Month: September 2024

The Dynamics of Issue Attention in Policy Process Scholarship

by E. J. Fagan, Alexander Furnas, Chris Koski, Herschel Thomas, Samuel Workman, & Corinne Connor

The Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) is the premier destination for scholars who apply and advance theories of the public policy process. As such, the work published in the journal reflects important trends and priorities in the policy community. In our article, we examine the agenda of PSJ over the last three decades in an effort to understand the evolving focus of the discipline and contribute to the emerging “Science of Science” literature. To do this, we analyze over 1,300 abstracts from PSJ articles, using the Comparative Agendas Project (CAP) codebook to systematically categorize the policy topics covered.

One of the key insights from our analysis is the broad range of policy topics covered in PSJ. With the exception of a major focus on environmental policy, attention is roughly divided among a variety of different topics. While the substantive range of the scholarship in PSJ is encouraging, we do identify a recent decline in topic diversity and a lack of attention on areas like foreign policy.

Figure 1. Subfigure (a) shows the distribution of paper across policy topics from our coding of abstract text. Subfigure (b) shows the normalized Shannon’s H of the topic codings for papers published in PSJ over time. We exclude the “No Substantive Topic” category from the calculation of Shannon’s H so the measure reflects the diversity of PSJ papers across substantive policy topics. The years 1986–1990 are excluded from this plot because there are no coded papers due to the lack of available abstracts in OpenAlex.

We also examine the theoretical frameworks that have shaped policy process research within the PSJ. Notably, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) emerged as a dominant framework, appearing more frequently in the journal than other influential theories like the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework. We attribute PET’s extensive presence in the journal to the theory’s broad applicability across various policy domains. Additionally, we find that theories of the policy process tend to specialize in specific areas, such as ACF’s focus on environmental and energy policy.

In terms of the policy stages addressed in PSJ articles, our findings indicate a strong emphasis on the implementation and evaluation stages of the policy cycle. This is particularly interesting given that one might expect PET’s focus on agenda-setting and lawmaking to lead to greater attention to these stages. Instead, the journal’s content has increasingly shifted from stage-based analysis to a more theory-driven approach.

Figure 2. Subfigure (a) shows the distribution of PSJ papers across policy theories identified using keywords in the abstract. Subfigure (b) shows the stage of the policymaking cycle papers addressed and identified using keywords in the abstract.

Another important aspect of our study is the impact of PSJ articles on both academic research and policy-making. We find that articles addressing general policy processes or theoretical questions tend to receive more academic citations, while those focused on specific policy areas, such as education, are more likely to be cited in policy documents. This distinction highlights the dual role that the journal plays in both advancing theoretical understanding and informing practical policy decisions.

Figure 3. Subfigure (a) plots the share of PSJ papers within each topic compared to the share of CRS reports on each policy topic for 1997–2019. Subfigure (b) plots the share of PSJ papers received by papers within each topic compared to the share of think tank reports from four prominent think tanks on each policy topic for 2007–2017.

Finally, we compare the journal’s focus with the priorities of other policy experts, including those from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and various think tanks. Our analysis reveals significant discrepancies in the attention given to certain issues. For instance, while PSJ articles emphasize environmental policy, CRS reports are more likely to focus on defense and government operations. This divergence suggests that policy process scholars sometimes prioritize different issues than those that dominate the agendas of policymakers and other experts.

Through this study, we aim to shed light on the dynamics of issue attention within the field of policy process scholarship. By doing so, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of how scholarly priorities evolve and how they align—or sometimes fail to align—with the broader needs of society.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Fagan, E. J., Alexander Furnas, Chris Koski, Herschel Thomas, Samuel Workman and Corinne Connor. 2024. “ The Dynamics of Issue Attention in Policy Process Scholarship.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12548.

About the Authors

E.J. Fagan is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois Chicago. He studies agenda setting, think tanks, political parties and policymaking in the U.S. Congress.



Alexander C. Furnas Ph.D. (Zander) is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Science of Science and Innovation at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, and Faculty Associate at the Institute for Policy Research and the Ryan Center on Complexity. He has a PhD in political science from the University of Michigan. He researches the political economy of information, with a focus on the production, dissemination and uptake of science and expertise in the policymaking process. His work has been published in American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Policy Studies Journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Legislative Studies Quarterly, among others.

