Greetings and a warm welcome to you all at the inaugural blog post of the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ)! We are incredibly excited to use this digital space to help our authors extend the reach and impact of their research and to build a vibrant community of policy scholars, practitioners, and citizens at large.
In the posts to follow, we will focus on two main purposes. First, we will keep you updated on the latest developments at the journal and within the policy community. Second (and more importantly), we will provide authors with an opportunity to write short, accessible summaries of their PSJ articles. We will, then, promote these posts across our social media channels and make the related PSJ articles open-access for a limited period. Our aim with this is to help our authors achieve greater exposure and recognition while reducing barriers to access to top-quality, peer-reviewed policy research and facilitating the utilization of knowledge generated through the publication process.
We extend our sincere appreciation to Dr. Melissa Merry, our Associate Editor, for spearheading this endeavor as the PSJBlog Editor. As members of the policy community, your views and insights are invaluable, and we wholeheartedly encourage you to engage with us as we build this platform. 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, and we look forward to embarking on this intellectual adventure with each and every one of you!
Sincerely,
Geoboo Song, Melissa K. Merry, Holly L. Peterson, Gwen Arnold, Aaron Smith-Walter, Creed Tumlison, Nataliia Borozdina, Benjamin Galloway, Camille Gilmore, Victor Kwaku Akakpo, Morgan Farrar, Izehi Oriaghan, Eli Polley, and Chris Giller
by Shan Zhou, Xue Gao, Adam M. Wellstead, & Dong Min Kim
Concerns over climate change and the decreasing costs of clean energy in the United States have resulted in large public investment in alternative energy sources, such as solar power. While government officials have recently made widespread efforts to usher in this transition, public concern has emerged over social equity in government policies promoting solar energy. Evidence exists that low-income and minority communities are less likely to adopt rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems caused by cost barriers, information gaps, principal-agent issues, and income-targeted marketing by PV installers. Consequently, many recent policies promoting clean energy neglect distributional justice concerns or even increase inequities.
In response, different levels of government in the United States are taking action to address inequities through policy intervention. Despite these interventions being perceived as improvements over traditional alternative energy policies, a gap in the research exists surrounding how solar policies have been formulated and designed to incorporate equity concerns. This research addresses this gap by answering the following research question: How have social concerns about solar equity been incorporated in public policy design?
To answer this question, we constructed a nationwide dataset of solar equity policies, defined as policies and programs in the United States that promote equity in distributed solar deployment. The data set includes over 50 policies adopted across 24 states and Washington D.C. We then examined how justice and equity considerations manifested at three levels of policy design in practice, including macro-level policy goals, meso-level policy tools, and micro-level policy settings (i.e., target populations and eligibility criteria) and calibrations.
As illustrated in Figure 1, results suggest that policy actors attempt to address unequal distribution of benefits and costs regarding solar PV deployment, as issues of accessibility and affordability for diverse and disadvantaged groups are among the most common solar equity policy goals. Financial incentives that directly benefit disadvantaged groups and organizations serving underrepresented groups are the most common policy instrument utilized, and economic vulnerability (defined by income benchmarks) is often used to define target populations, but the benchmarks used varied over time and geographic area.
This research offers a valuable contribution by joining energy justice and public policy literature to provide a more detailed understanding of meaningful ways to analyze energy justice. It also confirms the argument of Curley et al. (2020) that policymakers use different types of tools to target different takers and advance different policy goals. Finally, it contributes to the policy design literature by applying Schneider and Ingram (1990) and Howlett and Cashore’s (2009) policy design elements to a comparative analysis of solar equity policies. Moreover, research findings in this paper can be particularly useful to policy actors interested in creating policies and programs that reduce solar inequities.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Zhou, Shan, Xue Gao, Adam M. Wellstead and Dong Min Kim. 2023. “Operationalizing social equity in public policy design: A comparative analysis of solar equity policies in the United States.” Policy Studies Journal 51 (4): 741–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12505.
