Food and Agriculture policy has often been referred to as one of the last bastions of bipartisanship. Policymakers in the space claim that policymaking in this area has historically been special and uniquely cooperative. And yet, recent fights over the Farm Bill and other food and nutrition policy have made clear that food policymaking is no more exempt from bitter partisan battles than any other policy area.
Farmed Out: Agricultural Lobbying in a Polarized Congress considers the relationship between partisan polarization, lobbying, and policy dynamics. The evidence presented in the book shows that partisan polarization has a dual impact on lobbying in that space. On the one hand, partisan polarization has increasingly frustrated lobbyists who hope to see lawmakers move forward on policy change in a timely fashion; one lobbyist explained, “I find the issues that should have been a lighter lift have become a Herculean lift” (Brock 2023, 111). The consequence is that, as the legislative pace slows, lobbyists must persistently work on the same issues over a longer time horizon, exacerbating the already large advantage to business and well-organized and funded interests. This trend is particularly visible among business interests, whose behavior, characteristics, and resources we have a clearer picture of compared to other types of interest groups.
Figure 7.1. Relationship between lobbying reports and firm revenue, by year.
Figure 7.1 (Brock 2023, 113) illustrates the increasingly exaggerated relationship between lobbying reports and resources over time, particularly among business interests. It is clear that access to resource allows firms to engage in politics more aggressively than their less well-resourced counterparts.
Advocacy groups are adapting and finding new (and old) ways to overcome legislative sluggishness, however. Reliance on coalitions and cross-cutting partnerships, also known as “unlikely bedfellows” or “boot-leggers and Baptist” partnerships, are particularly desirable coalitional strategies as they provide “air cover” to politicians and create new pathways to cooperation in a Congress with increasingly slim majorities and challenging dynamics (Brock 2023, 126).
Farmed Out explores both the practical and normative consequences of partisan polarization on lobbying, and specifically, the consequences of these dynamics on policymaking in the food and agricultural subsystem. “Legislators spend more time fighting, flying home, and rallying their bases, and less time on policymaking. Congress has lost expertise and has outsourced brainpower to lobbyists. As lobbying increasingly becomes more skewed toward the ultra-wealthy interest groups and corporations, we risk moving the food system even further from the ideal points of the public” (Brock 2023, 140). In short, partisan polarization has consequences not only for our politics, but also for our diets.
Clare Brock is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Colorado State University. Her research interests include public policy process, interest groups and advocacy, food politics, and the impact of polarization on policymaking.
Laws constrain who can vote, what we may consume, what we can choose to do with our bodies, and many other aspects of our daily lives. Understanding a law’s impact on society is oftentimes challenging. A key reason for this is statutory multiplicity: legal domains are frequently governed by numerous laws whose provisions overlap and sometimes contradict each other. Capturing and resolving statutory multiplicity, then, is vital to understanding how laws are interpreted and applied to specific circumstances.
In my paper, I present a method for addressing statutory multiplicity that uses the Institutional Grammar. Originally developed by Sue Crawford and Elinor Ostrom in 1995, Institutional Grammar is a tool for turning provisions found in legal texts (e.g., laws, regulations) into institutional statements – directives about what an actor may, must, or must not do. Those institutional statements can then be broken down into a set of components to capture information about the institution being studied. Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammar had five such components: the Attribute (the actor in the institutional statement), the Deontic (which identifies if an action is required or optional), the Aim (the action in question), the Conditions (the circumstances under which the statement applies), and the Or else (the consequences if the statement is not followed).
Figure 1. Section 15 of Kenya’s Societies Act of 1968.
If we conceptualize laws as bundles of legal rules, we can interpret a legal institution that governs a specific domain as a bundle of rules found across multiple laws. We can then use the Institutional Grammar to both describe the features of that legal institution and also detail how the legal institution changes over time. In essence, my method involves “scaling up” from legal provisions to laws, and, ultimately, jurisdiction-level legal institutions.
