Theories Of Policy Process Research Articles

International experiences on active travel planning: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic generated significant impacts on transport policy. Exploring barriers and enablers to active travel through the lens of the practitioners planning for and promoting its uptake can uncover underlying mechanisms that shape travel choices and encourage more effective interventions. This study uses online survey data from practitioners working in the planning and provision of active travel related initiatives (N = 40), to understand international experiences, as influenced by the surge of interest in active travel during the pandemic. We base our investigations and analysis on two policy process theories – the Multiple Streams Framework and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. Drawing tools and concepts from both, we provide a synthesis of international experiences with planning for active travel, and analyse how professionals perceive existing obstacles and opportunities for active travel provision once the immediate impacts of the pandemic have waned. Our findings reveal a pervasive adherence to the status quo – while certain policies temporarily adapted to accommodate the pandemic’s disruptions, the pandemic failed to trigger substantial actions for our sample. The primary challenge lies in the enduring dominance of car-centric cultures and urban form, suggesting both a lack of community understanding about the issues associated with car usage, and ongoing structural barriers of cities planned around cars. Notwithstanding, the emergence of active travel projects and strategies since the onset of the pandemic, coupled with increasing public awareness of active travel, could be valuable in laying the groundwork for future long-term changes, even if their immediate impact is not yet evident.

Editorial Introduction: Unveiling new dimensions in policy process theory research

Editorial Introduction: Unveiling new dimensions in policy process theory research

Political efficacy and the perceived influence of urban and rural residents

AbstractWhile political scientists have long studied citizens' political efficacy as an important indicator of attitudes toward government, less attention has been devoted to the efficacy of rural or urban residents, which is important given the intensifying rural–urban divide in American society. This study fills this gap by analyzing the 2020 American National Election Studies. Using ordered logistic regression, this study finds that (1) city residents tend to believe that small towns and rural areas have too much influence on government; (2) residents of small towns and rural areas demonstrate lower levels of external efficacy than city residents; and (3) people who believe that small towns and rural areas have too much influence tend to demonstrate high external and internal efficacies, a tendency that is clearer in cities than in other community types. These findings reflect mutual in‐group bias and place‐based resentment between rural and urban residents in American society.Related ArticlesPeterson, Holly L., Mark K. McBeth, and Michael D. Jones. 2020. “Policy Process Theory for Rural Studies: Navigating Context and Generalization in Rural Policy.” Politics & Policy 48(4): 576–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12366.Shortall, Sally, and Margaret Alston. 2016. “To Rural Proof or Not to Rural Proof: A Comparative Analysis.” Politics & Policy 44(1): 35–55. https://doi‐org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12144.Smith‐Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.” Politics & Policy 44(6): 1053–88. https://doi‐org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12187.

Advocacy coalitions as political organizations

Abstract Conceptually, advocacy coalitions are referenced in several policy process theories and frameworks to describe groups of actors that share beliefs and coordinate efforts to influence public policy. In the past decades, advocacy coalitions have received increased attention as a concept and a theoretical approach to understanding collective action in the policy process. In this study, we argue that despite its growing popularity, past empirical research has mainly focused on identifying and describing advocacy coalitions while largely overlooking their role and impact as political organizations. Many of the core premises and assumptions about advocacy coalitions hereby remain understudied and untested. Here, we depart from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to discuss the political organization of advocacy coalitions by focusing on four dimensions: (1) a basis for engagement in joint strategies, (2) capacity to mobilize political resources, (3) ability to gain influence in policy processes, and (4) perceptions of advocacy coalitions as a political entity. We briefly review the theory and evidence of each dimension and conclude that several core assumptions about advocacy coalitions yet remain to be empirically tested to enable further conceptual specification and theory development within the ACF and beyond. To this end, we propose a research agenda with suggested research questions, designs, and methodological considerations for advancing empirical research on the role and impact of advocacy coalitions in different cases and contexts.