About the Authors
Shan Zhou is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University. Her research interests focus on the intersection of public policy, social equity, and sustainability. She has extensive experience in analyzing the justice implications of clean energy policies and infrastructure development in both developed and developing countries (e.g., U.S. and China), using quantitative and qualitative research methods. She has also worked on policy design research promoting effective and equitable clean energy adoption.
Xue Gao is an Assistant Professor at the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University. Her research focuses on the interplay between policy, politics, technology, and society in the energy transition process. Her research encompasses various aspects of the energy transition, including the policy-making process, evaluation of energy programs, innovation and entrepreneurship in renewable energy, and energy justice.
Adam M. Wellstead is a Professor of Public Policy with the Department of Social Sciences at Michigan Technological University. His research interests include policy innovation labs, policy capacity, policy design, and public value.
Dane Kim is a PhD Candidate in Environmental and Energy Policy at Michigan Technological University. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Environmental Engineering, both from the University of Southern California. His research interests include energy transition, energy policy, air pollution, governance, and data analytic research methods.
Policy Studies Journal has long been known for publishing cutting-edge policy theory research. Our authors develop new and test theories and concepts or innovate on existing theoretical frameworks, generating insights into the nature of the policy process. At the same time, much public policy scholarship is practical, offering actionable recommendations to policymakers in local, state, national, and even international policy arenas.
Recognizing the value of more applied research, our team has introduced a rolling special issue under the PSJ banner called Policy Theory and Practice (PT&P). Similar to the PSJ Yearbook model, PT&P is curated by our editorial team and published regularly. Manuscripts submitted go through the same review process as regular PSJ submissions, and accepted articles are still published under the PSJ name.
While the focal areas for PT&P articles can vary, we note some specific forms that advance our theoretical discussion of the policy process to the real-world applications we strive for, including:
Manuscripts that engage in policy analysis and evaluation;
Manuscripts that apply policy theories to previously understudied issues areas, geographic regions, etc.; and
Manuscripts that examine previously identified hypotheses, seek to replicate previous findings, or report null findings.
Each of these brings us closer to understanding how our theoretical findings can be formulated into meaningful policy action. If you are interested in having your manuscript considered as either a traditional PSJ or PT&P article, please indicate as such in our Rex submission system by selecting “Yes” in the “Policy Theory and Practice Collection” field:
Recent scholarship on policy change has devoted increased attention to change across subsystems – the passage of new healthcare legislation, for example, will change not only health policy, but will also impact labor policy and tax policy (among other domains). The means by which trans-subsystem policy change occurs, however, are not clearly defined.
We look at the role of policy feedback in bringing about trans-subsystem policy change. Specifically, we argue that trans-subsystem policy feedback can result in what we call “coalition cascades”. Coalition cascades represent a kind of domino effect, whereby a policy change that happens within one subsystem can alter coalitions across subsystems, by bringing together actors already inside a subsystem, introducing new actors into a subsystem, and/or moving actors into other subsystems. If policy feedback is positive, these coalition cascades can bring about trans-subsystem policy change by solving coordination challenges that are often part and parcel of making policy change that cuts across policy subsystems. Conversely, negative policy feedback may only partially fix these coordination challenges, if at all.
Figure 1. Coalition cascades
We apply our model to California’s clean energy transition. In 2002, California adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that required investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to derive a specific percentage of their energy from renewable sources. The next decade and a half saw positive policy feedback as the RPS was expanded upon and gained greater popular support. Even IOUs, which had initially opposed an RPS, gradually turned in favor, resulting in a coalition that was able to repel efforts to roll back California’s renewable energy initiatives, such as Proposition 23 in 2010.
The adoption and subsequent expansion of the RPS, however, also challenged the capacity of the state’s energy grid. Energy storage eventually crystallized as the solution. New storage startups emerged to meet this demand, and a coalition of storage companies formed the California Energy Storage Alliance in 2009 to advocate on behalf of energy storage interests. Storage companies, in league with environmental groups, lobbied state lawmakers for rules requiring energy companies to store a percentage of their load. This effort initially met with opposition from utilities, but by 2013 the state had adopted a storage mandate.
