by the P&P editorial team: Chris Weible, Allegra Fullerton, Oscar Berglund, Elizabeth Koebele, Kristin Taylor, Claire Dunlop & Sarah Brown
Dear authors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, Early Career Editorial Board members, readers, and friends of Policy & Politics,
As 2025 draws to a close, we want to extend our sincere thanks to all of you. Your scholarship, rigour and sustained engagement have played a central role in making this another strong year for the journal and the blog. In this final blog of 2025, we reflect on P&P’s achievements this year, feature our most popular blog in 2025, showcase the highest number of open access articles we’ve published this year, and consider the year to come with gratitude for our community and hope for the future of the journal and its contribution to policy scholarship.
by Johan Christensen, Stine Hesstvedt, Kira Pronin, Cathrine Holst, Peter Munk Christiansen and Anne Maria Holli
In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Experts in governance: a comparative analysis of the Nordic countries, Johan Christensen, Stine Hesstvedt, Kira Pronin, Cathrine Holst, Peter Munk Christiansen and Anne Maria Holli examine how expert knowledge is channelled into policy making in the Nordic region. They focus on government-appointed advisory commissions as a key institutional pathway for incorporating expertise and explore how the role of academic experts on these commissions has changed over time.
In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, authors Andrea Migone and Michael Howlett offer a compelling new framework for understanding the quality of policy advisory systems. Their framework draws on Albert Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (EVL) model, which suggests three ways individuals respond to perceived decline or dissatisfaction within an organisation/relationship: (i) exit by withdrawing from the situation, (ii) voice by expressing concerns and seeking improvement, and (iii) loyalty by remaining in the situation and hoping for improvement. Building on this model, the authors propose a more dynamic approach to assessing how advisory systems function — and why some produce better advice than others.
We’re excited to welcome Kristin Taylor as a new co-editor of P&P in January! In anticipation, we caught up with her to find out a bit about her motivation for joining our team…
SB: Hey Kristin, we’re thrilled to have you joining our illustrious team in 2025 and wanted to hear what made you want to take on a co-editor role for P&P, and what you hope to get out of it?
KT: I’m glad the feeling is mutual! I was quite humbled when the editorial team approached me about the role. I have always held P&P in high regard because of the incredibly collegial and constructive review process. Given all the thoughtful effort the co-editors have devoted to the quality of P&P, I am honored to join the team. With that being said, I haven’t thought so much about what I hope to get out of being a co-editor of P&P, but I have thought quite a bit about what I can contribute to the journal and the editorial team. One of the aspects of my career that I have relished as I’ve become more established is the opportunity to mentor the work of new, up and coming scholars of public policy. I’m excited about the chance to contribute to the journal by fostering the work of new voices in the literature.
SB: We know that balancing priorities such as research, teaching and administration is more pressurised for prolific researchers like you, so what do you anticipate the benefits of the role will be for you?
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
Contemporary politics has become increasingly reliant on scientific knowledge. In evidence-based policymaking, science is invoked to address complex, ‘wicked’ problems. Yet, policymakers do not necessarily base decisions on the best-available evidence, and models of knowledge used in policymaking have long been criticised as simplistic.
Therefore, collaboration with non-scientific actors (so called ‘stakeholders’) has emerged as a possible way forward. The increasing emphasis on prolonged and formalised engagement of stakeholders in research projects is subjected to public expenditure justifications, improvement of the input, throughput and output of funded research to inform policymaking processes and address societal challenges. It also reflects the view that an effective response to these challenges requires multi-partner collaborations between academic experts and various interests and perspectives.
On both sides of the policy–science nexus, collaborative interactions are extended to include stakeholders to improve the impact (i.e. the usability and applicability) of knowledge. And while stakeholder involvement often follows this overarching justification, the question of stakeholder rationales for participating in these processes has previously received little scholarly attention. The scarce literature that does exist largely focuses on improving the transfer of knowledge outcomes of collaborative innovation, and knowledge production, rather than the involved actors’ interactions.
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.
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.
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.
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 
