News

Activists have legitimate feelings and policy makers might want to start listening 

policypressblogLeave a comment

By Michael Orsini and Jennifer M. Kilty 


We think with emotions. We reason with emotions.  

Straightforward enough? These statements may seem uncontroversial, and yet significant energy is expended banishing emotions from political discussion, arguing that they muddy the waters and get in the way of “reasoned” debate.  

Why? Must the commitment to evidence-based policy making be devoid of feeling?  Isn’t evidence marshalled in ways that reflect affective attachments to policy ideas? Is it because some are opposed to the specific emotions that are being mobilised in politics?   

Our recently published article in Policy & Politics: Emotions and anti-carceral advocacy in Canada: ‘All of the anger this creates in our bodies is also a tool to kill us’, examines a subject that has aroused intense debate: the expansion of the punitive state. We were interested in how activists mobilise others to resist punitive policies, the resources they bring to their activism, and the feelings that guide them. We were struck by how activists understand themselves as feeling actors, as people with thoughts, hopes and dreams that are grounded in their embodied experiences. Our focus group interviews with activists in Ottawa, Canada revealed three key findings about the role of emotions in organising: (1) anger mobilises anti-carceral activism; (2) fear of state actors and surveillance are motivational forces to become or remain involved in activist organising; and (3) organisers understand care and mutual aid as alternatives to incarceration and mechanisms to support one’s activist peers. 

Continue reading →

NEW SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON POLICY EXPERTISE IN TIMES OF CRISIS. BLOG 7: The challenges experts face during creeping crises: the curse of complacency

policypressblogLeave a comment

Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis

Ahmad Wesal Zaman, Olivier Rubin and Reidar Staupe-Delgado

The policy literature has generally presented crises as urgent public threats with clearly demarcated ‘focusing events’. As a result, most studies have identified the main challenges faced by expert agencies involved in evidence-based policymaking as managing uncertainty, time pressure and communication. However, less focus has been devoted to analysing the concrete challenges faced by expert agencies during creeping crises. Creeping crises are characterised by spatial and temporal fragmentation and elusiveness, which create an additional challenge for expert agencies: how to get the crisis on the political agenda.  

Comparing two global creeping crises: climate change (CC) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), our recently published article in Policy & Politics, highlights two distinct strategies for influencing policymaking. Our analysis showed how two expert agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), pursued different strategies when setting the global agenda and influencing policymaking. Our findings showed that the WHO’s approach to policymaking regarding AMR was mostly guided by top-down, science-led, formal engagements and strategies. This approach has successfully increased the salience of the global challenge of AMR, providing strong, evidence-based solutions. But it has been less successful in promoting the challenge onto the global political agenda.  

Continue reading →

NEW SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON POLICY EXPERTISE IN TIMES OF CRISIS. BLOG 6: Did the Covid-19 pandemic cause enduring change in the roles of experts in politics?

policypressblogLeave a comment

Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis

Kennet Lynggaard, Theofanis Exadaktylos, Mads Jensen & Michael Kluth

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, many of us would probably have been a little hesitant on the exact field of work, or even unaware of the existence, of experts such as a mathematical virologist or experimental epidemiologist. Well into the pandemic, after several lockdowns and reopening of societies, highly specialised concepts from virology and epidemiology had entered everyday conversations, just like experts involved in handling the pandemic have become household names and, in many countries, even minor celebrities.  

Our article, just published in Policy & Politics, assesses the role for experts during the various stages of the pandemic, based on evidence collected from a survey of comparative politics scholars from 31 European countries in 2022, which you can find more detail on in the book: Governments’ Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic in Europe: Navigating the Perfect Storm 2023. In our P&P article, we analysed the role of experts during the processes of depoliticisation and re-politicisation at each stage of the pandemic, alongside their influence on government responses to the pandemic. We propose a new typology, classifying four different ideal types of roles for experts: leading, antagonistic, managerial, and auxiliary – see figure 1.

Continue reading →

Policy & Politics announces the 2024 winners of the Early Career and Best Paper Prizes

policypressblogLeave a comment

We are delighted to announce this year’s prizes for award winning papers published in Policy & Politics in 2023. 

The Bleddyn Davies Prize, which acknowledges scholarship of the very highest standard by an early career academic, is awarded to joint winners: 

Michael Gibson, Felix-Anselm van Lier and Eleanor Carter (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, UK) for their article entitled Tracing 25 years of ‘initiativitis’ in central government attempts to join up local public services in England. 

AND  

Ville Aula (London School of Economics (LSE, UK) for his article on Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures – Timeliness and politics of evidence in Finland. 

In celebration of these winning articles, we present summaries of each of their distinct contributions to the field. 

Continue reading →

Examining the Impacts of Problem Framing for Restrictions on Academic Freedom

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Luke Fowler & Jen Schneider


In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, entitled “Critical Race Theory, Policy Ambiguity, & Implementation: A Multiple Streams Framework Analysis,” we examine how the United States’ first state-level ban on Critical Race Theory in public education (HB 377 passed in April 2020 by the Idaho state legislature) rose to the agenda, was passed into law, and then impacted universities during implementation. This analysis looks at both the negative but often intangible impacts of this type of legislation on institutions of higher education, as well as at the policy process and how problem framing early on impacts implementation later. 

