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 Ryan Ramaker,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, Victor Kwaku Akakpo, Rinjisha Roy, Izehi Oriaghan, Annette Nyoni, Travis Wagher, Ryan Ramaker, Mohammad Mizanur Rahman, Issac Owusu, Lina Garcia Arrieta, and Rachel Britton
How are problem-gambling prevention policies actually implemented at the street-level? Although policies may appear clear on paper, frontline workers must constantly consider how to apply them in unpredictable, real-world settings. This article further explores these dynamics, specifically examining how policies related to problem gambling prevention were implemented in Turin, Italy, under the 2021 “Time is Money” project. In addition, this article also analyzes how frontline workers develop “policy capacity”, or competencies and skills needed to implement these policies on the ground. To guide this investigation, the authors ask the following questions: How do operators use their margin of discretion to redesign policy during implementation? Does this process imply the development of individual analytical policy capacities at the street level?
Theoretical Expectations
The authors outline the following expectations in their study:
Street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) prioritize understanding policy problems through direct experience and real-time problem-solving.
Policy capacities matter in environments wherein frontline workers have high discretion levels and must constantly redesign rules/policies.
Methodology
To gather relevant data, the authors use a three-phase qualitative, longitudinal case-study design in Turin, Italy. First, scientific publications, literature and related documents were reviewed to improve understanding of gambling policies at the local, national, and international levels. Second, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants involved in the “Time is Money” project to learn more about the creation and implementation of the project. Third, an ethnographic approach was pursued, involving participant observation in at least three gambling venues over the course of four months, to observe the interactions between the operators (SLBs) and gamblers.
Key Findings
An Intensive Process of Policy Divergence and Re-Design
During their time spent observing policy implementation, the authors noticed a series of transformations in the policy. What was written on paper was not exactly how things were going in practice. This phenomenon known as “policy divergence” was highlighting something more: a process of so-called “re-design”. In other words, frontline workers were adapting the “original” policy to concrete, unexpected problems. To do so, they were using their experience and expertise. With small adjustments, trial and error, and reflective effort, the implementers applied small (but important) changes to the policy, trying to achieve a better fit to the goals. The article discusses in detail some of these adaptive strategies (i.e.: hooking, bargaining, termination, conversation) that helped implementers establish relations of shared trust with gamblers, aimed at risk-prevention and damage-control.
The Development of a Distinct Kind of Analytical Capacity at the Street-Level
Observing the process of re-design, the authors noticed that the adaptive strategies didn’t come to be during the early stages of implementation, but later on. At first, frontline workers tried going by the book, but over time they introduced small changes as they gained more experience. The authors interpreted this as evidence of distinct kinds of capacity being developed. Previous studies have shown that designing “on paper” an effective policy requires analytical capacities (the skills to understand a problem and picking the best solution). This article suggests that similar processes occur during frontline implementation. Like policy design, policy “re-design” requires a specific set of skills. Although they take different forms, these frontline skills serve the same purpose: identifying effective solutions to real-world problems. The article illustrates how these capacities develop in practice: workers identify problems and reflect on possible responses, test creative solutions, and evaluate feedback on what works.
Why It Matters
These findings have a series of practical implications for policymaking. First, the article shows that policy divergences do not necessarily indicate inappropriate design, nor excessive discretion among frontline workers. On the contrary, for policies addressing complex social problems (like problem-gambling), divergence is a space for creative problem-solving and an opportunity for learning. Second, leveraging these opportunities requires specific capacities. While the article shows how such skills can be developed autonomously, this process requires an amount of time and effort that is not always granted in every public program. More research is needed on how these capacities can be taught, shared, and transferred. Third, the findings broaden our understanding of the skills and competencies required by policymakers (policy capacities). Some of these capacities (like the analytical ones) can manifest in different, unexpected forms and places. Regardless of where, when, and how they emerge, such capacities appear to complement each other in supporting policy success.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Aimo, Niccolò and Federico Cuomo. 2025. “Building Street-level Capacity. Evidence From a Policy For Problem Gambling Prevention.” Policy Studies Journal 53(4): 1045–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70005.
About the Article’s Author(s)
Niccolò Aimoacquired a Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Development at the Polytechnic University of Turin following his master’s degree in Political Science at the University of Turin. He is a senior researcher in policy analysis and evaluation for IRES Piemonte and has conducted research abroad at the University of Lisbon (ULisboa). His research focuses on various aspects of sub-national policymaking, with a particular emphasis on the local implementation of European-funded programs, social policies, gambling regulation, sustainability, and workfare.
