Month: June 2024

Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy

by Chris Koski & Paul Manson

Climate change is by any definition a wicked problem with myriad potential policy tools and even more potential targets. Policymakers face difficult political choices when designing policies to combat climate change. Among these choices are who should bear the costs and benefits of various policy tool options. Policy tools can be carrots and sticks, and policymakers assign these differently based on who will receive either option. Previous attempts to address climate change at the federal level have largely relied on subsidies and guidance rather than rules and punishment. Winners in these choices have been those with power to influence outcomes.

Previous research on federal climate policy has sought to explain failure both in legislation and executive action. Why have efforts to establish a carbon market in the US failed?  What was the source of demise for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (and can Biden breathe life into it)?  Public opinion research has focused on understanding support for climate policies, including very specific proposals (e.g. cap and trade). Missing from this work is the general answer to the question: How do policy design features influence public support for policy?

Our article “Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy,” recently published in Policy Studies Journal, addresses this question. Our work is situated in the literature on policy deservingness and the resurgence of interest in the social construction of target populations framework.

Using a national survey experiment, we assessed support for seven policy tools across the four archetypal target populations built on Schneider and Ingram’s Policy Design for Democracy.  We find that climate policies are popular across all target populations. Contemporary federal climate policy focuses on carrots: de-emphasizing regulations, leveraging subsidies, and creating carve-outs for firms. In contrast, we find the public prefers sticks: policies that impose burdens – in our case, policies that mandate behaviors – for nearly all target populations, even the positively constructed groups who have power.  The public still supports subsidizing most populations, but not those viewed as undeserving.  Perhaps the most striking contrast between our findings and the federal policy discourse on climate change is that we find Americans are broadly hostile to giving groups exceptions to climate rules, a carrot they will not share with others.

Future work could consider a more complex, and realistic, view of policymaking, namely, that policies target bundles of populations with multiple tools. For example, the Biden administration has taken two distinct approaches to electric vehicle policies in the US, creating subsidies to purchase or lease EVs as well as proposing fuel economy standards that require automakers to increase fleet efficiency. Our current research and research we plan for the future hope to improve the relationship between design and public support for policy.

Editor’s Note: This article won the 2024 Theodore J. Lowi Policy Studies Journal Best Article Award. Congratulations to the authors!

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Koski, Chris and Paul Manson. 2024. “Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy.” Policy Studies Journal, 52(2): 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12520.

About the Authors

Chris Koski is the Daniel B. Greenberg Professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. He is co-author of Means, Motives, and Opportunities: How Executives and Interest Groups Set Public Policy with Christian Breunig published by Cambridge University Press (2024).

Paul Manson is Assistant Research Professor with the Center for Public Service at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon.

, , , ,

Bridging Policy Research Across Borders: Challenges and Opportunities for China

by Geoboo Song (PSJ Editor-in-Chief)

On June 14, 2024, I delivered a virtual keynote address at the inaugural International Conference on China Policy Studies (ICCPS) in Beijing, China. While primarily aimed at policy scholars in China, my presentation also holds significance for policy scholars in other non-Western countries. Recently, there were discussions about “Global South” issues during the Conference on Policy Process Research (COPPR) meeting in Syracuse, NY, which the PSJ editors took seriously, prompting immediate action. In light of these developments, I believe sharing my keynote speech here would be beneficial. Below is an excerpt from my keynote address:

As the Editor-in-Chief of the Policy Studies Journal, I have had the privilege of working closely with scholars from around the world, witnessing firsthand the transformative power of collaborative policy research. PSJ, a premier publication outlet for theory-driven policy research, has been at the forefront of delivering cutting-edge research that addresses some of the most pressing global challenges.

In today’s interconnected world, the challenges we face are increasingly complex, uncertain, and global in nature. Issues such as climate change, public health crises, and economic disparity do not recognize national boundaries. As such, the need for robust, collaborative policy research has never been greater. By working together, we can craft innovative solutions that benefit not just our own nations, but the world at large.

Tackling grand challenges, such as extreme weather events, disaster management, immigration crisis, and water and food insecurity, require collaborative and innovative efforts that transcend borders. Policy research plays a crucial role in addressing these issues by providing evidence-based solutions and fostering informed decision-making.

