In our first highlights collection of 2024, we are delighted to feature three topical open access articles illuminating several different perspectives on feminist politics. All three emphasise the importance of considering intersectionality in politics and policymaking, which we’ve underlined in our previous spotlight features, for example with Professor Julia Jordan-Zachary and Dr Tiffany Manuel.
In the first article, Charlène Calderaro explores the racialisation of sexism, looking at how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in her case studies from Britain and France.
To introduce her research, Calderaro points out that, while gender-based violence is increasingly addressed through public policy, it also follows a process of ‘othering’ marked by racialisation in many European contexts. This racialisation process is particularly evident when examining the problem of gender-based violence in public spaces, for example, street harassment, where sexism is often attributed to migrant men or men from ethnic minorities. However, the extent of this racialisation process varies significantly across national contexts.
The findings show that the racialisation of sexism in policy-making against gender-based violence can be exacerbated by nationally embedded ideas on race and racism. It also suggests that, by extension, these different conceptions of race can affect the ability to prevent “femonationalism”, which refers to the increasing use of women’s rights to foster nationalism in the form of racial exclusion.
Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis
Claire Dupont, Jeffrey Rosamond and Bishoy L. Zaki
In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, we provide an historical overview of the evolution of some of the knowledge processes and linkages that are involved in EU climate policy. We explore whether developments in these knowledge exchanges reflect shifts in the politicisation of climate change.
To address this question, we outline a conceptual model of politicisation that accounts for two different effects: (i) prioritisation leading to enabling conditions for knowledge exchange, and (ii) polarisation leading to constraining conditions. We analyse the politicisation of climate change in the EU since the 1990s, and discuss two key aspects of how knowledge exchanges develop: formal and informal aspects. Focusing on knowledge exchange with the European Commission, our analysis reveals connections between the development of the formal and informal aspects of knowledge exchange and changes in politicisation over time. We find that when the politicisation of climate change led to a negative or constraining context, informal knowledge exchanges stopped, making it more challenging for multidisciplinary scientific knowledge to be included. However, formal knowledge exchanges remained active, even under constraining conditions.
In this way, our article provides a nuanced assessment of the connections between the effects of politicisation and the potential for meaningful scientific-policy knowledge exchange. It enhances our understanding of both the politicisation of climate change and the development of knowledge exchanges at the policy-science interface.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at Dupont, C., Rosamond, J., & Zaki, B. L. (2024). Investigating the scientific knowledge–policy interface in EU climate policy. Policy & Politics, 52(1), 88-107 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16861511996074
Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis
Peter Aagaard, Sevasti Chatzopoulou, and Birgitte Poulsen
Crisis seems to be everywhere these days. Where there is crisis, there is crisis management. And where there is crisis management, there are experts that advise politicians in decision-making. However, how does this sustained pressure from crises affect relationships between experts and politicians? Has expertise increasingly become politicised? Or do we see more scientisation of politics? And do relationships between experts and politicians vary across different political systems? These are all central questions addressed in our recently published article on Analysing expert advice on political decisions in times of crisis. They are important questions, because they deal with the legitimacy of decision-making and public sense-making in the era of recurring crises.
In our article, we study how a crisis, like COVID-19, affected expert–politician relationships in Denmark, Greece, and the United States. Despite their differences, there were traces of the politicisation of expertise in all three cases. However, experts did not hold sway over elected politicians in any of the countries. In all three countries politicians relied on science selectively (also as partisan expertise) to publicly legitimise their strategies and decisions. The frontstage influence of experts played a minor but significant part across all three cases. Experts were aware of their role in the media during the crisis, often feeling a need to defend their science, perhaps even in opposition to their own government. (Perhaps you remember Fauci?)
Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis.
Peter Aagaard,Marleen Easton, and Brian Head
We are living in turbulent times. Governments have been confronted by multiple interacting crises, like the COVID-19 pandemic, global warming, and economic instability. All over the world, governments face challenges beyond their control, ranging from financial and political disruptions to pandemics, climate change, natural disasters, and threats to national security. These crisis situations are compounded by inevitable gaps in knowledge and uncertainties. This calls for policy advisors. Policy advisors do not just seek to maximise the efficiency of governance during crises. Policy advising also has implications for democratic accountability and legitimacy.
Our article, just published, forms the introduction to a special issue on policy advising during crises. We collect, connect, and provide an overview of the literature in the field, and seek to build on this knowledge, offering new insights.
Studies have shown that racial prejudice in the United States have led to lower levels of public support for redistribution. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased public attention on the essential role of low-income workers in society. During the pandemic, many low-income workers such as janitors were classified as essential to the basic functioning of American society, and they continued to carry out on-site jobs, putting their health at risk. Media outlets have hailed low-wage essential workers as heroes, celebrating them for their selflessness in the midst of a crisis. Has this increased attention on low-income workers fostered public support for redistribution?
In our recent article in Policy & Politics, our study examines whether the increased awareness of low-income workers’ societal contributions increases public support for redistribution. We further investigate whether this increased awareness mitigates racial bias known to inhibit broad public support for redistribution. In order to study this, we conducted two survey experiments in which we varied the information about a hypothetical low-income worker. In particular, we varied the emphasis on the worker’s essential role and the race of the worker to see whether these variations change the way Americans evaluate how deserving this individual is of benefits from various welfare programmes.