Figure 2. Storage mandate
In addition to transforming the state’s energy grid, California’s renewables initiatives also had implications for passenger vehicles. In 2009, state legislators and regulators began exploring how to roll out charging infrastructure to support widespread electric vehicle ownership. One issue that emerged was whether utilities would be involved in setting up this infrastructure. A coalition of utilities and environmental groups were in favor, while charging companies and ratepayers organizations were opposed, fearing the market power of utilities. Eventually, however, it became clear that utilities were essential for a state-wide build-out of charging infrastructure, and as a result both ratepayer groups and charging companies shifted their stance. Beginning in 2014-15, utilities became major players in the electric vehicle subsystem.
Figure 3. Utility charging programs.
The evolution of California’s renewable energy policies offers an excellent illustration of the relationship between policy feedback and trans-subsystem policy change. First, we see how policy feedback surrounding the adoption of an RPS changed the coalition supporting renewables by bringing utilities on board. Then we identify spillover effects as more ambitious renewables policies triggered changes in both grid policy (through the adoption of storage technology to manage load intermittency) and transportation policy (through the creation of a charging infrastructure to encourage electric vehicles). In both cases, changes in policy – and the ways those changes were received – shifted coalitional makeups.
We studied coalition cascades in the context of California’s energy policies, but expect that the dynamics we observed are present across a wide array of policy domains. Our model offers greater insight into how policy change can have ripple effects across multiple domains. Specifically, it shows that how a policy change is received – whether positively or negatively, and by whom – can shift the coalitions for or against specific sets of policies, thus either encouraging or inhibiting additional policy change. In our case study, policy feedback was largely positive, resulting in policy change across multiple subsystems. Additional work is needed to look at examples of negative feedback.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Meckling, Jonas and Nicholas Goedeking. 2023. “ Coalition Cascades: The Politics of Tipping Points in Clean Energy Transitions.” Policy Studies Journal 51(4): 715–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12507.
About the Authors
Jonas Meckling is Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and Climate Fellow at Harvard Business School. He studies the politics of climate policy and the energy transition. He received multiple awards for his research, including the American Political Science Association’s Emerging Young Scholar Award in the field of science, technology, and environmental politics. At Berkeley, he leads the Energy and Environment Policy Lab and the Climate Program of the Berkeley Economy and Society Initiative. Previously, he was a visiting professor at Yale University, served as Senior Advisor to the German Minister for the Environment and Renewable Energy, was a Research Fellow at Harvard University, and worked at the European Commission.
Nicholas Goedeking is Senior Researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) and Visiting Fellow at the University of Sussex Business School. His work examines the political economy of climate policy and sustainability transitions. He is particularly interested in urban climate governance and the politics of low-carbon infrastructure systems. Before his doctorate, Nicholas worked on energy efficiency policy in Berlin and Brussels, including for the European Commission. He holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management from the University of California, Berkeley.
As announced in October 2023, the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) editorial team has expanded the range of manuscripts we consider for publication through the addition of two short-article formats, the research note and the perspectives piece.
Below we answer some frequently asked questions about how these manuscripts are processed and evaluated.
Question 1: Do short article forms go through a less stringent review process from traditional research articles?
All short articles submitted to PSJ – both research notes and perspectives pieces alike – receive the same level of peer review as traditional research articles. Submitting your manuscript as a short article does not mean you will lose the opportunity to get valuable feedback from multiple reviewers, nor does doing so give it a higher chance of acceptance. To ensure manuscript quality across the board, every submission undergoes the same peer review process.
Question 2: If I submit my manuscript as one type, will it only be considered for publication in that form?
There’s no need to worry about designating your manuscript a certain way – PSJ editors are here to help. If our editors believe your submission might be better designated as a different manuscript type, we will reach out to you directly to discuss it. With this, there is no “right way” to designate your manuscript submission.
Question 3: If I am asked to consider designating my manuscript as a short article, is this a request to downgrade it?
If our editors do reach out and ask you to consider submitting your traditional research article as a short article, this does not mean we believe your manuscript to be less impactful for policy process theory. Accepted short articles meet the same high standards for both theoretical depth and methodological sophistication, just using a narrower scope.
