Narrative Strategies in a Nondemocratic Setting: Reflections on Conducting Policy Process Research in Autocracies

by Caroline Schlaufer & Dilyara Gafurova

Our article Narrative strategies in a nondemocratic setting: Moscow’s urban policy debates explored how narratives are strategically used in authoritarian contexts to promote or contest policy reforms. Focusing on three contentious urban policy debates in Moscow—housing renovation, public transport reforms, and waste management policies—we found stark differences in narrative strategies between government actors and their opponents. The Moscow government employed narratives that framed itself as a hero delivering widespread public benefits while avoiding acknowledgment of policy problems or villainizing opponents. In contrast, oppositional narratives depicted the government as a villain and emphasized the costs and exclusivity of governmental policies. The difference between the governmental and opposing narrative strategies, for example, between the angel and devil-shift scores of the two sides of the debates (see Table 2 of our article), is very large and much higher than in democratic contexts, indicating a strong polarization of the debate. A “debate” in an authoritarian context is less a dialogue but rather parallel monologues with governmental narratives dominating.

Image Description

The research is based on a quantitative content analysis of online sources that were written between 2012 and 2020. Since conducting our research, Russia’s policy context has transformed dramatically. The ongoing war against Ukraine has accelerated autocratization and exacerbated repression in Russia. These developments have fundamentally altered the space for public policy discourse and almost obliterated oppositional voices. The majority of the actors whose online narratives we analyzed (see Appendix A of our article) are now silenced—whether by exile, imprisonment, death, organizational closure, or the inaccessibility of platforms like Facebook within Russia. This means that replicating our study is not possible anymore, as conducting the same research today would yield far fewer critical perspectives on Moscow’s urban policies.

The shrinking space for public debate has also been accompanied by increasing restrictions on academic freedom. Many scholars who worked on our research project on narratives in Moscow have since left Russia due to safety concerns and the hostile environment for empirical social research. The closure of HSE University’s Public Policy Department, where this research was conducted, epitomizes the growing difficulties faced by academics in the country.

Our findings demonstrated that the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), initially designed for democratic settings, is a robust tool for understanding discursive strategies in authoritarian contexts, even as genuine public debate disappears. While our research cannot be replicated in today’s Russia, the lessons it offers remain relevant—not only for autocracies but also for liberal democracies that increasingly experience polarization of public debates and attacks on academic freedom. However, our study and experience also raise critical questions about the boundaries of conducting policy process research in autocracies. Scholars must navigate significant ethical and safety concerns to protect team members and data sources, but at the same time meet high scientific standards and publish research even though access to data and possibilities to conduct research are extremely restricted.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Schlaufer, C., Gafurova, D., Zhiryakova, E., Shikhova, M. andBelyaeva, N. 2023. “Narrative strategies in a nondemocratic setting: Moscow’s urban policy debates.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12445

About the Authors

Caroline Schlaufer is a senior researcher at the KPM Center for Public Management and head of the Ethics and Policy Lab of the Multidisciplinary Center of Infectious Diseases at the University of Bern, Switzerland. Her research focuses on the role of narratives and of science in policy processes and on public policy in authoritarian contexts. She worked as a Professor at the Public Policy Department at HSE University in Moscow between 2017 and 2021.

Dilyara Gafurova heads the team of the Sphere foundation that focuses on fostering LGBTQ+ rights in Russia. She is a political scientist and worked on this research project on policy narratives in Moscow during her Master’s at HSE University in 2018-2020.

Submitter Guidelines for Recommending Reviewers

After surpassing 500 submitted manuscripts in 2024, PSJ’s need for reviewers is at an all-time high. With this, our editorial team is immensely grateful to those who continue to contribute to our field by serving as manuscript reviewers. This commitment is central to our work as policy scholars and is essential to ensure publication of high-quality scholarship. We have relied heavily on many of you to provide valuable feedback on promising manuscripts, and we do not take the time you have dedicated lightly. 