Federico Cuomo obtained a Ph.D. in Innovation for the circular economy at the University of Turin after graduating in Political Science. At the same time, he worked within the European Funds and Innovation Office of the City of Turin. He carried out research stays at the University of Amsterdam (UvA), the Centre for Social Sciences in Budapest, the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (UaM) and the University of Antwerp (UAntwerp). His research interests range from the analysis of urban experimentations and collaborative governance arrangements to the evaluation of environmental and healthcare policies. Currently, he is a postdoctoral researcher in policy analysis at the University of Turin and IRES Piemonte.
During a crisis, narratives matter as they allows us to make sense of an unpredictable situation and navigate urgency. The COVID-19 pandemic showed that the type of narratives and communication strategies used fundamentally shaped public opinion toward governmental efforts aimed at mitigating the virus. This article examines the role of narrative strategies utilized by France and Italy during the pandemic; focusing on the vaccination campaigns in both countries, to see how political leaders processed and framed both pandemic-related issues and recommended solutions. Furthermore, to track how narrative strategies and patterns in both countries developed over time, the authors applied the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and an analytical typology that examines evidence versus emotion, as well as gain versus loss framing.
Hypotheses
The authors established several theoretical expectations to study changes in narrative strategies during crisis.
Evidence-based strategies will only be preferred over emotion-based arguments when sound information is available; evidence-based strategies are less likely to appear in earlier stages of a crisis.
Evidence-based strategies are more likely to be implemented when leaders have a scientific or technical background.
Decision-makers will try to extensively utilize gain-framed messaging in their narrative strategies given the social acceptability of positive communication.
The propensity of loss-framed messaging may increase when gain-framed strategies are ineffective or the desired outcomes need to be accelerated.
Methodology
The authors examined a total of 22 documents (13 Italian and 9 French) that included speeches and press releases from government leaders and Health Ministers in both Italy, as well as France. These documents were selected from 2021, encompassing the first phases of vaccination campaigns pursued by the French and Italian governments. Moreover, the authors utilized Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA) software to code for narratives present in the collected documents.
Key Findings
Who are the Heroes and Villains of the Pandemic?
Figure 2 shows that in the majority of cases and in both countries, vaccines were narrated as the “heroes” of the story, alongside restrictive measures and health staff—with science also featuring as a “hero”, though only in the Italian case. The distribution of “heroes” is notably similar across the two countries. The more meaningful differences emerge on the “villains” side: while COVID-19 and its variants feature as the primary “villain” in both countries, no-vax people appear far more frequently as “villains” in the French case than in the Italian one. These patterns indicate that while France and Italy broadly share the same “heroic” narratives around vaccines, French leaders were considerably more inclined to cast unvaccinated individuals in an antagonistic role—a finding consistent with the greater use of loss-framed and scaring tactics observed in the French narrative strategies more broadly.
Figure 2. Heroes and Villains in the French and Italian Narratives.
France and Italy Used Different Narratives Strategies Over Time
As illustrated in Figure 6, during Phase 1 of the vaccination campaign, both France and Italy utilized encouraging narrative approaches to build trust; this was more pronounced in France whereas Italy employed a mixture of an encouraging approach and logical persuasion. However, across Phases 2-3, the narrative strategies began to diverge in both countries as France resorted toward admonition and scaring practices, whereas Italy balanced admonition with gain-framed types of narratives (i.e., logical persuasion and an encouraging approach). These findings indicate that France was more likely to depend on alarmist and emotional narrative tactics to increase vaccination rates, whereas Italy pursued a more technical, deliberative approach.
Figure 6. Narrative Strategies by Country and Phase.
Why It Matters
This article reveals that narratives are not simply “talk”, but represent strategic tools applied to shape public acceptance toward restrictive policies. By focusing on France and Italy as empirical cases of COVID-era narratives, the study illuminates how political leaders in different national settings communicated with the public during a time of crisis. The authors encourage future research to apply their typological framework to other crises, such as climate change mitigation, to determine whether evidence-based or emotion-based strategies are employed in different policy contexts. Understanding these narrative patterns can help future political leaders select communication strategies that mediate compliance and institutional trust.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Mastroianni, Laura and Stefania Profeti. 2025. “How to Talk About Crises? Leaders’ Narrative Strategies During the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign in Italy and France.” Policy Studies Journal 53(4): 994–1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12585.
About the Article’s Author(s)
Laura Mastroianni is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Public Policy at the University of Bologna, Department of Political and Social Sciences.
Stefania Profeti is Associate Professor in Political Science at the University of Bologna, Department of Political and Social Sciences.
Abortion rights remain a high-stakes issue in American politics, provoking a lot of moral debate and public reactions. Since the landmark ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), several states have added more restrictions on abortion access. Researchers have found that public opinion shapes state policies on abortion, but it is not clear how citizens judge indirect restrictions on abortion rights. To investigate this phenomenon, this study examines how people’s judgments and political mobilization depends on whether the restrictions are indirect, such as defunding services, compared to direct, such as complete bans on abortion.