Policy process theories in autocracies: Key observations, explanatory power, and research priorities

AbstractThe policy process frameworks and theories that are currently considered mainstream were originally developed in the United States, before traveling to other countries. Despite their roots in democratic values, these frameworks and theories are increasingly applied to autocracies. Given important differences between democracies and autocracies, this raises questions about the desirability, limitations, and future directions of this development. In response, this article synthesizes findings from studies that apply existing policy process frameworks and theories to autocracies with the aim of assessing the extent to which the theories are, can, and should be used to explain key aspects of the policy process in autocracies. Based on qualitative content analysis of 146 English‐language peer‐reviewed journal articles that apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory to 39 autocracies, we show that these theories help identify influential institutions, actors, networks, ideas, beliefs, and events. The analysis reveals important differences in policy processes between autocracies and democracies. Future research ought to bring existing literature on authoritarianism and authoritarian politics into policy process research to test existing and new hypotheses.

Emotional Expressions and Advocacy Coalitions

While many policy process theories mention emotions, they have remained mostly unexplored theoretically and empirically, even as broader social science literature incorporates emotions into understanding policy process-related phenomena such as political beliefs and behaviors. This paper introduces the theoretical arguments and a method for studying advocacy coalitions using a combination of emotions and beliefs within the Advocacy Coalition Framework. An application is illustrated in a natural gas pipeline siting conflict in the US using data from news media coverage. The empirical results show that coalitions express emotions and beliefs differently, and that the dyadic relationship between emotions and beliefs significantly distinguishes coalitions rather than emotions by themselves. This paper takes a significant step forward in integrating emotional and belief expressions into the ACF, adding to coalition identification methods, providing a foundation for advancing theory, and contributing to the broader community of policy studies.

Policy conflict around the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

AbstractThe Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is the largest hydroelectric power project in Africa in terms of installed capacity. With global attention focused on the impact of this megadam, questions about how GERD‐related conflict developed are coming to the fore. This discussion paper describes policy conflict around this new hydroelectric dam over the past decade among three nations in the Nile River basin—Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan. Relying on the insights from the Policy Conflict Framework (a policy process theory that clarifies policy conflict characteristics and episodes) and the method of document analysis, this paper reviews the policy setting around the GERD conflict at the macro level. The paper concludes by proposing three recommendations to mitigate policy conflict: (1) address hydrologic information loopholes, (2) leverage a new mediator, and (3) recognize the multifaceted nature of policy conflict.

Examining facilitators and challenges to implementing equitable green space policies: Lessons from Los Angeles County

ABSTRACT Many cities and counties in the U.S. have recently passed equity-oriented policies to improve access to green space for disadvantaged communities. However, the implementation of these policies could limit their intended outcomes, and scant research has focused on their implementation. To address these knowledge gaps, we explored the facilitators and challenges to effectively implementing equity-oriented policies that dedicate green space funding to low-income communities of color in Los Angeles County. We conducted interviews with 25 green space practitioners (in public agencies and nonprofits) and participant observation at 28 meetings. We found that facilitators of equitable implementation include nonprofit advocacy and technical assistance programs, while challenges include limited capacity and funding for nonprofits and cities, politics and bureaucracy, and market conditions. Our results align with policy process theories describing actors and streams in policymaking, and call for consideration of how systemic issues such as structural racism hinder equitable implementation.

The seed sector development in low-income countries: Lessons from the Malawi seed sector policy process