To lessen our reliance on our current pool of reviewers while still ensuring a timely review process, the PSJ editorial team has instituted a new policy for those submitting manuscripts to our system: moving forward, every submitter will be required to recommend five (5) reviewers. 

With this change, our team wanted to share guidelines that can assist submitters in selecting applicable reviewers. When considering reviewers, we ask submitters to keep in mind the following: 

  1. First, please make sure that the reviewers collectively cover the three critical aspects of your manuscript: theory, methodology, and the substantive topic.
  2. Second, please try to mix senior and emerging scholars. This diversity enriches the review process with varied perspectives and experiences.
  3. Third, the reviewers should be those who can uphold the highest standards of editorial integrity, as this is of utmost importance to us.
  4. Finally, please make sure that the selected reviewers do not have any obvious connections to you or other authors. This will help maintain anonymity and impartiality in the review process. 

Thank you in advance to all submitters for supporting your individual manuscript’s review process, and we look forward to your submissions!


Link to Geoboo’s LinkedIn post about surpassing 500 manuscripts: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geoboo-song-%EC%86%A1%EA%B1%B0%EB%B6%80-08215359_weve-just-received-our-500th-new-submission-activity-7253819572598841344-tKQi?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

How do public policies diffuse, and how can diffusion processes be actively governed without direct coercion?

by Kai Schulze

Diffusion has emerged as an important concept for studying how public policies spread across jurisdictions. Scholars have identified several mechanisms that drive policy diffusion, including learning, competition, emulation, and coercion. At the same time, policy diffusion is also a popular governance approach, particularly for higher levels of government that want to promote certain policies at lower levels, but do not want to or cannot mandate policy action. However, the governance potential of policy diffusion is poorly captured by the prevailing mechanism-centered concept, which is difficult to measure and typically emphasizes direct coercion or “hard” interventions, such as preemptive legislation or conditional funding. It therefore risks overlooking important less coercive or “soft” interventions that higher levels of government can use to promote policy development at lower levels. 

This neglect of soft interventions limits the analytical value of the diffusion concept, especially in multilevel environments with varying levels of authority and in policy areas where direct coercion is unavailable or undesirable, including in climate policy. For example, in many countries, higher levels of government lack the constitutional authority to mandate local climate action, or local authorities lack the capacity to comply with such mandates, so they resort to various interventions that are scattered throughout the literature but have not yet been compared more systematically.

To address these issues, I present a new channel-centered framework that distinguishes between six soft policy diffusion channels that can be broadly placed on a continuum of coerciveness or state intervention: autonomous, collaborative, exemplary, persuasive, organized, and funded diffusion (see Table 1). Autonomous diffusion refers to voluntary and noninstitutionalized exchanges between jurisdictions at the same level of government, collaborative diffusion to the bottom-up creation of formal networks, exemplary diffusion to policy development by higher-level governments to set an example, persuasive diffusion to the provision of informational resources, organized diffusion to networks created by higher-level governments, and funded diffusion to financial incentives and the provision of additional resources.    

Image Description

I probe the framework by studying local climate change adaptation policy using original survey data collected from the administrations of 190 municipalities located in the central German state of Hessen. The regression results indicate that the local institutionalization of adaptation in Hessen such as the development of adaptation plans and new staff dealing with adaptation is associated with several interventions by higher levels of government, including the provision of a policy model, a municipal climate network, and grant programs. However, the density of concrete adaptation measures–such as the creation of open-air corridors, education programs, drainage and retention areas, and surface unsealing–is associated with noninstitutionalized exchanges between municipalities. These results demonstrate the usefulness of the framework for distinguishing and comparing different diffusion channels and thus for understanding policy diffusion as a governance approach. In particular, the results suggest that different types of interventions may be needed to support adaptation policy development at the local level. This is important information for the efficient allocation of scarce (local) resources and for policymakers seeking to capitalize on policy diffusion.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Schulze, Kai. 2024. “ The Soft Channels of Policy Diffusion: Insights From Local Climate Change Adaptation Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 52(4): 881–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12555.