Hypotheses
The authors test two hypotheses to determine how the type and framing of abortion restrictions influence people’s judgments:
Demobilization Hypothesis: Indirect restrictions demobilize abortion supporters by inciting less opposition compared to direct bans or restrictons.
Exclusion Framing Hypothesis: Pro-choice (abortion) supporters will express greater opposition toward exclusion restrictions (indirect restrictions framed as direct) compared to direct restrictions.
Methodology
Two experiments were conducted in 2015 and 2016 with participants from the United States. In the first experiment, participants read one of three policy conditions: banning, defunding, or excluding. Then participants answered how much they support or oppose the policy, and their willingness to participate in politics to express their views. The second experiment replicated the prior design, except provided participants with a statement indicating the substantial number of women who would be deprived of abortion services because of the restriction, holding constant the number of women who would be affected across the three types of policy.
Key Findings
Pro-Choice Supporters Oppose Banning more than Defunding
Figure 1 from Experiment 1 reveals that pro-choice supporters expressed less opposition to policies defunding abortion services than to outright bans. Pro-choice supporters also opposed exclusion policies more than defunding policies. These patterns support the demobilization hypothesis, indicating that indirect restrictions reduce public and political opposition compared to direct restrictions. This finding suggests that subtle differences in policy design and framining could bypass mobilized opposition.
Figure 1. Participants’ judgments of abortion restrictions by abortion stance and policy type, Experiment 1. Error bars are standard errors. The sample sizes for the pro-choice groups were: banning n=104, defunding n=117, and excluding n=111. For the anti-abortion group, they were: banning n=43, defunding n=45, and excluding n=33.
Consequences Do Not Overcome Demobilization
Experiment 2 replicated the findings while holding constant the number of women who would be affected. Figure 2 shows that pro-choice participants opposed defunding abortion less than a complete ban, despite the fact that both policies prevented the same number of women from receiving abortion access. Even when participants knew the consequences, pro-choice supporters were still less opposed to the indirect restriction. The findings also demonstrated that pro-choice supporters opposed exclusionary policies less than direct bans. People’s judgements of restrictions depended on the framing of the policy, particularly how direct the restriction appeared.
Figure 2. Participants’ judgements of abortion restrictions by abortion stance and policy type, Experiment 2. Error bars are standard errors. The sample sizes for the pro-choice groups were: banning n=103, defunding n=94, and excluding n=1-3. For the anti-abortion group, they were: banning n=40, defunding n=49, and excluding n=39.
Why It Matters
This study shows that people’s judgments of abortion restrictions depend on how directly they prevent abortion, determining their willingness to politically mobilize in response. For policymakers and political activists, the takeaway is clear: the directness of the policy, in design and framing, will determine how much people support and oppose those restrictions. As for future research, the authors call for more attention to the psychology of indirect restrictions to better understand public opinion on abortion rights and how state legislatures may seek to minimize opposition.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Connors, Elizabeth C., Alessandro Del Ponte, and Peter DeScioli. 2025. “Indirect Restrictions Demobilize Supporters of Abortion Rights.” Policy Studies Journal 53(4): 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12575.
About the Article’s Author(s)
Elizabeth C. Connors is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of South Carolina.
Alessandro Del Ponte is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alabama, a Visiting Research Professor at the Global Asia Institute at the National University of Singapore, and a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy at Chapman University.
Peter DeScioli is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Stony Brook University.
How do we determine if democracy is succeeding or failing? Is it people “watching” politics or “doing” politics or both? These are questions that Dr. Andrea Felicetti engages with in his perspective piece, as traditional understandings of civic responsibilities in democracy are reconsidered. According to Felicetti, behaviors once deemed problematic to the health of a democratic society—anonymity, non-participation and spectatorship are now being reconsidered and they might have some benefits for democratic life. In particular, spectatorship, or merely observing political activities, is highlighted in this article as many citizens choose to be bystanders in politics. However, Felicetti encourages us to rethink the role of spectatorship in creating a vibrant democracy, asking the following questions: What forms might positive spectatorship take? In what contexts might we find this? How can we observe them empirically?
How Can Spectatorship Be Positive for Democracy?
Spectatorship has long been criticized as detrimental or burdensome to encouraging engagement with the democratic process—citizens are not engaged or willing to be involved in political activities. That said, Felicetti challenges us to consider that observing politics can be a positive stimulus for political engagement. Citizens can better understand their political environment and the issues being discussed through moments of observatory reflection. At the same time, watching citizens can question information, improving their ability to think critically. Moreover, Felicetti proposes that the learning of political dynamics through spectatorship leads in some cases to eventual collaboration as citizens unite around common interests and form collective identity. In this sense, while many are quick to discount spectatorship as antithetical to democratic engagement, it is actually necessary for building political understanding and action.
Where Does Spectatorship Take Place?
