Month: May 2024

The Paradoxical Power of Policy Loss in Group Identity and Action: A Study of the NRA’s Strategic Resilience

by Matthew J. Lacombe

Policy feedback scholarship has illustrated how policies shape group behaviors and political processes, primarily focusing on the benefits accrued by their proponents and supporters. This narrative typically celebrates the “winners”—those who benefit from policy enactments. However, less attention is paid to the groups that oppose the policies—what happens to the policy “losers”? 

I shift the focus to these overlooked groups and explore how policy losers turn their defeats into strategic opportunities for power-building. These groups often successfully engage in post-loss power-building efforts, especially when the policy (1) recognizes their members as a distinct class, and (2) does not undercut incentives for membership and mobilization. Such policy setbacks enable organized groups to point to the negative consequences these changes could have on their members, thereby increasing the political relevance and salience of their membership. In turn, organized groups strategically leverage these setbacks to their advantage, transforming defeats into opportunities to strengthen their group identity and collective action. 

I apply this framework to the realm of gun politics, focusing on the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its responses to two legislative defeats: the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Act of 1993 and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Both losses mark significant moments when the NRA failed to prevent the enactment of stringent gun regulations. The data is obtained from various sources, including public records of gun legislation and its amendments, key NRA communications such as newsletters, press releases, and statements, as well as gun sales and membership data. 

Here are some of the key findings:

  • In the aftermath of legislative defeats, the NRA framed new policies as targeted threats to gun owners as a group. The NRA leveraged these perceived threats to cultivate shared grievances among its members and to rally support for pro-gun candidates in subsequent elections and policy battles. 
  • In response to losses, NRA supporters, following the organization’s lead, expressed frustration with how the new laws treated them. These sentiments likely influenced the NRA’s membership numbers and gun sales, with each increasing in the aftermath of gun laws being enacted. 
  • The NRA’s post-loss actions manifested in subsequent political battles, often as strong opposition against the policy. The NRA, in short, was able to use anger about losses to mobilize strong support during downstream policy debates.

This study highlights the power of strategic framing in political mobilization. Policy losses can fortify a group’s resolve, cohesion, and future political capabilities when these losses do not disrupt the incentives that groups rely on to drive collective action. This paper invites policymakers and political strategists to reconsider the effects of legislative outcomes not just on policy winners, but also on those who initially face defeats. Understanding that policy losers might use defeats as a springboard for greater organizational cohesion and political power could influence both the design and communication strategies around new policies.  

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

 Lacombe, M.J. (2022) “Post-loss power building: The feedback effects of policy loss on group identity and collective action.” Policy Studies Journal, 50, 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12446

About the Author

Matthew Lacombe is the Alexander P. Lamis Associate Professor in American Politics in the Department of Political Science at Case Western Reserve University and the author of Firepower: How the NRA Turned Gun Owners into a Political Force.


, ,

The Adoption of Culturally Contentious Innovations: The Case of Citizen Oversight of Police

by Mir Usman Ali

The deaths of George Floyd and Broenna Taylor at the hands of police in 2020 brought the issue of police accountability to the forefront of public debate. One reform that has been a long-standing demand of police accountability advocates is Citizen Oversight Agencies (COAs). COAs are institutional arrangements at the local level that provide a platform for non-sworn review complaints about the police. While there is growing scholarly interest in these agencies, little research has examined factors associated with their adoption. In this paper, I use innovation diffusion theory to help fill this gap. 

In particular, I investigate the role of cultural contentiousness, a previously understudied concept. When an innovation is culturally contentious, it challenges an existing institution’s dominant cultural meaning, leading to resistance. I argue that COAs are culturally contentious because they highlight the disconnect between the race- and class-neutral way police are supposed to perform their role in a liberal-capitalist society and the non-neutral way in which they actually perform it. Moreover, I argue that investigative COAs (i.e., COAs that can independently investigate allegations of police misconduct and recommend discipline) are more contentious than non-investigative COAs (which merely review or monitor police investigations of citizen complaints) because the former can be viewed as undermining the professional autonomy of the police.

To identify the factors associated with the adoption and diffusion of COAs at the municipal level in the United States between 1980 and 2016, I assembled a panel data set of all cities with a population greater than 100,000 persons as of 2010. There were 77 municipalities with COAs and 154 municipalities without COAs that met the criteria for inclusion in the study. I used event history modeling (EHM) to estimate the impact of various antecedents on the likelihood of adoption and diffusion of COAs. 

Results indicate that a federal investigation or entering a consent decree, an increase in the number of civil rights nonprofits, or an increase in own-source revenue per capita was associated with the adoption of investigative COAs, while not being associated with non-investigative COAs. These findings underscore the importance of antecedents that reveal contradictions between cultural assumptions and non-neutral material effects of policing.