About the Author

Kai Schulze is an Adjunct Professor with the Institute of Political Science at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany leading the Junior Research Group on Integrated Systems Analysis. His research focuses on comparative public policy and politics, particularly in the fields of energy, climate, and environment. His work has appeared in journals such as Climate Policy, European Journal of Political Research, Global Environmental Politics, Regional Environmental Change, Regulation & Governance, Review of Policy Research, WIREs Climate Change.

, , , ,

Disasters Shape Beliefs in Technological Solutions to Environmental Problems: Lessons From a Quasi-Natural Experiment

by Aksel Sundström

While ecomodernist ideas—e.g., the notion that modern technology can solve environmental problems—are widespread among citizens, we know little about their stability. In my article, I explore how ecomodernist beliefs are affected by major catastrophes. Leveraging the happenstance that the Fukushima-Daiichi accident occurred during the fieldwork of a 2011 public opinion survey in Israel, this piece makes several interesting inferences.

Ecomodernism advocates that humanity can reduce its environmental footprint through technological innovation while maintaining economic growth. Ecomodernists often promote technologies like nuclear power and geoengineering as vital tools for rapidly cutting carbon emissions. However, not everyone shares this optimism. Critics argue that a technology-first approach may overlook ecological limits and social risks. This raises an important question: how does techno-optimistism shift when technology fails dramatically?

My study identifies a unique opportunity to investigate attitude shifts surrounding the Fukushima disaster. This event occurred during data collection for the European Social Survey (ESS) in Israel, a survey fieldwork that was unaffected by the events in Japan, creating quasi-natural conditions to experimentally analyze how sudden catastrophes influence ecomodernist beliefs. As seen in figures 1 and 2, both news media and people’s Google search trends in the country suggest that the events were very much present in the public debate.

Image Description

Figure 1. Print media news attention.

Figure 2. Google search trends.

The ESS survey – rolled out to a nationally representative sample – measured survey participants’ agreement with the statement: “Modern science can be relied upon to solve environmental problems.” The disaster took place in the middle of the fieldwork period. Results reveal that those surveyed after Fukushima were, on average, less likely to agree with this statement than those interviewed before the disaster. The effect was particularly pronounced among respondents with higher education, a group typically more trusting of science and technology. Figure 3 illustrates this interaction, showing how the effect is stronger among those with longer education.

Figure 3. Main effects from Fukushima by respondents’ education years.

The study also corroborates these findings in a survey experiment with participants in two settings: Israel and the United States. In this extended analysis, an information vignette about the risk of nuclear power plant failures (compared to a control group that received no such information) provided similar effects on ecomodernist beliefs, suggesting that these effects are found when replicated with alternative approaches.

In the literature, environmental disasters can be seen as focusing events that draw attention to the risks of technological solutions. Interestingly, several authors have still described people’s beliefs about technological optimism as a “stable trait.” The events at Fukushima-Daiichi exposed vulnerabilities in complex technological systems, prompting heightened awareness of the risks with nuclear power and undermining broader trust in science’s ability to tackle environmental challenges. Hence, ecomodernist attitudes are more malleable than often assumed.

Given that public trust in technology wanes after disasters, it can become harder to rally support for large-scale technological initiatives, such as building new nuclear power plants or advancing geoengineering projects.

Policymakers need to recognize that trust in technological solutions is fragile and sensitive to external shocks. This study highlights that people’s beliefs about technology’s role in solving environmental problems are not static. By better understanding how such attitudes are shaped, we gain further insights in the public support for environmental policies in times of crises.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Sundström, Aksel. 2024. “ Environmental Disasters and Ecomodernist Beliefs: Insights From a Quasi-natural Experiment.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12562.