PSJ, a leading publication in the field, has been renowned for its contributions to policy process theory research over half a century. This area of research is pivotal, as the pressing policy issues we face are often fraught with uncertainty, complexity, and inherently “wicked” nature of such challenges. In these contexts, enhancing “procedural rationality” (which focuses on how decisions are made) is as important, if not more so, than “substantive rationality” (which focuses on what decisions are made). And, I firmly believe that this sort of process theory-driven approach ensures more robust problem-solving strategies in the long run, particularly when addressing the grand challenges we encounter.

Equally important is recognizing that mutual benefits arise from international policy research collaboration. By sharing knowledge, resources, and expertise across borders, we can elevate the quality and impact of our policy research. Such collaborative efforts also promote cultural exchange and mutual understanding, which are vital for addressing global challenges effectively.

China has made remarkable progress in policy research in recent years. During my five-year tenure as a PSJ editor, I’ve witnessed Chinese policy scholars, both domestically and internationally, contributing significantly to a broad spectrum of policy theories and substantive policy domains. Their work highlights innovative approaches and invaluable insights. In fact, policy scholars in China have published more articles in PSJ than any other Asian countries in recent years.

Despite this progress, significant challenges remain. Broadly, these can be examined on two levels: individual vs. research environment. On the individual level, many Chinese policy scholars, especially those from non-elite backgrounds, face difficulties in several areas. Developing compelling research questions, achieving theoretical innovation, designing robust methodologies, and effectively communicating their findings, particularly in English, are common challenges. Additionally, securing funding and publishing in top-tier policy journals remain significant hurdles. On the other hand, the research environment encompasses the tangible and intangible resources that maximize individuals’ research competencies. This includes the structure and culture of the researcher’s organization or program, as well as broader institutional and network dynamics. For example, major research universities in the United States provide substantial financial support and reduced teaching loads for pre-tenure assistant professors, fostering an environment conducive to high-level research. In contrast, many Chinese institutions may lack comparable support, making it difficult for scholars to focus on their research.

Of course, numerous opportunities for collaboration exist between policy scholars in China and their counterparts around the world. Establishing partnerships can facilitate the exchange of ideas and resources, leading to more comprehensive and impactful research outcomes. More meaningful academic exchange programs and joint research initiatives can play a crucial role in fostering collaboration, enabling policy scholars to work together, share their expertise, and develop innovative solutions to common challenges. Technology and innovation are also key enablers of collaboration. Digital platforms and tools can facilitate communication, data sharing, and joint research efforts, making it easier for scholars to collaborate across borders. By leveraging these opportunities, we can address the challenges faced by Chinese policy scholars and enhance the global impact of policy research.

In conclusion, bridging policy research across borders is essential for overcoming constraints inherent in research practices in China, addressing global challenges, and creating a sustainable future both intellectually and practically. By working together, we can leverage our collective knowledge and expertise to develop innovative solutions that benefit everybody. I particularly encourage Chinese policy scholars to engage in more international collaborations and seek out new opportunities for joint research. Together, we can overcome challenges and create a brighter future for all.

,

Does Data Drive Policymaking? A Multiple Streams Perspective on the Relationship Between Indicators and Agenda Setting

by Rob A DeLeo & Alex Duarte

The multiple streams framework (MSF) illustrates how policies are formed not through linear processes, but through the convergence of three independent streams: the problem stream, the policy stream, and the political stream. While the MSF offers numerous insights into the often chaotic nature of policy making, prior studies have not fully explored the relationship between problem indicators and agenda setting. In this study, we explore nuanced ways that changes in indicators either shape or fail to influence policy responses.

Within the MSF, changes in problem indicators have the potential to elevate issues on the policy agenda. In addition, indicators that threaten powerful economic or political interests may lead to reduced policy attention. Recognizing the possibility that policymakers might overlook or downplay information that poses risks to their power or that contradicts prevailing policy directions, we introduce the concept of “indicator politicization.” 

We apply the MSF to examine the US Congress’s response to changes in opioid overdose rates. Empirically, we employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the relationship between opioid-related data and policy responses. Drawing on data from congressional hearings and legislative actions from 1999 to 2019, we explore how the changes in opioid-related indicators influenced legislative actions (or inactions). We use negative binomial regression analysis to estimate the effect of opioid indicators–heroin, fentanyl, and prescription opioids–on the congressional agenda. We then provide a case study that investigates the differential patterns of agenda change identified in our quantitative model. 

