Author: PSJ Editorial Team

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.

, ,

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

, , , ,

Manifesting Symbolic Representation through Collaborative Policymaking

by Jack Mewhirter, Danielle McLaughlin, & Brian Calfano

Representation is crucial to any collaborative governance arrangement. The makeup of those who participate in collaborative forums impacts not just who “wins” and “loses” in the policymaking process, but also how the public perceives participating organizations. Generally speaking, if citizens feel that their interests and incentives are being represented by those participating in a collaboration, they will hold more positive beliefs toward those organizations involved, a phenomenon referred to as “symbolic representation.” Conversely, a perceived lack of representation can potentially engender distrust and negative perceptions toward participating organizations.

The inclusion of civil society organizations in collaborative policymaking is crucial to making citizens feel represented in collaborative forums. Compared to, for example, business and government stakeholders, civil society organizations tend to be more embedded in local communities and thus more responsive to their wants and needs. Thus, we argue that collaborative policymaking forums that feature high participation from civil society organizations should produce a symbolic effect toward participating organizations for citizens aware of this representation.

We test this hypothesis in the context of the Collaborative Settlement Agreement (or CA) governing policing in Cincinnati, Ohio. Established following the controversial killing of a Black teenager in 2001, the CA created a collaborative forum that brought together the Cincinnati Police Department and civil society organizations to address concerns around policing. The CA is a good case study for our hypothesis because civil society organizations have been well-represented and very active within the forum, using it to bring about numerous reforms to department practices.

To capture respondents most representative of Cincinnati’s urban core, we conducted surveys at several community events in the city of Cincinnati between June and September 2017. We asked respondents about their familiarity with the CA and their subsequent feelings toward the Cincinnati Police Department, anticipating that the two will be positively related (i.e., those who are more knowledgeable about the CA will feel more warmly towards the police). We also asked a number of demographic and personal history questions (e.g., regarding race, age, income, any interactions with police, etc.) to see how such variables might correlate with respondents’ knowledge and attitudes. 

And indeed, we found a strong positive relationship between knowledge about the CA and attitudes towards the police. In our survey we also asked respondents to indicate whether they thought that Cincinnati police officers “looked like” them – otherwise referred to as “passive representation” – and found that those who agreed also felt more positively about the police. Other variables that showed positive correlations included age, employment, and income. 

Our study demonstrates the important role that representation in collaborative policymaking forums can play in how people feel about those who participate in it. The case of the Collaborative Agreement in Cincinnati particularly illustrates how the inclusion of civil society organizations can contribute to feelings of symbolic representation, an important finding in the context of police-community relationships. Our findings point to the need to involve groups with close community ties in collaborative policymaking endeavors, as this will go a long way to securing buy-in and coproduction from the broader population. Our findings also reinforce that passive representation – having participants in forums who “look like you” – can bolster symbolic representation. While the CA is a powerful example of inclusion and representation done well, further studies need to be done to see whether collaborative forums that don’t feature robust involvement from civil society organizations are indeed looked upon less favorably. Furthermore, our study took for granted that citizens feel represented by civil society organizations, but this assumption requires empirical testing as well. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Mewhirter, Jack, Danielle McLaughlin, and Brian Calfano. 2024. “Manifesting Symbolic Representation Through Collaborative Policymaking.” Policy Studies Journal, 52(2): 283–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12525.

About the Authors

Jack Mewhirter is an Associate Professor in the Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs at the University of Tennessee. His research assesses the origins, implementation, and impacts of public policies meant to address complex social problems. This work is done in various contexts, including environmental, health and policing policy. 

Danielle M. McLaughlin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Kent State University. Her research focuses on the impact of institutions in solving collective action problems, mainly in the context of environmental policy issues.

Brian Calfano is a Professor at the University of Cincinnati. His research focuses on media and politics, religion and politics, and community engagement with local government. 

, , , , ,

Athletic Competition Between the States: The Rapid Spread of Name, Image, Likeness Laws and Why it Matters for Understanding Policy Diffusion

by Roshaun Colvin & Joshua M. Jansa

Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies have rapidly spread across the United States and are dramatically changing the landscape of college sports. NIL enables student-athletes to earn compensation and secure offers and sponsorships while pursuing their education. State lawmakers hope NIL policies will attract premiere student athletes and make their states’ university athletic programs successful (see Figure 1 below). 

The spread of NIL policies allows us to examine mechanisms at work in the policy diffusion process and to consider a new dimension of competition between states related to protecting or enhancing states’ reputations rather than directly accruing economic resources. To improve theory and measurement of competition as a policy diffusion mechanism, we ask: how does national athletic competition influence a state’s decision to adopt NIL policies?