Chris Koski joined the Reed College faculty in Fall 2011 after four years as an assistant professor at James Madison University (2007–2011). His research interests include many aspects of the policy process, with a particular focus on agenda-setting, policy design, and implementation. Theoretically, much of his work is situated in punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) and the social construction framework (SCF). Substantively, the bulk of Chris’ research is focused on environmental policy, most recently the politics of climate change – mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering. He has also published work on homeland security policy and the politics of state budgeting.

Herschel F. Thomas is an Associate Professor of Public Affairs in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a faculty fellow of the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service and faculty affiliate of the Policy Agendas Project. His research examines US national institutions and policy processes, with an emphasis on the role of civil society in shaping public policy decision-making and outcomes. His work focuses on interest group politics, public health, and agenda-setting, and is published in journals such as the American Journal of Public Health, Policy Studies Journal, Public Administration, Political Research Quarterly, and Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, among others. He is co-author with Timothy LaPira of Revolving Door Lobbying.

Samuel Workman is Professor of political science and Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Public Affairs at West Virginia University. His area of expertise is constructing large data infrastructures to answer fundamental questions about public policy across time and space. His previous work has addressed public policy, regulation, and how governments generate and use information. His work emphasizes text-as-data, machine learning, and statistical modeling, especially classification. His work appears in the top public policy and public administration journals, including Policy Studies Journal, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, and Policy and Politics. He is the author of The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (Cambridge, 2015), Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: A Policy Theory of Politics (Cambridge, Forthcoming), and Co-Editor of Methods of the Policy Process (Routledge, 2022).

Corinne Connor is a Program Analyst for The Heinz Endowments in Pittsburgh, PA. She is a former affiliate of the Institute for Policy Research and Public Affairs at West Virginia University and received her MA in Political Science from WVU in May 2023.


, , , , ,

Participation in multiple policy venues in governance of Chile’s Santiago Metropolitan Region: When institutional attributes can make the difference

by Karina Arias-Yurisch, Karina Retamal-Soto, Camila Ramos-Fuenzalida, & Alejandro Espinosa-Rada

Metropolitan regions present significant governance challenges, particularly due to their institutional fragmentation. We aim to contribute to the metropolitan governance literature by examining how local governments in Chile participate in various policy venues, both mandated and self-organized. We examine how the institutional attributes of these venues influence the formation of inter-municipal governance structures, using the Ecology of Games Framework (EGF) as our analytical lens.

Image Description

The Santiago Metropolitan Region, with a population exceeding 8 million, is divided into 52 local government units (municipalities), each responsible for addressing policy issues that span the region. Despite multiple efforts to reform governance in Santiago, the city has never been organized under a consolidated metropolitan authority, resulting in a polycentric system where multiple decisional spaces coexist. This fragmentation makes cooperation between municipalities essential for addressing collective problems, yet it also complicates the formation of coherent governance structures.

The EGF provides a theoretical approach for analyzing polycentric systems, like Santiago, where multiple institutions interact and influence decision-making. By focusing on how various policy venues—each governed by different institutional rules—interrelate, we can better understand how decisions made in one venue affect others. Our research seeks to explore these interdependencies by examining participation in mandated provincial forums, voluntary municipal associations, and inter-municipal agreements in Santiago.

Using data from formal inter-municipal agreements made between 2017 and 2021, we applied Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs) to test the following two hypotheses. Further, we analyze the formation of inter-municipal governance structures.

Hypothesis 1: Sharing participation in a mandated, centralized venue will positively affect the formation of inter-municipal agreements, supporting an expansive effect on Santiago’s governance.

Hypothesis 2: Sharing participation in a self-organized venue will negatively affect the formation of inter-municipal agreements, supporting a restrictive effect on Santiago’s governance.

Our results strongly supported Hypothesis 1. We found that participation in mandated provincial forums positively influences the formation of inter-municipal agreements, suggesting that centralized policy venues encourage further collaboration between local governments. In contrast, Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the data—participation in self-organized municipal associations did not significantly limit the formation of new inter-municipal agreements.

This finding highlights the importance of institutional attributes in shaping governance outcomes. Mandated venues, which are structured by higher levels of government, provide fewer opportunities for municipalities to set their own agendas, prompting local actors to seek additional venues for collaboration. Meanwhile, self-organized venues, where municipalities have greater control, do not appear to overwhelm local governments’ capacity for further cooperation.

