by Allegra Fullerton (Digital Associate Editor) and Sarah Brown (Senior Journals Manager)
The articles featured here demonstrate how collaborative governance, policy narratives, evidence use and policy design shape environmental policy, revealing how coordination, meaning, knowledge and calibration interact to influence policy targets, implementation pathways and outcomes. What links the four contributions is not only their theoretical pluralism but also a shared methodological ambition: each pushes an established policy process framework in new empirical directions, drawing on approaches ranging from evolutionary game modelling to natural language processing and multilevel Bayesian regression.
In their recent article Self-interest within the Advocacy Coalition Framework: how material beliefs affect change in German munitions policy, authors Alexander Pechmann and Jochen Hinkel, examine how self-interest shapes coalition dynamics and policy change. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the authors introduce the concept of material beliefs to better explain how actors motivated by self-interest interact with those driven by broader societal goals.
The article addresses a longstanding critique of the ACF. While the framework recognises that policy actors may be motivated by both societal goals and self-interest, empirical studies often focus primarily on purposive beliefs—those linked to wider societal objectives such as environmental protection or public health. Pechmann and Hinkel argue that this emphasis risks overlooking how actors’ material interests—such as financial gain or political influence—shape coalition behaviour and policy outcomes.
To address this gap, the authors conceptualise material beliefs as beliefs oriented towards short-term benefits for the actor or their affiliated group, while purposive beliefs concern longer-term goals that benefit society more broadly. By integrating material beliefs directly into the ACF belief hierarchy, the article offers a clearer framework for analysing how self-interest operates within policy subsystems.
Swiss lawmakers have debated pesticide regulation for nearly a decade, often drawing on different types of scientific and policy evidence to support their positions. In Reber et al.’s recent study, the authors analyse how problemoriented evidence (highlighting environmental or health risks) and solutionoriented evidence (emphasising policy effectiveness) were used strategically in parliamentary discussions.
Analysing parliamentary texts with computational methods To study this, the authors compiled a corpus of 1,738 parliamentary documents — including written requests and plenary debate transcripts — containing references to pesticides. Using keyword searches, they retrieved 10,642 paragraphs. They then applied finetuned transformerbased text classification models to each paragraph to classify (1) the position expressed — either in favour of policy change (“change”) or defending existing policy (“status quo”) — and (2) whether the paragraph invoked evidence, and if so whether that evidence was problemoriented (highlighting risks) or solutionoriented (emphasising the effectiveness or sufficiency of existing or alternative policy measures).
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.
The idea of innovation has become one of the most persistent and sought-after today. While too conceptually elusive to pin down to a single statement, innovation can be broadly understood as a process whereby new elements and approaches are introduced to existing ones, in an attempt to solve problems, add value, and contribute to knowledge. Being a problem-solving, value-oriented process, it is no surprise that the concept of innovation is increasingly finding footholds in different theoretical spaces within policy and political sciences, from collaborative arrangements, democratic practices, policy design and experimentation, to behavioural and cognitive theories. Within the public sector, innovation can be understood as the creation of new policies, services, advisory, governance and political arrangements, often leading to the development of novel shared views of what is acceptable and expected by the public as beneficiaries.
Intuitively, policy learning has a family resemblance to policy innovation. It seems almost self-evident that they should be considered together in the explanation of policy dynamics. Yet the two literatures have developed independently of each other. Studies which put them in conversation are few.
All articles featured in this blog post are free to access until 31 October 2024
It’s that time of year again when course syllabi are updated with fresh research. We hope to make this easier with the essential reading list below, which features some of the most significant research relevant to public policy students that we’ve published over the last year. We feature nine articles and a special issue for teaching topical themes such as health policy, policy learning and advocacy. All articles are ideal for Public Policy, Politics and Social Policy classes alike.
As always, we welcome your feedback on the articles featured, as well as future unit topics you’d like to see covered! Let us know what you’re teaching and how we can help!
Our first theme focuses on a substantive policy area that is increasingly taught in public and social policy courses, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and on-going climate crisis: health policy.
Our first article, “Analysing the ‘follow the science’ rhetoric of government responses to COVID-19” by Margaret Macaulay and colleagues, has been one of the most widely read and cited articles of last year and was the winner of our Best Paper prize for 2023. This is not surprising, as it advances bold and well evidenced claims on a hot topic in public health governance. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic – and in the face of widespread anxiety and uncertainty – governments’ mantra that they were “just following the science” was meant to reassure the public that decisions about pandemic responses were being directed by the best available scientific evidence. However, the authors claim that 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.
Our second featured article, entitled What types of evidence persuade actors in a complex policy system? by Geoff Bates and colleagues, explores the use of evidence to influence different groups across the urban development system to think more about health outcomes in their decisions. Their three key findings are: (i) evidence-based narratives have wide appeal; (ii) credibility of evidence is critical; and (iii) many stakeholders have priorities other than health, such as economic considerations. The authors conclude that these insights can be used to frame and present evidence that meets the requirements of different urban development stakeholders and persuade them to think more about how the quality of urban environments affects health outcomes.
A central hypothesis in the influential policy process theory, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) posits that major policy change is unlikely if the coalition defending the status quo retains power. However, operationalising which coalition is in power has proven challenging.
In my recent article on this topic published in Policy and Politics, I argue that coalition power can be operationalised based on two dimensions: formal authority over decisions (hard power) and the ability to shape policy preferences through discourse (soft power). Employing discourse network analysis to capture the relative dominance of competing coalitions based on discourse interactions, I analysed the contentious 20-year-old debate surrounding the proposed liberalisation of the Mexican electricity generation sector.
The findings align with the ACF hypothesis; they show that the status quo coalition maintained consistent soft power when two reform attempts to liberalise the sector failed. This discursive dominance corresponded with continued policy stability, supporting the ACF hypothesis. However, major policy change occurred when the reforming coalition gained discursive influence and internal consensus, leading to a shift in soft power dynamics.
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.
DORA, a public declaration launched in 2013 with now over 23,000 signatories worldwide, aims to radically revise the current methods of research assessment. It speaks of an urgent need to improve the ways in which research is currently evaluated by moving beyond the monopoly of the Impact Factor to a more diverse and inclusive set of measures.
At Policy & Politics, we recognise this need very well. So many in our community tell us how their professional lives are dominated by the Impact Factors of journals: from winning funding awards, to getting jobs and promotions. Indeed, many of our authors tell us that’s their main driver for publishing with us. We want to be part of the journey to change this, recognising the value of taking a broader view of how we’re evaluating research quality. But we can’t do it single-handedly. So we stand alongside those in our community in seeking to diversify the ways in which research is evaluated.
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 