To answer this, we observed the adoption of NIL across all 50 states within 39 months. This data can be used to model the diffusion of NIL through directed dyad event history analysis, a common method in policy diffusion research that allows for the study of how interstate dynamics and internal determinants influence policy adoption. 

A map of the united states Description automatically generated

We consider that states may engage in different forms of competition. States engage in offensive competition by setting policies with the aim of maintaining their reputations to gain an advantage over other states. In order to measure the internal determinants of a state’s athletic reputation, and therefore its susceptibility to engage in offensive competition, we use the number, value, and success of the state’s Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs. States may also engage in defensive competition, adopting policies to keep up with other states by reacting to what rival states are doing to build their reputations. We measure the interstate dynamics driving athletics competition, and therefore the likelihood of defensive competitive behavior using measures of sport-, conference-, and league-wide competition.

The results indicate that athletic competition best explains a state’s decision to adopt NIL. Particularly, states appear more likely to adopt NIL based on their national competitors’ actions and to preserve their status as premiere football programs. However, there is not compelling evidence that conference competition is a motivating force driving NIL adoptions. Rather, it appears that the states with the highest reputed football programs responded to national competition rather than competition within their conference. Other interstate dynamics, such as geographic contiguity or having the same party in power, do not appear to consistently spur the spread of NIL throughout states, suggesting NIL may be a policy in which a new dimension of competition better explains its diffusion than previous tendencies for states to consistently mimic other states.

The spread of NIL provides an excellent opportunity to understand diffusion mechanisms, specifically the limits of the competition mechanism. Furthermore, it provides the opportunity to generate new ways to operationalize competition for empirical analysis. In the case of NIL policy, states adjusted their status as major destinations for college athletes by hurrying to adopt NIL policy prior to other states adopting NIL policy.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Colvin, Roshaun and Joshua M. Jansa. 2024. “Athletic Competition Between the States: The Rapid Spread of Name, Image, Likeness Laws and Why It Matters For Understanding Policy Diffusion.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (2): 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12522.

About the Authors

Roshaun Colvin is a graduate student at University of Florida and received his Master’s in Political Science at Oklahoma State University.

Joshua M. Jansa is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University. His research focuses on policy diffusion, state politics, political and economic inequality, and civic education.

, , , , ,

Race, Representation, and Policy Attitudes in U.S. Public Schools

by Lael A. Keiser & Donald P. Haider-Markel

Tragic events around the country highlight the disproportionate ill-treatment of African Americans within the criminal justice system, the high levels of distrust African Americans have for the police and political institutions in general, and the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in public institutions. In response, some have sought to increase the passive or descriptive representation of minorities within law enforcement, higher education, and public schools, with the hope that doing so will improve the treatment of under-represented groups and enhance positive attitudes toward institutions and the policies they implement. 

However, different schools of thought exist about whether increasing representation of minorities is a zero-sum game (where increasing representation of one group reduces it for others) and whether it worsens attitudes of historical majorities. Further, while scholars have discussed two major perspectives – the mirror image and the institutional democracy hypotheses – few have measured passive representation in ways that fit these two perspectives or examined their implications for both minority and majority groups. 

According to the theory of symbolic representation, greater passive representation can evoke feelings of inclusiveness and of being represented which, in turn, impacts public attitudes toward policy and public institutions. Two distinct and competing mechanisms connect this passive representation with citizen attitudes. One argument, described as the “mirror image” hypothesis, is that a person’s support for government institutions depends, in part, on whether people within those institutions “look like” that person. The institutional symbol of democracy perspective, on the other hand, posits that support for public institutions depends on whether the institution reflects the population as a whole. 

In our paper, we test both of these hypotheses by examining passive representation in public schools and attitudes about school discipline using different measures of passive representation that better map onto existing theory. Using individual-level survey data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS), we analyze a sample of 5,750 white, Black, and Hispanic 10th-grade students across 453 high schools who were asked their perspectives on the fairness of school rules and whether they felt the rules were implemented in a uniform manner across all students. We utilize three distinct measures of passive representation, as illustrated below.

Our results were more consistent with the institutional symbol hypothesis, where more diverse school personnel corresponded with more positive attitudes about how institutions implement policy among white students. White students in schools with a higher proportion of minority teachers (and therefore fewer white teachers) were more likely to think punishment is fair than were white students in schools with less passive representation for minorities. This finding provides evidence that increasing the number of minority teachers may not always be considered a zero-sum context.  However, we do find evidence in support of the mirror image hypothesis for Black students who were more likely to think punishment was fairer when their percentage representation was greater but we find no evidence that attitudes were affected by representation measured by diversity or proportional representation.  We find inconsistent results for Hispanic students. 

