Greetings and welcome to the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) Blog! We are incredibly excited to use this digital space to help our authors extend the impact of their research, and to build a vibrant community of policy scholars, practitioners, and citizens at large.
The following posts serve two key goals. First, we will keep you updated on the latest developments at PSJ and within the policy process research community more broadly. Second (and more importantly), we will share short, accessible summaries of PSJ publications designed for experts, practitioners, and the general public. These posts will be promoted on our social media channels, and their respective articles will also be made open access for a limited period. We hope this blog will help our authors achieve greater exposure and recognition while also reducing barriers to top-quality, peer-reviewed policy research.
We extend our sincere appreciation to Dr. Saba Siddiki, Blog Editor, and Erica Ivins,Blog Managing Editor, for their current work on this initiative. We are also grateful to Senior Associate Editor Dr. Melissa Merry and former Editorial Assistant Eli Polley for their years of service in spearheading this endeavor.
We deeply value the views and insights of our authors and readers, and we are always excited to engage with the entire policy community. Together, let’s foster a robust environment for meaningful dialogue, collaboration, and innovation in the field of policy studies. Thank you for being an integral part of this effort. We look forward to continuing this intellectual adventure!
Sincerely,
The PSJ Editorial Team
Geoboo Song, Melissa K. Merry, Gwen Arnold, Saba N. Siddiki, Holly L. Peterson, Creed Tumlison, Eric Button, Benjamin Galloway, Camille Gilmore, Erica Ivins, Victor Kwaku Akakpo, Rinjisha Roy, Izehi Oriaghan, Annette Nyoni, Travis Wagher, Ryan Ramaker, Mohammad Mizanur Rahman, and Katherine McKinney
Policy outcomes and concerns about social and racial equity have long been discussed in policy scholarship. A question that often arises is why disparities persist even though scholars and practitioners have increasingly paid attention to equity in policy design.
In this article, I argue that policy design is not only a standalone process. The way policy agendas are set plays a role in shaping policy design. Agenda-setting influences how problems are defined, which issues are elevated, and which solutions are treated as legitimate or workable. Because of that, how we understand and explain agenda-setting matters. If agenda-setting is treated as neutral, it can miss how race, power, and exclusion shape what gets attention in the first place.
To further unpack what may be missing in mainstream approaches, I suggest using a race-conscious framework such as Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT helps examine how race and racism can be embedded in systems that often present themselves as objective or race-neutral. This is not a claim that mainstream policy process theories lack value. Instead, it is a reminder that many of these theories were not built to center race, even though race and power shape policy processes and outcomes.
MSF & CRT
To illustrate how CRT can strengthen our understanding of agenda-setting, I use the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), a widely used policy process theory. MSF is one example of a broader set of mainstream policy process theories that often rely on similar assumptions about neutrality and rationality. MSF includes several key elements: the problem stream, policy stream, policy entrepreneurs, and policy windows. It is commonly used to explain how agendas form and why some issues gain traction over others.
So, where does CRT come in? CRT includes key tenets such as interest convergence, voice of color, race as socially constructed, and racism as ordinary. These tenets help explain how race is constructed and how power operates through institutions and processes that are often described as “neutral”. When applying CRT to MSF, it becomes easier to see what race-neutral agenda-setting can overlook. For example, problem indicators can be discussed in ways that hide disparities, policy communities can reflect unequal representation, political institutions carry histories of exclusion, and policy windows can open without producing equity-centered change.
The point is not to dismiss MSF, but to show how a CRT lens can reframe MSF’s components and make racialized assumptions more visible in agenda-setting, which then shapes the foundations of policy design. In the article, I use CRT tenets to reinterpret each MSF component as part of agenda-setting, showing how race-neutral assumptions shape which problems and solutions become the foundation for policy design.
Why It Matters
The article’s contribution focuses on how we think about agenda-setting and policy design, especially the assumptions we bring to both. I argue that if we want to address inequitable policy outcomes, policy scholarship should take race consciousness more seriously and do it early. Centering race in agenda-setting theory can strengthen how we explain why certain problems and solutions become “designable”, and why some equity concerns remain sidelined.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Wong, J. (2025). Centering Critical Race Theory in Policy Design: A Reframing of Multiple Streams Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 53(3), 795-805. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70059
About the Article’s Author(s)
Jonathan Wong (he/him) is a doctoral candidate in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska Omaha. His research interests focus on public administration and public policy, with a particular emphasis on civic engagement, equity, and governance. His research explores how deliberative and participatory practices within public administration intersect with questions of racial equity, inclusion, and governance. Jonathan is also committed to integrating research and teaching to strengthen connections between public service, democratic engagement, and social justice.
How do countries strike a balance between keeping government budgets in check and providing strong social safety nets for their citizens? As the world becomes more interconnected and demands for services grow, governments must find a way to satisfy this. Scholars have overlooked the connections between government and citizens driving changes in policy design, especially in pension reform. This article investigates the factors that lead to changes in social and pension reform in OECD countries. To do this, the author incorporates “social cohesion” into the study design as a new perspective to determine how state-citizen cohesion (government trust) and civic engagement influence how to achieve policy changes in social and pension design. This study provides valuable insights into how coherence between governments and citizens resolves and encourages policy design problem-solving.
