ABSTRACT Historically, the development of human vaccines has represented one of the greatest scientific advancements in global health, preventing over 154 million deaths since 1974. However, the Trump 2.0 administration's moves on global trade tariffs, coupled with the current head of the Department of Health and Human Services, who is known to be a vaccine skeptic, have raised concerns about the future of vaccination in the US. In this light, this study evaluates the potential implications of these tariff threats on human vaccines, using network analysis, machine learning, and quantile regression models with data from 2000 to 2022. Findings reveal that the US is one of the major players in the global vaccine trade, and its tariffs were found to have a significant influence on global vaccine demand and prices. One of the implications of these tariff‐induced reductions in vaccine trade is the creation of conditions leading to shortages and undermining immunization rates. Thus, this study concludes that tariffs on vaccines could adversely affect healthcare quality and recommends careful consideration of tariff policies to avoid vaccine compromise. This is because evidence suggests that by fragmenting trade routes and raising costs, tariffs might impair the overall density and connectivity of the vaccine trade network. This causes delays in global vaccine delivery and increases reliance on a few central hubs. However, the analysis suggests that the United States can foster supply‐chain collaboration frameworks to maintain its strategic position in the global vaccine trade. Related Articles Lauby, Fanny, and Christopher J. McKinley. 2023. “Factors of Early COVID‐19 Prevention Policy Engagement in France and in the United States.” Politics & Policy 51, no. 5: 830–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12556 . Onyango, Gedion, and Japheth Otieno Ondiek. 2022. “Open Innovation during the COVID‐19 Pandemic Policy responses in South Africa and Kenya.” Politics & Policy 50, no. 5: 1008–1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12490 . Luján, José Luis. 2023. “Evidence‐based Policies: Lessons from Regulatory Science.” Politics & Policy 51, no. 4: 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12543 .

ABSTRACT This paper analyzes how electoral system change affects the electoral performance of those parties that initiate these reforms. The hypothesis is that those who created the new system benefited from it in two possible ways: they improved their partisan bias compared to the previous election, or they had a better partisan bias than other parties. The analysis uses a global dataset that includes almost all democratic elections that took place between 1974 and 2017. The paper finds that electoral reformers had no discernible advantage compared to other parties, suggesting that either partisan electoral engineering is not as widely practiced as previously believed, or parties are not efficient at executing it. Related Articles Nohlen, D. 2008. “Constitutional Jurisdiction and the Consolidation of Democracy.” Politics & Policy 37, no. 1: 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2008.00159.x . Raymond, C. 2018. “Socioeconomic Development and Party System Fragmentation Cross‐Nationally.” Politics & Policy 46, no. 5: 731–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12272 . Zafirovski, M. 2022. “Toward a New Political Democracy Index: Construction, Validation, and Calculation for Individual Societies and Types of Society.” Politics & Policy 50, no. 4: 663–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12488 .

ABSTRACT The global surge of harmful online content—ranging from disinformation and hate speech to incivility and cyberbullying—has raised pressing concerns about the integrity of digital information and the health of public discourse. A research primarily focuses on democratic societies, this study examines governance perceptions in tightly regulated environments. Drawing on an online survey in China, we investigate how citizens allocate responsibility across government, platforms, and individuals. Results reveal a strong consensus on intervention and a layered attribution of responsibility shaped by psycho‐political dispositions such as paternalism, right‐wing authoritarianism, online political efficacy, and social responsibility. We introduce the “Orchestra of Digital Coordination” metaphor, conceptualizing digital governance as a coordinated, multi‐actor performance in which responsibilities are differentiated yet interdependent. The findings underscore a broader implication: sustainable digital governance hinges not only on institutional design but also on the perceptual frameworks through which citizens make governance arrangements as legitimate. Related Articles Robles, P., and D. J. Mallinson. 2023. “Catching Up With AI: Pushing Toward a Cohesive Governance Framework.” Politics & Policy 51, no. 3: 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12529 . Veloso Meireles, A. 2024. “Digital Rights in Perspective: The Evolution of the Debate in the Internet Governance Forum.” Politics & Policy 52, no. 1: 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12571 . Zeng, J., T. Stevens, and Y. Chen. 2017. “China's Solution to Global Cyber Governance: Unpacking the Domestic Discourse of ‘Internet Sovereignty’.” Politics & Policy 45, no. 3: 432–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12202 .