About the Author

Aksel Sundström is the PI of the Quality of Government (QoG) Data and an associate professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. His research agenda is focused on comparative politics, with an interest in environmental politics, especially in the Global South, and the study of political representation.

, , , ,

Rapid Response and Uncertain Agendas: Senators’ Response to Dobbs

by Corinne Connor & Annelise Russell

How do elected officials signal what matters to them when agenda-setting isn’t just about picking issues, but also deciding how to respond? In our recent paper, we dig into this question by looking at how U.S. senators reacted to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and the earlier draft opinion leak.

Twitter (or X, if you must) remains a go-to platform for today’s legislators—a direct line to advocates, the media, and political elites. Unlike traditional media, it lets lawmakers respond instantly and unfiltered, making it the perfect stage for showing where they stand. We explored how senators used Twitter during two moments: the shock of the draft opinion leak and the expected court ruling. By examining their “rhetorical agendas”— the issues they highlight and how they frame them online — we uncovered insights into how they communicate their priorities in real time

We tested the following hypotheses:

Time Hypothesis (a): More ideologically extreme senators will be more likely to react more quickly to theleaked court opinion on Twitter.

Time Hypothesis (b): Democratic senators will be more likely to react more quickly to the leaked court opinion on Twitter.

Frame Hypothesis (a): The most ideologically extreme senators will be more likely to frame the Dobbs leak and decision in terms of pro-life or pro-choice alternatives.

Frame Hypothesis (b): Senators with greater electoral security will be more likely to adopt pro-choice or pro-life responses to the leak and/or decision.

Image Description

Using 5,163 tweets from senators’ official Twitter accounts from the week surrounding both events, our analysis revealed clear distinctions in senators’ reactions. We found strong support for the Time Hypotheses regarding the leak. Ideologically extreme members were quicker to respond to the Dobbs leak compared to their more moderate peers. Democrats, as anticipated, were generally more prompt in addressing the leak, reflecting their platform’s commitment to reproductive rights. Interestingly, response timing for the court’s final decision did not follow the same pattern, suggesting that anticipation allowed for more calculated, uniform engagement across ideological lines.

Image Description

The results of our analysis, on the other hand, did not support our Frame Hypotheses. We found that partisanship and extremity of partisanship were significant predictors of whether a senator would adopt a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” position relative to the other issue frames. However, electoral vulnerability and ideological extremity did not seem to be significant predictors of issue framing—with the exception that ideological extremity predicted pro-life/pro-choice frames).

Image Description

Our study aims to understand how lawmakers’ attention and agenda-setting behavior as a response to highly salient events. During the Dobbs leak, uncertainty prompted quicker, more polarized responses. Conversely, the anticipated ruling enabled senators to prepare and standardize their communications, highlighting the difference between reactive and proactive agenda setting. Rapid-response platforms—like Twitter—compel lawmakers to not only choose whether to engage but how quickly and with what narrative. 

This study opens avenues for exploring digital responses to other unexpected events, such as acts of political violence or security crises, and how they compare to anticipated policy announcements. Additionally, further research could investigate whether similar patterns hold in the U.S. House or within other political systems that also use social media for agenda setting. Understanding these dynamics could deepen our grasp of modern policymaking and communication strategies in a digital landscape.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Connor, Corinne and Annelise Russell. 2024. “ Rapid Response and Uncertain Agendas: Senators’ Response to Dobbs.” Policy Studies Journal 52(4): 751–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12553.

About the Authors

Corinne Connor is a program analyst with The Heinz Endowments.





Annelise Russell is an associate professor at the University of Kentucky.





, , ,

Staying on the Democratic Script? A Deep Learning Analysis of the Speechmaking of U.S. Presidents

by Amnon Cavari, Akos Mate, & Miklós Sebők

In a representative democracy like the United States, we expect that the policy priorities expressed by politicians on the campaign trail or in stump speeches reflect the same priorities that they pursue while in office. We further expect that politicians would continue their policy commitment in their programmatic messages as well as in their daily activities and speeches. When they do that, we say that they stay on the democratic script.

