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.
Welcome to our first virtual issue of 2023 featuring the latest policy process theory research published in Policy & Politics. This issue features three recently published articles that apply and develop different policy process theories across a range policy contexts.
Our first article, Advocacy Coalitions, Power and Policy Change by Tim Heinmiller, critiques a core principle of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) – that major policy change will not occur as long as the advocacy coalition that instated the policy remains “in power” in a jurisdiction. Firstly, Heinmiller explores what it means for a status quo advocacy coalition to be in power in a jurisdiction, especially as it relates to the ACF’s theory of policy change. After critically examining how this concept has been used in existing ACF scholarship, the author proposes a standard operationalization of being in power, drawing on the veto players literature, which he then illustrates using a case study of Canadian firearms policy. His conclusion demonstrates how the proposed operationalization is an improvement on existing practices that advances the theory around and measurement of policy change in the ACF.
Oscar Berglund, Claire Dunlop, Elizabeth Koebele, Chris Weible and Sarah Brown
Thank you to all our authors, reviewers, board members, readers and friends of Policy & Politics for another successful year in 2022.
We are delighted to be ending the year on the high note of maintaining our top quartile ranking in Political Science with an impact factor of 3.297, thanks to the huge support of our loyal community. Congratulations to you all!
In the meantime, to celebrate all we have achieved together this year, we have made our top 10 most highly cited articles published in 2022 free to access until 31 January 2023, please see below for the full collection.
This quarter’s highlights collection focuses on three of our most widely read and cited articles this year. All three were featured in our special issue published in July on Transformational Change in Public Policy which was guest edited by our co-editors: Oscar Berglund, Claire Dunlop, Elizabeth Koebele and Chris Weible.
The authors highlight how significant time and effort has been spent seeking to understand policy change around the major societal issues we face. Yet their findings show that most change tends to be incremental. The consequent challenge they set out is whether or not public policy scholarship is up to the job of developing a coherent research programme to build knowledge and enable necessary, positive transformational change.
Quarterly highlights collection 1 August – 31 October 2022
Welcome to this quarter’s highlights collection featuring three articles that provide a range of insights from different perspectives on policy and regulation. Continue reading →
Special issue blog series on Transformational Change through Public Policy.
Guest edited by co-editors Oscar Berglund, Claire Dunlop, Elizabeth Koebele and Chris Weible
The 2020s are turbulent times, from COVID-19 to cost-of-living crises, violent and institutionalised racism, attacks on women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, and beyond – all against the backdrop of rapid climate change. Meanwhile, symbolic action and agenda denial are widespread responses whilst polarisation and authoritarianism increase. The impetus for this Policy & Politics 2022 special issue on “Transformational Change through Public Policy” (see below for table of contents) comes from a sense of unease about the lack of action on these challenges and the role public policy studies may play in addressing them.
Guest edited by co-editors Oscar Berglund, Claire Dunlop, Elizabeth Koebele and Chris Weible
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 