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
Consider these questions: How involved are women in the negotiation and implementation of peace agreements? Are the rights and well-being of women well-reflected in peace programs? The protection of women’s rights has been a cornerstone of recent discussions in post-war peacebuilding, as recent scholarship has begun to explore the extent to which women have a voice in negotiations and are able to include gendered protections. This article investigates whether such protections included in Colombia’s Final Agreement in 2016 were implemented. The 2016 agreement in Colombia was finalized after a series of negotiations in Havana that started in 2012 between the Colombian government and the leftist insurgency FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejercito del Pueblo). To guide this study, the author specifically asks: To what degree are the gender provisions negotiated in a peace agreement implemented compared to gender-neutral provisions? Does the implementation status of gender provisions affect the implementation of the peace agreement?
Hypotheses
The author introduces two hypotheses to determine the relationship between the implementation of gender protections and the peace agreement’s success:
H1: The incorporation of gendered provisions in the peace agreement is negatively associated with implementation, compared to gender-neutral provisions.
H2: A positive relationship exists between the implementation status of gender provisions and the overall implementation success of the peace agreement.
Methodology
This study utilizes a quantitative analysis of the 2016 Colombian Peace Agreement. Monthly data from the PAM Barometer Initiative (PAM-BI) containing 578 commitments or provisions included in the 2016 Final Agreement were collected between December 2016 and April 2023. The author utilized two different measurement indicators: implementation status and gender-specific benchmarks — that were analyzed at two levels: the stipulation and sub-theme (reforms or programs) level. This allowed the implementation progress of gendered provisions to be compared against non-gendered provisions.
Key Findings
Gender Provisions Lag Behind Non-Gender Provisions
Figure 2 demonstrates that the implementation of gender provisions in the peace agreement falls behind non-gendered provisions. This pattern is consistent across all points of the Final Agreement, suggesting widespread and systemic limitations in the implementation of gender protections. Furthermore, these dynamics indicate a significant implementation gap along gender dimensions, where gendered provisions experience less success in being part of negotiated peace deals compared to provisions not directly advocating for such protections. This reaffirms the challenge of ensuring that women’s perspectives and rights are reflected in the implementation of peace negotiations.
Figure 2. Point Specific Analysis of Gender Provisions and Implementation Status.
Implementing More Gender Provisions Uplifts the Entire Peace Agreement
The complete or “full” implementation of gender provisions provides a significant boost to the success of the peace process, as shown in Figure 3. The addition of more completed gendered-provisions or stipulations improves the probability of the peace agreement being implemented. This confirms the author’s second hypothesis that the implementation of gendered provisions or protections are foundational to supporting broader reforms negotiated in the agreement. Gendered conditions, in this case, act as leverage for advancing peace and stability in post-war nations.
Figure 3. Prediction of Level Implementation Rate.
Why It Matters
This article provides a helpful illustration for how gendered perspectives are implemented in and shape post-war peacebuilding, in comparison with non-gendered perspectives. A dynamic connection is clearly present between gendered provisions and the rate of success for implementing a peace agreement–highlighting their significance in the peace implementation process. The author encourages future research to build upon the findings of this study to determine what conditions or factors influence the inclusion of gender protections in peace negotiations in other settings. By doing this, scholarship will be able to magnify the role of women and their perspectives in implementing important peace agreements.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Joshi, Madhav. 2025. “Does the Implementation Status of Gender Provisions Affect the Implementation of a Peace Agreement? Evidence From Colombia’s 2016 Peace Agreement Implementation Process.” Policy Studies Journal 53(4): 1152–1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12584
About the Article’s Author(s)
Madhav Joshi is a research professor and an associate director of the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM) at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs. He oversees the data coding for the PAM project and leads the research initiatives on peace agreement design, implementation, and post-implementation political and economic developments. His current priorities focus on collaborative initiatives fulfilling the Kroc Institute’s mandate specific to developing methodology and verifying the implementation of the 2016 peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejercito del Pueblo). In collaboration with Catholic Relief Services-Philippines, he leads the Peace Accords Matrix-Mindanao technical accompaniment support to the Joint Normalization Committee in monitoring and verifying the implementation of the Normalization Annex in the 2014 Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of North Texas. His works are published in Political Geography, Social Science Research, British Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Peace Research, Democratization, International Peacekeeping, International Studies Quarterly, and many other journals.
The role of algorithims in influencing and channeling the type of information that people have access to today is unprecedented. Algorithimic tools such as social media platforms, AI recommendations, and search engines perform an important role in organizing and selecting content that shapes discourse on policy matters. However, the growing dominance of algorithims has invited complex challenges such as the increasing or decreasing presence of specific policy stories or stories available to the public. In this article, the authors propose integrating algorithimic understandings via algorithmic meta-capital (AMC) with the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), to conceptualize how algorithmic tools influence the distribution of narrative content and how this informs the creation and/or reaction to public policy activities. For those unfamiliar with AMC, it refers to the usage of algorithms to control what gets seen and validated on digitial platforms.
Hypotheses
The authors propose three hypotheses underpinning the theoretical arguments of their model (also see Figure 1):
H1 (Micro-Level): Algorithimic meta-capital influences the impact of policy narrative persuasion on individuals through its effects on narrative elements such as breach, transportation, and congruence.
H2 (Meso-Level): Algorithmic meta-capital influences the narrative deployments by interest groups, advocacy coalitions, and other public, private, and third-sector actors via strategic policy dynamics alternation, policy beliefs strengthening, or opponent countering.
H3 (Macro-Level): Algorithmic meta-capital contributes to the normalization, stability, and persistence of macro-level policy narratives through its relationship with factors such as algorithmic infrastructure and culture, potentially limiting the ability of alternative narratives to challenge dominant institutional and cultural norms.
Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework Integrating AMC into NPF
The Black Lives Matter Movement
The rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in 2020 demonstrated the effect of algorithims in propelling social policy narratives. Activists within BLM utilized social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to gain widespread support, as well as challenge dominant perspectives on racial equality and justice. This particular case illustrated the ability of activists in social movements to capitalize on algorithm structures in social media platforms to organize collective action and broader activism efforts. The case provides further support for the second-hypothesis, showcasing the role of algorithims in facilitating strategic narrative developments to shape public opinion on contentious policy issues.
The COVID-19 Pandemic
Social media algorithms and platforms played a significant role in spreading information and informing public opinion on the COVID-19 pandemic. Facebook and Twitter were the main sources for information for many users, with algorithmic structures in both platforms feeding news aligning with user content preferences. Narratives were spread on these platforms promoting misinformation and melodramatic content related to the pandemic. The case provides support for the authors’ first and second-hypotheses, as social media algorithms were successful in shaping individual beliefs about the pandemic, as well as promoting content aligned with the preferred narratives of groups and organizations. These dynamics suggest that algorithms were instrumental in distributing content that either affirmed or transformed individual-level and societal-level perceptions of a major health crisis.
Why It Matters
The proposed integration of AMC and NPF provides an important foundation for exploring the interactions between algorithmic systems, narrative content, and policy developments. Researchers can add to the contributions of NPF by studying how platforms and search algorithms channel narratives and content to the broader public, and influence the construction of public policy. The authors recommend several directions for future research, specifically to investigate how algorithmic-distributed narratives shape individual policy attitudes and change over a longitudinal period. By beginning to understand how algorithms shape public opinion and discourse, scholars will garner meaningful insights into the information and perspectives shaping public policy debate.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Ling, Xiaoxu and Siyuan Yan. 2025. “Algorithmic Meta-capital and the Narrative Policy Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 53(4): 1108–1122. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70019.
About the Article’s Author(s)
Xiaoxu Ling is an assistant professor at the School of Accountancy and a research fellow at the Institute of Accounting and Finance at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. Before joining SUFE, she received a PhD and was a senior postdoctoral research fellow at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her research focuses on public policy, information systems, blockchain, and accounting information.
Siyuan Yan is a Pujiang Scholar and assistant professor at the East China University of Science and Technology. Before joining ECUST, he received a PhD and was a senior postdoctoral research fellow at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research focuses on fintech, innovation, public policy, and capital markets as well as interdisciplinary areas involving artifical intelligence, ethics, education, sociology, and philosophy.
In Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone (1989) argues that the work of policy analysis is too often divorced from the politics of the democratic process. To truly understand policies and their effects, one must consider politics.
Yet, many areas of policy research remain siloed including from understanding the politics of the process. We believe there is much to be gained by bringing policy design and policy diffusion research into dialogue with one another with an eye toward the political motivations of policy designers. Indeed, it is likely that policy designers make purposeful choices to increase the chances lawmakers adopt their policy. In other words, the design of policy should have some bearing on policy adoption and diffusion.
In our article, we argue that a key policy attribute – complexity – is one missing link between policy design and policy diffusion. We present a theory for how each of the five elements of design – goals, tools, targets, causal models, and implementation – map onto the attribute of policy complexity. By making purposeful choices during the political process over framing goals, telling causal stories, identifying targets, and picking tools and implementation strategies, policy designers can affect the level of complexity of the policy. And a policy’s complexity shapes its diffusion breadth and speed.
We leveraged several data sources and methodological tools to provide a proof-of-concept test that these literatures belong in dialogue with one another. First, we hand coded policy design elements across 84 model policies promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC). The ULC is ideal because, as an interstate organization that writes model laws and disseminates the bills for passage in as many states possible, it is a clearly identifiable policy designer with the desire to seed policy adoption across the states. The ULC also provides policy texts, allowing us to measure complexity using automated text analysis tools. On the diffusion side, ULC provides detailed accounts of which states adopted each of their model policies and when.
Interestingly, we found substantial variation in how the ULC designed its model policies, with clusters of design elements identified. For example, some policies use direct provision tools and top-down implementation to advance the welfare goals of weakly constructed populations (e.g., Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act).
Figure 5. Dale-Chall Reading Difficulty for Diffusion Speed.
We posit that some design choices imbue the policy with more complexity than others, like using the direct provision of government services rather than tax expenditures. Indeed, we find that when you add up all these design choices, the policies that have more complex elements are indeed more textually complex. The level of complexity, in turn, affects the diffusion patterns we observe. More complex policies are less likely to be adopted and are slower to be adopted, though the strength of this relationship depends on the measure used.
Figure 6. Dale-Chall Reading Difficulty for Number of Adopters.
We see this piece as the beginning of an effort to bring design and diffusion research together for the purpose of better understanding the policy process. We hope others will join in expanding this work to the full breadth of innovation diffusion attributes (relative advantage, compatability, complexity, trialability, and observability) and policy design elements.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Jansa, J. M., & Mallinson, D. J. (2025). Linking policy design and policy diffusion to advance both theories: Evidence from the elements, attributes, and adoptions of Uniform Law Commission model legislation. Policy Studies Journal, 53(3), 747-773. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12591
About the Article’s Author(s)
Joshua M. Jansa is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University. His research focuses on policy diffusion, state politics, political and economic inequality, and civic education.
Daniel J. Mallinson is an Associate Professor of Public Policy Administration at Penn State Harrisburg. His research focuses on policy process theory (principally policy diffusion and punctuated equilibrium theory), cannabis policy, and energy policy.
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.
Policy Studies Journal Blog 