With these new additions, our goal is to advance the theoretical literature surrounding the policy process with the understanding that novel methodological approaches, empirical replications, and theoretical arguments are central to that process. We look forward to taking this journey with you!
Despite widespread application of the canonical model, a key criticism of the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is the primary focus on agenda-setting and policy adoption, and relatively little consideration of what happens after policy is adopted. However, recent scholarship applies MSF to policy implementation and assesses agenda-setting, policy adoption, and implementation as components of an integrated process. Furthering this line of research, I use MSF to construct a theoretical model that connects policy-making and implementation.
Although policy adoption and implementation make up two distinct components of policy processes, recent scholarship largely argues that “policy systems and processes are nested, with policymaking and policy implementation existing in organized interdependent layers” (Fowler, 2019, p. 406). Based on this, I contend that there are separate outputs for policy adoption and implementation that are linked together and aggregate to policy process outputs.
Figure 1. MSF Theoretical Model for Policymaking and Policy Implementation Processes
[Note: Solid lines represent a causal relationship between streams, policy windows, and outputs, while dashed lines represent the transition of streams from a policymaking orientation to an implementation orientation.]
Figure 1 illustrates an MSF policy process model that includes both policy adoption and implementation sub-processes. First, policy adoption outputs are new policies that result from decisions made during policy adoption, which address non-ideal social conditions. Second, once new policies are adopted, policy implementers respond. Individual-level behaviors, then, aggregate to the norms of policies in practice, which constitute implementation outputs. Third, implementation outputs lead to changes in behaviors related to social conditions that new policies aim to affect. In turn, this suggests three hypotheses:
Policy adoption hypothesis: Effects of politics on policy adoption outputs are conditional on current problems and policies.
Policy Implementation hypothesis: Effects of politics on policy implementation outputs are conditional on current problems and policies.
Interdependent Processes hypothesis: Effects of politics, policy, and problems streams on policy adoption outputs are not independent from their effects on policy implementation outputs.
I test this model by using data from U.S. state implementation of federal environmental policy. I treat states as independent cases in which policy, politics, and problem streams are coupled (or not) to understand under which conditions policy adoption (i.e., budgetary changes) or implementation (i.e., changes in pollution) outputs are likely to experience non-marginal changes. Results provide support for all three hypotheses and suggest an interconnected process. Most importantly, they indicate that an interaction between political, problem, and policy streams is necessary in both the policy-making and implementation phases in order to spur non-marginal changes in environmental policy outcomes. Specifically, where any variable measuring one of the streams is held at its mean value, only marginal changes results (i.e., status quo maintained), but where all three reach extreme values, non-marginal changes occur (i.e., policy change).
This extends MSF to capture the entire policy process and unifies scholarship examining two different phases of policy to understand how ideas become actions and lead to changes in social or environmental conditions. It also suggests that MSF can be an important tool for analyzing governance processes and providing practical advice that connects decision-making with implementation. For instance, we can glean that while policy windows can be utilized to increase program resources, those new resources may not affect policy outputs unless the right political and problem circumstances exist.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Fowler, Luke. (2022), Using the Multiple Streams Framework to Connect Policy Adoption to Implementation. Policy Stud J, 50: 615-639. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12381
About the Author
Dr. Luke Fowler is an Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration and serves as the Faculty Director for SPS. His research interests include policy implementation, collaboration and collective action, energy and environmental policy, and state and local government. Dr. Fowler is the author of more than four dozen journal articles appearing in many of the field’s top journals, including Perspectives on Public Management & Governance, Governance, Public Administration, Policy Studies Journal, Review of Policy Research, Administration & Society, American Review of Public Administration, State & Local Government Review, and State Politics & Policy Quarterly. His latest book is Democratic Policy Implementation in an Ambiguous World. He is also the author of Environmental Federalism: Old Legacies and New Challenges. Dr. Fowler is the co-host of The Big Tent, a weekly public affairs radio show on Radio Boise. Dr. Fowler previously served as MPA program lead, and completed his Ph.D. at Mississippi State University in 2013.
The Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) is inviting submissions for an upcoming special issue dedicated to the concept of power in policy theory research. Although the importance of power is widely acknowledged, its investigation within the realm of policy theory has been limited, with notable exceptions (e.g., Spitzer 1987, Cook 2010, Henry 2011, Ingold 2011, Öberg et al. 2014, Favre et al. 2019, Angst and Huber 2023). This special issue aims to deepen the examination of how power shapes, is distributed, and operates in policy processes of diverse contexts.
Building on Schattschneider’s classic notion of power as the ability to shape the scope of political discourse and determine the participants and their influence in the policy process, we invite contributions that critique, apply, or advance this and other conceptualizations of power in policy theory research in an explicit and robust manner. We seek theoretical, empirical, and methodological contributions that address, but are not limited to:
Advancements in the theoretical understanding of power within policy processes, drawing from one or more policy theory traditions.
Innovative methodological approaches to examine power within policy theory research.
The influence of power on policy processes and policy outcomes.
Case studies highlighting the distinctive role of power in the policymaking process, focused on a specific policy domain.
Comparative studies of power dynamics across different policy settings or national contexts.
**The deadline for submitting a manuscript for the Special Issue is September 15, 2024.**
Potential contributors to the Special Issue may participate in a “Peer Paper Exchange” through which authors can obtain informal feedback from peers who also plan to submit a paper for the Special Issue and opt to participate in the Exchange. Each paper will be reviewed by 1-2 peers who will provide informal written feedback. Participation in the Exchange is intended to support the development of papers but has no bearing on the peer review process that will be undertaken by PSJ once papers are submitted to the Journal; that review process is formal and entirely independent of the “Peer Paper Exchange.”
To participate in the “Peer Paper Exchange,” please submit a one-page abstract that explains your research question, the contribution of your paper to policy scholarship, and the data and methodological approaches you plan to use to answer your research question, along with the paper title and author information. This is due by May 10th. Notifications of acceptance to participate in the “Peer Paper Exchange” will be made by June 1st. Authors participating in the Exchange must share their draft papers with fellow Exchange participants by August 1st. Comments from the Exchange peer review will be returned to authors by August 21st.
If you have any questions about the submission process or the “Peer Paper Exchange,” please contact Drs. Geoboo Song (PSJ Editor-in-Chief), Gwen Arnold (PSJ Associate Editor), or Aaron Smith-Walter (PSJ Associate Editor) at policystudiesjournal@gmail.com
We’ve recently explored over twenty years of PSJ citation data, and we’re thrilled to see its consistent growth over time! A huge thank you to all the remarkable contributors whose relentless dedication and effort have elevated PSJ to its leading status today!
Over time, there’s been a significant increase (both in terms of quantity and proportion) in the number of cited articles, suggesting a clear shift away from uncited ones. This underscores the evolving landscape of scholarly references within the policy community.
The following analysis offers another overview of the PSJ’s citation trends over time. The total citations for the journal have seen a steady increase over the years, with a particularly steep surge since 2019. This highlights the growing impact of the journal in the scholarly community. It is important to note that the self-citation rate has remained consistently low over the years, reflecting a commitment to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity.
It is noteworthy that a high self-citation rate is often seen as a warning sign for journals, and if it exceeds a particular threshold, the journal risks being removed from the SSCI citation reports — an outcome that can have potentially grave consequences for the journal’s reputation and readership. This analysis underscores the impressive trajectory of PSJ in terms of both total citation counts and the maintenance of rigorous scholarly standards.
The following graph illustrates the trend of international collaboration through PSJ publications, measured by the proportion of PSJ articles authored by researchers from multiple countries each year over the past two decades. The collaboration fluctuates over time, but we are undoubtedly heading in the right direction. Of course, it is crucial to foster more international collaboration at PSJ.
Again, none of these achievements could have been realized without your invaluable support and assistance. For this, we deeply appreciate your dedication and effort!