However, our results suggest some important caveats. Though our analysis indicated that white students’ attitudes toward fairness were greater in schools with higher percentage representation of minorities, this was largely only the case in schools with smaller minority student populations. We found no evidence that white students’ attitudes varied with differences in proportional representation. This suggests that the positive link between minority representation and whites’ attitudes was strongest when in schools with relatively small minority student shares.

And perhaps more importantly, our results highlight how the use of different measures of representation, as well as of distinct statistical models, can lead to dissimilar results. This calls attention to the assumptions researchers implicitly make about theory when they choose measures of representation and calls us to both specify the theoretical mechanisms at play and to match them to theory so that we can improve our understanding of how passive representation truly affects policy attitudes. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Keiser, Lael R., Donald P. Haider-Markel, and Rajeev Darolia. 2022. “Race, Representation, and Policy Attitudes in U.S. Public Schools.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(4): 823–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12443

About the Authors

Lael R. Keiser is professor and director of the Harry S. Truman School of Government and Public Affairs. Her research and teaching focuses on the policy implementation and the administration of public programs. She serves on the editorial boards of Public Administration Review and the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Donald P. Haider-Markel is Professor of political science at the University of Kansas. His research and teaching are focused on the representation of group interests in politics and policy, and the dynamics between public opinion, political behavior, and public policy.

, ,

Rethinking Policy Piloting: Managing Uncertainty in the Policy Process

by Sreeja Nair

As governments grapple with uncertainties associated with complex policy issues such as climate change, digital transformation, pandemics and Artificial Intelligence, the role of policy piloting and experimentation will be key in shaping policy choices. Designing policies as pilots and experiments “in theory” permits governments a safe space to test new and alternative policy designs and learn from them. There are, however, challenges in realizing the potential of pilots to do so in practice. In my book Rethinking Policy Piloting, I study design features of selected policy pilots that were launched to manage risk and uncertainty in the agriculture sector in India. Despite their technical merit, pilots—just as regular policies—are prone to political influences, which can alter their expected performance on implementation. This is then an interesting departure from a common sentiment, “When in doubt, just pilot.”

Drawing from literature on policy experimentation, scaling-up, and policy change, I develop a theoretical model with four conditions hypothesized to influence a pilot’s outcomes in terms of its policy translation. These conditions are 1) the pilot’s vision to scale-up, 2) stakeholders governing the pilot, 3) semblance of the pilot’s objectives and 4) semblance of the pilot’s instruments (to reach set objectives) to a policy it was designed to improve or replace. Thirteen policy pilots launched by the central Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India to address risks and uncertainties in agriculture production were selected for a comparative case analysis. These pilots spread across 25 years starting from 1990—the decade that saw liberalization and decentralization reforms in India to 2015.

The pilots aimed at increasing crop productivity and reducing risks to agricultural production following a period of demonstration and evaluation and involved testing of different policy elements for guiding national agriculture policy. While some were intended to be incremental measures to support current policy programmes, others proposed new models and innovations to reform and replace the same. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with those involved in design and implementation or evaluation of the pilots. Thick case narratives along with a Qualitative Comparative Analysis helped understand how variations in the four conditions influenced the outcomes of each pilot.

The analysis reveals three key insights. First, pilots can survive in different forms without scaling-up fully and still contribute meaningfully to improved policy design. Second, successful design, implementation, and scaling up of pilots is not automatic and involves a tussle between its technical merit and political appeal. Pilots come with the risk of failure and associated reputational consequences to the policymaker and thus might often be conservative, proposing only marginal changes to current policies. Third, a departure from conservative pilots is seen when non-governmental actors are involved, which could be attributed to risk-sharing in case of failure.

Rethinking Policy Piloting makes an appeal to policymakers to experiment more considering these as opportunities to improve policy design, and to researchers to regulate their enthusiasm around expected outcomes from pilots considering the politics that surrounds them- just as routine policies.