On one hand, we confirm the substantial impact of indicator change on policy attention, exemplified by marked upticks in policymaker attention to heroin and fentanyl overdose deaths. Policymaker attention was likely magnified by electoral concerns, as the opioid epidemic was a prominent issue during the 2016 election cycle. On the other hand, public awareness and political responses to prescription opioids developed slowly over several years. Indeed, although increases in opioid overdose indicators occasionally spurred congressional attention and led to policy shifts, such responses were inconsistent. A major obstacle is “data politicization”–when data threatens powerful interests, these entities can minimize or downplay the information to turn aside policy scrutiny. When data politicization occurs, it undermines the urgency and attention the issues receive even in the face of an escalating crisis hence the lack of attention to prescription opioids observed in our study.

This study sheds light on data-driven policymaking, with a focus on the constraints imposed by entrenched political interests. Data alone cannot drive policy changes when it conflicts with the interests of powerful stakeholders. We reevaluate the multiple streams framework’s (MSF) initial assumptions, which may overestimate the direct impact of indicators on policy decisions. Practically, we encourage policymakers, scholars, and practitioners to assess the power dynamics that shape policy responses to social issues. This is particularly relevant in crafting effective strategies for public health crises, where ideally, data should inform and guide policy responses. As the opioid crisis continues to evolve, this study underscores the importance of how data is interpreted and used in policy formulation. Moreover, it paves the way for future investigations into other policy areas where data may be underutilized or overlooked, advocating for a broader and more integrated approach to evidence-based policy making. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

DeLeo, Rob A. and Alex Duarte. 2022. “Does Data Drive Policymaking? A Multiple Streams Perspective on the Relationship Between Indicators and Agenda Setting.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(3): 701-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12419

About the Authors

Rob A. DeLeo is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at Bentley University. A policy process scholar by training, Rob’s work examines policy change in anticipation of emerging hazards, including climate change, novel diseases, and other slow onset events. His research has appeared in Policy Studies Journal, Public Administration Review, Policy & Politics, PNAS Nexus, Publius, Review of Policy Research, Natural Hazards Review as well as various other peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes. Rob’s work has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and various academic and private organizations. Rob previously held a visiting fellowship at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and is a founding member of the Risk & Social Policy Working Group, an interdisciplinary team of scholars examining the relationship between risk messaging and individual behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. He was the 2021 co-recipient of the American Political Science Association’s Theodore Lowi Award for the best article written in Policy Studies Journal.

Alex Duarte is a doctoral student at the Heller School for Social Policy. Alex graduated from Bentley University in 2019 and received a dual bachelor degree in public policy and business studies. During his time at Bentley, Alex’s research focused on policy indicators found within the substance abuse policy domain. Alex has also worked at the Peace Corps Headquarters in Washington DC and Project Weber, a Rhode Island-based harm reduction center for male and transgender sex workers.

,

More than Agents: Federal Bureaucrats as Information Suppliers in Policymaking

by JoBeth S. Shafran

Despite the widespread notion of federal bureaucrats as implementers of congressional will, their role in the policymaking process extends far beyond. Traditionally understood through the lens of principal-agent theory, bureaucrats act as agents to their principal, Congress, executing and implementing legislative directives without much influence on policy shaping. However,  bureaucrats are also key information suppliers to Congress. In this paper, I explore the conditions that enable bureaucrats to become influential contributors who define problems and propose solutions during legislative discussions.

Policymakers, constrained by limited resources, time, and attention, selectively rely on key information sources. Certain political elites, such as bureaucrats and interest groups, are actively invited to participate in policy making, while others remain on the periphery. Congress delegates the tasks of information processing and knowledge accumulation to the bureaucracy in return for neutral expertise. As such, I argue that the information asymmetry, wherein bureaucrats hold specialized knowledge not readily available to legislators, can be strategically leveraged by Congress. Bureaucrats are more likely to testify at congressional hearings under three conditions: when alternative information sources are scarce; when their expertise is essential for committee tasks, such as agency oversight; and when their input can help manage diverse committee workloads. 

Focusing on congressional hearings across three policy domains—domestic commerce, energy, and health—from 1995 to 2010, I examine approximately 4,700 hearings and more than 33,000 testimonies. Given the count nature of the dependent variable (a count of bureaucrats testifying at a given hearing), I employ negative binomial regressions to examine the factors influencing the prevalence of bureaucrats among witnesses, such as the type of committee and the agenda of the committee.  