Hypotheses
The author explores the role of social cohesion in influencing the selection of policy tools to achieve changes in social and pension policies.
Methodology
The author analyzes panel data from 30 OECD countries over the period 2010-2020. Social cohesion is measured using “government trust” and “civic engagement” as key indicators to test the relationship with social and pension policy instruments. Because policy choices evolve over time and vary across countries, the analysis employs system Generalized Method of Moments (system GMM), a statistical method well suited to capturing country-specific contexts and policy dynamics in longitudinal data.
Key Findings
Government Trust and Civic Engagement Affect the Multi-Tier Pension System Differently
As shown in Table 3, government trust and civic engagement affect pension policy instruments differently. Model 1 shows that increases in government trust leads to an increase in measures for fiscal sustainability. However, increases in civic engagement correlate with pension benefit levels in a multi-tier system expanding. Interestingly, Model 2 shows that government trust helps sustain and enhance mandatory public pension benefits, while civic engagement reduces citizen reliance on mandatory public pensions, suggesting a gradual shift toward greater diversification through private pension arrangements. In short, government trust and civic engagement shape both policy instruments and citizens’ preferences for addressing pension design challenges in different ways.
Table 3. Impacts of Social Cohesion on Pension Policy Instruments in Multi-Tier Pension System.
Government Trust Strengthens while Civic Engagement Weakens First-Tier Pensions
Table 4 shows that government trust and civic engagement affect first-tier pension systems in different ways. Model 1 tells us that government trust positively affects first-tier pension benefit levels, making them robust. Meanwhile, civic engagement negatively affects the overall level of first-tier pensions by shifting dependency toward private pensions. Furthermore, Model 2 demonstrates that civic engagement strengthens the universal and redistributive nature of non-contributory schemes within first-tier pension systems.
Table 4 Impact of Social Cohesion on Pension Policy Instrument Mix in the First-Tier Pension System.
Why It Matters
This article highlights the importance of applying social cohesion, understood as the interactions between government(s) and citizens, in improving current policy processes. Social cohesion is needed for harmonization between government and citizens to achieve effective policy outcomes. For policymakers, this research shows that social cohesion connects government and citizens to the overall design and application of policy tools to fix structural problems within social and pension policies. Future studies should consider the role of social cohesion, with an emphasis on state-citizen dynamics, to understand how social connections influence the design of important policy programs.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Kim, J. (2025). The Place of Social Cohesion in Policy Design: Lessons From the Evolution of Pension Policy Instruments Mix in OECD Countries. Policy Studies Journal, 53(3), 681-700. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psj.70000.
About the Article’s Author(s)
Jiwon Kim, PhD (Seoul National University), is a Professor in the Department of Public Administration at the School of Social Integration, Hankyong National University. Her research centers on policy analysis and evaluation, welfare finance, and social welfare policy, with a particular focus on marginalized groups—such as persons with disabilities, industrial accident workers, and public servants injured in the line of duty—as well as on public performance management. She was a Visiting Scholar at the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University—Newark from March 2023 to February 2024. In acknowledgement of her significant contributions to empirical research in social policy, she received the 2024 Commendation from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education of South Korea.
Public policies rarely rely on a single solution. Instead, they often combine multiple tools—like incentives and regulations—to tackle complex problems. The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is an effective way to explain how policies get on the agenda and are eventually adopted, but it usually looks at ideas in isolation. This article asks: Do policy ideas within the same stream influence each other, and how does that shape the way policies are designed? To answer this, the authors introduce a new concept called intra-stream interdependence, specifically how policy ideas within the same stream interact and influence each other. The study applies the Multiple Streams Framework to examine interactions within the policy stream and integrates it with policy mix theory. They explore their research questions using electric vehicle (EV) policies in the United States, using advanced methods (i.e., clustering analysis and fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis) to uncover patterns of how policies are combined and which combinations work best.
Hypotheses
The authors test two hypotheses:
Similar policy ideas are systematically linked during the policymaking process due to intra-stream interdependence.
The design of different policy mixes will substantively influence the policy outcomes they achieve.
Methodology
The authors analyze 1,736 EV policy actions at the state and local level, using data from the Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center. They used k-means clustering to identify which policy tools (e.g., tax credits, rebates, or pollution regulations) tend to appear together. Then, they examined whether certain combinations of tools were linked to higher policy adoption rates and, subsequently, higher EV market share in different states.
Key Findings
Policy Tools Form Consistent Clusters
Policies do not operate in isolation; rather, Figures 1 and 2 show five distinct groupings of incentives and regulations. For example, tax credits and exemptions tended to appear together in the same policy actions, while grants and loans formed separate clusters. Similarly, regulations aimed at improving air quality and addressing climate change tend to cluster, while EV registration fees and vehicle standards combine in another group. These patterns suggest that policy ideas evolve together, not independently, and therefore supports Hypothesis 1. The authors argue that this finding ultimately challenges the idea that policies compete one by one; rather, policymakers actually design them as packages.
