In celebration of the broad aims of Policy & Politics, we decided to focus this quarter’s highlights collection on our three most popular reads of 2025 to date. Spanning narratives, policy design, and direct democracy, these articles beautifully illustrate the journal’s breadth of scope — unusual among top-ranked outlets in the field.
So, without further ado, here’s a précis of each to whet your appetite for the full research articles, which are free to view until the end of January 2026.
by Liz Richardson, Catherine Durose, Lucy Kimbell and Ramia Mazé
In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Liz Richardson, Catherine Durose, Lucy Kimbell and Ramia Mazé explore how the fields of policy and design relate to one another — and why the common framing of ‘design for policy’ may be too narrow to capture the full range of interactions between the two. While design has become an increasingly visible feature of policymaking practice in recent years, the authors argue that existing accounts tend to list design methods (such as prototyping or visualisation) without fully exploring the purpose and politics behind their use.
As you plan reading lists for the coming academic year, this collection of recent articles offers fresh insights for units on emotions in public policy, the politics of environmental policy, and governance networks. Each article draws on cutting-edge empirical research combined with conceptual innovation, making them ideal for both undergraduate and postgraduate modules exploring the politics of policymaking.
We hope these suggestions save you time and effort in mining recent articles while ensuring your course materials reflect the latest research from the frontiers of the discipline.
This quarter’s highlights collection showcases 3 recent articles on policy process theories that make important contributions to this area of policy research and theory development.
In our first article, ‘Organisation, information processing, and policy change in US federal bureaucracies , authors Samuel Workman et al examine policy change in the US federal bureaucracy. They build on Punctuated Equilibrium Theory’s premise that institutional friction and limited attention are prime influences on policy change, and they introduce a new approach for measuring and modelling these dynamics. This new approach incorporates the centralisation of information, decision-making, and the complexity of the policy, into the architecture of different organisations. Specifically, it measures how different sized organisations delegate federally regulated agenda items across the US federal bureaucracy from 2008-2016.
Their findings suggest that larger bureaucracies may handle change and problem definitions more easily than smaller organisations. These bureaucracies are not forced to shift attention to each new problem. This is because being part of a department provides more capacity to handle various problems as they emerge onto the agenda. Additionally, the division of attention within these structures allows for a broader range of strengths and expertise to tackle problems better. These findings challenge the typical view that smaller, nimble organisations manage change better.
Our second article, by Johanna Kuenzler and co-authors, considers how the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) helps in understanding how policy narratives impact public policy processes. It offers a systematic analysis of the historical development of NPF research, examining the use of the NPF’s theoretical elements over five time periods. The article provides insight into the foundation of NPF, highlighting the influence of positivist and interpretivist approaches throughout its development.
Figure: Number of published articles according to historical stages of the development of the NPF
As illustrated in the figure above, the article highlights the unique contributions of key NPF publications across each of the time periods of its development. The findings indicate a consistent focus on the core theoretical components and methodological innovations, demonstrating the framework’s robustness.
Finally, the article suggests avenues to further develop the framework, drawing from past lessons such as the introduction of the beneficiary character, and proposes further investigation of character and narrative dynamics. It also encourages additional work to bridge positivist and interpretive approaches and outlines the strengths of each. In summary, the article is a welcome contribution and has much to offer to both those who are fluent and new to the NPF.
For decades, the authors explain, public policy researchers have tried to answer this question by using the policy theory called the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) which was originally developed to understand policymaking in the USA. Taking an overview of 178 studies that use the MSF to analyse policymaking and implementation in China, the authors found that scholars have increasingly used the MSF to examine how policies are made and implemented in China, as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure: China-focused MSF articles (N = 178) published per year.
Since the appearance of the first article that used the MSF to analyse policymaking in China (Zhou & Yan, 2005), almost two hundred journal articles have used the framework to identify the driving forces behind policymaking and policy implementation (or the lack thereof) in China. Based on the authors’ analysis of these studies, they offer important guiding principles for those who would like to use the MSF to analyse policy processes in China.
To conclude, the article identifies a range of under-examined areas for future policy research, such as banking, finance, energy, and health. In addition, more comparative studies are needed that help identify how policy processes in China are different from that in other political systems. The authors hope this article will help to inspire more studies that use the multiple streams framework to deepen our understanding of policymaking and implementation in China.
We hope you’ve enjoyed this quarter’s collection of articles focusing on a range of perspectives on different policy process theories. We wish you a relaxing break and look forward to bringing you more of the latest research from Policy & Politics in 2025!
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at:
Kuenzler, J., Stauffer, B., Schlaufer, C., Song, G., Smith-Walter, A., & Jones, M. D. (2024). A systematic review of the Narrative Policy Framework: a future research agenda. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000046
van den Dool, A., & Qiu, T. (2024). Policy processes in China: a systematic review of the multiple streams framework. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000038
Workman, S., Robinson, S. E., & Bark, T. (2024). Organisation, information processing, and policy change in US federal bureaucracies. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 278-297 https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000013
Attention in the policy process—among individuals, among institutions and organisations, and within political systems—is a scarce resource. Paying attention to one or even a few issues means other issues go unaddressed.
