Month: August 2024

External drivers of participation in regional collaborative water planning

by Emily V. Bell, Amanda Fencl, & Megan Mullin

Collaborative governance has gained significant attention in recent years, particularly in understanding why stakeholders choose to engage—or not engage—in these processes. At its core, collaborative governance involves multilateral decision-making, where diverse participants collectively identify and address shared problems, seeking consensus on public policy decisions. These processes typically occur within “collaboratives,” which are designed to represent the needs of interconnected stakeholders aiming to solve a common issue.

One prominent area of research in collaborative governance draws on transaction cost theory. This perspective examines whether the benefits of participating in a collaborative outweigh the costs, especially considering potential cooperation challenges and unequal distribution of benefits. Recent studies, however, have expanded this focus to explore the external drivers of cooperation among stakeholders, such as perceived risks of future hazards and systemic capacity. 

Our research focuses on the participation of public water systems (PWSs) in collaborative planning for regional water governance. We hypothesize that perceived risks, defined as beliefs held by water system decision makers about the potential for a harmful event to occur (e.g., droughts, reduced precipitation, insufficient supply, etc.), often prompt collaborative action, especially when they result in collective, interconnected problems. Moreover, we suspect that system capacity—which includes technical, managerial, and financial resources—influences participation by constraining behavior or establishing means necessary for collaboration. We propose three hypotheses:

H1: Actors perceiving greater risk of future hazards will be more likely to participate in regional collaborative planning.

H2: Actors perceiving future demand that exceeds ability to provide public services will be more likely to participate in regional collaborative planning.

H3: Actors with higher capacity will be more likely to participate in regional collaborative planning.

Figure 1. Reported concern for future drought, reduced precipitation, and demand on water supplies in California and North Carolina, respectively.

To test these hypotheses, we analyzed data from California and North Carolina. These states provide an opportunity to investigate collaborative participation in two differing political and institutional contexts. Using binomial logistic regression models, we found support for hypotheses 1 and 3. In other words, the data suggests that an increase in perceived risks and system capacity increases the likelihood of participation in collaborative governance. Our results, however, showed little support for hypothesis 2.

Figure 2. Frequency of system participation in regional planning by system size and state, where the frequency summed is 100% of respondents per state.

This study takes a crucial step toward understanding the role of contextual and external factors in decisions to participate in collaborative governance. By shifting focus outward, it aims to enrich our knowledge of why governance stakeholders engage, complementing existing research on forum-focused perceptions and social dynamics. While previous work has explored interpersonal relations and externalities, this study emphasizes the need for a closer, systematic evaluation of institutional and biophysical contexts. Although participation alone may not guarantee effective collaboration, understanding what motivates stakeholders to join these processes is vital for fostering meaningful engagement.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Bell, Emily V., Amanda Fencl and Megan Mullin. 2022. “ External drivers of participation in regional collaborative water planning.” Policy Studies Journal 50 (4): 945–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12473.

About the Authors

Emily V. Bell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia (UGA), with appointments at the UGA Center for International Trade and Security and the River Basin Center. Her research examines local and regional environmental governance, focusing on coordination, policy learning, and collaborative processes. A key component of her work involves descriptive and inferential social network analysis to learn how water policy and management stakeholders mitigate hazards of natural disasters such as flooding and drought.

Amanda Fencl is a Western States Senior Climate Scientist for the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Fencl is an expert in water, climate adaptation, and environmental justice issues with an emphasis on research that informs equitable policy solutions. Their research at UCS focuses on the risks and opportunities from climate change in California and the Western United States. She is committed to advancing climate justice and sustainable water management through her work.

Megan Mullin is a political scientist focused on environmental politics. Her research examines how coordination problems, accountability failure, and inequality in environmental risks and benefits shape political response to environmental change. Her current projects focus on the governance and finance of urban water services, public opinion about climate change, and the local politics of climate adaptation. She also has published on federalism, election rules and voter turnout, and local and state institutional design.

, ,

Examining emotional belief expressions of advocacy coalitions in Arkansas’ gender identity politics

by Allegra H. Fullerton & Christopher M. Weible

Policy studies have increasingly incorporated emotions to better understand a range of essential questions, from how people make sense of their world to why people engage in policy and even how power or legitimacy manifests. However, most established theories of the policy process, including the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), have largely neglected the role of emotions in shaping political behavior.

