Policy & Politics – call for special issue proposals


The Co-Editors of Policy & Politics invite proposals for a special issue to be published in 2025. Submissions close on 1 October 2023. Read the call for proposals to learn more: https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/pp/pp-overview.xml?tab_body=call-for-papers Policy & Politics is a leading, top quartile journal that is committed to advancing scholarly understanding of the dynamics of policy-making and implementation.

The journal’s co-editors are seeking proposals for a special issue that will make a significant contribution to our understanding of the nexus of public policy and politics. To be successful, proposals need to offer a coherent set of excellent original research articles that will reframe or develop knowledge on a topic that is at the leading edge of current debates and is clearly relevant to the journal’s worldwide readership. Proposals may include a mixture of theoretical, conceptual and empirical cases and a range of research methods, and must demonstrate how they will make a significant and lasting contribution to the field.

Continue reading

When policy feedback produces apathy towards policy development: understanding the end of Conditional Cash Transfers in Mexico

by Viviana Ramírez and Ricardo Velázquez Leyer


In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, we investigated The impact of self-reinforcing and self-undermining policy feedback on Mexican social policy: the end of the conditional cash transfer programme.

Conditional cash transfers, or ‘CCTs’, constituted the backbone of Mexico’s poverty reduction policy for more than twenty years. CCTs provided cash benefits targeted at poor people, conditional on the compliance of certain requirements, like school attendance by children and participation in health promotion activities and check-ups by all family members. The objective of CCTs was to fight poverty through the formation of human capital. The approach was a social policy investment seeking to mould the behaviour of beneficiaries in desirable ways.  

Cash transfers were commonly paid to the mother of the family, to secure an adequate use of the additional income within the household. CCTs were pioneered in Mexico, the first country to introduce them at the national level, becoming the backbone of anti-poverty policy for more than two decades. Maintained and expanded by three federal governments of different political parties, the policy reached almost a quarter of the population and yielded significant improvements across many health, education and nutrition indicators, prompting its diffusion around the globe. The stability and positive results of CCTs might have presaged their continuity, but the government that came to power in December 2018, swiftly dismantled them with virtually no opposition.

Continue reading

Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures

by Ville Aula


Evidence-based policymaking is a popular approach to policy that has received widespread public attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in the fight against climate change. It argues that policy choices based on rigorous, preferably scientific evidence should be given priority over choices based on other types of justification. However, delegating policymaking solely to researchers goes against the idea that policies are determined democratically.

In my recent article published in Policy & Politics: Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures we explored the tension between politics and evidence in the national legislatures. While evidence-based policymaking has been extensively studied within governments, the legislative arena has received much less attention. The focus of the study was on understanding how legislators, legislative committees, and political parties together shape the use of evidence. We also wanted to explore how the interviewees understand timeliness and relevance of evidence, because lack of time is a key challenge within legislatures. The study is based on 39 interviews with legislators, party employees, and civil servants in Eduskunta, the national Parliament of Finland.

Continue reading

The racialisation of sexism in policy-making against gender-based violence: a comparison between Britain and France  

by Charlène Calderaro


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, as exemplified in our case studies in Britain and France, which I describe below. 

My recently published article in Policy & Politics, ‘The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France’, shows 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 on race can affect the ability to prevent femonationalism, which refers to the increasing use of women’s rights to foster nationalism or racial exclusion.  

Through an empirical study conducted with policymakers and feminist activists involved in anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France, the article comparatively explores how street harassment is framed during policy-making. It focuses on the pre-adoption phases of the policy, analysing how policy actors conceive the problem of street harassment, as well as its causes and solutions.  

Continue reading

Can policy instruments shape the problems they aim to solve?

by Sofia Wickberg

Are anti-corruption instruments adopted to tackle existing problems or do they contribute to making new corruption risks visible? Policy sciences originally conceived of public policies as means to solve pressing public problems, such as corruption. However, scholars have demonstrated that policymaking is far more messy and complex, with policy problems and solutions often existing autonomously. In my article recently published in Policy & Politics entitled “Can policy instruments shape the policy problems they aim to solve? How interest registers redefined conflicts of interest”, I investigate this question by examining how policy solutions (here interest registers for parliamentarians) contribute to (re-)defining public problems (conflict of interest). Research has pointed to numerous actors and factors that contribute to the construction and definition of public problems. Examples of these include social movements, interest groups, political parties, experts or news organisations. But, I argue, policies themselves also contribute to the construction of policy problems.

Transnational policymaking is an interesting context in which to study the impact of policy instruments on problem definition. Policymakers often import policy ideas from abroad – for many reasons, as Umut Aydin wrote in a previous post of this blog. And policy instruments are not always (and even rarely) transferred into a new country because the latter faces the same well-defined problem as the source country. The pathways that policies take before reaching new jurisdictions can be complex. With the rapid transnationalisation of policymaking, it is important to better understand the impact of policy transfer on problem representations in ‘importing’ countries.