Our study contributes to the ongoing debate on metropolitan governance by demonstrating the critical role that institutional attributes play in shaping inter-municipal collaboration. The findings suggest that in a polycentric system like Santiago’s, participation in mandated forums fosters further governance formation, while self-organized efforts do not hinder additional collaboration. This research offers a framework for future studies examining the relationship between institutional complexity and governance outcomes in other metropolitan contexts.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Arias-Yurisch, Karina, Karina Retamal-Soto, Camila Ramos-Fuenzalida and Alejandro Espinosa-Rada. 2024. “ Participation in Multiple Policy Venues in Governance of Chile’s Santiago Metropolitan Region: When Institutional Attributes Can Make the Difference.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12527.

About the Authors

Karina Arias-Yurisch is an associated professor in the Department of Public Management and Policy at the Faculty of Administration and Economics in the University of Santiago, Chile. Her research focuses on local and regional governance, inter-municipal cooperation and network analysis.

Karina Retamal-Soto is a professor in the Department of Politics and Government at the Faculty of Social Sciences in the Alberto Hurtado University, Chile. Her research focuses on regional governance, inter-municipal cooperation and institutions in complex polycentric systems.

Camila Ramos-Fuenzalida is a doctoral student at the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham. Her research focused on local government dynamics, inter-municipal collaboration, governance networks, and emergency management networks.

Alejandro Espinosa-Rada is a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer at the Social Networks Lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Switzerland. His main areas of interest are small groups dynamics, sociology of social networks, sociology of science and knowledge and science of science.

, , ,

Seeking the High Ground: Exploring Advocacy Groups’ Use of Policy Narratives in the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in Taiwan

by Yu-Heng Jung & Zong-Xian Huang

Many democratic nations have faced the challenge of political polarization, which affects both public opinion and policy decision-making. One of the most contentious modern issues is the recognition of rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and more (LGBTQ+) individuals. In Taiwan, the legalization of same-sex marriage became especially controversial due to its relatively conservative culture. Before Taiwan became the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage, both supporters and opponents of LGBTQ+ rights used various strategies in the policy process. These strategies included vibrant street protests, lobbying legislators, filing petitions for constitutional interpretation, and participating in a national referendum on same-sex marriage. Throughout this process, advocacy groups had to effectively use policy narratives and framing techniques to build public support.

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) suggests that policy actors often use narrative elements and strategies to influence policy decision-making processes. That is, as individuals utilize images, symbols, concepts, and language for communication, their understanding of the world is shaped by the complex interaction of these narrative components. Consequently, narratives are crucial not only for processing information and expressing viewpoints but also for influencing how people interpret and make sense of the world. Although a substantial amount of research has focused on narrative strategies, the NPF framework has yet to thoroughly examine how narrative use may evolve as policy conflicts develop. Additionally, while traditional NPF research has relied on the winning-losing dichotomy to predict narrative strategy usage, recent scholars argue that a coalition’s policy position may serve as a better indicator.

By analyzing the Facebook pages of competing advocacy groups involved in Taiwan’s same-sex marriage debate from October 2016 to May 2019, this study illustrates how these groups adjust their narrative strategies over time and identifies the factors driving these changes. Our findings reveal that, during the same-sex marriage discussions in Taiwan, anti-LGBTQ+ groups consistently employed a “devil shift” strategy in their narratives, while pro-LGBTQ+ groups gradually adopted a less extreme form of this strategy. In view of this, the study suggests that policy positions may provide better predictability for the devil–angel shift than the traditional winning-losing dichotomy.

Furthermore, when examining advocacy groups with varying scopes of conflict strategies regarding the status quo or preferred proposals, a consistent pattern emerges in the narrative strategies of anti-LGBTQ groups. They tend to employ a conflict expansion strategy in narratives related to the legalization of same-sex marriage, while using a conflict containment strategy in narratives aimed at maintaining marriage rights exclusively for heterosexual couples. In contrast, pro-LGBTQ groups strategically adjusted their scope of conflict strategy over time, based on the nature of policy issues, political events, and their target audiences. This suggests that conflict expansion and containment strategies depend on the evolving policy landscape and the social construction of target populations.

The study also highlights that constitutional arrangements and institutional mechanisms enable advocacy groups to engage in venue shopping. This underscores the connection between narrative strategies and a country’s institutional framework, emphasizing the contextual nature of these strategies. Additionally, the findings demonstrate that policy narrative learning occurs as potential policy outcomes converge, illustrating how advocacy groups modify and refine their narratives in response to evolving conditions.