Figure 1. Clusters of incentives and composition of instruments in each cluster.
Figure 2. Clusters of regulations and composition of instruments in each cluster.
Pollution Regulations are Key to Success
To examine the relationship between policy mixes and outcomes, the authors use exploratory factor analysis to identify mixes and then deploy a fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to study the outcomes in the EV markets. Table 1 shows that every successful policy mix for higher EV market shares includes regulations targeting air pollution and climate change, often paired with incentives including tax credits and exemptions.. Financial incentives alone do not drive EV adoption; rather, they work best when combined with supportive regulations. This finding supports Hypothesis 2 and highlights an important lesson: effective policy design requires integrated approaches, not single tools. In this case, regulations create a supportive environment while incentives encourage adoption either at the individual or community levels.
Table 1. Outcomes of fsQCA: Policy conditions combinations and outcomes
Why It Matters
This study shows that policy ideas interact and form structured mixes which influence real-world outcomes. By introducing the concept of intra-stream interdependence, the authors expand MSF theory and explain why policy mixes emerge. For policymakers, the takeaway is clear: combining regulations with incentives is essential for promoting EV adoption and more generally for successful environmental action. Future research should explore whether similar dynamics occur in other areas like health or education and examine how these mixes change over time. Furthermore, case studies could look at how advocacy tactics—specifically, the way issues are presented—work together with natural groupings of ideas to shape complex policy packages. Understanding these patterns can help governments design smarter, more effective policies for complex challenges.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Soni, Anmol and Evan M. Mistur 2025. “Mixing and Matching: Intra-stream Interdependence in the Multiple Streams Framework and the Adoption of Policy Mixes.” Policy Studies Journal 53(3): 580–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12582.
About the Article’s Authors
Anmol Soni is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration at Louisiana State University. Her research focuses on energy and environmental policy action. Anmol’s recent work examines energy transitions in the global south and policy designs and mixes adopted by sub-national governments to address local sustainability issues.
Evan M. Mistur is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Affairs and Planning at the University of Texas at Arlington. He specializes in public policy, researching a diverse set of topics centered around environmental management, sustainability policy, and policy theory. Evan’s past work includes investigations of policy formation, diffusion, and implementation across both Texas and Georgia.
Despite many citizens in the United States first experiencing welfare policies during adolescence, we have yet to uncover the extent to which welfare participation during this period affects political participation in adulthood. While scholars have long studied the political consequences of adult program participation, we know relatively little about adolescent program participation. What are the political effects of adolescent participation in means-tested programs? This study provides evidence that ignoring early-life policy experiences can mask how people’s lived experiences with welfare policies influence political behaviors.
Hypotheses
The author tests the expectation that participating in welfare during adolescence sets individuals on a path toward nonparticipation in adulthood that is likely to persist over time.
Methodology
The author uses mixed methods, including longitudinal survey data and original qualitative interviews. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) with measures of adolescent program participation and voting in adulthood, the author estimates latent growth curve models that account for within- and between-person variation to overcome dependency between an individual’s response across survey rounds. The author then uses original qualitative data collected through interviews with young adults who were on welfare as adolescents. The interview transcripts are thematically coded using Atlas.ti and deductive and inductive approaches.
Key Findings
The Negative Relationship among Non-Hispanic White Individuals
Figure 1 shows how the probability of voting throughout early adulthood varies depending on an individual’s experience with welfare programs. The darkest line shows someone with no welfare experience, the middle tracks a person who used one program in adolescence and adds more in adulthood, and the lightest reflects someone with heavy adolescent program use who relies on fewer programs as an adult.
Figure 1. Turnout between 2004 and 2010 based on changes in welfare participation among non-Hispanic White individuals.
The markers for the 2004 election indicate each’s propensity to vote in their first election, and the results show that those with no adolescent welfare experience are the most likely to vote (~ 60% predicted probability), while those with the most extensive adolescent program experience are the least likely to vote (~ 46% predicted probability). Additionally, Figure 1 shows that, over time, those with moderate adolescent program experience recover and are about just as likely to vote by the 2010 election as someone never on welfare, while those with extensive adolescent program experience remain significantly less likely to vote even as they use fewer programs as an adult.
Evidence from Qualitative Interviews
The qualitative evidence provides richer insights into the quantitative findings, providing support for the identified negative relationship. Interviews with young adults who grew up on welfare reveal three recurring themes that help explain lower voting rates. First, many described stigma and embarrassment tied to public-facing programs like food stamps, often avoiding situations where their participation was visible. Second, participants reported a lack of pro-civic role models, as parents focused on survival rarely modeled voting or political engagement. Finally, expectancy–disconfirmation emerged when government aid failed to meet expectations, fostering distrust and feelings of being “trapped” in poverty. These findings suggest that such experiences often translated into negative views of politics and a sense that participation is futile, reinforcing patterns of civic disengagement into adulthood.