IntroductionExternal conditionalities have shaped public policy development in borrowing nations. This has been through top-down policy support programs, an example being the policy reforms under the structural adjustment program. Under the seed sector reforms Malawi committed to the Southern Africa Development Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa harmonized seed regulations technical agreements.MethodsTo contribute to the debate, we analyzed the Malawi seed sector policy process by investigating three questions: What were the leading events? Who were the stakeholders involved, and their roles? Which factors influenced the policy process? Qualitative tools were employed based on policy process theory using the Kaleidoscope Model. We used stakeholder inception, planning, feedback workshops, and key informant interviews (N = 17). This data was complemented by grey literature as secondary information. Snowball sampling was used to identify key informant interview participants based on the saturation principle. Narrative analysis focusing on content, structure, and dialogic context was used.ResultsOur results show a strong external influence on the seed sector policy process. This began after independence when development partners supported the establishment of the public agricultural research system to improve production for food security and export. Failure to achieve the earlier objectives resulted in economic reforms aimed at private sector-led seed sector development based on market-oriented policies. The increase in the private sector's role called for adopting and enacting regulatory policies and legislation that used policy transfer theory. International financial institutions, multinational companies, and regional economic communities led this process. Our evidence suggests that the civil society community in Malawi contested the policies for not recognizing farmers' rights. This affected the domestication process of the harmonized seed regulations technical agreements.DiscussionTherefore, we recommend critical consideration and embracing of existing domestic social, political, and technical conditions to support economic policy reforms. This would help reduce unintended consequences and improve inclusivity. Governments may need to play an interlocutory role for the various actors in the policy domain during the domestication process.

Programmatic action in Chinese health policy—The making and design of “Healthy China 2030”

AbstractThe Programmatic Action Framework (PAF) is a powerful analytical perspective to advance our understanding of policy change by stressing the role of programmatic groups and how they promote their preferred policy programs. While the PAF has been applied successfully to European countries and the US, a considerable research gap remains regarding its explanatory power in other regions and political settings. To step into this research gap, we apply the PAF to authoritarian China through a qualitative case study of the making of “Healthy China 2030”, a national health policy program. We explore two research questions: firstly, to what extent can the PAF be operationalized in a nondemocracy to identify programmatic groups and evaluate policy design, and second, what are the limitations and challenges facing the application of the PAF to nondemocracies? Our empirical analysis shows that the design of this policy program involves actors from different policy areas, despite the top‐down political structure. With regards to the transfer of PAF hypotheses, we show that the framework is a helpful lens to identify programmatic groups and to evaluate policy programs' potential for success based on coherence, responsiveness, and program fit. Meanwhile, the research process of our study revealed the challenges of applying policy process theories to China, including hard‐to‐reach political actors for data collection, lack of transparency regarding collaboration processes between actors, and a lack of publicly available program‐related information.

Dynamics of policy change: Conceptualising policy change and stability in a transforming society / Dynamiken des Policy-Wandels. Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zu Politikwandel und -stabilität in der Transformationsgesellschaft

Policy change is at the heart of policy research. However, scholars mostly observe incremental rather than major or transformative change. As the hurdles for change are both high and diverse, policy research partly shifts from analysing major policy change to everyday politics. Following this analytical shift, this symposium addresses the dynamics of policy change. Its seven contributions examine the different qualities and modes of policy change identified in the (dis)continuities, path dependencies, and random or unexpected windows of opportunity. Adopting a processual analytical perspective, we reconsider different concepts of change and transformation. Starting from the explanatory power of overlapping policy process theories, we identify three analytical approaches (institutional, actor centred, politics of change) and summarise drivers and hurdles of policy change. Building on the contributions, we derive modes and qualities of policy change as a combination of these factors to facilitate exchange across theoretical perspectives and contribute to a better understanding of policy change and stability.

Using Outcome Trajectory Evaluation to Assess HarvestPlus' Contribution to the Development of National Biofortification Breeding Programs.

Improving policies-broadly defined-is at the heart of the structural transformation agenda. This paper describes the use of a new evaluation method-outcome trajectory evaluation (OTE), based on both evaluation and policy process theory-to explore the influence of HarvestPlus, a large and complex research for development program focused on improving nutrition, on a specific policy outcome, namely the establishment of biofortification crop breeding programs in national agricultural research institutes in Bangladesh, India, and Rwanda. The findings support claims of significant HarvestPlus contributions while also raising issues that need to be monitored to ensure sustainability. The paper also discusses the pros and cons of the OTE approach in terms of methodological rigor and the accumulation of learning from one evaluation to the next.

