Co-Editors of Policy & Politics
To all our authors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, readers, friends and supporters,
We’re delighted to announce that Policy & Politics (P&P) has achieved a 2-year Impact Factor of 3.5 in the 2025 Journal Citation Reports, maintaining its position in the top quartile of journals in both Public Administration and Political Science.
Co-Editors of Policy & Politics
The co-editors invite abstracts for a special issue on Power and Politics in the Policy Process.
Abstract submission (500-750 words) deadline: 1 September 2026
From our perspective as editors of Policy & Politics, there is a clear gap in the literature: politics is either not explicitly addressed or under-integrated in policy process studies. The implication is that if politics is missing, then so is power. Our concern is theoretical, empirical and fundamentally practical: not enough has been done to advance knowledge about how politics influences policy responses to public problems. This is to the field’s detriment, given the increasing tendency toward illiberalism in democratic systems that fractures the pluralist norms that policy process research has long relied on.
Continue reading
by Sybille Münch
This article examines how assisted voluntary return (AVR) policies diffuse across European and national contexts, focusing on Germany within the multi-level governance system of the European Union. Developing an interpretive, mechanism-based account of policy diffusion, author Sybille Münch argues that understanding how policies travel requires close attention to how actors construct meaning, rather than relying solely on abstract diffusion models.
Moving beyond single diffusion mechanisms
Policy diffusion research often seeks to identify a dominant mechanism—such as learning, emulation, or competition—to explain how policies spread. Münch instead proposes a more fine-grained approach, drawing on interpretive process tracing and the concept of complex causal mechanisms. These mechanisms operate as sequences of actor-driven actions and interpretations, rather than as singular explanatory forces.
This approach challenges assumptions that policies are simply transferred intact between contexts. Rather, policies are actively interpreted, adapted, and sometimes contested as they move across governance levels.
Continue readingGuest edited by Hilde van Meegdenburg, Sandra Plumer & Johanna Kuhlmann
We are excited to publish this introductory article to a new themed section on Interpretive Process Tracing (IPT). This article lays out the conceptual and methodological foundations for a growing strand of policy research, while also making a substantial standalone contribution to debates on causal mechanisms and process tracing. In doing so, it both frames the research articles in the themed section and advances IPT as a coherent research approach in its own right.
The article begins from a familiar starting point: the increasing prominence of process tracing (PT) in policy research, particularly as a tool for uncovering causal mechanisms—the “cogs and wheels” linking causes to outcomes. However, the authors identify an important tension. Much existing PT adopts a regularity-oriented, moderately positivist stance, assuming that mechanisms generate recurring patterns and can be studied through relatively objective observation. This sits uneasily with interpretive traditions in policy studies, which emphasise context, contingency, and the situated meanings actors attach to policy processes.
Continue readingWe are deeply saddened to learn of the sudden passing of Raúl Pacheco-Vega, a valued member of the Policy & Politics Editorial Board since 2021.
Raúl was an engaged, energetic, and highly supportive member of our Board, making a significant contribution to the journal through his expertise, insight, and commitment to the field. A respected scholar of public policy and environmental governance, his work advanced understanding of issues including water governance, climate change, research methods, and social vulnerability.
He brought energy and good humour to our Board and was always willing to share his time and expertise with colleagues. He was a talented member of our community whose presence will be greatly missed.
Our thoughts are with his family, friends, colleagues, and students at this difficult time.
by Denitsa Marchevska
In her article, author Denitsa Marchevska examines how non-governmental organisations can achieve policy advisory success in settings where such influence would typically be considered unlikely. The article addresses a central puzzle: while non-governmental organisations are often seen as disadvantaged within policy advisory systems, they are nevertheless able, in some cases, to play a substantive role in policy formulation.
The article situates this puzzle within scholarship on policy advisory systems, interest group influence, and collaborative governance. Across these literatures, non-governmental organisations are commonly understood to face structural constraints, including more limited access to decision-makers, fewer resources, and weaker institutional positioning. These constraints are expected to be particularly pronounced in more closed or less participatory policy-making environments.
Continue reading
Gerry Stoker, Daniel Devine & Brenton Prosser
In their recent article, Gerry Stoker, Daniel Devine and Brenton Prosser introduce and develop the concept of policy fatalism, understood as the belief that governments are unable to address some of the most important problems facing society. The article argues that this captures a distinct orientation towards public policy and examines how such views are expressed across different issue areas, how they vary across groups, and how they relate to political attitudes.
The authors position policy fatalism alongside, but distinct from, existing concepts. While debates on “wicked problems” emphasise complexity and difficulty, they do not necessarily imply that problems cannot be addressed. Policy fatalism, by contrast, centres on the view that effective policy responses are unlikely. The article also distinguishes policy fatalism from personal fatalism, which concerns individuals’ sense of control over their own lives. Policy fatalism instead focuses on collective challenges and the perceived limits of public action.
Continue reading
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
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 readingby 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
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 