Why It Matters
This study shows that the political consequences of welfare use are not confined to adulthood—they take shape much earlier. By looking at individuals over time, the findings indicate that growing up in households using means-tested programs is linked to lower voting rates among non-Hispanic white youth, even after accounting for adult circumstances. Because voting habits tend to persist over time, these early experiences likely have enduring consequences for democratic participation. Overlooking adolescence means missing a key piece of how social policy shapes political voice.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Micatka, Nathan K. 2025. “Learning to Avoid: The Long-term Effects of Adolescent Welfare Participation on Voting Habits in Adulthood.” Policy Studies Journal 53(4): 1065–1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70003.
About the Article’s Author
Nathan K. Micatka is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice at the University of South Alabama. His work centers on American political behavior, poverty, and public policy. His research is published in outlets such as Policy Studies Journal, Political Research Quarterly, Electoral Studies, PLOS One, and Social Science Quarterly. Nathan’s research has also been supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant from the American Political Science Association and the National Science Foundation. Visit his website to learn more: nathanmicatka.com.
Last January, the editorial staff of PSJ asked me to think about how the new Trump administration might affect policy process research. This is a huge task full of landmines – not only would I need to write something that engaged a vast policy process literature, but I’d have to do something that political scientists should never do: make predictions. With blind confidence befitting a Full Professor, I said yes.
There is little precedent for the Trump presidency in many ways, not least of which is Trump’s re-election in non-consecutive terms. Trump’s impact on American politics and policy choices of the Republican Party has thus far been significant, even in the years out of power. All that said, the conclusion of my article is that it is unclear that a new Trump administration will change how we study public policy; however, his actions should change what we study. I call out five areas of study we, as a community, could focus on.
Executive Policymaking
First, Trump’s focus on executive policymaking challenges the very institutional structure upon which much of the American politics and policymaking research relies. Congress somehow has less power than before – some might say it has lost power, but is it fair to say that something is lost if it is given away? Trump is pursuing a constitutional interpretation that envisions an executive with independent, unchecked powers relative to the legislative and judicial branches. Most of the modern policy process research conceives of a foundational American political environment with stable post-World War II institutions. Those are under threat, and American policy scholars would do well to borrow from the comparative politics literature to understanding policymaking during regime change.
The Politics of Mass Repeal
Second, Trump campaigned on and is engaged in the steadfast commitment to a systematic repeal of his four years out of power – part of his Biden erasure campaign which also includes, incredibly, the results of the 2020 election. Policy scholars, particularly feedback scholars, have the tools to consider the politics of this moment. It is difficult to imagine a repeal agenda of this magnitude across so many policy areas. Trump and Congress have scrubbed DEI language from federal publications (including flagging the above picture of the Enola Gay because of the word “gay”), repealed the majority of Biden’s signature legislative achievement – the Inflation Reduction Act, rescinded federal funding for basic science and on and on. Policy scholars might ask questions about the politics of repeal – not just of one or two policies, but the politics of mass policy repeal.
Siege Federalism
Third, Trump has vigorously asserted the dominance of the federal government over states – when convenient. Trump’s actions can be seen in his attempts to rescind funding to states that fail to comply with his directives, his activation of the national guard in California, Illinois, and Oregon to purportedly affect federal agents, and, currently, coercing states and localities to assist federal immigration and other agents in a large-scale deportation effort. The field of federalism is full of different ways of characterizing different moments of federalism (e.g. “marble cake”, “layer cake”, “variable speed”); I offer “siege federalism” in the article. Looking at images of American cities – currently Minneapolis and before that my home town of Portland (above) – I’m saddened by how accurate that phrase has turned out to be.
Identity Politics and Redistribution
Fourth, Trump campaigned on identity politics, but this isn’t just about reversing DEI policies of the Biden administration. Trump and allies are elevating particular identity groups within the United States, notably, white Americans. Trump’s policymaking on this front is redistributive, which should lead to conflict. Notions of power and deservingness are at the center of these politics and are, in my opinion, extremely volatile at the current moment.
Policymaking in Corrupt Times
Fifth, and finally, the Trump administration has overtly and directly incorporated business interests (including Trump’s) as part of public policymaking. Members of the private sector have the president’s ear, but have also bent the knee. Prominent corporate leaders, particularly in the technology sector, have formal or informal roles in government. Policy scholars might think more on direct executive lobbying – but, honestly, we need to talk more about corruption in American politics. Is this level of corruption the new normal? If so, how should we build that into our models of the policy process? Comparativists have wisdom here and we should listen to it.
Looking Forward
I could fill another blog post (or article) about what we might think about as a community regarding other government actions that have transpired since I wrote the original article. For example, how does the weaponization of the justice system affect policy process research? Also, policy scholars don’t often think about foreign policy, but Trump (surprisingly) has taken significant actions abroad that have shaken the very foundation of the world order using a unique set of tools including abduction (fugitive apprehension), extortion (deal-making), and murder (kinetic actions). How can we use our process models to explain foreign policy? The Republican president has engaged in significant interventions in the economy down to the individual corporation level. How does Trumpenomics influence the context of policymaking?
