Author: PSJ Editorial Team

What lessons do professionals learn about government from implementing policy?

by Patricia Strach

A professional on a recent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) webinar that we participated in noted that stigma doesn’t just affect people who use drugs (the clients), it also affects the professionals providing services to them. We weren’t surprised. In our interviews, focus groups, and participant observation of roughly 200 professionals, we heard the same frustration, which was backed up with examples of lower salaries, less respect, and few opportunities to use professional discretion.

While researchers have shown that clients or even community members learn lessons about how government works from their direct or indirect interactions, we don’t know what effect policies have on another invested group: professional implementors. Yet professionals in substance-use disorder services—including general healthcare, drug treatment, and harm reduction (such as syringe exchange) programs—are very aware that they have a different experience from professionals working with other clients.

Substance-use disorder services, then, offer a window into how policies designed for marginalized and negatively constructed populations affect the advantaged, policy professionals administering them with broader implications for the true effects of public policy.

In our research, we find that policy implementors learn by proxy: they witness a government that does not care about people who use drugs; they experience a government that is not committed to providing positive care services to their clients and does not value the professionals who work with them; and in witnessing and experiencing together, they learn that the disadvantaged status of people who use drugs affects the benefits and burdens on the professionals who administer them too.

One treatment provider summed up the effect of extensive and proscriptive rules that punish clients at the same time they remove clinical discretion from well-qualified providers as having “less to do …with whether or not they believe the patient. It’s really how much they respect the opinion or the information provided by the clinician. So I think that stigma follows not only the clients and patients that we see, but I think they don’t always believe us.”

These lessons shape implementors’ views of government. They believe government does not care and has chosen not to take meaningful action in ways that are at odds with what their advantaged status—as counselors, nurses, doctors, managers, and executives in health systems—might suggest. They do not see government as supportive, or politics as winnable. Instead, their status as professionals allows them to compare their experience to other professionals’ and their clients’ experience with other clients’, and they recognize the unfairness in how government treats clients and professionals.

Our article, “Learning by Proxy: How Burdensome Policies Shape Policy Implementors Views of Government,” suggests that policy affects more than clients or community members. It spills over to the professionals who implement them, shaping their experience and perspective of government too. Our research offers lessons for scholars of drug policy, policy feedback, administrative burdens, and social construction of target populations.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Strach, Patricia, Elizabeth Pérez-Chiqués and Katie Zuber. 2024. “ Learning by Proxy: How Burdensome Policies Shape Policy Implementors’ Views of Government.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12554.

About the Author

Patricia Strach, PhD is Professor, Departments of Political Science and Public Administration & Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY) and a fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, SUNY. With Katie Zuber and Elizabeth Pérez-Chiqués, she examines the opioid epidemic in local communities, engaging people on the frontlines including judges, lawyers, sheriffs, service providers, elected officials, community activists, and people who use drugs and their families. She is the author most recently of The Politics of Trash: How Governments Used Corruption to Clean Cities, 1890–1929 (Cornell 2023) as well as articles published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Policy Studies Journal, and the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law. She has presented her findings to federal and state policymakers and has appeared on panels across New York State. Strach received the Outstanding Public Engagement in Health Policy Award from the American Political Science Association’s Section on Health Politics and Policy in 2020 and was a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at Harvard (2008-2010).

, , ,

The Particular and Diffuse Effects of Negative Interactions on Participation: Evidence From Responses to Police Killings

by Cody A. Drolc & Kelsey Shoub

Negative interactions between the public and government agencies, particularly with law enforcement, have long been thought to reduce political participation and trust in government. However, less attention has been given to how negative events in government-citizen interactions shape civic participation and broader policy feedback. Specifically, little research has examined how government contact, whether personal (e.g., being arrested) or proximal (e.g., a family member is arrested), informs public engagement with local services. To fill this gap, we focus on police killings and their impact on the public’s willingness to engage with local public services. 

Theoretically, we draw on the policy feedback literature, which explores how personal experiences with government and government agents influence political participation and public evaluation of government. This framework suggests that government decisions send community-wide signals about the public’s value in the eye of the state, which in turn leads to disempowerment and reduced willingness to engage. Additionally, negative government actions–even when indirectly experienced–undermine perceptions of government legitimacy and thereby reduce participation. Based on these insights, we hypothesize two potential outcomes: the “Police Particular Hypothesis,” where a local police killing reduces engagement with the police specifically, and the “Diffuse Government Hypothesis,” which posits that such negative events decrease participation with local government services more broadly.

To test these hypotheses, we conducted a two-part study. First, we used observational data from Los Angeles, including 911 emergency calls and 311 non-emergency service requests from 2016 to 2020. We use a generalized difference-in-difference approach with matching to explore the effect of police killings on these two types of public engagement. Second, we conducted a survey experiment where participants were exposed to one of three randomly assigned news clippings, including one about a local police killing, and compared their willingness to engage with local government.

