriptive power for the macro-historical dynamics of policy change	Provides a clear, practical guide for improving governance
Limitation	Less normative, does not offer immediate “solutions.”	Less explanatory regarding the mechanisms that maintain stasis	Less diagnostic regarding the reasons hindering its practical adoption