Previous scholarship has investigated how policy entrepreneurs use narratives and expert information to influence policy agendas. In particular, narratives can be powerful tools for communicating policy problems and solutions, while expert information can help clarify complicated subject matters and increase confidence in policy proposals. This raises a question: can policy entrepreneurs effectively use narratives to influence policymakers even in complex, technical policy domains where we might think the technical details might be traditionally most important?
We explore this question in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) policy – an emerging policy domain that is highly technical and multi-faceted, with social, ethical, economic implications. Because the agenda for AI policy is still in the process of development, it presents a ripe case for understanding agenda setting and policy influence efforts. In partnership with a leading AI think tank, The Future Society (TFS), we conducted a field experiment on state legislators across the United States. Emails about AI policy were sent to 7,355 legislative offices. Legislators were randomly assigned to receive an email containing either a narrative strategy, an expertise strategy, or generic, neutral information. We also considered two ways of issue framing: ethical and economic/competition (see Figure 1).
Legislators were presented with either a fact sheet or story, and invited to register for and attend a webinar about AI for state legislators, which we hosted in December 2021. For example, legislators (or their staffers) might read an email message about an individual falsely arrested due to facial recognition, or between a geopolitical contest between the US and China.
We measured link clicks and webinar registration and attendance as proxies for policymaker engagement. Using these data on engagement with the emails, we tested the following hypotheses:
Policy Entrepreneur Effectiveness Hypothesis: The provision of narratives or expertise by policy entrepreneurs will increase policymaker attention to and engagement with the policy issue at hand.
Dominance of Narratives Hypothesis: The provision of narratives will induce greater policymaker engagement than the provision of expertise.
Dominance of Expertise Hypothesis: The provision of expertise will induce greater policymaker engagement than the provision of narratives.
Strategies by Issue Framing Hypothesis: Policymakers will respond with greater engagement to narratives when they are provided issue frames emphasizing the ethical and social dimensions of AI as compared to issue frames emphasizing the economic and technological competitiveness dimensions of AI.
Prior Experience Hypothesis: Compared to legislators in states with greater prior experience in AI policymaking, legislators in states with less experience with AI will respond with greater engagement to the expertise treatment.
Consistent with the Policy Entrepreneur Effectiveness Hypothesis, we found that narrative strategies and expert information increased engagement with the emails (see Figure 3). Interestingly, comparing the narrative and expertise treatments, we found no statistically significant differences in their effects on engagement, suggesting that narratives are as effective as expert information even for this complex policy domain.
Figure 3. Both expert information and narratives engaged state legislators as compared to a more generic ‘control’ message, with increased engagement of 30 or more percentage points.
Contrary to our expectations, framing the issue to emphasize ethical or economic dimensions of AI also did not affect engagement, suggesting that the use of strategies like narratives can be effective even when AI policy is framed in very different ways. We had hypothesized that narratives might be especially effective when an ethics-focused policy frame of AI is promoted, but it appears narratives are just as effective when geopolitical and strategic dimensions of AI policy are emphasized.
Finally, legislators with no prior experience with AI policy were more likely to engage with the emails than legislators who had considered or passed AI policy in the past, and state legislatures with higher capacity (e.g., more staff, longer sessions) were far more likely to the email messages, an important note for those seeking to reach out to policymakers..
Our findings show that narratives can influence policymakers as much as expertise, even in complicated policy domains like AI. It is worth noting that our data was collected in 2021 before the introduction of large language models (LLMs), like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which gained unprecedented public attention. This development has surely influenced the salience of AI policy. We suggest that future research should consider this development. Nevertheless, our work makes important contributions by extending the NPF to new contexts and investigating narratives using field experiments, a novel research approach in the field.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Schiff, Daniel S. and Kaylyn Jackson Schiff. 2023. “ Narratives and Expert Information in Agenda-setting: Experimental Evidence on State Legislator Engagement With Artificial Intelligence Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 51(4): 817–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12511.
About the Authors
Dr. Daniel Schiff is an Assistant Professor of Technology Policy at Purdue University’s Department of Political Science and the Co-Director of GRAIL, the Governance and Responsible AI Lab. He studies the formal and informal governance of AI through policy and industry, as well as AI’s social and ethical implications in domains like education, manufacturing, finance, and criminal justice.