Implementing responsible research and innovation: a case study of U.S. biotechnology oversight

This article explores two research questions through a case study of U.S. biotechnology oversight: why visions of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) are difficult to implement in governance systems for emerging technologies, and how to get policies and programs to overcome barriers to RRI implementation on the national policy agenda. Recent research on barriers to RRI is first reviewed to categorize the types of barriers. Key barriers center around meso- and macro-level institutional and societal forces that disincentivize RRI in innovation systems, as well as micro-level attitudinal and capacity barriers. These barriers point to policy changes that are likely needed to implement RRI in governance systems, in particular incentives for RRI from national funding organizations. However, getting RRI on the policy agenda for biotechnology may be difficult given macro-level socioeconomic and political forces. Therefore, the article uses insights from policy process theory to identify possible ways to get RRI on the national policy agenda. It identifies several ways to promote RRI in national policy-making, such as shifting the policy image of RRI, changing policy venues to encourage RRI, expanding the scope of RRI as a policy issue, and catalyzing focusing events to raise national awareness about RRI.

What made primary English education in Japan different from the global trend? A policy process analysis

This paper aims to examine the policy process of implementing English education in primary schools in Japan, focusing on two reforms: (1) the introduction of a mandatory subject in 2011, emphasising cross-cultural experiences (rather than English skill development) and (2) the introduction of English as a formal subject in 2020. The paper investigates the underlying reasons for these policy changes through the two policy-process theories: windows-of-opportunity theory and historical institutionalism. Analysis of governmental documents revealed that (1) the 2011 reform can be considered a consequence of the path dependence effect accelerated by a peculiar reform in the 1990s, and (2) the 2020 reform can be attributed to a change in the political power balance within the government, originating from the late 1980s. These findings indicate that even some globally orientated policies like English education reform can be determined by historical/political conditions that are largely characterised as domestic, rather than global.

Governance of Gene-edited Plants: Insights from the History of Biotechnology Oversight and Policy Process Theory

The history of US biotechnology oversight for genetically modified plants is analyzed in the context of policy process theories to derive insights for contemporary governance of gene-edited plants. The Advocacy Coalition Framework sheds light on how opposing coalitions with different policy beliefs struggled to influence oversight, along with coalition disputes over the scope of issues that should be considered in regulatory policy-making. The Multiple Streams Approach and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory explain how focusing events arising from these struggles opened “windows of opportunity” to put issues on the public policy agenda and force changes to oversight over time. For example, nongovernmental organizations had a prominent role in bringing legal challenges through federal courts or in raising attention to risk issues in the media—efforts that prompted advancements in federal regulations, guidance documents, or risk-mitigation practices for biotechnology oversight. These policy dynamics depended on public information to bring controversies to light and elicit a policy response. However, recent biotech regulations allow for gene-edited crops to enter the marketplace without requirements for public disclosure or tracking. Lack of transparency jeopardizes the public legitimacy of gene-edited crops, venues for public participation in biotechnology oversight, and ultimately responsiveness to adapt oversight to future biotech products and emerging risks.

Combinatorial perspective on ideas, concepts, and policy change

ABSTRACT The evolution of environmental policy is increasingly driven by the emergence and interaction of policy concepts and the frameworks, knowledge, and ideas they employ. We argue that policy actors’ creative use of policy concepts often leads to their combinatorial development. In this policy process, the concepts interact and shape each other’s policy relevance and future development under the influence of ideas, knowledge, and political factors. We formulate this new research approach using ideational and policy process theories. In particular, we explicate internal and contextual combinatory elements that enable policy change resulting from mutual development of policy concepts. For an empirical demonstration, we analyze the conceptual innovation, rise, and ramifications of nutrient recycling as a new segment of Finnish environmental policy.