The method that I outline in my paper has three steps. First, I code laws using IG-based coding protocol items. I do this by taking provisions found in legal texts, reworking them into the institutional statements, and coding all laws using Institutional Grammar (see Figure 1 for an example of this). I assign each statement a numerical valuebased on whether the rule being coded is permissive/democratic or restrictive/undemocratic. Permissive rules are given a [+1], while restrictive rules receive a [-1]. After coding all laws in the legal corpus, the second step averages coded values for each coding protocol item. This calculates a jurisdiction value for each item in the coding protocol and equals the average value of a particular coding protocol item across relevant laws active in the jurisdiction. The final step estimates values for the jurisdiction-level legal institution. To do so, I aggregate all values calculated in step two. Aggregation can be done either by simple summation or factor analysis. Each method has its benefits and drawbacks. Simple summation is the more straightforward of the two, though this can come at the expense of a loss of nuance since under simple summation rules with a positive and negative valence would cancel each other out. Factor analysis, on the other hand, allows you to weigh provisions and thus get a more accurate calculation, but is consequently more complicated than simple summation.
I applied this method to laws regulating civil society organizations (CSOs) in Kenya. Throughout its independence, as few as 1 to as many as 13 laws simultaneously affect Kenyan CSOs. I applied both simple summation and factor analysis to calculate the values for the jurisdiction-level legal institutions. Figure 3 compares the results for both techniques at four important moments in Kenya’s post-colonial history, with net permissiveness (dashed line) representing simple summation and latent permissiveness (solid line) representing factor analysis. The latent permissiveness measurement suggests that the permissiveness of Kenyan CSO laws increased significantly in the years immediately following independence and remained relatively steady thereafter, while net permissiveness registered a significant uptick in permissiveness in the 1990s.
Legal institutions have become increasingly complex, defined by numerous laws that intersect with one another. Statutory multiplicity is fertile ground for abuse. For instance, antidemocratic regimes may exploit complexity to engage in “restriction by addition,” where restrictive and undemocratic rules are added to the institution, or “restriction through subtraction,” where an institution is made more restrictive by removing permissive rules. My paper presents an approach that leverages the Institutional Grammar to better account for the many legal rules that comprise a jurisdiction’s legal institution. This method is amenable to any legal topic and is especially appropriate when multiple statutes simultaneously comprise the legal institution in a single jurisdiction.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
DeMattee, A.J. 2023. “A grammar of institutions for complex legal topics: Resolving statutory multiplicity and scaling up to jurisdiction-level legal institutions”. Policy Studies Journal 51: 529–550. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12488
About the Author
Anthony DeMattee is a data scientist in the Democracy Program at The Carter Center, where he develops standards and best practices for election technologies and campaign finance, media literacy, social media analyses, and studies legal institutions regulating speech, corruption, data privacy and protection, and elections. He also supports the Center’s special initiatives by creating research designs that integrate many data types for valid and reliable measurement and credible causal inference. DeMattee completed his joint Ph.D. in public policy from Indiana University, specializing in comparative politics, public policy, and public administration. DeMattee was an Ostrom Fellow during this time and remains affiliated with the Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory & Policy Analysis. After graduation, he spent two years at Emory University as a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow for Fundamental Research; DeMattee joined The Carter Center in 2022.
Academic conferences are hubs for the latest and most promising research in our field. They provide the opportunity to receive invaluable feedback, to connect with other scholars, and to gain inspiration for future research endeavors.
However, many of us attend the same conferences every year. Like clockwork, we mark our calendars for the submission deadlines and participation dates for these select few and begin planning from there. It’s true that we have limited resources and time that can be stretched across multiple conferences every year, but there is also another reason we tend to stay the course: keeping up with the full range of conferences within our field can be a daunting task.
As an editorial team, we asked ourselves:
What annual conference opportunities are out there? And which of these would we as researchers be interested in presenting our own work?
Further, as a journal focused on international policy theory development, what are promising conferences located outside the Western hemisphere?
Below we have compiled what we believe to be a comprehensive timeline of public policy and political science conferences happening between March and December 2024. We encourage policy scholars to follow the clickable links for each conference to learn more about its history and foci as well as to access its most up-to-date participation deadlines.
After reviewing this list, we also ask you: are there international conferences we’ve missed? And what other resources could we provide to make conference information more accessible?
by Christopher Weible, Kristin L. Oloffson, & Tanya Heikkila
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is one of the primary approaches for studying advocacy coalitions, belief systems, and policy learning. While hundreds of empirical studies have confirmed the framework’s major expectations, research is limited by a lack of longitudinal studies, comparisons between panel and non-panel data, and multiple measures of policy-oriented learning in the same study. To fill these gaps, we examine the characteristics of advocacy coalitions in the ever-evolving landscape of energy policy. Three questions guide the exploration:
What defines the characteristics of advocacy coalitions in the setting of shale oil and gas development, and to what extent do these coalitions exhibit stability over time?