Our findings demonstrate that portraying a worker as an essential worker increases survey respondents’ appreciation of the worker’s contribution to society and their support for pandemic-related benefits. However, it did not increase overall support for redistribution. In addition, while we found negative effects of a Latino cue, particularly among white respondents, this effect weakened when information about the workers’ work ethic and other characteristics was provided. Additionally, contrary to well-established findings of the negative impact caused by stereotyping of Black individuals, we found that portraying a worker as Black did not decrease support for redistribution.
Our research makes an important contribution to understanding public support for redistribution. While some evidence suggests the weaker role of social affinity in structuring public support for welfare programmes during the pandemic, our results show that racial considerations are still central to welfare policy preferences, even when welfare beneficiaries were portrayed as essential workers, although the effect varies across different racial groups. Additionally, this study has important implications for public communication about government social welfare programmes, showing that emphasising the characteristics of welfare recipients to highlight their work ethic can be effective in increasing public support for redistribution.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at Hyun Kim, J., Kuk, J., & Kweon, Y. (2024). Did low-income essential workers during COVID-19 increase public support for redistribution?. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024). Retrieved Jan 11, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000008
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read: Calderaro, C. (2023). The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 413-438. Retrieved Jan 11, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16832763188290
Ramírez, V., & Velázquez Leyer, R. (2023). The impact of self-reinforcing and self-undermining policy feedback on Mexican social policy: the end of the conditional cash transfer programme. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 508-529 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16813697853773
Oscar Berglund, Claire Dunlop, Elizabeth Koebele, Chris Weible and Sarah Brown
We are delighted to be ending the year on a high note. Submissions are at their highest level for over a decade, we’ve published policy scholarship from a far broader range of countries than ever before, and we’ve maintained our top quartile rankings in both Public Administration and Political Science with an impact factor of 4.7, thanks to the huge support of our loyal community. Congratulations to you all!
We are looking forward to seeing many of you face to face in 2023, particularly at the Conference on Policy Process Research in Syracuse in May, as well as other international conferences.
In the meantime, to celebrate all we have achieved together this year, we have made our top 10 most highly cited articles published in 2023 free to access until 31 January 2024, please see below for the full collection.
by Efrat Mishor, Eran Vigoda-Gadot & Shlomo Mizrahi
Our article, entitled Exploring civic engagement dynamics during emergencies: an empirical study into key drivers, investigates the importance of civic engagement during emergencies. We consider various individual-level factors such as trust, risk cognition, fears about the emergency and cost–benefit analyses of engagement as factors that motivate citizens to become engaged.
We argue that governments should recognise the value of community initiatives and civic engagement in coping with emergencies. Our empirical investigation uses data collected in Israel during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Our results demonstrate that trust in government and interpersonal trust may influence citizens’ perceptions of engagement during emergencies but have no effect on engagement behaviour. However, risk cognition and cost–benefit analyses are better predictors of future engagement intentions during emergencies.
by Claire Dupont, Jeffrey Rosamond and Bishoy L. Zaki
In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, we provide an historical overview of the evolution of some of the knowledge processes and linkages that are involved in EU climate policy. We explore whether developments in these knowledge exchanges reflect shifts in the politicisation of climate change.
To address this question, we outline a conceptual model of politicisation that accounts for two different effects: (i) prioritisation leading to enabling conditions for knowledge exchange, and (ii) polarisation leading to constraining conditions. We analyse the politicisation of climate change in the EU since the 1990s, and discuss two key aspects of how knowledge exchanges develop: formal and informal aspects. Focusing on knowledge exchange with the European Commission, our analysis reveals connections between the development of the formal and informal aspects of knowledge exchange and changes in politicisation over time. We find that when the politicisation of climate change led to a negative or constraining context, informal knowledge exchanges stopped, making it more challenging for multidisciplinary scientific knowledge to be included. However, formal knowledge exchanges remained active, even under constraining conditions.
By Sarah Brown, Journal Manager with Dr. Elizabeth Koebele, co-editor
The theme of this quarter’s highlights collection from Policy & Politics is Policy Feedback Theory (PFT), an increasingly popular theory of the policy process that is featuring more regularly on public policy syllabi. In a nutshell, PFT considers how past policies (re)shape the political context in which new policies are formed.
Our first article in this collection has been one of our most popular and highly cited since its publication in 2022: New pathways to paradigm change in public policy: Combining insights from policy design, mix and feedback by Sebastian Sewerin, Benjamin Cashore and Michael Howlett. Here, the authors argue that policy science scholarship is better at explaining policy change in retrospect, rather than formulating forward-looking recommendations about how to achieve major or paradigmatic change. Potentially even more concerning, existing scholarship emphasises the importance of external shocks in initiating major policy change, which doesn’t augur well for proactively tackling the major problems of our time such as climate change. In their article, the authors identify two conceptual and theoretical gaps that might limit how policy scholars think about major or paradigmatic change: 1) a lack of shared understanding of what ‘policy change’ is, and 2) a focus on (changing) policies in isolation rather than on policies as part of complex policy mixes. Against this background, they argue that combining insights from policy design, policy mix and policy feedback literature allows us to identify other pathways towards initiating and achieving policy change.
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 