Editorial Note

Abstract

The Policy Studies Journal publishes cutting edge manuscripts that further develop key dimensions of theories of policy making processes. This issue exhibits the breadth of such research. Each manuscript theorizes about the effects of factors shaping policy making behavior and processes and empirically tests expectations in the context distinct jurisdictional types, from cities and counties through states and cantons, that present diverse policy making processes. Woods and Bowman (2018) examine why states engage in collective action by joining interstate compacts. Examining a single compact, the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, Woods and Bowman (2018) find that state participation is shaped by the costs and benefits of joining, contributing to a long line of work grounded in political economy, in this case, the Institutional Collective Action approach (Feiock, 2013). The influence of biases on welfare policy making and implementation is explored by Ledford (2018) and Thomann and Rapp (2018). Ledford (2018) examines agenda setting and adoption of drug testing requirements for welfare recipients among US states. The author finds empirical support for racial biases (measured as the proportion of blacks constituting TANF cases and state populations, as well as levels of symbolic racism) affecting whether a state legislature considers proposals to drug test welfare recipients. Using data from Swiss cantons, Thomann and Rapp draw on social constructions theory and examines the length and contentiousness of evaluation processes and decisions to grant disability benefits to Swiss citizens and immigrants. They find that place of origin matters, both for length of time to a decision and whether disability benefits are granted. While the Ledford (2018) and Thomann and Rapp (2018) manuscripts empirically examine biases and inequalities, Nielsen (2018) explores why we should be concerned with inequality. Nielsen (2018) provides a strong theoretical justification based on a sufficiency view. That is, in and of itself, inequality need not be problematic. Rather, in the words of Nielsen (2018) “we should take urgent political action to eliminate threshold-bound deficiencies such as absolute material poverty as well as social norm-bound deficiencies such as discrimination, social exclusion, and oppression.”(p. 29). DiSalvo and Kucik (2018) examine how political parties are enabled or constrained in pursuing their policy goals by the strength and engagement of interest groups. Using a new data set on other post-employment retiree benefits (primarily healthcare) that states provide to public employees, DiSalvo and Kucik (2018) find that the strength of public sector unions interacts with political parties to shape the magnitude of the benefits. In particular, the features of post-employment retiree benefits (deferred compensation and lack of reporting requirements by states, until recently) combined with public union strength condition the responses of political parties, especially states’ Republican parties, and consequently legislative decision making. Kalaf-Hughes and Kear (2018) focus on the interaction between political parties and bill framing, demonstrating potential for bi-partisan compromises on hydraulic fracking policies in state legislatures. As Kalaf-Hughes and Kear (2018) ask, “Why are legislators willing to vote against their partisan preferences on some natural gas development-related bills, but not others?” (p.2) Using a novel data set of the proportion of environmental to economic arguments within each natural gas development bill introduced in the Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico legislatures, the authors find that frames condition legislator support. Republicans vote for bills that limit natural gas development if economic frames outnumber environmental frames, for instance. Mullin and Daley (2018) and Sheely (2018) examine devolution of policy making and implementation. Devolution is supported as a means of better matching policies to sub-national or sub-state conditions. States and local governments are granted greater authority and discretion in realizing national and state policy priorities and goals. In both cases, devolved policy making and implementation does not necessarily realize intended goals. Mullin and Daley (2018) explore the Clean Water and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and find that while the former stimulates investment in wastewater infrastructure the latter does not stimulate investment in clean drinking water infrastructure. The authors suggest that differences in performance hinge on the type of good – drinking water infrastructure does not generate large spillover effects, and on the history of the programs. Sheely (2018) examines the effects of second order devolution on policy priorities of counties and their efforts to hold welfare recipients accountable for meeting program requirements. Examining welfare provision in California counties, Sheely (2018) finds that counties do exercise their authority by adopting a variety of policy priorities, however, frontline practices do not reflect county priorities. Time exceptions and sanctions are correlated with recipient characteristics, such as disabilities or education level, not county policy priorities, suggesting that frontline implementation reflects state and national policy goals. Sheely (2018) suggests that devolution of policy making authority does not result in changes in implementation if local jurisdictions face resource constraints and strict regulatory requirements. Taken together these two manuscripts demonstrate the sensitivity of devolution to the institutional and socio-economic settings in which it is adopted. The final two manuscripts attend to factors affecting policy making and implementation at the city and county level. Deslatte, Tavares and Feiock (2018) examine whether local officials strategically use regulatory delay in order to influence the form of urban development projects and the types of values the development represents. Factors affecting the time it takes for a development to be approved are based on the strength of the construction industry, institutional features of jurisdictions, such as district based elections, and the larger setting, such as the demand for housing. This manuscript represents an important contribution to the nascent literature on political markets. Kalafatis (2018) explores the influence of climate change mitigation and adaptation on policy making around different policy areas, such as emergency management, energy use, and transportation, among others, across mid-sized cities in the Great Lakes region of the US. While the majority of cities do not consider mitigation or adaptation when engaged in policy making in diverse areas, those that do typically have policy entrepreneurs, departments devoted to sustainability issues, and supportive fiscal and economic settings. There is much interesting research to explore in this issue. Taken as a whole these manuscripts further our understanding of how behavioral and institutional factors shape policy making processes and outcomes and point to rich lines of future research as well as important policy lessons.