To what degree do members within advocacy coalitions undergo changes in their beliefs, and how does this impact their sustained alignment within the same coalition?
What are the prevalent trends regarding advocacy coalition members self-reporting belief changes or expressing a willingness to shift their positions?
In 2013, 2015, and 2017, we conducted surveys of policy actors involved in shale oil and gas extraction in Colorado. The survey participants comprised individuals actively involved or knowledgeable about the pertinent policy issues, including industry stakeholders, government officials, non-profit and community group representatives, consultants, academics, and reporters. Respondents were identified through a purposive sampling approach, utilizing evidence from media reports, online sources, public hearings, testimonies, and recommendations. The survey included measures of policy core beliefs, such as positions on oil and gas development, problem perceptions, coordination, and interactions with other policy actors.
To analyze the data, we used K-Means Clustering, a method that identifies distinct groups within a dataset. The K-Means Clustering method categorized respondents into two coalitions based on minimizing distances within each cluster.
As illustrated in Figure 2, while beliefs remained relatively constant, specific indicators signaled some movement, reflecting shifts in the policy subsystem’s circumstances. For instance, concerns over public nuisances rose during a period of increased drilling activity, only to subside when drilling declined due to falling oil prices. The coalitional characteristics remained relatively stable across the three time periods, confirming patterns typical for environmental policy issues.
Figure 2. Frequency of belief change for respondents by panels
This analytical approach provides valuable insights into the dynamics of advocacy coalitions, shedding light on their composition and stability over time in the context of shale oil and gas development policy. One key contribution lies in the identification and characterization of two distinct advocacy coalitions, namely the anti-oil and gas coalition primarily comprising environmental and citizen group representatives, and the pro-oil and gas coalition dominated by industry stakeholders. The stability of these coalitions over the five-year period underscores the enduring nature of these groupings. The research also delves into the nuanced realm of belief change and policy learning among coalition members. The findings provide crucial insights into the tendencies of coalition members to either reinforce their existing beliefs or undergo shifts in response to evolving circumstances, contributing to the broader discourse on policy learning.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Weible, C. M., Olofsson, K. L. and Heikkila, T. 2023. “Advocacy coalitions, beliefs, and learning: An analysis of stability, change, and reinforcement.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12458
About the Authors
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 Ph.D. 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. Before coming to CU Denver, Professor Weible was an Assistant Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is a returned Peace Corps Volunteer.
Dr. Kristin L. Olofsson’s research focuses on public policy, institutional design, and stakeholder participation. She specializes in policy process scholarship through the lens of environmental and energy justice to focus on the dynamics of policy coalitions and networks of policy actors. Dr. Olofsson explores differentiation in institutional settings to better understand how the people involved in the policy process shape policy outcomes. Her research questions how decisions are made in contentious politics, using both quantitative and qualitative methods.
Professor Tanya Heikkila’s research and teaching focus on policy processes and environmental governance. She is particularly interested in how conflict and collaboration arise in policy processes, and what types of institutions support collaboration, learning, and conflict resolution. Some of her recent research has explored these issues in the context of interstate watersheds, large-scale ecosystem restoration programs, and unconventional oil and gas development. Prof. Heikkila has published numerous articles and books on these topics and has participated in several interdisciplinary research and education projects. She enjoys collaborating with faculty and students, especially through the Center for Policy and Democracy (CPD) at CU Denver, which she co-directs. She also serves as a member of the Delta Independent Science Board for the state of California. Prior to coming to CU Denver, Prof. Heikkila was a post-doctoral fellow at Indiana University’s Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis and an Assistant Professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. A native of Oregon, she received her BA from the University of Oregon and then learned to appreciate desert life while completing her MPA and PhD at the University of Arizona.
Whether you’re a graduate student or a full professor, or somewhere in between, participating in the peer review process by serving as a manuscript reviewer provides an essential service to the wider scholarly community. It’s an opportunity to use your expertise to help fellow researchers strengthen their contribution to their field.