An overarching theme of the Trump administration is to inject politics into as many parts of the policymaking process as possible. Policy scholars, myself included tend to engage in more institutional analyses and de-emphasize politics. We are currently in a new reality where it seems like just about everything is political – especially policymaking.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Koski, Chris. 2025. “Four More Years! (of Policy Process Research in a Trump Administration).” Policy Studies Journal 53(4): 1088–1097. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70025.
About the Article’s Author(s)
Chris Koski is the Daniel B. Greenberg chair of political science and environmental studies at Reed College. His research focuses on the development of theory in punctuated equilibrium theory and the social construction framework. Substantively, his work addresses climate change policy and the politics of state budgeting. His publications have appeared in Policy Studies Journal, Governance, JPART, and he is co-author of Means, Motives, and Opportunities: How Executives and Interest Groups Set Public Policy published by Cambridge University Press.
Governments around the world use local content requirements (LCR) to boost domestic industries by requiring renewable energy projects to use a certain share of locally-made components. The idea is simple: create jobs and build local supply chains. But the results have been mixed—some countries became major exporters of wind and solar technology, while others struggled. This article asks: Does the way these rules are designed explain why they succeed in some places and fail in others? To find out, the author uses Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to look for patterns in how different policy features and economic conditions combine to produce success.
Hypotheses
The author tests three hypotheses:
Policies work best when countries already have strong technological capabilities.
Combining LCR with other tools (e.g., financial incentives, renewable energy targets) helps in tougher economic environments.
No single factor guarantees success; it’s about the right mix of design and context.
Methodology
The author analyze 27 LCR policies in wind and solar energy across 19 countries from 1995 to 2017, using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to uncover patterns. The research examines how policy design elements (e.g., restrictiveness, policy mixes, and targets) interact with the political economy (e.g., investment conditions, economic complexity). Success was measured by whether a country’s exports of wind and solar components grew four years after introducing LCR. The analysis looks for combinations of conditions that consistently led to positive outcomes rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.
Key Findings
Flexibility or Strong Capabilities Are Essential
Figure 1 shows that either a flexible LCR design or a country’s high economic complexity must be present for a policy to be successful. While countries with advanced technology sectors can handle stricter rules without harming investment, those with limited capabilities need more lenient requirements to attract investment. This finding supports Hypothesis 1, demonstrating that there is no universal approach—what works in China or Spain may fail in India or Argentina. The author therefore argues that successful policies must be tailored to local conditions and political-economic contexts.
Figure 1. XY-Plot of the necessity relation between (C1 or C5) and LCR Effectiveness.
Policy Bundles Make a Difference
In countries with weaker investment conditions or limited technological capacity, LCR only worked when paired with financial incentives or renewable energy targets (Table 1). These extra measures help attract investors and signal future demand, giving local industries time to grow. This finding supports Hypothesis 2, underscoring the role of strategic policy bundling for green industrial success. Furthermore, the author explains, while simple rules can work in supportive environments, complex policy mixes are essential in challenging one.
Table 1. Sufficient conjunctural patterns of policy design elements and contextual factors for LCR policy effectiveness.
Why It Matters
This article reveals that smart policy design matters. LCR effectiveness depends on tailoring rules to local conditions and, when needed, combining them with other supportive policies. This research challenges the idea of universal design principles and shows that success comes from the right mix of tools and context. Future studies should explore how these patterns apply in other sectors and dig deeper into why some policies fail. Scholars could also improve data on granular design features like technology transfer requirements. For policymakers, the message is clear: design green industrial policies with flexibility, consider context, and do not rely on a single instrument.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Eicke, Laima. 2025. “Does Policy Design Matter For the Effectiveness of Local Content Requirements? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Renewable Energy Value Chains.” Policy Studies Journal 53(3): 604–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12590.
About the Article’s Author
Laima Eicke is a Research Associate at the Research Institute for Sustainability in Potsdam. Her research focuses on the international political economy of the energy transition, value chains of renewable energy technologies and hydrogen in particular as well as on green industrial policies. She is a former Associate and Research Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School and worked at the German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ), the Germany Ministry for International Affairs, NGOs and in consultancy.
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced states to rethink election administration across the United States. To make voting safer, many states expanded mail voting options like no-excuse absentee voting (NEAV) and universal vote-by-mail (UVBM). While some scholars have studied how these reforms affect turnout, few have examined whether they influence voters’ trust in government itself. This article looks beyond turnout to ask a deeper question: Do voting access reforms change how citizens feel about their ability to participate in and trust government? The authors use a policy feedback lens to guide their inquiry.
Hypotheses
The authors test three hypotheses, with the understanding that partisanship and state politics may shape these effects:
Internal Efficacy: NEAV and UVBM increase individuals’ sense of competence in political participation.
External Efficacy: NEAV and UVBM increase individuals’ belief that government is responsive to them.
