Author: policypressblog

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 →

NEW SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON Policy Learning: Types, Mechanisms and Effects. BLOG 1: Ad hoc groups and policy learning under crisis: more than a ‘quick fix’

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Sreeja Nair 


Each time a crisis hits, be it a natural disaster, pandemic or a corruption scandal, several ad hoc units are assembled by governments for quick action, only to be dismantled soon after the crisis becomes manageable or settles. Are these groups deployed as a signal of assurance to the public that indeed some action is being taken, or to bypass long-drawn bureaucratic processes in favour of quick action or to efficiently assemble and utilise resources under crisis? Perhaps all of the above. The possibilities of how ad hoc groups can be structured and the range of functions these can offer are plenty.  

The term ‘adhocracy’ first featured in the book titled ‘The Temporary Society’ (Bennis and Slater, 1968) to describe flexible, unstructured and adaptable organisational models, which operated in stark contrast to a typical bureaucracy. Owing to their transient nature, policy learning opportunities brought about by ad hoc groups, have received little attention in public policy literature. Our new article in Policy and Politics presents insights from an exploratory study to understand the diverse institutional roles played by ad hoc groups deployed during crisis.  

Continue reading →

How and why equal pay remains on the EU agenda?

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Sophie Jacquot
UCLouvain Saint-Louis Bruxelles 


In my recently published article in Policy & Politics, I ask how and why equal pay remains on the EU agenda, and, relatedly, if policy failure can be useful in policymaking. 

Equal pay for equal work between women and men has been enshrined in European treaties since 1957. It is one of the EU’s founding principles, and, even though the EU’s action against gender inequalities has expanded to include areas as varied as domestic violence, integration of gender equality in external relations, gender budgeting or the articulation between private and working life, equal pay certainly remains the flagship and most symbolic policy domain of the EU gender equality policy. Equal pay can be considered as an identity marker for the EU.  Implementing the principle of equal pay has regularly been on the European policy-making agenda since the 1970s with new legislation, case law, soft regulation, etc. However, the gender pay gap in the EU is 13% in 2022. It means that women would need to work 1.5 extra months to make up the difference. It also means that progress in closing the gender pay gap is extremely slow: it decreased by only 2.8% pp in 10 years.  

Source: Extract from Equal Pay? Time to close the gap! (European Commission, November 2022, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/equal_pay_day_factsheet_2022_en_1_0.pdf). Reproduction allowed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. 

Given these (poor) results, the EU equal pay policy could be assessed as a failure and its existence questioned. But, on the contrary, the EU equal pay policy seems unaffected by failure. Recently, the von der Leyen Commission has put equal pay at the heart of the Union of Equality programme and has proposed a Directive on pay transparency, which was adopted on 10 May 2023. My recent article “Can failure be useful in policy-making? The case of EU equal pay policy” explores this paradox: Why and how, despite repeated implementation failure, is the EU equal pay policy still up and running? 

Continue reading →

Latest Policy Process research from Policy & Politics free to access

policypressblogLeave a comment

As proud co-sponsors of the Conference on Policy Process Research 2024, we bring you our latest policy process research, free to access for the conference period from 15-17 May. 

Please look out for members of our team attending COPPR! 


Happy reading! 

Organisation, information processing, and policy change in US federal bureaucracies 
Authors: Samuel Workman, Scott E. Robinson, and Tracey Bark 

Identifying proactive and reactive policy entrepreneurs in collaborative networks in flood risk management 
Authors: Per Becker, Jörgen Sparf, and Evangelia Petridou 

Continue reading →

The climate crisis and radical political action

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Hubert Buch-Hansen and Martin Bæk Carstensen


Addressing the existential threat posed by the climate and biodiversity crises requires deep-seated transformative change. Such change necessitates political action far more radical than that characterising current mainstream policymaking. Yet what sort of policymakers and policymaking could foster the needed radical transformations towards ecological sustainability? This is the question we address in our recent article published in Policy & Politics entitled What kind of political agency can foster radical transformation towards ecological sustainability?  

The paper takes “degrowth” as an example of a radical political project, contemplating the sort of political action that could bring about the type of policies its proponents call for. Degrowth involves deep transformations towards a society co-existing harmoniously within itself and with nature. To bring about such transformations, degrowth proponents, for instance, suggest eco-taxes and limits placed on advertising, caps on income and wealth, subsidies for organic agriculture and regulation making it illegal for companies to produce products that cannot be repaired.  

Continue reading →

Policy & Politics highlights collection on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis: free to access from 1st May – 31 July 2024

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Sarah Brown, Journals Manager

Policy & Politics highlights collection on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis: free to access from 1st May – 31 July 2024 

Barely out of the media spotlight it seems, the role of experts in policymaking is as topical now as it was during the Covid-19 pandemic. So, we’re delighted to introduce our new special issue re-examining this hotly debated topic – Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis. 

The Covid-19 pandemic increased the focus on the relationship between experts and politicians. For example, health experts globally became engaged in new ways of exchanging knowledge where they recommended strategies for coping with the pandemic and gave advice to governments and citizens. New institutional structures for exchanging knowledge came about, organised around communities of expertise, advisory committees, public campaigns and the crisis management operations of state agencies. These have also been evident during other crises, such as climate change and specific economic and political crises. 

In Western liberal democracies, politics and expertise are, ideally at least, seen as preconditions for each other. Here, experts provide knowledge and advice based on the latest research and politicians make decisions based on that expert advice. Experts are, in this view, neutral and unbiased, providing legitimacy to the policy process.

Continue reading →

Policy responsiveness and its administrative organisation in China 

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Yao Liu, Eduardo Araral, Jiannan Wu


Do policy makers in China care about public opinion? Our recent article published in Policy & Politics demonstrates that Chinese governments effectively address public demands, especially on environmental issues, using online petition data and fiscal expenditure records. 

We focused on a relatively new channel for assessing public opinion, namely online petitioning via official platforms. These represent a new tool for public expression, distinct from more traditional institutionalized and non-institutionalized channels. On the one hand, compared to traditional petitioning, they provide greater accessibility. As long as there is internet access, members of the public can easily leave online messages. On the other hand, compared to public opinion expressed on social media, online petitioning is subject to specific regulations and demonstrate a certain level of official moderation, rather than relying solely on unmoderated input from the public.  

Response agencies, the department within local government responsible for collecting and responding to these public opinions, bridge the gap between the public and policy makers and act as a “transit point” to help organise the process of converting public opinion into policy action. Using a theoretical framework that analysed the roles of different response agencies in converting public opinion into policy action, we focussed on two dimensions: political authority and interest homogeneity. Specifically, policy responsiveness improves significantly when government response agencies demonstrate a high level of political authority and share homogeneous interests with citizens. 

Continue reading →