But in addition to agreeing to review a manuscript, it’s also important to provide a review that will both help the authors revise their manuscript and help the editors decide its fate. We asked members of the PSJ editorial team for their advice on crafting a strong review.
Follow the Golden Rule. Treat other scholars like you want to be treated. There are real people behind the manuscript you’re evaluating: be constructive, not destructive. Write a review such that you wouldn’t be embarrassed or ashamed if your name was publicly attached to it.
Triage your critiques. It can be helpful for reviewers to categorize their critiques as major versus minor, so that the editors and authors get a sense of the weight to assign to the critique.
Point the authors in the right direction. If you recommend literature that the authors should discuss, provide enough detail for the authors to find the citations you suggest. Relatedly, be specific about the scholarship with which you want the authors to engage. Something like “needs to have a strong literature review” is not helpful.
Engage the authors on their terms. Evaluate the paper that was submitted, not the paper that you wish was submitted. Admittedly, this is a blurry line. But if heeding your advice would require a near-total overhaul, you’ve probably gone too far. In that situation, you may want to recommend that the journal reject the manuscript.
Give the editors comments too. If you have overall thoughts or concerns or praise related to a manuscript, particularly as it relates to the broader literature or discipline or state-of-the-art of a method, don’t hesitate to take advantage of the option to provide separate comments to the editors (which are blinded to the authors). This is where you can raise issues that you can’t necessarily expect authors to address because they may be too fundamental.
Keep an eye on the big picture. Think about how a paper adds to the broader literature or scholarship and discuss this in your review. This may not be essential for the authors, who already ought to know how they contribute, but it can be very helpful to the editors who make final decisions about a manuscript.
Say something positive. If a manuscript is sent out for peer review, it’s because the editors see potential in it. Accordingly, even if you feel that the manuscript isn’t the best fit for the journal, or you identify crucial flaws or oversights, odds are that the manuscript still has some redeeming qualities. Make sure to highlight these even as you lay out your concerns.
by Tiffany H. Morrison, Örjan Bodin, Graeme S. Cumming, Mark Lubell, Ralf Seppelt, Tim Seppelt, & Christopher M. Weible
Many governance systems are plagued by coordination problems. Polycentricity is often presented as key to resolving such problems. Polycentric systems are characterized by a decentralized and self-organized style of governance, where actors operating across diverse venues work together to make decisions through collective action. But despite their pervasiveness, as well as numerous studies that have looked into different polycentric governance arrangements, we still don’t have tools for studying how coordination within a polycentric governance system changes over time, and how those changes impact the success or failure of that system.
Our paper, “Building blocks of polycentric governance,” introduces a “building blocks” model for understanding polycentric governance. It treats polycentric governance as a network of decision-making venues, governance actors, and policy issues that are linked to one another. Our model focuses on three permutations of those linkages: venue-to-actor, venue-to-issue, and venue-to-actor-to-issue. If a polycentric governance system has certain permutations of venues, actors, and issues that appear regularly, we refer to those as building blocks. Those building blocks can then be used to study how coordination in that system evolves over time. Figure 1 shows different kinds of building blocks that can emerge in a polycentric system.
Figure 1. Proposed typology of building blocks of polycentricity
We applied our model to study the polycentric system that governs the Great Barrier Reef. We chose the Great Barrier Reef because of its longevity (it dates to the 1970s), the wealth of publicly available quantitative and qualitative data, the presence of prior studies, and its status as an innovator in polycentric governance. We mapped out the network for three years: 1980, 2005, and 2015. Figure 2 shows the results.
Figure 2. 3-Mode network models of the polycentric Great Barrier Reef regime
Our network analysis yielded several findings. First, between 1980 and 2015, coordination among actors participating in the same venue increased. Across that same period, there was also greater coordination between venues and issues, meaning that venues became increasingly specialized in the specific governance issues that they tackled. That said, venues were more crucial in coordinating actors than issues. This suggests that it’s easier for venues to bring actors together than to evolve to take on new issues. Finally, the governance system became more polycentric over time, as new policy issues resulted in new actors joining the system and new venues were created to address those issues. However, those newcomers have been at a disconnect from the other actors, issues, and venues in the system, operating independently rather than embedding themselves within pre-existing relationships.
