Month: June 2024

NEW SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON Policy Learning: Types, Mechanisms and Effects. BLOG 3: The relative effects of diversity on collective learning in local collaborative networks in Belgium

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Nadège Carlier, David Aubin, and Stéphane Moyson 


In our recent article published in Policy & Politics as part of a special issue on Policy Learning: Types, Mechanisms and Effects, we researched the relative effects of diversity on collective learning in local collaborative networks in Belgium. Collaborative networks represent horizontal structures in public governance that facilitate interactions among diverse stakeholders, including civil servants, businesses, and citizens. These networks play a crucial role in fostering coherence, comprehensiveness, and innovation in cross-cutting public policies such as climate initiatives. However, achieving these benefits is particularly challenging in the aftermath of fragmented public action resulting from new public management reforms. To harness the advantages of collaboration, collective learning — defined as the broadened and mutual understanding of public issues resulting from repeated social interactions — is indispensable but not spontaneous. It requires participants within collaborative networks to update their beliefs and develop a deeper understanding of each other’s constraints, interests, and ideas. The diversity of participants within these networks presents learning opportunities that, while significant, do not always translate into tangible learning outcomes. 

To explore how diversity contributes to collective learning in collaborative networks, our study focused on two networks within the city administration of Schaerbeek, Belgium. The first network centred on implementing sustainable procurement practices, while the second aimed to combat discrimination and promote diversity within the municipality. Over a span of approximately three years, public servants from various departments collaborated, exchanged information, and developed public policies. 

Continue reading →

New citation metrics for Policy & Politics

policypressblogLeave a comment

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 4.3, maintaining its position in the top quartile of Political Science journals (19 out of 317 journals) and 9 out of 91 journals in the Public Administration category.

As an editorial team, we are on a journey of diversifying and internationalising the content that we publish in P&P. We want to be known as a home for exciting and inclusive Public Policy scholarship. We know that a 2-year impact factor is a crude and often inaccurate way of measuring success. But we also acknowledge that maintaining a high impact factor is important for us to continue on this journey, attracting the very best research from colleagues at different career stages.

To this end, we are pleased to announce a range of citation metrics for P&P in 2024. Scopus’ Citescore has ranked P&P in the 91st percentile (20 out of 232 journals) in Public Administration. In addition, the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) rankings place P&P in the top quartile (30 out of 216 journals) in Public Administration.

We are so grateful to all of you in our scholarly community for helping us achieve these excellent results. Thank you!

With best wishes,

Oscar, Claire, Elizabeth and Chris
P&P co-editors

NEW SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON Policy Learning: Types, Mechanisms and Effects. BLOG 2: Why policy failure is a prerequisite for innovation in the public sector

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Philipp Trein and Thenia Vagionaki 

In our article entitled, “Why policy failure is a prerequisite for innovation in the public sector,” we explore the relationship between policy failure and innovation within public governance. Drawing inspiration from the “Innovator’s Dilemma,”—a theory from the management literature—we argue that the very nature of policymaking, characterized by myopia of voters, blame avoidance by decisionmakers, and the complexity (ill-structuredness) of societal challenges, has an inherent tendency to react with innovation only after failure of existing policies.  

Our analysis implies that we need to be more critical of what the policy process can achieve in terms of public sector innovation. Cognitive limitations tend to lead to a misperception of problems and inaccurate assessment of risks by decision makers according to the “Innovator’s Dilemma”.  This problem implies that true innovation (non-trivial policy changes) are unlikely to happen before an existing policy has failed visibly. However, our perspective does not want to paint a gloomy picture for public policy making but rather offers a more realistic interpretation of what public sector innovation can achieve. As a consequence, learning from experts in the policy process should be expected to correct failures in public sector problem-solving during the political process, rather than raise expectations beyond what is possible. 

Continue reading →

Democratisation through New Municipalism: The Role of Public-Common Partnerships

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Iolanda Bianchi


In my recent article published in Policy & Politics, I take a journey through the burgeoning phenomenon known as ‘new municipalism’, a movement that is rapidly gaining traction as a powerful catalyst for injecting a breath of democratic air into local politics and policy-making. 

At the heart of new municipalism’s democratisation strategy is the concept of public-common partnerships. These are not just any alliances, but deliberately formed partnerships between civil society organisations with a passion for social justice and local public institutions. The aim is clear: to empower these groups to take over and self-manage public goods and services. This approach is championed by proponents of the new municipalism, who see in these partnerships a democratising capacity that echoes ideologies from Marx and beyond, suggesting that self-management is tantamount to the practice of direct democracy. However, this perspective invites a nuanced critique that cautions us against oversimplifying the relationship between self-management and direct democracy. 

Continue reading →

Understanding evidence in policy-making

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Grace Piddington, Eleanor Mackillop & James Downe


Different views of evidence
The role of evidence in the policy-making process is contentious. Those who design policy have different perspectives on what constitutes rigorous evidence – whether that is a preference for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or lived experience. Our recent research article, published in Policy & Politics aims to improve understanding of how policy actors in Scotland and Wales view evidence. It finds that perceptions of evidence are not bounded by institutional, professional, or territorial criteria. Rather, they are much more fluid, with the individual’s understanding evolving over time.

Evidence profiles
Our research found four profiles which can help us to understand what constitutes evidence for policy actors. Each profile outlined describes one possible way to understand evidence and its role in the policy-making process. This list is not exhaustive but provides insight into some of the ways that evidence is viewed.

  • Evidence based policy making Idealists: this profile typically prioritises rigorous and clear evidence in decision-making processes. Their preference for high-quality research and systematic reviews can lead to a greater emphasis on evidence-based practices and interventions.
  • Pragmatists: They tend to take a more flexible and context-specific approach toevidence. Pragmatists value practical experience and local knowledge in addition to research findings.
  • Inclusive: Members of this profile emphasise a broad range of evidence sources, including individual stories and lived experiences. They value diverse perspectives and the incorporation of multiple forms of evidence in decision-making.
  • Political: This profile is characterised by a critical view of evidence and a focus on power relations in decision-making. They may question traditional hierarchies of evidence and challenge dominant narratives.
Continue reading →