ABSTRACT The Great Depression was a turning point in the development of social programming in North America. This paper explores the politics of social policy expansion during the Great Depression in the United States and Canada through an analytical lens that combines the insights of historical institutionalism and the analysis of transnational processes. Thus, the paper focuses on the differences between these two cases as distinct entities as well as how they were shaped by, and influenced one another through, transnational processes. This combination of historical institutionalism and close attention to transnational processes adds insight to the existing scholarship on the politics of welfare state development that tends to prioritize one perspective over the other. Empirically, the paper compares these politics in two discrete social policy areas: old‐age pensions and unemployment insurance. The puzzle tackled is the following: why did the U.S. federal government create new programs in these areas during the 1930s, while Canada did not; and, simultaneously, how did these U.S. policy developments influence Canada during and beyond that decade alongside other transnational trends and processes? As argued, the distinct timing and pace of reform and the role of courts explain why Canada did not implement major public pension and unemployment programs during the Great Depression. This contrasts with the U.S., where the advent of the New Deal led to the creation of a federal pension program and a decentralized system of unemployment insurance. Over time, these policy innovations impacted welfare state development in Canada through transnational influence. Related Articles Béland, Daniel, Marchildon, Gregory P., Medrano, Anahely, Rocco, Philip. 2024. “Policy Feedback, Varieties of Federalism, and the Politics of Health‐Care Funding in the United States, Mexico, and Canada.” Politics & Policy 52(1): 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12575 . Luypaert, Anouk, and Peter Thijssen. 2024. “The Comparative Politics of Solidarity: Political Party Discourse across Three Welfare State Regimes.” Politics & Policy 52(5): 935–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12625 . Luccisano, Lucy, and Amy Romagnoli. 2007. “Comparing Public Social Provision and Citizenship in the United States, Canada, and Mexico: Are There Implications for a North American Space?” Politics & Policy 35(4): 716–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2007.00082.x .

ABSTRACT This article explores how policy innovation in local social policies emerges within a multilevel governance context. Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), it examines how beliefs, coalitions, and institutional arrangements interact across different political arenas—European, national/regional, and local—to foster innovative social policy solutions. Empirically, the study compares two cases of policy innovation (inspired by basic income principles)—Barcelona and Utrecht. Methodologically, the analysis relies on 19 semi‐structured interviews with key actors involved in the policy process, complemented by documentary analysis. Findings show that policy innovation results from the interplay between local agency and multilevel structural opportunities. The ACF proves to be a valuable theoretical lens for explaining how ideas and coalitions gain traction across governance levels. Moreover, it concludes that local innovation depends not only on the role of policy entrepreneurs but also on the enabling conditions created by multilevel governance structures. Related Articles Burau, V., and C. Clavier. 2018. “Understanding Gaps in the Coexistence between Different Modes of Governance: A Case Study of Public Health in Schools in a Multilevel System.” Politics & Policy 46, no. 4: 604–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12269 . Hodgett, S. 2006. “Multilevel Governance: Policy and Interpretive Approaches in One European Region.” Politics & Policy 34, no 4: 726–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2006.00038.x . Bance, P., and A. Chassy. 2017. “The Rollout of the Multilevel Governance System: A Source of Reworking the Contingent Valuation Method?” Politics & Policy 45, no 6: 1080–1107. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12236 .

ABSTRACT Whether or not any particular policy is adequate by EBP's own standard—being evidence‐based—cannot be decided without appeal to value‐based considerations. We support this claim in two steps. First, we argue that which evidence gets used in policy‐making depends on our value commitments, which are rarely made explicit, let alone being the subject of critical and transparent reflection. In other words, value commitments are not just important at the point of spelling out specific policy details and choosing between policy options but they are absolutely essential right from the very beginning of the policy‐making process: all the way from deciding which problem should be addressed by policy or regulation to determining which evidence to use and where to look for it. Second, in order to determine when we have enough evidence, we need to take into account relevant value‐based considerations.