The findings reveal that bureaucrats are more likely to be called as witnesses when committees face limited access to alternative expert sources and when the information bureaucrats provide is directly relevant to the committee’s legislative goals. As indicated in the figure below, I find a higher reliance on bureaucratic testimony when committees address a broader scope of issues, which implies that bureaucrats’ ability to process information is valued in diverse legislative environments. 

Figure 5. Predicted number of careerist bureaucrats testifying at constituency, policy, and power committees as agenda diversity increases, 1995-2010

Additionally, the findings show that bureaucratic testimony is more prevalent in policy areas characterized by lower public engagement and high technical complexity, such as energy policy. Conversely, in domestic commerce, where multiple stakeholders are involved and information is abundant, bureaucrats are less likely to dominate the testimony. This study enhances our understanding of bureaucratic expertise and knowledge in the legislative process. Bureaucrats do more than implement policy–they actively shape it through information provision in policy debates. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Shafran, JoBeth S. 2022. “More than Agents: Federal Bureaucrats as Information Suppliers in Policymaking.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(4): 921–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12455

About the Author

JoBeth S. Shafran is an assistant professor at Western Carolina University, where she teaches public policy courses for both the Political Science and Master of Public Affairs programs. Her research focuses on information processing in Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Her work has been published in Policy Studies Journal and Cognitive Systems Research, among others.

, ,

Birds of a Feather Fight Together: Forum Involvement in a Weakly Institutionalized Ecology of Policy Games

by Tomás Olivier & Ramiro Berardo

Policy forums play a crucial role in polycentric governance because they can facilitate collective action among diverse actors who are invested in a policy domain. Many of these arguments assume that forums are stable over time and that they attract actors with different ideas or interests. But, what happens in unstable policy settings where forums operate in a context of periodic rule change and limited enforcement?  To answer this question, we look at how policy forums can facilitate interactions among actors with different perceptions about collective action challenges regarding water governance in Patagonia, Argentina. 

Forums can facilitate collective action by attracting actors with different perceptions about policy problems. This fosters interactions among actors who would otherwise not interact, potentially facilitating collaboration and the generation of new insights about how to solve joint problems. 

We study water governance in the Lower Valley of the Chubut River, located in Argentina’s Patagonia region. In 2017 and 2018, we surveyed 58 individuals from 34 different stakeholder groups, including government entities, private companies, and researchers. Our survey presented stakeholders with various scenarios regarding water governance in the Lower Valley and asked them to rate the extent to which they saw the scenarios as accurate or inaccurate. We also asked them about their perceptions of the forums overseeing water governance in the Lower Valley (e.g., whether they were fair, effective, etc.) and environmental conditions in the basin.  

We found that out of the 31 active forums in the Lower Valley, many were attended by just one stakeholder. Furthermore, we observed that government entities do not appear to be very active in these forums, preferring to operate outside of them as needed. Part of the reason for low participation is that the forums in the Lower Valley tend to be short-lived, formed to tackle a specific problem or crisis and then dissolved shortly thereafter. 

Most importantly, we found that actors who participate in the same forums tend to have similar perceptions about the dominant collective action problem in the region. This finding is meaningful from a governance perspective: in a context of high transaction costs, forums may serve as the first space where actors with similar perceptions may build the necessary commitments to engage in collective action. These forums can be problematic, as the range of views represented in them on how to solve a problem are limited. However, a silver lining is that they can also foster collaboration among actors who would otherwise may be distrustful of one another.

Our study deepens our understanding of how actors may organize to address complex policy problems in a context of weak institutions, and argues that the stability of forums in time is key to maintaining consistent stakeholder participation, a necessary condition for the solution of system-wide environmental problems. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Olivier, Tomas and Ramiro Berardo. 2022. “Birds of a Feather Fight Together: Forum Involvement in a Weakly Institutionalized Ecology of Policy Games.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(1): 176-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12418

About the Authors

Tomás Olivier is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

Follow him on X/Twitter: @tolivier9

Ramiro Berardo is a Professor of Environmental and Natural Resource Policy at the School of Environment and Natural Resources at The Ohio State University.

Follow him on X/Twitter: @BerardoRamiro

, ,