Comparative Public Policy Analysis: Shortcomings, Pitfalls, and Avenues for the Future

Comparative public policy is a blooming research area. It also suffers from some curious blind spots. In this paper we discuss four of these: (1) the obsession with covariance, which means that important phenomena are ignored; (2) the lack of agency, which leads to underwhelming explanatory models; (3) the unclear universe of cases, which means the inferential value of theories and the empirical results are unclear; and (4) the focus on outputs, even though most theories contain strong assumptions about the political process leading to certain outputs. Following this discussion, we then outline how a closer integration of policy process theories may be fruitful for future research.

Integrating biodiversity: a longitudinal and cross-sectoral analysis of Swiss politics

The effective conservation and promotion of biodiversity requires its integration into a wide range of sectoral policies. For this to happen, the issue must receive attention across policy sectors. Yet, we know little about how attention to the issue evolves over time and across sectors. Drawing from the literature on environmental policy integration/mainstreaming and policy process theories, we develop competing hypotheses, expecting either increasing or fluctuating attention to the biodiversity issue. We tested the hypotheses using the case of Swiss politics between 1999 and 2018. Applying a combination of computational methods, we analyze the content of a comprehensive collection of policy documents (n ≈ 440,000) attributed to 20 policy sectors. Comparing the sectors, we find that (1) a persistent increase in attention is the exception, (2) if there is an increase in attention, it is likely to be temporary, and (3) the most common pattern is that of invariant attention over time. Biodiversity integration—if it does happen at all—tends to occur in cycles rather than in steady long-term shifts. This implies that the conservation of biodiversity does not follow the cross-sectoral nature of the problem, but is subject to the dynamics of "politics," where actors, because of limited resources, engage with (aspects of) an issue only for a certain amount of time.

Advocacy coalitions and political control

AbstractThe Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) posits that policy actors, including elected officials and bureaucrats, aggregate into coalitions based on shared beliefs and coordinate to achieve policy objectives. Yet, bureaucrats are often subject to political control mechanisms understood within a principal‐agent framework. Combining insights from principal‐agent theory and the ACF, we explore the nature of principal‐agent relationships within and across advocacy coalitions in the United States using case studies of nuclear waste management and fair housing policy. Specifically, we develop three propositions regarding principals and agents as members of advocacy coalitions and examine those propositions by comparing the two case studies. We find that powerful elected officials and expert bureaucrats are important resources for coalitions; bureaucrats are in coalitions but face cross‐pressure from principals in opposing coalitions; and control mechanisms embedded in policy designs by principals can limit bureaucratic discretion in a way that aligns with coalition goals.Related ArticlesNeill, Katharine A., and John C. Morris. 2012. “A Tangled Web of Principals and Agents: Examining the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill through a Principal–Agent Lens.” Politics & Policy 40(4): 629–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2012.00371.xPeterson, Holly L., Mark K. McBeth, and Michael D. Jones. 2020. “Policy Process Theory for Rural Studies: Navigating Context and Generalization in Rural Policy.” Politics & Policy 48(4): 576–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12366Swigger, Alexandra, and Bruce Timothy Heinmiller. 2014. “Advocacy Coalitions and Mental Health Policy: The Adoption of Community Treatment Orders in Ontario.” Politics & Policy 42(2): 246–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12066

How diverse and inclusive are policy process theories?1

Numerous published efforts have compared and contrasted policy process theories. Few assessments, however, have examined the extent to which they are inclusive or diverse. Here we summarise lessons from previous assessments, paying attention to how Paul Sabatier’s science-based criteria have shaped the contours of the field. In looking at these contours, we explore evidence of diversity and inclusivity of policy process approaches in terms of methods, concepts, topics, geography and authors. We conclude with strategies to address challenges revealed by our examination: creating space for conversations among scholars of differing perspectives and approaches; building sustained and meaningful efforts to recruit and train researchers with diverse backgrounds; establishing research coordination networks that focus on policy problems; and creating better metrics to assess our diversity and inclusivity.