Inferential reasoning and abductive approaches to policy analysis under uncertainty 


by M. Ramesh and Michael Howlett

Policy analysis is often expected to deliver clear, evidence-based recommendations. Yet many contemporary policy problems—from climate change to pandemics—are characterised by uncertainty, complexity, and disagreement about both facts and values. In their recent article, Inferential Reasoning in Policy Analysis: Knowledge Use under Uncertainty and Complexity, M. Ramesh and Michael Howlett examine how policy analysts can generate useful advice under these conditions and argue for a greater role for inferential and abductive reasoning in policy analysis. 

The limits of conventional policy analysis 

Much traditional policy analysis assumes relatively stable conditions in which analysts can gather reliable evidence, clearly define policy problems, and evaluate options using established tools such as cost–benefit analysis or impact assessment. Ramesh and Howlett suggest that these assumptions often break down in contemporary policy environments. 

Many policy challenges combine empirical uncertainty with political disagreement and strong value conflicts. Under such conditions, technical analytical tools may struggle to produce timely or actionable guidance. At the same time, approaches that rely primarily on participatory deliberation can face different challenges, including difficulties integrating empirical evidence into decision-making. 

Continue reading

Highlights collection from Policy & Politics: free to access from 1st May – 31st August 2026 on Environmental policy through theory: collaboration, narratives, evidence and design 


by Allegra Fullerton (Digital Associate Editor) and Sarah Brown (Senior Journals Manager)

The articles featured here demonstrate how collaborative governance, policy narratives, evidence use and policy design shape environmental policy, revealing how coordination, meaning, knowledge and calibration interact to influence policy targets, implementation pathways and outcomes. What links the four contributions is not only their theoretical pluralism but also a shared methodological ambition: each pushes an established policy process framework in new empirical directions, drawing on approaches ranging from evolutionary game modelling to natural language processing and multilevel Bayesian regression.  

Continue reading

Cultural theory and policy framing in attitudes toward universal basic income 

by Wei-Ting Yen and Li-Yin Liu


This article examines how public attitudes toward universal basic income form when clear partisan cues are absent. Drawing on cultural theory, the authors show how deeper value orientations shape how individuals interpret policy arguments about universal basic income. 

Universal basic income refers to a policy in which all individuals receive a regular, unconditional payment from the state regardless of income or employment status. In recent years, the idea has attracted global attention as governments consider how to respond to economic disruption, technological change, and labour market uncertainty. Yet public opinion on the policy remains divided, and existing research often explains support in terms of ideology or party identification. 

Continue reading

Not Yet Partisan: Cultural Theory Explains Attitudes about Solar Radiation Management in the US  

by Chris Koski & Paul Manson

Public attitudes toward solar radiation management, geoengineering, cultural theory, and partisanship in US climate policy are at the centre of Not Yet Partisan: Cultural Theory Explains Attitudes about Solar Radiation Management in the US, by Chris Koski (Reed College) and Paul Manson (Portland State University), recently published in Policy & Politics

Solar radiation management (SRM) remains a low-salience and poorly understood climate intervention in the United States. Unlike carbon taxes or emissions regulations, SRM has not yet been fully absorbed into entrenched partisan conflict. Koski and Manson use this “pre-partisan” moment to ask a theoretically significant question: when elite cues are weak, what structures public opinion? 

Continue reading

Final reminder of deadline 30 April for Special Issue proposals from Policy & Politics journal

From the co-editors of Policy & Politics 


The editors of Policy & Politics invite proposals for a special issue that will make a significant contribution to our understanding of the nexus of public policy and politics. If you would like to guest edit a special issue for a top quartile journal publishing that is committed to advancing scholarly understanding of the dynamics of policy-making and implementation, please submit your proposal by 30 April 2026. 

Read the call for special issue proposals to learn more or contact Sarah.Brown@bristol.ac.uk. 

We’re looking forward to hearing from you! 

Policy diffusion and the motivations behind open government policies 

By Seulki Lee-Geiller, Caterina Santoro, Mohsan Ali & Yannis Charalabidis


Open government has become a prominent global policy agenda over the past decade, associated with ideals of transparency, accountability, and civic participation. Yet its rise has coincided with a period of democratic backsliding in many countries. This article, Uncovering Motivations Behind Open Government Policy: A Policy Diffusion Approach, asks a deceptively simple question: why do governments commit to open government reforms amid growing concerns over democratic backsliding? 