Government Trust: NEAV and UVBM increase individuals’ trust in government.
Methodology
Using survey data from the American National Election Studies and state-level records of voting reforms, the authors used a statistical modeling approach called difference-in-difference estimation to compare states before and after adopting mail voting. They specifically estimated the average treatment effect of these reforms on internal efficacy, external efficacy, and trust in government. Subgroup analyses also explored overall trends and differences by party and state political control.
Key Findings
Making Voting Easier Doesn’t Boost Confidence
Table 1 reveals that adopting NEAV or UVBM did not significantly increase people’s sense of political competence or voice. In other words, the authors explain, making voting easier does not automatically make people feel more empowered. This finding challenges the assumption that lowering barriers builds democratic confidence; rather, it suggests that turnout gains from mail voting likely come from convenience, not deeper psychological engagement. Hypotheses 1 and 2 are therefore not supported.
Table 1. Estimated average treatment on the treated (group aggregation by sample).
Limiting Choice May Undercut Trust in Voting Reforms
Figure 1 shows that neither NEAV nor UVBM mail voting reforms consistently improved trust in government, providing no support for H3. The authors even found some evidence that UVBM may undercut trust in government. The authors therefore argue that limiting access to in-person voting options, as typically occurs under UVBM systems, may inhibit the intended confidence-building effects of reforms.
Figure 1. The group-average ATT estimate of the effect of UVBM adoption on each outcome by subsample.
Why It Matters
This article finds that expanding mail voting has not increased trust or feelings of empowerment amongst voters. The authors aim to reframe debates about election reforms, arguing that policymakers should focus on normative goals, like fairness and accessibility, rather than psychological or partisan benefits. They also argue that future research should develop better tools to measure trust and efficacy and explore whether repeated exposure to new voting systems changes attitudes over time.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Trexler, Andrew, Marayna Martinez and Mallory E. SoRelle 2025. “Voting Access Reforms and Policy Feedback Effects on Political Efficacy and Trust.” Policy Studies Journal 53(2): 524-540. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70022.
About the Article’s Authors
Andrew Trexler is a PhD candidate in public policy and political science at Duke University. His research examines political communication, public opinion, and political behavior, with a focus on the United States. He draws on draw on a wide range of tools, including experimental methods, survey methods, text analysis, and machine learning. His work engages with several scholarly disciplines, including political science, public policy, mass communication, and psychology.
Marayna Martinez is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her research focuses on race and ethnic politics, political behavior, policy feedback, and K12 education policy. She is particularly interested in the feedback effects of public education on the political development of children of color. Her work has appeared in various journals, including Politics, Groups, and Identities and Policy Studies Journal.
Mallory E. SoRelle is an assistant professor of public policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Her research investigates how public policies influence socioeconomic and political inequality in the United States. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection, which explores the political response—by policymakers, public interest groups, and ordinary Americans—to one of the most consequential economic policy issues in the United States: consumer credit and financial regulation.
Immigration policy used to be a bipartisan issue, but now it is one of the most divisive in American politics. This study explores how lawmakers’ behavior changed as immigration became a party-defining issue–and what that means for the way Congress represents the foreign-born population. Using immigration bills in the House of Representatives from 1983 to 2014, email newsletters from 2010 to 2020, and data on district characteristics the authors ask: Do representatives still respond to immigrant populations in their districts, or does representation depend on which party wins the seat?
Expectations
The authors set out to discover whether polarization on this issue changed the mechanism of representation. They expect that as the issue polarizes, immigrations positions will depend more on party than on the size of the foreign-born population in the district, and that the effect of the foreign born population will occur via the electoral mechanism – influencing which party holds the seat – rather than by lawmakers’ in the same party holding positions that align with district characteristics. They also expect that under polarization the constituency effect will shift to predicting how active lawmakers are on the issue, rather than their positions.
Methodology
To test their expectations, the authors use three sources to measure lawmakers’ positions on immigration: floor speeches, email newsletters, and an original data set of immigration-related bills. Then, using regression models, they estimate the relationship between district demographics and legislators’ positions.
Key Findings
The Partisan Divide Has Grown
Figure 1 reveals the dramatic divergence of immigration positions over time between the two political parties. While Republicans move sharply toward anti-immigration positions, Democrats grew more supportive of immigration. This finding suggests that immigration has become a core partisan issue in U.S. politics, leaving little room for bipartisan collaboration.
Figure 1. OLS coefficients of republican partisanship on pro-immigration positions. Figures report coefficients on Republican partisanship from OLS models estimate for each dependent variable in each Congress. Y-axes are on different scales.
The Mechanism of Representation Has Changed
Figure 2 suggests that immigrant populations still matter–but indirectly. Instead of shaping individual lawmakers’ positions, foreign-born constituents hold more influence on which party wins the congressional seat itself, in part because they have become a more Democratic constituency. While Democrats representing districts with larger foreign-born populations. The correlation between the foreign-born population and legislators’ positions has actually become stronger, but it now passes through partisanship rather than dyadic responsiveness.