By capturing the linkages among actors, venues, and issues and showing how they change over time, our building blocks model reveals the key role that venues play in facilitating – and hindering – coordination within a polycentric governance system. On the one hand, venues can help bring diverse governance actors together and facilitate specialization on specific policy issues. At the same time, the introduction of new venues can cause the governance system to fragment: actors who participate in new venues may not necessarily work with actors in other venues, or new venues will focus on a specific policy issue (or set of issues) without considering its relationship to other issues.
The Great Barrier Reef governance system is small and has changed slowly over time. Additionally, in the interest of presenting an application of our model that was easy to digest, we focused narrowly on actors, venues, and issues. We welcome studies that apply our building blocks model to larger and more dynamic polycentric governance systems. There are, of course, many more variables present in any polycentric governance system, and we would love to see future studies that incorporate that complexity into applications of our model. Benefits of extending our building blocks approach therefore include: (1) understanding how structure and agency influence environmental efforts (for example, if a new ‘polycentric’ governance system is only partially successful, are its failures due to structural inadequacies?); (2) detection of threshold effects and feedbacks (for example, does a system need to be strongly polycentric in order for a particular social process to occur?); and (3) more direct comparison between different case studies, facilitating practical insights for policymakers and other stakeholders interested in improving the performance of a specific environmental governance system.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Morrison, Tiffany H., Örjan Bodin, Graeme S. Cumming, Mark Lubell, Ralf Seppelt, Tim Seppelt, and Christopher M. Weible. 2023. Building blocks of polycentric governance. Policy Studies Journal 51: 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12492
About the Authors
Tiffany Morrison holds professorial appointments in the School of Geography, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Melbourne University, the Environmental Policy Group at Wageningen University & Research, and the College of Science & Engineering at James Cook University. Her expertise is in the governance of environmental change, policy responses to warming ecosystems, and governance of new interventions in warming ecosystems. She has twenty years of experience conducting innovative interdisciplinary research spanning human geography, political science, climate science, and ecology.
Örjan Bodin is a researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, Sweden. He employs a cross-disciplinary approach, integrating methods from various scientific disciplines to study social-ecological systems. He is particularly interested in using network analysis to study various aspects of ecosystems governance.
Graeme S. Cumming is an academic and researcher with a background in Zoology and Entomology. He is currently a Professor and Premier’s Science Fellow at the University of Western Australia. Graeme has a wide range of interests, centering around understanding spatial aspects of ecology and the relevance of broad-scale pattern-process dynamics for ecosystem (and social-ecological system) function and resilience. He is also interested in the applications of landscape ecology and complexity theory to conservation and the sustainable management of natural resources.
Mark Lubell is Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis and the Director of its Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior. Lubell studies cooperation problems and decision making in environmental, agricultural, and public policy. His research topics include water management, sustainable agriculture, adaptive decision-making, climate change policy, local government policy, transportation behavior, plant disease management, invasive species, and policy/social network analysis.
Ralf Seppelt is a professor for landscape ecology and Resource Economics at Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, where he lectures course on Environmental Modelling. He is head of the department for Computational Landscape Ecology. His major research focus is land resources management based on integrated simulation and modelling systems. He thus is interested in the interactions and interrelationship of anthropheric and biospheric processes.
Tim Seppelt is a fourth-year PhD student at RWTH Aachen University. He is interested in graphs and more specifically in theoretical and algorithmic notions concerning the similarity of two graphs. A central theme of his PhD is homomorphism indistinguishability, which describes the similarity of graphs in terms of numbers of homomorphisms.
Christopher M. Weible is a Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. His research focuses on policy process theories, contentious politics, and environmental policy. He is the Editor of Theories of the Policy Process (Routledge, 2023), Co-Editor of Methods of the Policy Process (with Samuel Workman, Routledge, 2022), Co-Editor of Policy & Politics, and Co-Director of the Center for Policy and Democracy.
Policy feedback scholars have done extensive work to understand how public policies affect mass behavior (the feed) and subsequent policy outcomes (the back). Thus far, this literature has focused mainly on political behavior feeds. However, the impact of these policies extends beyond the realm of politics, influencing the economic behavior of individuals and, in turn, shaping future policy outcomes.