Making a decision and choosing an alternative requires something called the “serial shift”: moving from addressing multiple issues at once, say within a legislative committee system or set of bureaucratic offices, to focussing on one issue at a time. Prioritising an issue on the agenda also means prioritising the advocates and policy conflicts associated with them.
We know a lot about how issues reach the decision agenda. Policy entrepreneurs and coalitions redefine existing issues and try to couple problems with alternatives; media coverage can attract elite attention and contribute to a sense that something should be done; policymakers schedule some issues to periodically recur so that they’re sure to receive attention some time, even if not right now.
We know less about how the serial shift feeds back in to the agenda setting process. Does the serial shift legitimise and certify conflict, signalling which conflicts are considered more legitimate? Or does restricting the decision agenda to one set of conflicts create a flow of attention to other issues?
by Annemieke van den Dool & Tianlei Qiu, Duke Kunshan University
Why do policymakers address some societal issues but not others?
For decades, public policy researchers have tried to answer this question by using the so-called multiple streams framework (MSF). This framework was originally developed to understand policymaking in the USA.
In our recent Policy & Politics article, we provide an overview of 178 studies that use the MSF to analyse policymaking and implementation in China.
We found that scholars increasingly use this framework to examine how policies are made and implemented in China, which is illustrated by the Figure below.
Figure 1: China-focused MSF articles (N = 178) published per year.
The first article that used the MSF to analyse policymaking in China was written by Chao Zhou & Xueyong Yan and published in 2005. They used the framework to identify the driving forces behind China’s State Council’s abolishment of the Custody and Repatriation Measures in 2003, following the domestically well-known case of Sun Zhigang, a migrant worker who was beaten to death after being arrested for failure to show his ID. In their 2005 article, Zhou and Yan show that the Custody and Repatriation Measures had been criticised by academics and some government officials for several years. Yet, it was not until the death of Sun Zhigang that the measures were finally abolished. Important factors that contributed to the abolishment was sustained news attention about Sun Zhigang’s death, which was amplified through online platforms. In addition, law students and legal scholars filed multiple petitions to request an assessment of the extent to which the Custody and Repatriation Measures were consistent with the Constitution.
by Thomas Bolognesi, Eva Lieberherr and Manuel Fischer
In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, we investigate the formation of policy preferences, which are critical in the policy process as they primarily drive policymakers’ choices and, consequently, policy design. Therefore, understanding policy preferences is essential for understanding policy design. To define policy preferences, we draw on bounded rationality and complexity theory. To explain policy preference formation, we explore two key mechanisms: the willingness to solve a given problem and affiliation with a particular group. Our central question is to determine the extent to which each mechanism influences policy preferences.
Our analysis reveals that each actor’s policy preference is a specific point within a broader policy preference space, which is defined along multiple policy dimensions (see Figure 1). We use the case of the water sector in Switzerland to measure these three interconnected concepts. By performing a principal component analysis on 39 variables representing choices of policy instruments or organisational structures, we identify four distinct policy preference dimensions: regional planning, privatisation, public financing, and flexible inter-municipal collaboration.
To explain the specific preferences of water policy stakeholders within these four policy preference dimensions, we estimate the role of their water policy goal priorities and affiliations. Goal priorities might include cost saving, security of supply, and resource protection. Affiliations considered in the policy process include different administrative levels of the state or the type of participating actors, such as water suppliers or interest groups. We account for regional specificities to limit the impact of the local context of water governance on our estimates.
Our results provide detailed insights into how the willingness to solve a problem and group affiliation affect preference formation. They reveal two distinct patterns. First, preferences along the policy dimensions are significantly associated with a single goal priority, indicating that actors tend to share a common perspective on how to address specific problems. For instance, the preference for privatisation is negatively associated with infrastructure as a goal priority, while public financing is positively associated with security of supply as a primary policy goal. Conversely, various actor types are significantly associated with policy preference dimensions, confirming that there is collective positioning along these dimensions. Additionally, we find that the more central the policy dimension, the stronger the effect of affiliation on individual positioning. Combining these two effects explains the emergence of policy preference spaces and the diversity among individuals’ preferences.
Our research has significant policy implications. It highlights that a few key policy dimensions, such as the public-private debate in the water sector, shape the policy preference spaces. We also emphasise that the willingness to solve a problem and affiliation with a group influence preference formation through different mechanisms, with variations arising from different levels of analysis (preference dimension, space, individual). This insight is crucial for framing policy change and fostering effective collaboration. Methodologically, we offer a replicable approach to analysing policy preferences that facilitates comparability across cases and enhances the relevance of measurements by being both deductive and inductive.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at Bolognesi, T., Lieberherr, E., & Fischer, M. (2024). Identifying and explaining policy preferences in Swiss water management. Policy & Politics, 52(3), 384-411 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000004
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read: Hornung, J., & Bandelow, N. C. (2024). Social identities, emotions and policy preferences. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000036
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.
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 