Figure 2. OLS coefficient of foreign-born percentage (10-point increments) on immigration positions over time.
Asymmetrical Activism
Figure 3 shows that Democrats with higher shares of immigrant constituents tend to be more active on immigration (e.g., sponsoring bills, giving speeches, and mentioning immigration in emails). On the other hand, Republicans show no such trend. Instead, the most conservative Republicans are the most active on immigration. For Democrats, the immigration agenda is set by representatives of immigrant communities, while for Republicans it is set by the conservative wing.
Figure 3. Effect of percentage foreign born on the number of actions by party.
Why It Matters
Polarization has transformed how representation works. This article explores how party sorting reshapes legislative behavior and agenda-setting on immigration. For immigrant communities, influence now depends on influencing which party wins the election. The authors insist that future research should explore whether similar patterns occur on other party-defining issues, and how local advocacy strategies adapt in an era of deep national divides.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Cayton, Adam and Lena Siemers. 2025. “The Dynamics of Constituency Representation on Immigration Policy in the U.S. House.” Policy Studies Journal 53(2): 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12579.
About the Article’s Authors
Adam Cayton is an associate professor in the Reubin O’D. Askew Department of Government at the University of West Florida. His research focuses on legislative representation. He received a Ph.D. from The University of Colorado – Boulder, and a B.A. from The University of North Carolina at Asheville.
Lena Siemers is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Her research focuses on migrant and refugee studies. She received a M.A. from the University of West Florida and a B.A. from the University of South Alabama.
In 2017, Amazon launched a high-profile competition to choose a location for its second headquarters (HQ2). More than 230 U.S. cities submitted bids, many offering huge incentive packages to lure the tech giant. While researchers have long studied why governments offer these economic development deals to corporations, one question remains: Does making these bids public change how people feel about them? This study uses the Amazon HQ2 contest to explore how transparency and/or secrecy shapes public sentiment and political discourse. This case study applies the Political Market Framework (PMF) to better understand exchanges between policy demanders (e.g., Amazon) and policy suppliers (e.g., local governments).
Hypotheses
The authors test four hypotheses:
Expressions of sentiment in locations with private or redacted bids, rather than public bids, will be more positive than those associated with public bids.
Business stakeholders will express more positive sentiment and be less influenced by transparency.
Government officials will express more positive sentiment and be less influenced by transparency.
Public expressions of sentiment will be more positive when bids are private or redacted, relative to public bids.
Methodology
The authors analyzed nearly 40,000 tweets about HQ2 from 2017 to 2021, which were grouped by actor type (i.e., public, media, politicians, and pro-development stakeholders) and linked to bid transparency status (i.e., whether the local bid was public, redacted, or private). Using a RoBERTa model, the authors determined the positivity and negativity of each Tweet. Additionally, they used multivariate regression modeling to determine whether the transparency of the bid and the type of Twitter user influenced the expression of sentiment in the Tweet.
Key Findings
Less Transparency, More Optimism
Table 1 shows that Tweets from locations with private or redacted bids were significantly more positive than those from places that published full details. When billion-dollar tax subsidies are hidden, the authors explain, people tend to underestimate the costs and view the bid more optimistically–a phenomenon known as “fiscal illusion.” This finding challenges the idea that transparency always builds trust. In this case, openness and honesty about the costs and benefits provided the sunshine to accurately evaluate the true cost of the bids which was met with public backlash, in support of their hypothesis 1.
Table 1. Bid availability by sentiment.
Business Stays Positive, No Matter What
Figure 1 reveals that business stakeholders were consistently upbeat, regardless of bid transparency status. Unlike the general public, the authors point out, pro-development actors benefit directly from these types of incentive deals, so transparency does not dampen their enthusiasm. This finding highlights a key asymmetry: while public sentiment turns negative when costs are revealed, business voices remain supportive and influential. Hypothesis 2 is thus supported.
Figure 1. Bid transparency by actor on sentiment.
Why It Matters
This study shows that transparency in economic development deals can have unintended consequences. Instead of building trust, the authors explain, revealing the full price tag of economic development bids often sparks criticism. This finding raises tough questions for policymakers considering how to balance openness with the risk of public backlash. They take care to note that this is not a reason policymakers should avoid providing transparency, but they should carefully consider the full costs of these deals before promoting them. The authors call on researchers to look at other high-profile incentive deals and explore how transparency interacts with partisan framing and media coverage.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Stokan, Eric, Ian Anson and Nathan M. Jensen. 2025. “When Sunshine Gets You Down: The Role of Transparency on Public Sentiment Toward the Amazon HQ2 Competition.” Policy Studies Journal 53(2): 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70016.
About the Article’s Authors
Eric Stokan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Affiliate Faculty in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC). He is the Director of the Center for Social Science Scholarship at UMBC and Co-Director of the Metropolitan Governance and Management Transitions Lab (MGMT) at the Paul H. O’Neil School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington and is faculty affiliate to the Center for Urban Studies at Wayne State University. He serves on the editorial boards for the Urban Affairs Review and State and Local Government Review. His research examines how local governments balance environmental sustainability, economic growth, and community development. He also evaluates the social equity implications of these decisions.