ABSTRACT Are women sources of expertise for parliamentary policy discussions? In most parliaments, committees are the only venue where citizens can speak directly to the legislature; we argue that the proportion of women witnesses has implications for gender equality in policymaking. We present an original dataset of over 52,000 parliamentary committee witnesses in Canada spanning 19 years (2006–2025). We find that men are overrepresented as parliamentary witnesses, particularly on committees that deal with masculinized policy areas. Women witnesses are underrepresented descriptively and are disproportionately segregated to stereotypically feminine committees. While women are more likely to chair stereotypically feminine committees, chair gender has few independent effects on the gender balance of witnesses, reflecting the institutional constraints faced by women political actors. In other words, leadership does not compensate for gendered witness composition. Our findings highlight the need for an institutional shift toward the intentional inclusion of diverse perspectives in legislative policymaking processes. Related Articles Tyner, K., and F. Jalalzai. 2022. “Women Prime Ministers and COVID‐19: Within‐Case Examinations of New Zealand and Iceland.” Politics & Policy 50, no. 6: 1076–1095. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12511 . Malmberg, F. G., and C. H. Serup. 2021. “Voting Women, Protesting Men: A Multilevel Analysis of Corruption, Gender, and Political Participation.” Politics & Policy 49, no. 1: 126–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12393 . Martin, J. R. 2018. “Consensus Builders? The Influence of Female Cabinet Ministers on the Duration of Parliamentary Governments.” Politics & Policy 46, no. 4: 630–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12266 .

Alexander Baturo is an Associate Professor of Government at Dublin City University, Ireland. He studies comparative democratization and authoritarian politics, as well as UN politics. He has published four monographs, including the recent The New Kremlinology (Oxford UP, 2021), and Personalism and Personalist Regimes (Oxford UP, 2024). John F. Clark is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University in Miami, USA. He is the author or editor of six books on African politics and international relations, including, most recently, Political Identity and African Foreign Policies (Lynne Rienner, 2024). Gabriella Ilonszki is Professor Emerita at Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary. She studies the processes of democratic institutionalization in East Central Europe and the role of partisan and career service actors. She headed numerous projects related to parliamentary government, selection of public officials, democratic backsliding, and populist governance. Nikita Khokhlov is a Teaching Fellow at the School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, working on comparative authoritarianism, political communication, and elite behavior with a focus on Russia and former Soviet states. He worked as a researcher and data scientist for the World Bank and Boston Consulting Group. Tatiana Kostadinova is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University in Miami, USA. Her research focuses on political institutions with a special emphasis on elections and political parties, personalist leadership, and political corruption. She is the author of Political Corruption in Eastern Europe: Politics After Communism (Lynne Rienner, 2012). György Lengyel is Professor Emeritus at Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary, where he heads the Centre for Empirical Social Research. He directed elite and public opinion surveys, deliberative polls, civic discussions, content and discourse analysis, field experiments, online Delphi, and Q-research. John D. Marvel is Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy at American University in Washington, DC, USA. His research focuses on front-line team leadership in government organizations. Temirlan T. Moldogaziev is Associate Professor at Indiana University's O'Neill School in Bloomington, USA. His research focuses on public finance and economics. He is the author and editor of Research Handbook on City and Municipal Finance (Edward Elgar, 2023), Information Resolution and Subnational Capital Finance (Oxford University Press, 2021), and State and Local Financial Instruments: Policy Changes and Management (Edward Elgar, 2021 and 2014). Donald Moynihan is the Harris Family Professor of Public Policy at the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, USA. He studies state capacity and administrative burdens. Milena I. Neshkova is Professor of Public Policy and Administration at Florida International University in Miami, USA. She studies democratic governance and the role of bureaucracy in domestic and international settings. She has written on citizen participation in government, political and bureaucratic corruption, and management of public money. William G. Resh is Associate C.C. Crawford Professor in Management and Performance at the University of Southern California's Sol Price School of Public Policy in Los Angelis, USA. His research focuses on public management and executive politics. He is the author of Rethinking the Administrative Presidency (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015). Jochelle Greaves Siew is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Public Policy and Management Program at the University of Southern California's Price School of Public Policy in Los Angeles, USA. Her research interests focus on the interplay between emotions and heuristic-based decision-making within bureaucratic contexts.

ABSTRACT This review article analyzes two pertinent and related works by Marcel Dirsus, How Tyrants Fall, and Hal Brands, The Eurasian Century, to investigate how contemporary authoritarian governments utilize technology to portray an image of stability while obscuring internal vulnerabilities. Dirsus analyzes the inherent mechanisms of autocratic failure, highlighting elite fragmentation and the illusory characteristics of algorithmic governance. Brands expands the perspective to examine how digital authoritarianism transforms global geopolitics, especially throughout the Eurasian landmass. The works collectively demonstrate how technological instruments augment domestic oppression and global power, while simultaneously revealing new weaknesses for regimes. The essay argues that although surveillance and digital manipulation offer temporary control, they ultimately compromise adaptability and legitimacy over time. The perception of technological omnipotence may ultimately catalyze the decline of authoritarianism.