Follow him on X/Twitter: @Dan_Schiff (@purduepolsci and @Purdue)
Kaylyn Jackson Schiff is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University and Co-Director of the Governance and Responsible AI Lab (GRAIL). Her research addresses the impacts of emerging technologies on government and society. She studies how technological developments are changing citizen-government contact, and she explores public opinion on artificial intelligence in government.
Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) research has mostly focused on micro- and meso-level narratives — in other words, narratives that operate at the individual and group levels. Macrolevel NPF research is scarce, and the existing literature suffers from inconsistent definitions and research methods. My paper sets out to address this disparity in NPF literature by providing a definition of macrolevel narratives, proposing a model for replicable empirical research, and connecting the macro level to lower-level narratives.
In an effort to create a versatile, standard definition of macrolevel narratives, I draw on the policy paradigm concept. A policy paradigm, as Peter Hall saw it, is a system of standards and ideas shared among policy actors that outline a policy problem, policy goals, and instruments that can be used to attain these goals. I argue that macrolevel narratives are constrained within a policy paradigm and tell stories about the paradigm. These narratives can also tell stories about the institutional and cultural contexts as these are related to the paradigm. Thus, it is useful to divide macrolevel narratives into three categories: paradigm macrolevel narratives, institutional macrolevel narratives, and cultural macrolevel narratives.
Conceptualizing macrolevel narratives like this gives researchers a clearer definition that can be adapted to various policy contexts and will help standardize future macrolevel research. I also use this definition to develop a standard model for macrolevel NPF analysis. This model (illustrated in Figure 1) empirically captures how macrolevel narratives affect public policy debate at the macro and meso level.
I derive several propositions from this model:
P1:If a policy paradigm is supported (e.g., by political actors, the civil society, the public), positive macrolevel and subsequent mesolevel narratives dominate. If a paradigm is opposed, negative macrolevel and mesolevel narratives dominate.
P2: If a policy paradigm and existing institutions coincide, positive macrolevel and subsequent mesolevel narratives dominate. If a paradigm and institutions do not coincide, that is, if institutional changes have to be made to adjust to a paradigm, negative macrolevel and mesolevel narratives dominate.
P3:If a policy paradigm and existing cultural norms are compatible, positive macrolevel and subsequent mesolevel narratives dominate. If a paradigm and culture are incompatible, that is, if a paradigm leads to incongruence with cultural values or between institutions and culture, negative macrolevel and mesolevel narratives dominate.
P4:Several external factors, including focusing events, can change a public policy debate, that is, mesolevel narratives after an external event may start opposing the macrolevel narratives about a policy paradigm and/or its corresponding institutions and culture.
I applied these developments to child and adult protection policy in Switzerland. I found quantitative and qualitative evidence that macrolevel narratives do, in fact, tell the story of how a policy paradigm affects institutional and cultural settings. I demonstrated that macrolevel narratives affect mesolevel narratives. This will prove useful in future analysis that hopes to determine where mesolevel narratives come from. My analysis also demonstrated how this model can be used as a tool for future standardized empirical research on macrolevel narratives.
I thank Eli Polley for supporting me in the drafting of this blog post.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Stauffer, Bettina. 2023. “ What’s the grand story? A macro-narrative analytical model and the case of Swiss child and adult protection policy.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12465.
About the Author
Bettina Stauffer is a research associate for public policy at the Center for Public Management of the University of Bern. Her research focuses on policy making and public policy implementation, particularly in the areas of social and health policy as well as child and adult protection.
by Simon Montfort, Manuel Fischer, James Hollway, & Nicolas W. Jager
In the analysis of intergovernmental cooperation within federal systems, conventional explanations have centered on problem characteristics, governance incentives, and actor interdependencies. Here, we seek to understand why institutions evolve in different directions even though they address similar problems. To address this puzzle, we investigate forms of cooperation. We seek to understand the process of institutionalization by which new agreements with specific forms of cooperation, captured through institutional design mechanisms, build upon existing ones. Our paper explores the nuanced dynamics of federal cooperation, examining how earlier institutional design choices condition subsequent cooperation.