The findings demonstrate strong support for the Diffuse Government Hypothesis. In the weeks following a police killing, the number of 311 service requests dropped significantly, indicating that negative interactions with the police led to broader disengagement from local government services. However, there was no significant change in 911 emergency calls, suggesting that despite the negative events, the public still sees the police as essential for emergency situations. The figure below illustrates such relationships over time. The survey experiment further confirmed these findings, showing that participants exposed to the police killing vignette were less likely to trust and engage with local government. However, it also showed a reduction in the likelihood that someone would reach out to the police, providing some support for the Police Particular Hypothesis and suggesting that we might have observed floor effects in the observational study.

Image Description

This study contributes to our understanding of how negative events in government-citizen interactions affect community participation, expanding on policy feedback theories that traditionally focus on political participation. The findings have important implications for policymakers and public managers, highlighting the potential for spillover effects from negative events, such as police killings, to erode broader government legitimacy and engagement. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Drolc, Cody A. and Kelsey Shoub. 2024. “ The Particular and Diffuse Effects of Negative Interactions on Participation: Evidence From Responses to Police Killings.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 623–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12541.

About the Authors

Cody A. Drolc is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of South Carolina. His research primarily addresses program implementation and oversight in an intergovernmental context, specifically focusing on policies such as Social Security Disability and veteran healthcare. 

Kelsey Shoub is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Her research examines two broad questions: How do descriptive identities (e.g., race and gender) of officials and civilians intersect with context to shape outcomes; and How does language relate to policy and perceptions of politics? She has been published in Science Advances, the Journal of Public Administration and Theory, and the American Journal of Political Science, among others.

, , , , ,

Potholes, 311 reports, and a theory of heterogeneous resident demand for city services

by Scott J. Cook, Samantha Zuhlke, & Robin Saywitz

An important criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of local governments is how – and whether – they respond to the needs of their residents. Sometimes, local governments proactively provide basic services to meet their residents’ needs. Other times, residents make their needs known to government officials by requesting these services. Importantly, not all residents are equally likely to request services from government when government fails to address a need. In this study, we examine which areas are more likely to produce requests for services from government when faced with a common service need: potholes.

We use 311 reports to measure resident demand for specific kinds of services – in our case, pothole repair. Many localities in the U.S. have adopted 311 systems as a way for residents to request government services. For practitioners, 311 systems are a valuable means of connecting with residents. For researchers, 311 reports are a valuable source of data, providing information on what service was requested, when and where the request was made, and how the locality responded to the request. We study potholes because it is easy to measure whether potholes have been serviced, local governments have nearly full autonomy to repair potholes, and residents are widely in favor of reducing potholes. Ultimately, we wanted to understand whether and to what extent requests for pothole repairs varied according to the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic makeup of a city neighborhood, anticipating that requests for services made via 311 systems may follow patterns seen in other forms of political participation.

We apply a three-part general model for understanding how local governments provide public services, which breaks down according to need for services, demand for services, and service provision. Need reflects what residents require, demand represents the expression of need by residents to government, and service provision is the action that the government takes to meet the need and/or demand for services. In our study, we focus on how need (the presence of potholes) translates into demand (a 311 request about a pothole placed by a resident).

Image Description

Figure 1. General model for local service provision

Our dataset includes 311 reports on potholes in Houston, Texas from 2016 to 2020. Houston is a useful case since it has a long-running 311 system and an economically and demographically diverse population. Potholes were a salient policy priority in Houston during this period. We secured data on the number of potholes proactively filled by the City of Houston in a FOIA request, which we use as a proxy for pothole presence within a census tract. To evaluate area demand, we utilize the number of 311 reports in each census tract. We measure a census tract’s socioeconomic status using a single variable constructed from several measures, including the poverty rate, median household income, and the percentage of residents who are high school and college graduates. We measure race as the percentage of Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents in a tract.

Image Description

Figure 2. Total 311 reports about potholes in Houston, TX from 2016 to 2020

We find that tracts with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic residents correlated with higher numbers of potholes. Lower socioeconomic status was also associated with more potholes. Despite being more likely to have potholes, we find that those same areas had fewer 311 reports. Instead, tracts with fewer Black and Hispanic residents, as well as those of higher socioeconomic status, were more likely to file 311 reports. Taken together, these results reveal that those areas of Houston with the most need for pothole remediation are least likely to demand it.