There are several locations where we can witness positive displays of spectatorship take place, according to Felicetti. He illustrates deliberative assemblies, participatory governance, social movements, and the workplace or schools as the common sites of positive spectatorship. These real-world spaces provide opportunities for citizens to present their perspectives and collectively reflect on shared challenges. For example, in the workplace, we do not just work; we are actively observing how shared challenges are managed, thus shaping our sense of democratic responsibility. By empirically examining positive spectatorship in these daily environments, Felicetti believes that researchers can begin to understand how people process their problems together.
Why It Matters
The emphasis on the positive forms of spectatorship in this article ultimately reconceptualizes how political theorists think about current democratic engagement. These activities are necessary for a healthy democratic landscape, challenging traditional arguments that participation alone is a signal of a healthy democracy. Felicetti encourages future researchers to pursue qualitative and quantitative approaches to study positive spectatorship in real-world environments—including social media and digital platforms. By pursuing an empirical-based strategy, we can start to engage with overlooked elements of democratic life beyond participation and learn from a massive segment of the democratic ecosystem.
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Felicetti, Andrea. 2025. “Toward a New Perspective on Forms and Sites of Democratic Life.” Policy Studies Journal, 53(4): 1098–1107. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70021.
About the Article’s Author(s)
Andrea Felicetti (PhD, Australian National University) is an Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, Law, and International Studies at the University of Padua. His research interests and teaching activities revolve around democratic theories, public spheres, and governance.
How does the itinerary of topics that the government chooses to focus on change over time at the local level? The everyday life of citizens has been directly impacted by decisions made at the local level, with the issues being spotlighted on the agenda reflecting local priorities. Scholarship has understudied the development of policy agendas at the local-level, displacing focus on the interactions between federal and state-level activities. This article looks to examine long-term changes in local policy agendas by focusing on policy developments within the city of Austin, Texas, and how local agenda dynamics are influenced by national-level agendas, population shifts, and institutional changes.
Hypotheses
The authors test the theoretical argument that local policy agendas will expand in response to changes in national-level agenda(s), local population growth, and institutional reforms.
Methodology
City council meeting minutes in Austin, Texas were analyzed using a 120-year sample of agenda items from 1900 to 2020. These meeting minutes were content-coded using the Austin Agendas Project codebook that tracked changes in agenda size and issue content. The authors also calculated an entropy score to measure the number of agenda subtopics by year. Additionally, the study included measures of all U.S. House and Senate hearings that occurred during the 1900-2020 period, to compare local agenda shifts with national-level activities.
Key Findings
Post-War Conditions Triggered Agenda Expansion in Austin
Figure 2 demonstrates that the local agenda of Austin expanded greatly following World War II and has continued to increase into the contemporary period. The number of items and subtopics discussed each year on the local agenda increased significantly, expanding the scope of policy items in focus. These findings suggest that the growth of local agenda items was highly receptive to wartime conditions which sparked a reevaluation of local needs such as infrastructure and property taxes. Furthermore, this finding confirms that the occurrence of major or dramatic national events can transcend into an activation of local-level policy agendas.
Figure 2. Number of Items and Topics on the Austin City Agenda, 1900-2020.
Population Growth Drives the Local Agenda
As shown in Figure 5, the increase in the number of citizens in Austin correlated with an expansion of the local agenda. However, these dynamics are not necessarily stable, as the local agenda expanded more than the increase of citizens following World War II, and around 1990, the local agenda stagnated despite a growing population. These fluctuations indicate that while the local agenda does not firmly follow steady population growth patterns, local policy agendas are generally receptive to the need to accommodate interests of newer residents.
Figure 5. Population Growth and Agenda Expansion.
Why It Matters
This article provides an analysis of how local policy agendas respond to changing forces, such as population growth, national agendas, and institutional reforms. It contributes to the field by providing an empirical analysis of local policy developments and thereby offering an opportunity for scholarship to further explore trends in local-level policy dynamics. The authors argue that expanding the scope of this research could help uncover the interplay between local and national agendas, as well as patterns in policy experimentation in other cities.
Listen to their Podcast Interview
The authors participated in the Art of Science Podcast (AoS) to discuss their study on local policy agendas in Austin, Texas. You can listen to their interview via either link below:
Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:
Mortensen, Peter B. and Brooke Nicole Shannon. 2025. “ Agendas and Instability in American Local Politics: A Study of the Austin City Council Agenda 1900–2020.” Policy Studies Journal 53(4): 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12587.
About the Article’s Author(s)
Peter B. Mortensen is a full professor at the Department of Political Science, Aarhus University. His research interests include public policy and local and national agenda setting.
Brooke Nicole Shannon is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Memphis. Her research explores the policy agenda of city councils, American political development at the local level, policy process theory, and local institutions such as city councils, mayors, and law enforcement departments.
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.
Policy Studies Journal Blog 