Editors' Notes

Abstract

The fourth and final 2009 issue of PSJ showcases the international breadth as well as the rigorous theoretically-driven scholarship found in contemporary public policy research. Readers will find applications on implementation and network analysis, the multiple streams framework, the advocacy coalition framework, attribution theory, policy disruptions, and policy entrepreneurs. This issue features articles on a wide range of issue-areas, including poverty, welfare policy, central-bank independence, education policy, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights. As editors, we are proud to feature articles written by authors residing in New Zealand, the United States, Israel, and the Netherlands. We offer three articles on salient public policy issues. The lead article is a thought provoking piece contributed by Douglas Besharov and Douglas Call entitled, “Income Transfers Alone Won't Eradicate Poverty.” This article provides a controversial perspective on the effect of government transfer programs and whether what is commonly treated as “poverty” (and addressed with government transfer programs) is better conceptualized as “income inequality.” The argument is that income inequality is best remedied by raising income and human capital. Readers must not miss the empirical and logical rebuttal by Robert Plotnick and a reply by Besharov and Call. This exchange initiates what the Editors see as an occasional point/counterpoint exchange over especially provocative arguments. Next we explore what explains support for the rights of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Guided by attrition theory, Greg Lewis responds to this question by showing that growing support for rights of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals is largely explained by beliefs in the biological basis of homosexuality. We are also proud to present an analysis of the social welfare systems in the United States. Ae-Sook Kim and Edward T. Jennings Jr. present their work entitled, “Effects of U.S. States' Social Welfare Systems on Population Health.” Their paper addresses the consequences of the social welfare system on the population's health. Offering a rare sub-national analysis of social welfare and population health, the authors find that improved social welfare programs enhance a population's heath condition. Innovations in policy process research can be found in five articles. The first is another contribution to PSJ's ongoing synthetic review series. We are gratified to present PSJ readers a review and synthesis of the policy entrepreneur literature by Michael Mintrom in “Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change.” Mintrom's piece demonstrates that the policy entrepreneur is central to a number of distinct policy approaches, in particular when considering policy change. Mintrom will likely serve as a must read for any scholar seeking to contribute to our shared understanding about the role of policy entrepreneurs in policy processes. In “The Puzzle of the Diffusion of Central Bank Independence Reforms: Insights from an Agent-Based Simulation,” Orit Rapport, David Levi-Faur, and Dan Miodownik offer probably the first agent-based model inspired by Kingdon's multiple streams framework on the diffusion across governments of central bank independence. They place special emphasis on three aspects of the diffusion process: the likelihood of reform; the rate of adoption; and the time to the outbreak. Chris Ansell, Sarah Reckhow, and Andrew Kelly integrate the civic capacity literature and the advocacy coalition framework in “How to Reform a Reform Coalition: Outreach, Agenda Expansion, and Brokerage in Urban School Reform.” Ansell, Reckhow, and Kelly compare advocacy coalitions to relatively broad civic coalitions using social network analysis in an Oakland school district. Inspired by policy network analysis, Joop Koppejan, Mirjam Kars, and Haiko van der Voort describe a framework for dealing with legislative representation and executive power in terms of the content, evolution, and outcomes of the policy process. Drawing upon the politics in a Dutch province, they argue the merits of horizontal networks and vertical politics. Finally, Peter May explores how policy disruptions affect agendas across policy subsystems post the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. May's important findings—that only limited system disruptions occur during a time of crisis—suggests that stressed bureaucratic systems deployed particularly stable subsystems as a means to buffer and minimize the threatening disruptions. As co-editors, we are doubly appreciative to the authors and reviewers for the quality of the submissions in this current issue. Once again, we encourage authors in the public policy community to continue to support PSJ bysubmitting your best manuscripts; to our referees, please note that your always thoughtful and constructive reviewsbenefit both the authors and the PSJ readership. Thank you.