Our findings serve as a note of caution to local governments about the potential danger of overreliance on self-reporting systems like 311 to allocate public services. The case of potholes in Houston demonstrates that demand for services does not always align with need. Consequently, 311 systems have the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities along lines of race and socioeconomic status if public administrators assume that individuals are equally likely to engage with these systems. We advise local governments to a) find ways to encourage greater 311 reporting more broadly, and b) proactively provide services, anticipating that some residents will be less likely to request services to meet unmet needs.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Cook, Scott J., Samantha Zuhlke and Robin Saywitz. 2024. “ Potholes, 311 Reports, and a Theory of Heterogeneous Resident Demand For City Services.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 647–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12540.

About the Authors

Scott J. Cook is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. The core aim of his research was to improve our ability to effectively learn about political processes from otherwise imperfect data. Examples of this work have been published in the American Journal of Political Science, the American Political Science Review, and the Annals of Applied Statistics.

Samantha Zuhlke is an assistant professor in the School of Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Iowa. Her research examines how individuals relate to government and nonprofit organizations, particularly in the wake of government failure. Her work has been published by Cambridge University Press and the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. She previously worked at the National Geographic Society.

Robin Rose Saywitz is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Saint Louis University. Her research falls along three, often overlapping lines: environmental policy, political institutions and performance, and the drivers of human capital decisions in the bureaucracy.

, ,

Nascent policy subsystems in polycentric governance networks: The case of sea-level rise governance in the San Francisco Bay Area

by Tara Pozzi, Elise Zufall, Kyra Gmoser-Daskalakis, & Francesca Vantaggiato

The biggest environmental policy challenges of our time cut across policy sectors and levels of governance. The wide scope of these issues requires collaboration across sectoral, geographical, and administrative boundaries. Recent literature utilizing the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has explored the behavior of nascent subsystems, which emerge in response to novel policy challenges and feature developing coalitions. 

However, we still lack an empirical approach to identify and analyze the structural characteristics of these nascent (i.e., emergent) subsystems and assess their implications for theoretical and subsystem development. How do we recognize a nascent policy subsystem when we see one, and what are the drivers of its coalitional structure?

This study builds and expands upon Ingold et al.’s (2017) study of nascent fracking policy subsystems in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, which found that network structure was better explained by actors’ secondary policy beliefs and former collaborative relationships than by actors’ deep core beliefs. We examine the case of the governance of sea-level rise (SLR) adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area (SF Bay Area), utilizing a 2018 online survey to identify whether its governance system is nascent, whether actors’ policy core beliefs (specific to the subsystem) form discernible advocacy coalitions, and whether those beliefs inform network partner selection.

Image Description

Employing community detection methods and a Bayesian model for statistical analysis of networks (the Bayesian Exponential Random Graph Model, or BERGM) to test for core policy belief homophily between actors, we found that the network does not divide into fully fledged coalitions (illustrated in Figure 1), and that belief homophily is a driver of network structure (Figure 2), suggesting that coalitions are emerging. Moreover, we determined that emerging coalitions dovetail existing policy divides in the SF Bay Area around environmental protection and environmental justice goals.

Image Description

Taken together, these results suggest that coalition formation in the nascent subsystem of SLR in the SF Bay Area is associated with actors’ beliefs imported from pre-existing, related subsystems. At present, communities do not display the adversarial coalitional structure consistent with mature subsystems; instead, overlapping membership by actors in communities creates a core-periphery structure consistent with a collaborative policy subsystem.

Our analysis has important implications for theory, methods, and practice. It shows that nascent subsystems addressing new collective action problems such as SLR derive at least part of their emerging structure from existing coalitions. However, most policy actors in our network display heterogeneous policy core beliefs which do not clearly refer to either pre-existing environmental protection or environmental justice coalitions. This underscores the role that learning plays in coalition formation, particularly when actors face new issues and need to gather information to form their positions. Thus, while pre-existing coalitions shape collaborative ties in the current network structure, they need not prevent the development of entirely new coalitions in the future. Additionally, our empirical approach for recognizing a nascent policy subsystem, parsing out its structural characteristics, and understanding the drivers of its structure can be replicated in other emerging policy subsystem studies.

The implications of this analysis for practice are twofold: for one, understanding the structure of nascent policy subsystems can alert policymakers to the likely trade-offs to be faced in decision-making; and secondly, tracking subsystem development can ensure policymakers include affected interests in the governance process.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Pozzi, Tara, Elise Zufall, Kyra Gmoser-Daskalakis and Francesca Vantaggiato. 2024. “ Nascent Policy Subsystems in Polycentric Governance Networks: The Case of Sea-level Rise Governance in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12549.

About the Authors

Tara Pozzi is a PhD candidate in the Graduate Group in Ecology at the University of California, Davis and a Delta Science Fellow. Her research focuses on how governance networks influence effective climate adaptation policy and planning decision-making. Prior to UC Davis, she completed her M.S. in Human-Environment Systems from Boise State University and her B.S. in Civil Engineering from Santa Clara University.  