In my paper, I develop a policy feedback model of consumption behavior in mass publics. Illustrated in Figure 1, the model shows how policies influence consumption capacity and preferences, which in turn affect future policy decisions. For example, social assistance policies transfer resources to beneficiaries, thus altering their spending decisions and influencing government policy responses (see path A-C-F-H).
I use this theory to investigate how targeted cash assistance policies (TCAPs) influence not just the immediate consumption patterns but also the subsequent policies. To do this, I analyzed the effects of Progresa—a Mexican TCAP that aimed to reduce poverty—by utilizing data collected during a randomized field experiment. I performed downstream analysis on the data to estimate the effects of Progresa.
In the short term, Progresa positively influenced private consumption of basic utilities. When households received the cash transfers, they used them to purchase private access to drainage (via septic tanks). However, in the medium term, a startling shift occurred. In communities where Progresa was implemented and private access to drainage increased, the government began making less of an effort to maintain the public water system.
My work offers key insights into the complex relationship between short-term consumption changes and (unintended) medium-term policy outcomes. It emphasizes that while consumption effects did occur swiftly, leading to increased private access to drainage, the subsequent impact on government policy ultimately led to reductions in basic utility access.
An intriguing question arises when considering the medium-term results: are targeted cash assistance policies—which generally are administered at the national level—letting local governments off the hook in terms of basic utility provision? When program beneficiaries use cash transfers to invest in private access to basic utilities, they in turn may be disincentivizing local governments from investing in public utility systems.
The implications of this study reverberate across various domains of policy feedback research. It highlights the need to broaden the scope of policy feedback analysis beyond political spheres to include economic mechanisms. These findings prompt further exploration into how economic feeds could influence future political behavior and policy outcomes.
In conclusion, this research breaks new ground by unraveling the ripple effects of social assistance policies, shedding light on how they influence consumption patterns and government policies regarding basic utilities. Understanding these intricate dynamics between policy, consumption behavior, and subsequent governance decisions is crucial for designing effective, holistic policies that address poverty while ensuring sustained access to essential services for vulnerable populations.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Schober, Gregory S. 2023. “Policy feedback via economic behavior: A model and experimental analysis of consumption behavior.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12474.
About the Author
Gregory S. Schober is an Assistant Professor in the Rehabilitation Sciences Program at The University of Texas at El Paso. His research examines social policy, political and economic behavior, and health in developing countries and the United States.
Conflict is a natural part of democratic processes. However, understanding what drives conflict – and how it can be mitigated to a level where negotiation can occur – is essential for fostering productive policy making.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) argues that policy conflict is fundamentally driven by belief divergence among coalitions, or groups of policy actors who share beliefs about a policy subsystem and coordinate to achieve their goals. It makes sense, then, that bringing coalitions’ beliefs closer together may also reduce conflict. However, the ACF warns that beliefs are hard to change, especially in high-conflict settings where actors are prone to biased assimilation of information, the devil-shift, and other tendencies that exacerbate conflict.
Collaborative governance is touted as a way to reduce policy conflict under such circumstances by encouraging diverse policy actors to engage in sustained, consensus-oriented deliberation around a shared problem. While collaborative governance may foster some level of belief convergence through information sharing and collective learning, it may also encourage opposing coalitions to negotiate through other mechanisms. For example, as they participate in a collaborative process, coalitions may come to better understand one another’s needs over time, build trust and mutual respect, and support collaborative institutions they perceive to be fair, even as they maintain unique beliefs.
To better understand the relationship between beliefs, conflict, and negotiation, we empirically analyze how two adversarial coalitions’ beliefs changed as they participated in a collaborative water governance process in Colorado, U.S., over the course of a decade. While the collaborative process ended in negotiated agreement, our analyses of longitudinal survey and interview data show that the coalitions’ beliefs actually diverged more at the end of the process than they did at the start – a finding contrary to what we would expect if negotiation was driven primarily by belief convergence.
We then identify several other aspects of the collaborative process and broader policy context that facilitated negotiation among the coalitions. Most importantly, societal value shifts, process norms that institutionalized actor roles and encouraged “multi-purpose” solutions, and the development of respect and social capital among actors appear to have promoted successful negotiation amidst belief divergence. We also found that the trend toward greater belief divergence was primarily attributed to one coalition strengthening their own unique beliefs over time while the other coalition’s beliefs remained fairly stable throughout the process.