We test this proposition, focusing on the relationship between the programmatic addresses of US presidents and the daily speeches by comparing the annual State of the Union address (SOU) with subsequent day-to-day speeches, which we refer to as occasional remarks (ORs). Occasional remarks are crucial because they allow the president to show the electorate that they are following through on their promises. They can also serve as testing grounds for new ideas or messages. 

Using the American Presidency Project, we gathered all State of the Union addresses and occasional remarks for every president from Harry Truman to Donald Trump. We then coded the documents using the codebook of the  Comparative Agendas Project, which defines 20 policy categories. Because of the large volume of documents that made up our dataset (16,523 speeches divided into nearly 2 million sentences), we used a large language model to conduct the bulk of our coding, supplemented with some manual coding used to train and refine our language model. 

We used the coded data to test three hypotheses:

  • H1: The policy agenda of the most important programmatic speech (SOU) and of routine remarks (ORs) each year will be positively correlated.
  • H2: The correlation between the policy agenda of the most important programmatic speech (SOU) and that of the routine remarks (ORs) will steadily decline over the course of the year.
  • H3a: Major domestic and foreign events decrease the diversity of the presidents’ routine attention (measured in ORs) relative to that presented in strategic communication (based on SOU).
  • H3b: The effect of domestic and foreign events on the diversity of routine agenda would be conditioned on the diversity of the annual agenda in the SOU.
Image Description

Figure 1. Correlations between speech types by policy topic.

As the above figure illustrates, across the 20 coded policy topics, there’s a strong correlation between the topics that are emphasized in State of the Union addresses and those that subsequently appear in occasional remarks, giving credence to Hypothesis 1. Applying regression analysis, we also found that, as time goes on, the policy topics addressed in occasional remarks diverge from those emphasized in the State of the Union, supporting Hypothesis 2. 

As for Hypothesis 3, we found a positive correlation between the diversity of policy topics referenced in the State of the Union and those referenced in occasional remarks; but, in contrast to our expectation, we do not find that major events (e.g., foreign conflicts, natural disasters, etc.) have a major impact on shifting the focus of presidential remarks. 

Our results show that, generally speaking, U.S. presidents are staying on the democratic script: The policy priorities that they outline in their State of the Union addresses are the same priorities to which they return in subsequent remarks. By comparing State of the Union addresses to occasional remarks, we’ve shown a link between programmatic and occasional communications that may have broader applicability beyond the presidency. We have also demonstrated the value of using large language models for parsing large volumes of policy texts, as our model’s coding displayed a higher accuracy rating than our manual coders, and at a fraction of the time. There are numerous avenues for building upon the insights outlined here, including examining the relationship between speechmaking and public opinion, how different speech types intersect with the policymaking process, and exploring the populations exposed to these speeches and how they respond to the speeches.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Cavari, Amnon, Akos Mate and Miklós Sebők. 2024. “ Staying on the Democratic Script? A Deep Learning Analysis of the Speechmaking of U.S. Presidents.” Policy Studies Journal 52(4): 709–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12534.

About the Authors

Amnon Cavari is Associate Professor and head of the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at Reichman University, Israel. Prof. Cavari’s main research interests are in the interrelationship between actions of elected officials and public opinion in the United States and in Israel. He is the author of The Party Politics of Presidential Rhetoric.
Twitter/X: @ACavari 

Akos Mate is a computational social scientist whose research interests are political economics and quantitative methodology. He is a research fellow at the Centre for Social Sciences, Budapest. He also teaches as visiting faculty at the Central European University, Vienna, and served as a consultant for the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office.