Website: https://tarapozzi.github.io/ 
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tara-pozzi-74587856/ 

Elise Zufall is a PhD candidate in the Geography Graduate Group at the University of California, Davis. Zufall studies the role of actor relationships, beliefs, and knowledge in environmental resource management and decision-making. Zufall received her M.S. and B.S. in Earth Systems from Stanford University.  

Kyra Gmoser-Daskalakis is a PhD candidate in the Graduate Group in Ecology at the University of California, Davis. She studies collaborative environmental governance, with a particular focus on the implementation of multi-benefit green infrastructure. She holds a B.S. in Environmental Economics and Policy from UC Berkeley and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning from UCLA.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyra-gmoser-daskalakis-939375b3
X (Twitter): @kyraskyegd

Francesca Pia Vantaggiato is Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at the Department of Political Economy at King’s College London (UK). Her research focuses on how policy-makers and stakeholders use collaborative relationships to tackle change and uncertainty. Her work has been published in journals such as the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Policy Studies Journal and Global Environmental Change. Prior to King’s College London, Vantaggiato was a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Environmental Science & Policy at the University of California, Davis.

Website: https://francescavantaggiato.github.io/ 
Bsky: https://bsky.app/profile/fpvantaggiato.bsky.social 

, , , ,

The Politics of Problems versus Solutions: Policymaking and Grandstanding in Congressional Hearings

by Jonathan Lewallen, Ju Yeon Park, & Sean M. Theriault

Many journalists, legislators, academics, and other commentators have lamented the recent state of U.S. policymaking and a seemingly increased emphasis on “message politics” and grandstanding at the expense of “serious” legislating.

Taking positions is an important part of political representation and grandstanding often gets traced to electoral motivations and incentives. Our new article, “The Politics of Problems versus Solutions: Policymaking and Grandstanding in Congressional Hearings,” finds another source: a focus on the problem space.

Many aspects of decision-making depend on whether we are focused on the problem space or the solution space. Simplifying problems involves using heuristics to narrow our attention on different potential focusing events and indicators. Navigating the solution space involves both consulting experts and making analogies to similar-enough alternatives adopted for other issues or in other governing jurisdictions.

We find evidence that the different focus on problems and solutions doesn’t just influence the kinds of information we pay attention to; it also influences how policymakers engage in deliberation and creates different political dynamics.

We compared Professor Park’s “Grandstanding Score,” which measures individual legislators’ intensity of sending political messages, across three types of U.S. congressional committee hearings: those focused only on the problem space, those focused on implementation of existing policies, and those focused on proposed alternatives.

Our analysis shows that hearings focused on the problem space have average grandstanding scores about 0.65 points higher than solution-focused hearings, and 1.41 points higher than implementation-focused hearings. 

We also find variation in grandstanding by policy topic using the Policy Agendas Project major topic codes. Specifically, hearings on issues like social welfare, law and crime, education, civil rights, macroeconomics, international affairs, and the environment tend to have significantly higher grandstanding scores. Hearings on technology and agriculture, on the other hand, tend to have significantly lower grandstanding scores.

Our research adds valuable insights to the ongoing discussion of legislative dysfunction in the United States, highlighting how the focus on problem politics at the expense of solution-driven deliberation has affected congressional behavior over time.

While our results are potentially good news for policymakers focused on implementing existing policy, they also present a few challenges to advocates looking to reduce messaging politics in Congress and encourage substantive policymaking. Grandstanding derives at least in part from both a focus on policy problems and the specific problems receiving attention; to some extent, grandstanding is baked into both the policy agenda and Congress’s responsibilities as a representative institution. Rather than trying to reduce grandstanding behavior, then, perhaps we need recommendations for encouraging the kinds of activities that counterbalance grandstanding.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Lewallen, Jonathan, Ju Yeon Park and Sean M. Theriault 2024. “ The Politics of Problems Versus Solutions: Policymaking and Grandstanding in Congressional Hearings.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12526.

About the Authors

Jonathan Lewallen is an associate professor of political science at the University of Tampa. His research focuses on agenda setting and the policy process and how issues and institutions evolve together over time. Dr. Lewallen’s book Committees and the Decline of Lawmaking in Congress was published in 2020 by the University of Michigan Press.

Ju Yeon (Julia) Park is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University and a faculty affiliate of the Center for Effective Lawmaking. Her research focuses on the public speeches and legislative behavior of members of U.S. Congress, and their impact on legislative processes and elections.

Sean M. Theriault is a University Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Government Department at the University of Texas at Austin.

 

 

congress, congressional hearings, grandstanding

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.

, , , ,

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.

, ,