In light of the increasing social awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion issues in recent years, this research enhances our understanding of how narrative strategies are employed to address contentious social issues. It not only presents a dynamic picture of the narrative strategies adopted by different advocacy groups but also depicts a sophisticated scenario in which the narrative is intertwined with social and political factors. Overall, this study provides a novel perspective on deconstructing narrative strategies and makes significant contributions to both theoretical and practical advancements in the NPF literature.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Jung, Yu-Heng and Zong-Xian Huang. 2024. “ Seeking the High Ground: Exploring Advocacy Groups’ Use of Policy Narratives in the Legalization of Same-sex Marriage in Taiwan.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 671–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12542.

About the Authors

Yu-Heng Jung is a Ph.D. student at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington. He is interested in the profound impact of rapidly evolving technology and decision-making tools on administration, governance, and society. His current research focuses on bureaucratic professionalism and responsiveness, the digital transformation of government, as well as the role of narrative strategies and social media in political communication.

Zong-Xian Huang is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Public Administration and Policy at the University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). His research interests include digital governance, digital inequalities, information technology management and algorithmic bias.

, , , ,

The Policy Feedback Effects of Preemption

by Mallory E. SoRelle & Allegra H. Fullerton

Preemption has become a powerful tool for policymakers to disrupt policymaking at lower levels of government and consolidate governing authority. It occurs when a higher level of government enacts laws that override or limit the authority of lower levels of government. The federal government can preempt state governments; likewise, state governments can preempt local governments. This tactic can prevent local governments from implementing their own regulations on issues like public health, labor rights, and civil rights, leading to a centralization of power and often stifling local innovation and responsiveness.

Existing scholarship on preemption has focused on explaining its causes. Very little research has investigated the consequences of preemptive policies for policymaking and governance. In our paper, we develop a theoretical framework to examine these effects systematically, focusing on the lasting impacts of preemption on political engagement, policy innovation, and public trust. 

In developing this framework, we expand on policy feedback theory, which examines how policies, once enacted, can influence future political behavior and policy development. Feedback occurs through two mechanisms: resource effects and interpretive effects. The former includes the effects that influence the capacity of actors to participate in politics by changing access to resources (i.e., monetary, education, civic skills, etc.). The latter includes the effects that shape values and attitudes associated with a policy that influence policy preferences and political actions. We suggest ways of analyzing the resource and interpretive feedback effects of preemption on policymakers, interest groups, and individuals (see Table 1).

We apply the framework to two cases. First, we discuss federal preemption of consumer financial protections. When the federal government overrides state-level protections, consumers may lose trust in their ability to influence financial regulations, and state policymakers may become less inclined to innovate or push for stronger consumer protections. This centralization of power can also empower certain interest groups while weakening others, leading to a shift in the political landscape.

Next, we analyze the consequences of state preemption of municipal anti-discrimination ordinances, particularly in the context of LGBTQ+ rights. When states pass laws that prevent cities from enacting their own anti-discrimination measures, this preemption can stifle innovation and reduce the capacity of local governments to respond to their constituents’ needs. For LGBTQ+ individuals, these laws can lead to worsened health outcomes, decreased political efficacy, and a diminished sense of belonging, as the state sends a clear message about whose rights are prioritized.

This article highlights the significant and far-reaching impacts of preemption on politics, and it proposes a research agenda for future scholarship on the feedback effects of this common policy tool. By understanding how preemption shapes political behavior, policy development, and social attitudes, scholars and policymakers can better navigate the complexities of federalism and work towards more equitable and responsive governance. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

SoRelle, Mallory E. and Allegra H. Fullerton 2024. “ The Policy Feedback Effects of Preemption.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (2): 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12528.

About the Authors

Mallory SoRelle is an Assistant Professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Her research and teaching explore how public policies are produced by, and critically how they reproduce, socioeconomic and political inequality in the United States. She focuses primarily on issues like consumer financial protection and access to civil justice that fundamentally shape the welfare of marginalized communities yet are often overlooked by scholars of the welfare state because they are not traditional redistributive programs. Mallory is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection (University of Chicago Press, 2020), which explores the political response—by policymakers, public interest groups, and ordinary Americans—to one of the most consequential economic policy issues in the United States: consumer credit and financial regulation.

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.

, , , ,