About the Author

Sreeja Nair is an Assistant Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. She studies how governments manage risk and uncertainty in the policy process, focusing on the interplay of science and politics. Her research examines varied policy tools, in particular pilots and experimentation, for addressing high uncertainty in planning for climate change, sustainability transitions and digital transformation. Follow her on X/Twitter: @Sreeja_Nair01

, , ,

Understanding Policy Influence in Hybrid Regimes: Insights from a Qualitative Study of Policy Advice in Ukraine and Moldova

by Denitsa Marchevska & Trui Steen

Policy advisory systems research has provided important insights into the networks of individuals and organizations that support decision makers during the policy process. Much of this research has, however, focused on Western (liberal) democracies. Less is known about how those findings apply (or don’t) in weak democratic or even authoritarian settings. 

To address this gap, we turn our attention to policy advisory systems in “hybrid regimes” – that is, political systems that exhibit both democratic and authoritarian features. For example, a hybrid regime might hold competitive elections, which are mostly free but not necessarily fair due to abuse of administrative resources by incumbents. Similarly, they may feature key institutions associated with democratic governance but their functioning may be impaired by the presence of rampant corruption. 

To illustrate our point, we use Ukraine and Moldova as case studies. Between June and October 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 45 individuals across both countries (21 from Moldova, 24 from Ukraine) who were involved in the policy process in some capacity, including civil servants, consultants, representatives of donor organizations, and others. The interviewees hailed from four main policy domains: economy, environment, health, and rule of law. 

The interviews sought to explore the different reasons why decision makers choose to accept or ignore policy advice. The analysis focused on four broad types of explanatory factors in line with the framework proposed by Manwaring (2019). Namely, the analysis looked for factors associated with demand (the reasons why policymakers seek  advice), supply (explanations focused on the source of the advice), content (the substance of the advice provided), and context (the larger ecosystem within which advice is given and received). The aim of the analysis was to explore how the manifestations of those dimensions varies (or not) within the hybrid regime setting and how this compares to what we know about advisory dynamics in established democracies.

Our findings nuanced Manwaring’s framework in several ways. For one, while Manwaring presents the four above factors as discrete units, in practice it was challenging to sort motivations into these categories neatly. For example, the line between context and demand-side considerations proved especially porous. It was almost impossible to separate contextual factors like societal salience from demand considerations linked to political survival in the analysis. 

We also found a clear hierarchy in the importance of the four factors, which the framework did not necessarily acknowledge.  In particular, demand-side and contextual considerations appeared far more important  in determining whether policy advice is accepted than supply-side and content-related ones. The demand for advice arguably emerged as the most salient determinant of advisory success. The policy and advisory process appeared to be highly reflective of the wants and needs of those in power, something which is only exacerbated by the relative weakness of political institutions as well as commitments to the rule of law in these hybrid regimes. 

Related to this, we observed that the advisory dynamics in Moldova and Ukraine tend to be much more personalized (i.e., the individual preferences of government officials were decisive) and politicized (e.g., strongly impacted by political considerations) than is typically assumed within Western democracies. Current thinking about policy advisory systems tend to adopt biased assumptions about depoliticized, rational bureaucracies contributing to a preoccupation with expertise and institutional explanations for advisory influence. Considering both personalization and politicization within policy advisory systems models will make them more useful for studying hybrid regimes.

Lastly, our analysis highlights that international actors (e.g., donor organizations), as well as the international context more broadly, exert significant influence on the policy advisory systems of both Moldova and Ukraine. While this international dimension is rarely examined in the context of affluent Western democracies, it appears highly salient in countries like Ukraine and Moldova, given their greater reliance on international financial support and expertise to help shore up weak political and economic institutions. 

Though existing conceptualisations of the advisory process have much to offer, we show that they require some retooling to capture the nuances of policy advisory systems outside of the democratic context. Scholarship on policy advice should pursue greater empirical diversity in order to untangle such commonalities and differences as well as to advance a more robust comparative understanding on policy advisory dynamics. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Marchevska, Denitsa and Trui, Steen. 2022. “Understanding Policy Influence in Hybrid Regimes: Insights from a Qualitative Study of Policy Advice in Ukraine and Moldova.” Policy Studies Journal, 50(4): 735–755.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12477

About the Authors

Denitsa Marchevska is a PhD Researcher at KU Leuven’s Public Governance Institute and a Doctoral Fellow of Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Belgium. Her research focuses on policy advice provision, advisory systems and public policy formulation in flawed democracies and hybrid regimes with a particular focus on Eastern Europe. She also carries out research on (comparative) politico-administrative relations and bureaucratic politicization in the region.

Trui Steen is Full Professor at KU Leuven’s Public Governance Institute. She is interested in the governance of public services and the role therein of different stakeholders, including public sector professionals, civil society and citizens. Her research interests include co-creation and co-production of public services, public sector innovation, and local governance.

, , ,