Our results demonstrate that while belief divergence was likely a driver of conflict in this policy process, collaborative governance helped adversarial policy actors identify places where they could agree on, or at least consent to, common solutions over time. These findings have important implications for how collaborative processes can be designed to mitigate conflict among opposing coalitions and encourage future research on who changes their beliefs, how, and why while participating in a collaborative process. Scholars should also examine how collaborative governance affects different policy beliefs in different ways, which can help support the development of a more robust typology of beliefs in the ACF literature.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Koebele, Elizabeth A., and Deserai A., Crow. 2023. “ Mitigating conflict with collaboration: Reaching negotiated agreement amidst belief divergence in environmental governance.” Policy Studies Journal, 51, 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12496.
About the Authors
Elizabeth A. Koebele, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Associate Director of the Graduate Program of Hydrologic Sciences at the University of Nevada, Reno. She holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Colorado-Boulder, and B.A.s in English and Education from Arizona State University. Dr. Koebele researches and teaches about water policy and management in the western United States, with a focus on understanding the impacts of collaborative policy-making processes on governance and environmental outcomes in the Colorado River Basin. She also co-edits the scholarly journal Policy & Politics.
Dr. Deserai Anderson Crow is a Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. Her work focuses on environmental policy as well as crisis and disaster recovery, risk mitigation in local communities, and stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes. She earned her PhD from Duke University, and her B.S. and MPA from the University of Colorado.
To what extent do government policies in China change over time? Measuring the magnitude and frequency of policy change is an important step in understanding the driving forces of policymaking in China, which we know surprisingly little about despite the country’s large population and growing role in global governance. To answer this question, we turned to the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, which holds that government policies tend to be stable over time with occasional major change.
Although the PET’s explanatory power is considered to be universal, most English-language studies test the theory in democracies. In late 2021, we found only eight English-language peer-reviewed journal articles that apply the PET to China. These pioneering studies demonstrate the punctuated equilibrium pattern in policymaking in China, yet many questions remain unanswered, especially regarding policy change across different policy issues and venues, the frequency of large policy change, and information processing.
Remarkably, however, the Chinese-language PET literature on mainland China is much larger, albeit fragmented. We decided to conduct a systematic literature review to synthesize existing findings and identify research priorities, before we purposively design new studies. This is important given the effort and time required to conduct PET studies, which is exacerbated by limited data transparency and availability in China.
Through CNKI – China’s largest academic research database – we found 88 China-focused PET journal articles, which we analyzed in terms of methodology, operationalization, and patterns of policy change. We found that Chinese-language PET research is increasing. Moreover, contrary to the English-language PET literature, most Chinese studies are qualitative. Like in the English-language PET literature, weak operationalization of the PET core concepts is common.
One important takeaway from our systematic review is the consensus that government policymaking in China follows a punctuated equilibrium pattern with long periods of stability alternated with bursts of major policy change.
However, contrary to our expectations, our dataset contains only limited evidence in support of the hypothesis that government budgetary change in autocracies is more intensified compared to democracies, i.e., less frequent but larger budgetary adjustments. This hypothesis was first proposed by Chan and Zhao’s (2016) pioneering study on budget change in China. They and others have argued that state control over information flows inhibits the capacity of policymakers in autocracies to respond to problems in a timely and proportional manner because they miss out on important problem signals.
However, our analysis shows that there are very few studies that have tested this hypothesis in a systematic way. Moreover, we observed methodological variation in existing China-focused PET literature, which is illustrated in the table below. In our dataset, only one article (Li et al., 2019) is similar to Chan and Zhao (2016) in terms of methods and findings. All other studies are either qualitative in nature or differ in terms of period, scope (i.e., including only selected policy areas rather than the entire budget), data, and calculation methods. This makes it difficult to compare existing research findings.
Table 1. Regional-level punctuated equilibrium theory budget studies on China (Chinese and English)
To better understand policymaking in China and how it differs from other countries, we advocate for more quantitative PET studies on China that are broad in scope (rather than focusing on selected policy areas), cover a long period of time, and use the exact same methods as existing studies on democracies.A study that does this is Qin & Huang’s (2023) impressive analysis of national-level agenda diversity in China, which is methodologically similar to existing studies in democracies. In this study, the authors manually coded 40 years of State Council Gazettes and found a higher intensity of punctuations in China compared to democracies. We look forward to more such long-term studies across different policy venues.
