by Saahir Shafi & Daniel Mallinson
Our recent article published in Policy & Politics sets out its research context by building upon the assumptions of Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET), which state thatpolicymaking in democratic countries tends to follow patterns of long periods of policy stability interrupted by rapid large scale policy shifts, or ‘punctuations’. PET explains this pattern of policymaking as arising from the friction built into political systems and the cognitive limitations of decisionmakers. Friction is necessarily built into democratic political systems to prevent the arbitrary exercise of political authority and, when combined with the cognitive limitations of decision makers, policymaking favours the status quo. Large-scale policy shifts tend to occur sparingly and only after a build-up of political pressure for change.
More recently, punctuated policymaking has been observed to exist in a few autocratic countries with one important distinction—policymaking features more large-scale shifts in autocracies compared to more open systems of government. This is attributable to the limitations in the flow of information through formal and informal mechanisms—press censorship and restrictions on the exercise of civil liberties, particularly expressions of opposition—found in autocratic regimes.
Previous research on punctuated policymaking in autocracies has been limited to a few nations—Hong Kong, Brazil, Turkey, Russia, Malta, Hungary and Central and Eastern European countries—and has focussed on comparisons of policymaking before and after regime changes. We extend this body of research by asking whether differences in policymaking can be identified across numerous political systems within a single period.
Our research presents a broad and robust analysis of PET dynamics. We compare policy change across 166 countries over a three-year time frame for a shared and highly visible policy problem that affected all nations: the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-sectional analysis enables a better understanding of differences in policy responses across different types of political systems for a single policy issue at a scale which has not been evaluated before.
First, we explore how the context of crisis (that is, uncertainty and urgency) has influenced policymaking. We link the concepts of policy learning and bounded emulation to PET and propose the emergence of mini cycles of punctuated policymaking during a crisis. We illustrate that policy change during the pandemic has been characterised by both short periods of stability and intermittent policy leaps—all within contracted time periods spanning months and even weeks.
Second, we evaluate differences in punctuated policy dynamics between political systems with varying levels of political rights and civil liberties. We find that democratic and autocratic nations are characterised by similar cyclical patterns of policy change, despite wide variations in local community transmission. We use both traditional methods of analysis used in PET scholarship (histograms) as well as presenting a more novel approach (Q–Q plots).
Contrary to the expectations of PET, our findings suggest that in crisis contexts, there are no notable variations in punctuated policymaking between democratic and autocratic nations. While autocratic nations feature relatively more punctuated policymaking than democratic nations, these differences are exceptionally modest. This is likely caused by the highly visible nature of a global crisis, and the subsequent inability for autocratic governments to engage in information suppression.
Our evaluation of policy change across a wide range of political systems in a crisis context offers notable insights into the generalizability of PET dynamics. Thus, this research offers new insights into PET scholarship both theoretically and empirically.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Shafi, S., & Mallinson, D. J. (2023). Evaluating punctuated equilibrium dynamics within a crisis context. Policy & Politics, 51(4), 647-672 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16891538754098
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Galik, C. S., Ba, Y., & Bobbitt, C. (2023). Institutional stability and change in environmental governance. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 439-465 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16806127945591
Kagan, J. A., & Olofsson, K. L. (2023). Advocacy strategies of industry and environmental interest groups in oil and gas policy debates. Policy & Politics, 51(1), 180-202 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16631590760299
Nohrstedt, D. (2022). When do disasters spark transformative policy change and why?. Policy & Politics, 50(3), 425-441 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16508834302815
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 