I also find that antecedents that symbolically obfuscate the above contradiction, or whose meaning is unclear, tend to reduce the likelihood of adoption of COAs overall or increase the likelihood of adoption of non-investigative COAs. For instance, the presence of a Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBOR) law, an increase in the violent crime rate, or an increase in the number of neighboring cities with a COA either increased the likelihood of adopting a non-investigative COA or no COA at all.

In summary, this work highlights the importance of cultural contentiousness in innovation adoption and diffusion. While the results indicate that less culturally contentious change is more common, more contentious change does occur. However, for such change to be institutionalized, it needs to be supported by other levels of government and sustained advocacy efforts for police accountability. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at 

Ali, M. U.. 2023. “The adoption of culturally contentious innovations: The case of citizen oversight of police.” Policy Studies Journal, 51, 905–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12499

About the Author

Mir Usman Ali is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. His research revolves around building a theory of the conditions under which public managers and organizations can foster social equity-enhancing institutional change. His research has looked at a variety of topics such as citizen oversight of police, impact of body-worn cameras, policies intended to curb domestic violence, and pandemic preparedness among local health departments. He holds a Ph.D. in Public Affairs Indiana University-Bloomington, an M.S. in Statistics from Texas A&M University, College Station and MBA and BBA degrees from the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi. His research has been published in Public Administration Review, Public Performance and Management Review, American Review of Public Administration, and Policy Studies Journal.

, ,

Global Diffusion of COVID-19 Policies: The Role of Geographic, Institutional, and Cultural Cues

by Brian Y. An, Simon Porcher, & Shui-Yan Tang

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide have grappled with the adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), offering a unique opportunity to study policy diffusion dynamics. As the pandemic unfolded globally, leaders were faced with the dual challenges of responding to the pace of disease development while navigating socio-economic circumstances unique to their countries. With limited international coordination, each nation independently established its policy approaches, making the study of horizontal diffusion within global governance feasible. 

This study seeks to address critical questions regarding the diffusion of COVID-19 policies:

  1. Do government leaders draw cues from other countries’ policy behaviors?
  2. If so, which countries do they benchmark their policymaking against in terms of geographic, cultural, and institutional similarities?
  3. How do these diffusion dynamics evolve over time, and do certain cues become more prominent as policy learning progresses?

By analyzing worldwide government responses from January 1, 2020, to June 1, 2021, this study employs event history and time fixed-effects ordered logistic regression models. The analysis focuses on nine universal NPIs, including domestic lockdowns, travel bans, and mask mandates. The findings suggest that leaders indeed draw policy cues from geographic, cultural, and institutional peers, with significant temporal nuances. While geographic and institutional influences wane over time, cultural cues become increasingly prominent in shaping policy adoptions.

These empirical findings offer novel insights into policy diffusion dynamics during crises. The study reaffirms the relevance of geographic clustering in policy adoption, although its influence diminishes over time as more information becomes available. Similarly, the declining role of institutional proximity highlights the evolving nature of policy learning. Notably, the growing influence of cultural cues underscores the significance of cultural considerations in crisis management policymaking. This finding emphasizes the importance of policy-culture fit, where successful interventions are closely linked to public cooperation and compliance.

In conclusion, the study sheds light on the dynamic processes of global policy diffusion during the COVID-19 pandemic. By unraveling the evolving role of geographic, cultural, and institutional similarities, it offers valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners. Understanding these dynamics is essential for effective crisis management and policy design in an interconnected world.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at 

An, Brian Y., Simon Porcher and Shui-Yan Tang. 2024. “ Global Diffusion of COVID-19 Policies: The Role of Geographic, Institutional, and Cultural Cues.” Policy Studies Journal 52(1): 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12514.

About the Authors

Brian An is an assistant professor, Director of Master of Science in Public Policy (MSPP) program, and Co-Director of Center for Urban Research in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology.



Dr. Simon Porcher is a full professor of Strategy and Public Management at Université Paris Panthéon-Assas. He studies how cross-sector partnerships create value and respond to grand challenges.

Check out his personal website here: https://sites.google.com/site/simporcher/?pli=1

Shui-Yan Tang is Frances R. and John J. Duggan Professor of Public Administration and Chair of the Department of Public Policy and Management in Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California.


, , , ,

Operationalizing social equity in public policy design: A comparative analysis of solar equity policies in the United States

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.

, , , ,

Theory into Action: The Important Role of Policy Theory and Practice (PT&P)

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:   

  1. Manuscripts that engage in policy analysis and evaluation; 
  1. Manuscripts that apply policy theories to previously understudied issues areas, geographic regions, etc.; and 
  1. 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:

We look forward to reading your submissions! 

Coalition Cascades: The Politics of Tipping Points in Clean Energy Transitions

by Jonas Meckling & Nicholas Goedeking

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. 

, , , ,