Continue reading

“Just following the science”: blame avoidance and abdication of responsibility

by Patrick Fafard and Adele Cassola

Pandemic politics saw governments repeatedly claim to be “just following the science.” In the face of widespread anxiety and uncertainty, this mantra was meant to reassure the public that decisions about pandemic responses were being directed by the best available scientific evidence. But making policy decisions based only on scientific evidence is impossible (if only because ‘the science’ is always contested) and undemocratic (because governments are elected to balance a range of priorities and interests in their decisions). Claiming to be “just following the science” therefore represents an abdication of responsibility by politicians.  Working with colleagues, we advanced these bold claims in a recent article published in Policy & Politics that is part of our long-running research program on public health governance.

The inherent limits of ‘evidence-based’ policy have been repeatedly described and analysed. We know that policy and programme choices are never based solely on the available scientific evidence. So why did politicians claim to be “just following the science,” and what are the implications of doing so?

Continue reading

Policy integration in local government: what are the barriers?

by Nicolai De Wulf, Joris Voets and Astrid Molenveld

Cities nowadays are confronted with a wide range of complex societal issues and, correspondingly, the expectations and challenges for local governments have grown. Within this context, they are often praised for their dynamism and their ability to achieve results. As a consequence, local governments often enjoy a large degree of trust from their citizens. But what are the barriers local policy makers face when trying to coordinate and integrate policies? Our recent article in Policy & Politics, entitled ‘Policy coordination and integration in local government: perspectives on barriers’ shows that three distinct perspectives emerge, which we describe in more detail below.

Complex societal issues mentioned are difficult to approach from within one single policy domain. Take, for example, the issue of sustainable mobility, which encompasses mobility, sustainability and the environment, urban planning, the local economy and so forth. Policy issues that span multiple policy domains (horizontally), also involve multiple political and administrative actors and interests (vertically). As such, complex societal issues challenge the traditional modes of collaboration between politics and administration.

Continue reading

2023 Policy & Politics Reading List

by Elizabeth Koebele with Sarah Brown

Updating your course reading lists? Check out our essential reading recommendations on evidence-based policymaking, policy learning in multi-level and crisis contexts and the representation of diverse identities in public policy

It’s that time of year again to update your course syllabi with the latest research. Here at Policy & Politics, we hope to make that job easier for you by providing suggestions for teaching three important and timely themes in your policy courses.

Our first theme, showcasing three articles, is evidence-based policymaking (EBP). Of interest to students and scholars alike, our articles on EBP span a variety of perspectives that challenge mainstream views and showcase new angles on how EBP affects policy process dynamics. They should all lead to interesting classroom discussions and assignments about the meaning and validity of EBP.

The next three articles in our collection tackle different aspects of policy learning – an ever-popular topic with students and scholars alike, according to our readership data! These selected articles advance the dialogue on this important topic by exploring how learning may be fostered or constrained by multi-level governance structures and in crisis contexts.

Continue reading

Policy & Politics Quarterly Highlights Collection – free to access from 1 August – 31st October 2023

Enhancing Democracy throughout the Policy Process

by Sarah Brown and Elizabeth Koebele

This quarter’s highlights collection features four articles that examine the use of democratic principles and processes in contexts that are not traditionally democratic, which we hope will resonate with some of the topical debates that are currently playing out on the global stage.

In our first article, author Karin Fossheim asks how non-elected representatives can secure democratic representation. In this important contribution to the literature on representative democracy, Fossheim analyses representation in governance networks. She does this by comparing how non-elected representatives, their constituents and the decision-making audience understand the outcome of representation to benefit constituency, authorisation and accountability. Her research findings conclude that all three groups mostly share an understanding of democratic non-electoral representation, understood as ongoing interactions between representatives and constituents, multiple (if any) organisational and discursive sources of authorisation and deliberative aspects of accountability. All these elements are shown to support democratic representation despite the absence of elections.

Continue reading

The opportunities and challenges of politically designed co-creation platforms

by Sam van Elk & Britt Regal

This situation has sparked thinking about how to foster co-creation on a larger scale. One key idea involves co-creation ‘platforms’. These platforms are adaptable structures that can be applied to diverse contexts, similar to a computer operating system that can run various programs. The UK’s Local Enterprise Zones are good examples of such ‘platforms’ –  each ‘Zone’ is tailored to local needs but operates within a common framework. Academics have suggested that governments use platforms to encourage their citizens, businesses, and communities to co-create. But to date, there has been limited research into what happens when a government follows this advice.

Our study, ‘The opportunities and challenges of politically designed co-creation platforms’, recently published in Policy and Politics addresses this limitation. We studied the London Borough of Culture programme, a platform that aims to foster collaboratively created cultural events. The program offers annual awards to a winning ‘London Borough of Culture’ to run a year of cultural events, alongside several runner-up prizes. Boroughs are encouraged to work collaboratively and treat residents as ‘co-creators’. Our work centred on the Greater London Authority, which administers the scheme, and the London Borough of Waltham Forest, the inaugural winning borough.

Continue reading