We develop a distinct means for applying emotional analysis within the ACF. Using the ACF’s conception of belief systems via “dyads”, we create emotion-belief dyads that marry theories of emotions with the theoretical arguments found in the ACF. Specifically, we theorize about the types of discrete (e.g., fear or compassion) or diffuse emotions (e.g., negative or positive) that interact with different categories of ACF’s belief systems (e.g., deep core or policy core) in explaining coalition membership or policy positions.

We analyze the political discourse through legislative testimony on one of the first gender-affirming care (GAC) bans in the United States, the Arkansas legislative debate about the proposed “Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act” (HB2021-1570), which would make GAC for minors illegal in the state. GAC has become one of the battles in the ongoing and intensifying political culture war in the U.S. and remains a policy arena wrought with disinformation. In using GAC as the setting to explore the interplay of beliefs and emotions, this study builds on existing literature showing that emotions are pivotal in how individuals learn, form opinions, and mobilize politically.

To guide our study, we asked ourselves: What combinations of emotions and beliefs explain both 1) coalition membership and 2) member positions on Arkansas’ proposed gender-affirming care (GAC) policy ban?

Utilizing Emotional Belief Analysis (EBA), a coding approach used in past ACF applications of news media and legislative testimony, we gathered self-narrated statements from the audio testimony of all hearings held for the 2021 Arkansas bill. We identified 45 unique actors and classified them into anti-GAC and pro-GAC coalitions using a Girvan–Newman algorithm (further confirmed using three additional approaches) that identified actors based on their emotion-belief dyads.

We then tested two foundational arguments within the ACF (conceptualized in Figure 1): one that states policy core beliefs (compared to deep core beliefs) serve as a principal glue binding coalitions, and the other that advocacy coalitions overcome threats to collective action through negative emotions (i.e., via the devil shift).

By calculating the proportion of the four dyads expressed by each coalition’s members, we obtained a measure of coalition density. We then calculated the Krackhardt E–I Index of each coalition to determine its level of emotion-belief cohesion (with a value of -1 indicating complete cohesion within a coalition). We found that, as expected, coalitions had more cohesion around both policy core belief dyads and negative emotion dyads (Figure 2b). 

Lastly, we sought to determine whether negative and policy core emotion-belief dyads show a bigger effect than positive and deep core emotion-belief dyads in coalition membership and policy position on the anti-GAC bill. Running a series of multiple regression quadratic assignment procedures (MRQAP) as well as two significance models (Table 4), we found that shared negative emotions were more significant than positive emotions in coalition membership and explained expressions about the bill with larger effect sizes than the other belief-emotion combinations.

In using GAC as the setting to explore the interplay of beliefs and emotions, this study shows emotions are pivotal in how individuals learn, form opinions, and mobilize politically. By developing theory around the dyadic expressions of both beliefs and emotions, we pave future pathways for improving understanding of belief systems, coalition dynamics, policy change, and policy learning.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Fullerton, Allegra H. and Christopher M. Weible 2024. “ Examining Emotional Belief Expressions of Advocacy Coalitions in Arkansas’ Gender Identity Politics.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (2): 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12531.

About the Authors

Allegra H. Fullerton is a PhD Candidate at the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs. The bulk of her research examines the intricate relationships between emotions, beliefs, and coalition dynamics within marginalized communities. She has published in Policy Studies Journal, Review of Policy Research, International Review of Public Policy, and more on gender policy, policy feedback in the US and Germany, transgender healthcare, power, and policy learning. She teaches courses on policy processes and democracy, as well as negotiation. She sits on the organizing committee for the Conference on Policy Process Research, a community dedicated to advancing policy process theories and methods internationally. She also serves as the Digital Associate Editor at Policy and Politics.

Chris Weible is a professor at the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs. His research and teaching center on policy process theories and methods, democracy, and environmental policy. He is the Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Center for Policy and Democracy (CPD) and Co-Editor of Policy & Politics. He teaches courses in environmental politics, public policy and democracy, policy analysis, and research methods and design. Recent and current research includes studying policy conflicts in energy issues (e.g., siting energy infrastructure and oil and gas development), the role of emotions in public discourse, the institutional configurations of public policies, politics involving marginalized communities, and patterns and explanations of advocacy coalitions, learning, and policy change. He has published over a hundred articles and book chapters and has been awarded millions of dollars in external funding. His edited volumes include “Theories of the Policy Process,” “Methods of the Policy Process,” and “Policy Debates in Hydraulic Fracturing.” He regularly engages and enjoys collaborating with students and communities in research projects. Professor Weible earned his PhD in Ecology from the University of California Davis and a Master of Public Administration and a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Statistics from the University of Washington. He has an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy and a Visiting Professor position at Luleå University of Technology (LTU), Sweden.