Twitter/X: @aakos_m

Miklós Sebők is a Senior Research Fellow at the HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences (CSS), Budapest. He serves as the research co-director of the Artificial Intelligence National Lab at CSS, the principal investigator of the V-SHIFT Momentum research project, and the convenor of the COMPTEXT conference. His main research interest lies at the intersection of policy studies and natural language processing.
Twitter/X: @Miklos_Sebok

, , , ,

Not Just the Nation’s Hostess: First Ladies as Policy Actors

by Mary R. Anderson & Jonathan Lewallen

Popular culture likes to view the First Lady as a symbol of American womanhood, the nation’s hostess, fashion icon, and mom-in-chief. Yet, modern First Ladies often develop their own policy priorities and programs, and the Office of the First Lady is integral to modern presidential administrations. In this article we make the case for studying First Ladies as policy actors by examining the audiences to which First Ladies speak, the roles they adopt in doing so, including an explicit policy role, and the degree of substantive policy content in their public speeches and remarks. 

We use archived First Lady public speeches and remarks from 1993-2022 covering First Ladies Clinton, Laura Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden to illustrate that First Ladies actively adopt policy roles across their speeches and other appearances; speak to policy-focused audiences like policy summits, interest groups, and government personnel and often discuss substantive policy issues in these appearances.

First Ladies adopt roles beyond the ceremonial role established by Martha Washington. She also plays the roles of policy advocate and party supporter and leader.  We depart from other scholars in our view that these roles are not “either-or” but rather “both-and,” the First Lady can be both engaging in a ceremonial role AND a policy role. For example, when the First Lady gives a commencement speech, she is acting in a ceremonial role. She may also discuss policy in that speech, in which case she is acting in a policy role, thus she is assuming both roles simultaneously, ceremonial and policy. Our analysis of First Lady roles demonstrates that the combination of Policy + Ceremonial roles is the most common configuration in our data. While First Ladies adopt the Ceremonial role more often than the others, the Policy role is a large part of the First Lady’s activities, about 72% of the data involve a Policy role in some way. 

Image Description

We argue that First Ladies are significant policy actors and that they discuss policy when they are addressing various audiences. Our data supports this characterization because we see First Ladies often addressing policy relevant audiences in their activities. Our analysis shows that First Ladies talk to three “clusters” of groups.  Excluding the broad “other” category, First Ladies have spoken most often to national interest groups (14.4%) and at policy events (14%).

Image Description

Figure 1: Percentage of First Lady Speeches and Remarks Delivered to Different Audiences

Finally, we find that First Ladies address substantive policy content frequently. We find that First Ladies address substantive policy content in about 63% of their speeches; when we dive more deeply into those observations where the First Lady adopted a Policy role, they addressed substantive policy issues about 90% of the time.  The presence of substantive policy content varies across First Ladies’ audiences as shown in the figure below.  First Ladies since 1993 mentioned some substantive policy issue in about 91% of their remarks to party supporters and 90% to policy events. 

Image Description

Figure 2: Speeches and Remarks with Substantive Policy Mentions by Audience

In this article, we challenge the traditional view of the First Lady as a largely ceremonial public figure and behind-the-scenes presidential advisor. Using her public speeches and remarks over a 30-year period we find that First Ladies consistently discuss policy issues across their different audiences and adopt the Policy role in more than three-quarters of their speeches in statements. Over time the role of the First Lady has evolved, their unique position permits them to play a role in policy that might not be obvious at first glance. They are particularly well-situated and well-resourced to engage in the policy process as executive branch actors and thus should be studied more often for their engagement in policymaking. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Anderson, Mary and Jonathan Lewallen. 2024. “ Not Just the Nation’s Hostess: First Ladies As Policy Actors.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12558.

About the Authors

Mary Anderson is the brodsky chair for Constitutional Democracy and Culture and professor of Political Science at Salve Regina University in Newport, RI. She studies women and politics and civic participation.



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.