We argue that HB 377 was motivated by a perceived and likely fabricated “indoctrination” problem, which is an outcropping of American culture wars that have placed higher education in the center of a debate about how cultural values and beliefs are propagated in society and the responsibilities of institutions in shaping them. Critics of higher education manufactured a moral panic around liberal “indoctrination” that relied on spurious evidence, such as unverified anecdotes and a hoax event. This was enough to push a ban on Critical Race Theory on to the legislation agenda in Idaho with enough momentum for it to become law. However, that problem framing began to unravel by the time university faculty were set to implement it, especially as it became clear that the alleged evidence of indoctrination did not actually exist. This, coupled with the fact that faculty never really accepted that indoctrination was occurring on campuses to begin with, ultimately left them without a clear understanding of what the purpose of the new law was or how to respond to it. Unsurprisingly, divergent interpretations and divergent behaviors emerged as individuals were left to “figure it out” on their own. The fallout from the law’s passing also led to the sowing of distrust among faculty and administrators as many faculty felt they were left on the front-lines of a frightening culture war without adequate support from leadership. 

Continue reading →

NEW SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON POLICY EXPERTISE IN TIMES OF CRISIS. BLOG 5: Expert perspectives on the changing dynamics of policy advisory systems: the COVID-19 crisis and policy learning in Belgium and Australia

policypressblogLeave a comment

Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis

Marleen Easton, Jennifer Yarnold, Valerie Vervaenen, Jasper De Paepe & Brian Head


Introduction: 
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the critical role of expert advice in shaping policy responses globally. Beyond health implications, these measures significantly impacted education, economy, law, and various societal aspects. Understanding how expertise was harnessed and adapted during the crisis provides valuable insights for improving policy advisory systems to effectively respond to future challenges. Our research study, just published in Policy & Politics delves into the dynamics of COVID-19 policy advisory systems in Belgium and Australia, drawing on interviews with 34 experts involved during the initial two years of the crisis. 

Policy Advisory Systems in Action: 
In both Belgium and Australia, intergovernmental forums played a key role in aligning national and regional interests within policy advisory systems advising on responses to COVID-19. While Belgium experienced more rapid changes and adjustments in expert advisers, Australia maintained a relatively stable system with occasional additions of non-health sub-groups. The diversity of expert opinions was more pronounced in Belgium, on contrast with Australia where experts tended to be more cautious in expressing critical perspectives publicly. 

Policy Learning and Expert Advice: 
As the pandemic unfolded, policy learning evolved, necessarily drawing on a broader range of expertise beyond the initial health-centric focus. Institutional contexts shaped the provision of expert advice, influencing the actions of policy advisors and decision-makers. Our study sheds light on the evolving priorities within advisory bodies, the relationships between different types of experts and policymakers, and the challenges of communicating scientific knowledge amid uncertainty and stress. 

Continue reading →

NEW SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON POLICY EXPERTISE IN TIMES OF CRISIS. BLOG 4: The promise and performance of data ecosystems: Australia’s COVID-19 response

policypressblogLeave a comment

Special issue blog series on Policy Expertise in Times of Crisis

Cosmo Howard and Bernadette Hyland-Wood


COVID-19 showed the world that statistical data are indispensable for government decision making, especially in times of crisis. Yet, data systems to support public policy were often found wanting during the pandemic.

In our recent article in Policy & Politics, we argue that contemporary data sharing systems often behave like natural ecosystems for several reasons. They can grow and adapt organically, their members are highly interdependent, they are steered by powerful ‘keystone actors’ like government agencies and big tech companies, and they can be harnessed to provide benefits for society. This makes modern data systems different from older models, which relied on a single official statistical agency or a tight network of data providers to supply statistics for policy making. To test the operation of data ecosystems in practice, we investigated how Australia’s infectious disease data ecosystem functioned during COVID-19. We found strong evidence for organic growth and adaptation, but we also saw that keystone actors like government departments sometimes restricted access to data, which hampered the work of some data analysts within the ecosystem. Furthermore, there was often insufficient leadership by keystone actors to ensure that data ecosystems functioned coherently, resulting in disagreements over interpreting the data, as well as gaps in data coverage.

Continue reading →

Policy & Politics highlights collection on feminist politics: free to access from 1st February – 30 April 2024

policypressblogLeave a comment

by Sarah Brown, Senior Journal Manager


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.  

Continue reading →

Investigating the scientific knowledge–policy interface in EU climate policy 

policypressblogLeave a comment

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

Continue reading →

NEW SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON POLICY EXPERTISE IN TIMES OF CRISIS. BLOG 2: Is expertise politicised during crises?

policypressblogLeave a comment

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?) 

Continue reading →