, , ,

Reflecting on a Year of Growth and Collaboration at PSJ

by Geoboo Song (PSJ Editor-in-Chief)

As we mark the first anniversary of our tenure as the editorial team at the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ), I feel it’s a right moment to reflect on the journey we’ve embarked on and the progress we’ve made. While many of us were familiar with the editorial process through prior experiences, stepping into these roles brought new challenges and opportunities. The past year has been both eventful and productive, filled with significant achievements that have propelled PSJ forward in fulfilling its mission.

One of the most telling indicators of PSJ’s growing prominence is the surge in submissions. Last year, we received around 500 new submissions — a notable increase from the typical 350 submissions per year between 2019 and 2022. Already, in the current year, we have surpassed 360 new submissions, signaling an upward trajectory that speaks to the mounting interest in policy research. To manage this increased volume, nearly 20 members of our editorial team have dedicated themselves to ensuring that each submission is handled with the care and attention it deserves. The collective effort of this team has been nothing short of remarkable.

Transitioning to new leadership is never without its challenges. However, the steadfast support from long standing editorial members and the fresh perspectives brought by new team members have made this transition not only smooth but also invigorating. The guidance of experienced editorial members, such as Drs. Gwen Arnold, Melissa Merry, Aaron Smith-Walter, Holly Peterson, and Creed Tumlison, has been invaluable. Their professional camaraderie with me has ensured continuity and stability.

We are also fortunate to have the enthusiastic contributions of new editorial team members, including Drs. Saba Siddiki, Davor Mondom, Heasun Choi, and Briana Huett. Their fresh ideas and energy have greatly enhanced our operations. Special thanks are due to Dr. Ben Galloway and Victor Akakpo for their diligent handling of new manuscripts, and to Nataliia Borozdina, Camille Gilmore, and Meerim Seiitova for their exceptional work in maintaining our website content and social media presence. Their efforts have ensured that PSJ remains a dynamic and engaging platform for policy scholars worldwide. Behind the scenes, our editorial assistants Eli Polley, Izehi Oriaghan, and Chris Giller have also played crucial roles in keeping our operations running smoothly.

One of our most exciting initiatives this past year has been the introduction of the rolling special collection called Policy Theory & Practice (PT&P). This collection bridges the gap between theoretical insights and practical applications, offering a platform for innovative and impactful policy research. Additionally, we’ve introduced new manuscript types, such as Perspectives and Research Notes, allowing for shorter yet impactful research papers. These new formats broaden the range of contributions to PSJ, enabling us to address timely and emerging research topics in the policy realm.

Engagement with the policy community has also been a priority. We launched the PSJ Blog, designed to foster meaningful communication among those interested in policy research. By sharing valuable insights and highlights from PSJ publications, the blog has quickly become a central hub for discussion and exchange, nurturing a more connected and informed community of policy scholars and citizens alike.

Collaboration has been another cornerstone of our efforts. We’ve actively participated in and organized workshops, roundtables, and presentations in partnership with related organizations. These include roundtables at the Conference on Policy Process Research (COPPR) at Syracuse, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) roundtable at Michigan, online conversations with authors through the American Political Science Association (APSA) Public Policy Section, and special lectures and presentations at Seoul National University, Sungkyunkwan University, and the International Conference on China Policy Studies (ICCPS). These collaborations have opened valuable opportunities to shape the future direction of PSJ, addressing various theoretical and practical concerns highlighted by the policy community. We are committed to continuing these efforts and are actively preparing special issues on important research topics, such as policy design, policy advisory systems, and the role of power in policy processes. Several more special issues are in the planning stages, reflecting our commitment to responding to the evolving needs of the policy community.