Ian G. Anson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at UMBC. Dr. Anson arrived at UMBC in 2015 after matriculating from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. He holds a Ph.D. in political science and a M.S. in applied statistics. Dr. Anson’s primary scholarly interests lie at the intersection of the fields of public opinion, political communication, and political behavior. His work often focuses on partisan biases, motivated reasoning, and factual misperceptions in American public opinion. Dr. Anson also contributes to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). His recent book, entitled Following the Ticker: The Political Origins and Consequences of Americans’ Stock Market Perceptions (2023, SUNY Press), examines how public opinion and political behavior have been reshaped since the 1980s by media attention to the stock market.
Nathan M. Jensen (2002, Yale Ph.D.) is a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas-Austin. He only speaks in the third person for the purposes of bios. He was previously an associate professor in the Department of International Business at George Washington University (2014–2016) and associate professor in the Political Science Department at Washington University in St. Louis (2002–2014).
Public support is critical for reaching net-zero goals, yet most research treats climate policies as a single, homogenous category. This approach effectively overlooks how climate policies differ in how much they reflect people’s cultural values and sense of personal freedom. This article therefore asks: Does support for climate policies in the UK depend on the interaction between policy type and cultural worldview? The authors use a UK case study with a representative sample and actual policy proposals to examine how preferences vary by both worldview and the degree of freedom offered by different policy instruments.
Hypotheses
The authors test three sets of hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Support for different policy types varies across cultural worldview groups.
Hypothesis 2a: Communitarian-egalitarians prefer command-and-control policies most, followed by market-based, information-based, and voluntary policies.
Hypothesis 2b: Individualist-hierarchists prefer voluntary policies most, followed by information-based, market-based, and command-and-control policies.
Hypothesis 3a: Support for command-and-control and market-based policies is strongest among communitarian-egalitarians and weakest among individualist-hierarchists.
Hypothesis 3b: Support for information-based and voluntary policies is strongest among individualist-hierarchists and weakest among communitarian-egalitarians.
Hypothesis 3c & 3d: Differences between individualist-egalitarians and communitarian-hierarchists follow similar patterns.
Methodology
The authors surveyed 1,911 UK residents using a validated cultural cognition scale to measure worldviews and support for 16 real-world decarbonization proposals grouped into four policy types:
Command-and-control (strict regulations)
Market-based (taxes or incentives)
Information-based (education and awareness)
Voluntary (encouragement without mandates)
Through a two-step statistical analysis, the authors examined whether policy support relates to a policy type—cultural worldview interaction (step 1) and the likelihood of agreeing with a policy type depending on cultural worldview (step 2).
Key Findings
Egalitarians Prefer Information Over Regulation
Figure 1 shows how cultural worldviews interact with policy types. Surprisingly, egalitarian-commutarians, who often favor strong regulation, preferred information-based policies over command-and-control. They also showed high support for voluntary and market-based measures, which indicates a broader openness to diverse policy instruments. This finding challenges the assumption that collectivist groups always want heavy-handed regulation, therefore disproving hypothesis 2a.
Figure 1. Decarbonization policy support by cultural worldviews and policy types. The numbers show the estimated marginal means. Standard errors are shown in parentheses. N = 1911.
Individualists Favor Freedom Over Regulation
On the other hand, Figure 1 also shows that individualist-hierarchists strongly favored voluntary policies and were least supportive of strict regulations. This pattern closely aligns with cultural cognition theory, which suggests that people who value hierarchy and personal autonomy prefer policies that minimize government coercion. The finding underscores the role of individual freedom as a key determinant of climate policy preferences, thereby supporting hypothesis 2b. It also highlights the significant challenges of implementing stringent decarbonization policies among groups that value autonomy and market-driven solutions.
Why It Matters
This case study reveals that climate policy support is not just about being “for” or “against” climate action; rather, it is about whether policies align with deeper values around freedom and authority. The authors build on cultural cognition theory scholarship by providing actionable guidance for policymakers: that one-size-fits-all policy strategies do not work. Voluntary and informational measures may resonate better with some groups, while others accept market-based tools. The authors call on scholars to test these patterns in other countries, explore how mixed-policy packages influence support, and examine the role of trust and political polarization over time.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Bretter, Christian and Felix Schulz. 2025. “Climate Policy Support in the UK: An Interaction of Worldviews and Policy Types.” Policy Studies Journal 53(2): 388–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12570.
About the Article’s Authors
Christian Bretter is a research fellow in environmental psychology at the Net-Zero Observatory at the University of Queensland. By integrating psychology and environmental behavior research, he is interested in why and when individuals are behaving or thinking in environmentally (un)friendly ways and in designing and testing interventions that create positive behavior change.
Felix Schulz is an interdisciplinary researcher at Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies. His research draws from labor economics, sociology of work and social psychology to understand individuals and institutions’ perceptions of climate change and just transition policies.
Policy Studies Journal Blog 