Institutional design mechanisms are the agreed-upon rules shaping interactions during intergovernmental collaboration. This study focuses on three key mechanisms: provisions for monitoring, conflict resolution, and agreement commissions. We use these three mechanisms to investigate whether cooperation between subnational governance units, called substates, follows specific institutional design paths consisting of particular sequences of design mechanisms over time in their collaborative relationships. We expect, for instance, that conflict resolution mechanisms and monitoring provisions serve as an entry point to more strongly institutionalized forms of cooperation. The latter forms of cooperation include, for instance, agreement commissions, where substates concede more authority for shared decision-making, potentially rather slowing down other forms of cooperation.
We analyze substate cooperation in Switzerland’s federal water systems—an ideal-typical setting with robust substate competencies and a history of institutionalized cooperation. Swiss cantons, endowed with a range of voluntary cooperation options, manifest these in formal treaties known as “concordats” around water management issues. The study scrutinizes the uptake and design mechanisms in concordats spanning the last 40 years, offering insights into the dynamics of federal cooperation. We manually code formal treaties between cantons and use a semi-parametric Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the data.
Figure 1. Issue-specific pathways.
Our findings show that institutional design mechanisms contribute to specific design paths, either facilitating or hindering the inclusion of similar mechanisms in the future. For instance, the establishment of a commission often leads to further use of agreement commissions in the future. However, once a commission is in place, adding independent monitoring or conflict resolution mechanisms becomes less likely. We also identified a few design paths in which substates utilized multiple mechanisms. Additionally, we see unique pathways on pollution and fishing cooperation. These design pathways are illustrated in Figure 1.
This research enriches the literature on intergovernmental cooperation in federal systems by examining cooperation as a long-term, evolving process. By focusing on institutional design mechanisms rather than a binary assessment of cooperation, the study provides insights into the nuanced patterns of federal cooperation for similar underlying problem characteristics. Additionally, the exploration contributes to the common pool resource governance literature by shedding light on the development and layering of institutional design mechanisms over time.
In conclusion, identifying existing institutional design mechanisms can advance our understanding of intergovernmental cooperation. The Swiss case study offers valuable insights into the dynamics of federal water systems, illustrating the long-term impact of earlier institutional choices on the paths taken in subsequent cooperative ventures. As federal systems continue to evolve, understanding these design mechanisms becomes paramount for fostering effective and adaptive intergovernmental cooperation.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Montfort, Simon, Manuel Fischer, James Hollway, and Nicolas W. Jager. 2023. Design paths of federal intergovernmental cooperation. Policy Studies Journal, 51, 773–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12498
About the Authors
Simon Montfort is a Doctoral Candidate at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Bern. His research, supported by a Swiss National Science Foundation Doc.CH grant, focuses on pathways to ambitious environmental policy. He works at the intersection between natural language processing, public opinion surveys and social network analysis.
Manuel Fischer is a research group leader in Policy Analysis and Environmental Governance (research group PEGO) at the Department of Environmental Social Sciences at Eawag and an adjunct professor (Titularprofessor) at the Institute of Political Science, University of Bern. His research analyzes governance arrangements, decision-making processes, and political networks, focussing on water and environmental issues.
James Hollway is Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Head of the Environment and Sustainability Specialisation, and Associate Professor of International Relations/Political Science at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. His research develops multilevel and dynamic network theories, methods, and data for studying institutionalised cooperation and conflict on trade, health, and environmental issues such as fisheries and freshwater. His book “Multimodal Political Networks” came out in 2021 with Cambridge University Press. He is currently working on a 4-year SNSF funded project “Power and Networks and the Rate of Change in Institutional Complexes”.
Nicolas W. Jager is Assistant Professor of Governance of Sustainability Transformations with the Public Administration and Policy Group at Wageningen University and Research (NL). He is further an Associate Junior Fellow at the Hanse Wissenschaftskolleg – Institute for Advanced Study Delmenhorst (DE). His research interests include issues of sustainability and climate policy, collaborative governance, and institutional change and stasis.
Policy Studies Journal Blog 