None of these achievements would have been possible without the support of many individuals and organizations. We are deeply grateful to the leaders of the Policy Studies Organization (PSO), the APSA Public Policy Section, Wiley, and the University of Arkansas Department of Political Science and Public Policy Ph.D. Program. Their support, both visible and behind the scenes, has been instrumental in our success. Working as the core PSJ editorial team over the past year has deepened our appreciation for the invaluable contributions of our authors, reviewers, and editorial board members. Their dedication and hard work are the lifeblood of the journal, and we sincerely thank everyone for their support and encouragement.

As we look ahead, we are excited about the future of PSJ and remain committed to advancing the field of policy studies through innovative research, meaningful collaboration, and ongoing engagement with the global policy community. Thank you for being part of this journey with us!

Whose Water Crisis? How Policy Responses to Acute Environmental Change Widen Inequality

by Olivia David & Sara Hughes

People experience environmental and climate change in different, uneven ways, shaped largely by how governments respond to these changes. Policy responses to acute environmental events like droughts, floods, and wildfires are important for mitigating environmental and social harm, but can also reveal structural biases and entrenched power dynamics. Such events therefore offer opportunities to evaluate the mechanisms by which policy decisions affect existing socioeconomic inequality, and relatedly, how policy choices may either contribute to or stifle environmental justice.

In our paper, we address these questions by examining policy responses to severe drought events in California, USA (2012-2016) and the Western Cape Province, South Africa (2015-2018). Both regions received significant public and media attention for their respective water crises and the policies that determined how populations experienced and perceived them. The regions share other common features that make drought policy responses particularly consequential including high contributions to their respective national GDPs through agricultural production, and high socioeconomic inequality.

In our examination of these drought events, we ask what constitutes a “water crisis” – who experiences “crisis” and how – and how policy responses mediate those experiences. Some of our key findings are:

  • Californians living in cities largely felt distanced from the effects of drought, while rural populations reliant on domestic wells felt acute impacts. The state’s policy decisions around drastically reducing water deliveries for agriculture contributed to these disparate impacts, as agricultural users shifted to withdrawing more groundwater – producing scarcity and water quality issues for the communities normally reliant on that same resource.
  • California’s poorest communities were forced to spend additional money on bottled water in addition to paying for chronically toxic tap water, deepening water unaffordability conditions.  
  • In Cape Town – the Western Cape’s only large city, and water crisis epicenter – many wealthy households invested in expensive off-grid water supply infrastructure, such as construction of backyard boreholes and installation of rainwater catchment tanks, enabled by lax policies around licensing for private groundwater extraction.
  • The City of Cape Town’s new water pricing structures intending to incentivize conservation not only targeted high-consumption households, but also impacted many poor households with already-low water use.

Based on our findings, we proposed two main causal mechanisms linking policy response and widened inequality in both cases: “values reinforcement” and “strategic communication.” Put differently, we identified how both governments made policy decisions that 1) reinforced dominant political-economic priority values of their respective contexts – mainly, the agricultural economy in California and the status quo of racialized distribution of wealth and power in the Western Cape, and 2) generated and communicated information that leveraged content, framing, and targeting to instill particular populations with a sense of responsibility for mitigating drought crises.

Identifying these two mechanisms leads us to suggest that in contexts of drought and other severe environmental events anticipated under climate change, governments should pay particular attention to how their policy responses perform “values reinforcement” and “strategic communication,” and the outcomes these responses are designed to pursue. Understanding these mechanisms helps clarify how policy choices shape social outcomes of environmental events and raises questions about how policy design might narrow inequalities. As droughts and other environmental events become increasingly frequent and severe, we hope these insights can guide policymaking toward responding in ways that consider and even advance environmental justice, rather than exacerbating inequalities.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

David, Olivia and Sara Hughes. 2024. “Whose Water Crisis? How Policy Responses to Acute Environmental Change Widen Inequality.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (2): 425–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12524.

About the Authors

Olivia David is a doctoral student at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. Her current research focuses on the politics of water policy and infrastructures, and activism around water injustice as a potential lever of policy change.



E-Mail: odavid@umich.edu
Twitter: @Olivia_David_ 
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0412-9795

Sara Hughes is an associate professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. She studies policy agendas, policy analysis, and governance processes, focusing on decisions about water resources and climate change mitigation and adaptation.



E-Mail: shughes@rand.org
Twitter: @Prof_Shughes
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1282-6235

, , , ,