This study introduces the concept of policy bricolage to account for a model of policy change that transcends the traditional dichotomy of incrementalism and paradigm shifts. Traditional analyses typically assume internal consistency within paradigms and mutual exclusivity between them, implying that old paradigms must be entirely abandoned once new paradigms emerge. However, existing phenomena demonstrate the possibility of paradigm commensurability, whereby elements from different paradigms coexist and are recombined to generate novel institutional arrangements. Building on this insight, this study conceptualizes policy bricolage as a mode of change characterized by the innovative recombination and adaptive configuration of existing policy tools to secure long-term stability while responding to immediate challenges. China's pension reform provides an instructive context for examining this dynamic. To illustrate the operation of policy bricolage, the study analyzes the evolution of the basic pension insurance system for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) between 1951 and 2010. The early SOE pension model emphasized collective responsibility, pay-as-you-go financing, and lifelong benefits under the danwei system. Since the 1990s, increasing demographic pressures and fiscal constraints led to the introduction of individual accounts aimed at enhancing long-term sustainability. However, significant contradictions soon emerged, most notably the issue of “empty accounts”. Subsequent reforms in 1995, 1997, and 2005 progressively recalibrated the balance between social pooling and individual accounts, culminating in their formal institutionalization in the 2010 Social Insurance Law. The analysis identifies three principal drivers of policy bricolage in China: ( 1) a cultural tradition of selective borrowing and pragmatic adaptation; (2) external pressures to pursue reform while safeguarding social stability; and (3) the persistent need to refine policy content through iterative learning. The internal logic of policy bricolage integrates pragmatism directed toward short-term problem-solving, with a principled orientation that ensures alignment with overarching institutional objectives. By theorizing and empirically illustrating policy bricolage, this study advances the understanding of robust yet adaptive policy transformation. It demonstrates how Chinese reforms integrated collective solidarity with individual responsibility to adapt to emerging economic realities while also preserving institutional continuity. More broadly, this study enriches scholarship on policy change in non-Western contexts and provides a framework for analyzing hybrid reforms in pensions, housing, and environmental governance, thereby contributing to a context-sensitive knowledge system of public policy in China.
ZANG et al. (Mon,) studied this question.