, ,

An Emotional Perspective on the Multiple Streams Framework

by Moshe Maor

Policy process theories can be powerful tools for understanding complex policy processes—when they properly account for the emotional context. My latest conceptual research aims to do precisely this with regard to Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), which emerged in 1984 as an approach for studying how policies are formulated and adopted, particularly by examining how problems, policies, and politics align to produce policy change. This conceptual piece demonstrates how integrating emotions can deepen our understanding of the emotional factors that drive policy decisions. Emotions refer here to “reactions to signals about the significance that circumstances hold for an individual’s goals and well-being” (Gadarian & Brader 2023, 192). 

In its original design, the MSF includes the concept of “public mood,” but this is limited to a fleeting, often generalized state of public sentiment. This perspective overlooks more intense, targeted emotional reactions that can significantly impact each stream within the framework. My study sharpens this view by incorporating specific emotional triggers and conditions, introducing new concepts such as emotional agenda (policy) windows, emotional decision windows, and emotional policy entrepreneurs. These elements shed light on how positive and negative emotions, discrete emotions (e.g., anger, hope), and bundles of emotions can create moments when policy change becomes particularly likely.

The concept of emotional agenda (policy) windows describes moments when heightened public emotions make issues seem urgent, creating prime opportunities for policy advocates. This is often observed during crises, where fear or outrage pushes a problem into the spotlight. Similarly, an emotional decision window refers to the period when public and policymaker emotions align, opening an opportunity for adopting new policies.

Another key player in this framework is the emotional policy entrepreneur. Whereas some policy entrepreneurs ignore emotions, emotional policy entrepreneurs employ emotions in addition to ‘salami tactics’ and other strategies in pursuit of their policy goals. Unlike traditional policy entrepreneurs who advocate solutions based on practical needs, emotional policy entrepreneurs use emotional strategies to increase or decrease the intensity of a particular emotion, or to change the type of emotion (e.g., turning anxiety into anger), thereby shifting public opinion and mobilizing support. By leveraging collective emotions, emotional policy entrepreneurs can create emotional needs, control their intensity, and bring them to an end, thereby significantly influencing agenda-setting. This strategy can sometimes achieve rapid policy change, though it may also face challenges in sustaining intense emotions over time.

Through viewing and interpreting the MSF while sharpening its core concepts, my research aims to clarify how emotions interact with each of the MSF’s assumptions (see Table 1) and structural components (e.g., the streams), enhancing the MSF’s capacity to explain agenda-setting and decision-making in emotionally charged contexts. Ultimately, this approach calls for scholars to view policy settings not just as platforms for debate but as spaces deeply affected by emotional dynamics, where policy decisions reflect public sentiments as much as strategic calculations.

This research can help both policymakers and analysts to predict when emotional dynamics might open policy windows and shape the outcomes of political processes—making it a valuable tool in today’s complex, emotionally-loaded policy landscape.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Maor, Moshe. 2024. “ An Emotional Perspective on the Multiple Streams Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12568.

About the Author

Moshe Maor is a Professor of Political Science at Reichman University and past incumbent of the Wolfson Family Chair in Public Administration at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research interests focus on disproportionate policy response, emotions and public policy, and bureaucratic politics. He has published a few books as well as numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals including Democratization, Disasters, European Journal of Political Research, Governance, International Review of Public Policy, Journal of Environment Policy and planning, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Journal of Public Policy, Journal of Theoretical Politics, Policy Design & Practice, Policy & Politics, Policy &Society, Policy Sciences, Public Administration, and Public Administration Review. His current work revolves around developing the Ladder of Disproportionate Policy (European Policy Analysis, forthcoming)—an objective scale of disproportionate policies based on assessing the gap between the scope of the audience that the policy ostensibly serves and how the policy tools are set and adjusted to serve the actual audience. His book, entitled Policy Over- and Underreactions: Collected Essays, is forthcoming (Feb. 2025) in Edward Elgar.

, , , ,

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.

, , , , ,