References
Chan, K. N., & Zhao, S. (2016). Punctuated Equilibrium and the Information Disadvantage of Authoritarianism: Evidence from the People’s Republic of China. Policy Studies Journal, 44(2), 134-155.
Qin, X., & Huang, J. (2023). Policy punctuations and agenda diversity in China: a national level analysis from 1980 to 2019. Policy Studies, 1-21.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal
van den Dool, A., & Li, J. (2023). What do we know about the punctuated equilibrium theory in China? A systematic review and research priorities. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12502
About the Authors
Annemieke van den Dool is an assistant professor in the Social Sciences Division at Duke Kunshan University in Jiangsu, China. Her research focuses on policymaking, policy process theories, and crisis management in China, especially in the areas of health and the environment. Learn more about her research at: http://www.annemiekevandendool.com.
Follow her on X @PubPolicyChina or on BlueSky @avandendool.bsky.social.
Jialin Li is an undergraduate student at Duke Kunshan University in Jiangsu, China. Li majors in Political Economy with a minor in Public Policy. Her research focuses on policy process theories and policy change in China.
Follow her on X @li_cammie or on BlueSky @cammieli.bsky.social.
Stories can help us make sense of this world by building compelling narratives in which the motives of and interactions between heroes, victims, and villains weave a plot, resulting in the resolution of the problem. However, a growing number of policy issues are becoming “intractable” in the sense that there is no easy way to address and solve the problem.
In this study, I employ the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to understand how the stories recounted during a mysterious epidemic decimating the population of olive trees in South-Eastern Italy were associated with the tractability of this policy problem. I analyze 79 editorials, opinion pieces, and guest columns published between 2014 and 2020 from five local and national news outlets across the political spectrum.
The study focuses on the debate surrounding the implementation of EU decisions aimed at tackling this epidemic. EU implementing decisions are normally a very drab and straightforward affair that should leave little space for competing narratives to take root. Nevertheless, several competing narratives did emerge about the causes of the problem, the best practices of implementation, and even the policy solution. Theories of policy implementation offer a theoretical hook to the NPF to address the association between narratives and tractability by suggesting that problems may become more tractable if a theory about the causes of the problem the implementing policy is addressing is developed.
In the study, I first test whether narratives that attribute different roles to characters and emphasize disagreements about the causes and solutions of the problem are suggestive of a higher degree of problem intractability. Secondly, I test whether the accumulation of scientific knowledge to generate a valid causal theory linking problems, means and solutions is associated with changes in the usage of narrative strategies.
The strongest differences in the use of characters were found for heroes, especially between the most ideologically opposed news outlets. Moreover, the analyzed documents differed in the way they weaved their plots, presented differing solutions, and made appeals to science to solve the problem. All but one news outlets also displayed a stronger use of blame-apportionment strategies (the so-called “devil shift”) as opposed to highlighting problem-fixers. Hence, these narrative elements created a vicious cycle of polarisation based on disagreements about the facts and theories and on the way forward, contributing to making this policy problem all the less tractable.
To assess whether the tractability of the problem changed over time thanks to the presence of established theories about the causes of the epidemic, I took a temporal approach to the devil shift. While scientists did manage to establish the causes of the epidemic in May 2017, Figure 1 shows that the news outlets continued to employ blame-apportionment strategies throughout the entire period of analysis.
From a substantive standpoint, the results of this study cast doubt on the ability of policy actors to engage in fruitful debates in an increasingly polarised world. Theoretically, however, the article represents a first attempt to bring the NPF together with the literature on problem definition and implementation. The three partly share a common language, and insights from each can add to the others’ theoretical and empirical developments.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Schito, Marco. 2023. Analyzing the association of policy narratives with problem tractability in the implementation of EU decisions: Evidence from the phytosanitary policy area. Policy Studies Journal, 51, 869–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12500
About the Author
Marco Schito is a researcher at the Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI) in Vilnius, Lithuania. His research interests involve socio-economic issues and state-business relations. He was most recently involved in studies about the effect of inflation on small and medium enterprises in the EU-27. E-mail: marco.schito@ppmi.lt
Policy Studies Journal Blog 