Open government in an era of democratic decline 

Open government has been widely promoted through international initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership (OGP), which requires participating countries to develop action plans and commit to reforms including fiscal transparency, freedom of information, and citizen engagement. Governments across diverse political systems have adopted these commitments, helping to institutionalise open government as a global policy model. 

At the same time, many observers point to broader patterns of democratic erosion, including weakening institutional checks and shrinking civic space. This creates an apparent puzzle. If democratic institutions are under strain in many contexts, what explains governments’ willingness to publicly embrace openness and transparency initiatives? 

Existing research provides only partial answers. Studies of policy diffusion often explain the spread of institutional models by examining patterns of adoption across countries. Meanwhile, research on open government tends to focus on the design or outcomes of reforms rather than the motivations governments themselves articulate. As the authors suggest, this leaves an important gap in understanding why governments say they adopt these policies.  

Motivations for adopting open government may range from instrumental considerations, such as economic benefits, to the simple mimicry of reforms implemented by other countries. These motivations can be observed by examining how states justify such reforms at the global level. However, existing literature provides limited tools for analysing these motivations across large numbers of countries. Recent methodological innovations based on natural language processing share a similar limitation, as they struggle to capture motivations and, more broadly, the meanings articulated in text. 

Continue reading

Collaborative climate governance: linking consensus-building and collective action 

By Cheng Zhou and Clare Richardson-Barlow 

This article develops a new framework for understanding how collaboration between governments and enterprises evolves in climate governance. The analysis connects two processes that are often studied separately: the development of consensus among stakeholders and the emergence of collective action to address climate change.  

Collaborative governance has become an increasingly important approach to addressing complex policy challenges such as climate change. These issues typically require cooperation between multiple actors, including governments, firms, and other organisations. While existing frameworks explain many institutional features of collaboration, they often pay less attention to how collaborative behaviour develops between participants over time. 

Continue reading

Advocacy Coalition Framework, self-interest and policy change in German munitions policy

by Alexander Pechmann & Jochen Hinkel


In their recent article Self-interest within the Advocacy Coalition Framework: how material beliefs affect change in German munitions policy, authors Alexander Pechmann and Jochen Hinkel, examine how self-interest shapes coalition dynamics and policy change. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the authors introduce the concept of material beliefs to better explain how actors motivated by self-interest interact with those driven by broader societal goals.  

The article addresses a longstanding critique of the ACF. While the framework recognises that policy actors may be motivated by both societal goals and self-interest, empirical studies often focus primarily on purposive beliefs—those linked to wider societal objectives such as environmental protection or public health. Pechmann and Hinkel argue that this emphasis risks overlooking how actors’ material interests—such as financial gain or political influence—shape coalition behaviour and policy outcomes. 

To address this gap, the authors conceptualise material beliefs as beliefs oriented towards short-term benefits for the actor or their affiliated group, while purposive beliefs concern longer-term goals that benefit society more broadly. By integrating material beliefs directly into the ACF belief hierarchy, the article offers a clearer framework for analysing how self-interest operates within policy subsystems. 

Continue reading

Stories told before: intertextuality in policy narratives on men’s violence against women 

By Hilda Broqvist 

This article introduces the concept of intertextuality to the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), offering a new way to analyse how policy narratives draw on and reuse earlier stories. It argues that, while NPF research has paid close attention to how evidence is used strategically in policy debates, it has largely overlooked the fact that some forms of “evidence” are themselves narratives, complete with their own characters, plots and policy messages. 

The article starts from a simple but important observation: policy actors rarely construct narratives in a vacuum. Instead, they operate in discursive environments already populated by influential texts — such as national strategies, international conventions, or previous policy programmes — that shape how new stories are told. Drawing on theories of intertextuality from discourse analysis, Broqvist proposes that NPF scholars need better tools to study how these pre-existing narratives are actively incorporated into new policy narratives. 

Continue reading

Policy & Politics announces the winners of the Early Career and Best Paper Prizes published in 2025

We are delighted to announce our annual prize winners from all articles published in Policy & Politics in 2025.

Continue reading