by Sarah Brown & Allegra Fullerton
Policy process theories have long provided scholars with conceptual tools for explaining how policy change occurs or stalls, and how actors, ideas, interests, and institutions interact over time. In celebration of being a sponsor of the Conference on Policy Process Research, we present this Virtual Issue featuring seven articles recently published in Policy & Politics that engage directly with leading policy process frameworks. Read on to see the latest from the Narrative Policy Framework, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, and the Multiple Streams Framework, alongside critical perspectives on policy implementation. Read together, these contributions show how policy process theories are continuously refined through empirical testing, conceptual development, and application across diverse political and institutional contexts.
Narratives, meaning and policy conflict
A systematic review of the Narrative Policy Framework (Kuenzler et al.) is a must-read; it provides a state-of-the-art analysis of how narrative frameworks have evolved within policy studies. The authors map the empirical scope of the Narrative Policy Framework, identifying dominant research themes, methodological tendencies, and areas where cumulative knowledge remains uneven. By treating narratives as analytically consequential — rather than merely illustrative — the review highlights how storytelling shapes policy conflict, persuasion, and the construction of policy problems, while also identifying opportunities for greater theoretical consolidation.
Advocacy coalitions, beliefs, and learning
This collection features several contributions to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) literature, foregrounding questions of belief, power, and learning within policy subsystems. Raúl Gutiérrez-Meave’s article, Advocacy coalitions, soft power, and policy change in Mexican electricity policy applies the framework to a contested energy policy domain, showing how coalitions mobilise soft power — such as expertise, ideas, and legitimacy — alongside more traditional political resources. The analysis extends ACF scholarship by demonstrating how non-coercive forms of influence can be central to coalition strategies, particularly under conditions of ideological polarisation and institutional constraint.
Matthew C. Nowlin’s article, Policy beliefs, belief uncertainty, and policy learning through the lens of the Advocacy Coalition Framework revisits policy-oriented learning, a core concept within the ACF. The authors introduce belief uncertainty as a key analytical condition shaping how actors process information and revise their views. By examining how uncertainty affects learning dynamics, the article adds nuance to established accounts of belief change and highlights variation in how learning unfolds across policy contexts.
Multiple Streams and moments of change
The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is the focus of two articles that examine how opportunities for policy change emerge and are sustained. Policy windows and criminal justice reforms: a Multiple Streams Framework analysis by Georg Wenzelburger examines reform efforts in a Criminal Justice Policy and traces how problem recognition, political conditions, and policy proposals align — The study underscores the contingent and time-sensitive nature of policy windows, reinforcing the value of process-oriented analysis.
In a different context, Rob A. DeLeo and Clifton Chow’s article, Testing the Multiple Streams Framework in US state legislatures offers a systematic empirical assessment of Multiple Streams dynamics at the sub-national level. By examining variation across US states, the authors evaluate the framework’s explanatory reach beyond federal policymaking. The article contributes to broader debates about generalisability, measurement, and methodological rigour in policy process research.
Critical and comparative perspectives on policy processes
In our final section of this collection, we feature articles that push policy process scholarship in more critical and comparative directions. Jen Schneider and Luke Fowler’s piece, Critical race theory, policy ambiguity and implementation brings critical race theory into dialogue with policy implementation research. The authors examine how policy ambiguity can enable racialised outcomes even in the absence of explicit discriminatory intent, challenging technocratic accounts of implementation and foregrounding power, race, and institutional interpretation.
Finally, Policy processes in China: a systematic review of the Multiple Streams Framework (van den Dool & Qiu) reflects on how established policy process theories travel across political systems, using the Multiple Streams Framework as a lens through which to examine issues of theoretical portability and contextual adaptation. Rather than simply testing existing frameworks, the authors examine their applicability within China’s distinctive institutional context, highlighting both points of resonance and limitation. The article invites greater reflexivity about contextual adaptation, conceptual translation, and the risks of theoretical over-extension.
Taken together, these seven articles demonstrate the continued vitality of policy process theories. They show how frameworks are refined through empirical application, challenged through critical engagement, and adapted across diverse political settings. For scholars interested in how policy change unfolds — and how theory itself evolves — this Virtual Issue offers a focused and theory-driven set of contributions.
DeLeo, R. A., & Chow, C. (2025). Testing the Multiple Streams Framework in US state legislatures. Policy & Politics, 53(1), 200-220. Retrieved Jan 21, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000044
Gutiérrez-Meave, R. (2024). Advocacy coalitions, soft power, and policy change in Mexican electricity policy: a discourse network analysis. Policy & Politics, 52(3), 501-520. Retrieved Jan 21, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000005
Kuenzler, J., Stauffer, B., Schlaufer, C., Song, G., Smith-Walter, A., & Jones, M. D. (2025). A systematic review of the Narrative Policy Framework: a future research agenda. Policy & Politics, 53(1), 129-151. Retrieved Jan 21, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000046
Nowlin, M. C. (2024). Policy beliefs, belief uncertainty, and policy learning through the lens of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy & Politics, 52(4), 675-695. Retrieved Jan 21, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000002
Schneider, J., & Fowler, L. (2024). Critical race theory, policy ambiguity and implementation: a multiple streams framework analysis. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 321-340. Retrieved Jan 21, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000023#
van den Dool, A., & Qiu, T. (2025). Policy processes in China: a systematic review of the multiple streams framework. Policy & Politics, 53(3), 506-528. Retrieved Jan 21, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000038
Wenzelburger, G. (2025). Policy windows and criminal justice reforms: a Multiple Streams Framework analysis. Policy & Politics, 53(2), 296-314. Retrieved Jan 21, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000060
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 