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.

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.

climate change, environmental governance, local government, Policy Diffusion, scaling

Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy

by Chris Koski & Paul Manson

Climate change is by any definition a wicked problem with myriad potential policy tools and even more potential targets. Policymakers face difficult political choices when designing policies to combat climate change. Among these choices are who should bear the costs and benefits of various policy tool options. Policy tools can be carrots and sticks, and policymakers assign these differently based on who will receive either option. Previous attempts to address climate change at the federal level have largely relied on subsidies and guidance rather than rules and punishment. Winners in these choices have been those with power to influence outcomes.

Previous research on federal climate policy has sought to explain failure both in legislation and executive action. Why have efforts to establish a carbon market in the US failed? What was the source of demise for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (and can Biden breathe life into it)? Public opinion research has focused on understanding support for climate policies, including very specific proposals (e.g. cap and trade). Missing from this work is the general answer to the question: How do policy design features influence public support for policy?

Our article “Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy,” recently published in Policy Studies Journal, addresses this question. Our work is situated in the literature on policy deservingness and the resurgence of interest in the social construction of target populations framework.

Using a national survey experiment, we assessed support for seven policy tools across the four archetypal target populations built on Schneider and Ingram’s Policy Design for Democracy. We find that climate policies are popular across all target populations. Contemporary federal climate policy focuses on carrots: de-emphasizing regulations, leveraging subsidies, and creating carve-outs for firms. In contrast, we find the public prefers sticks: policies that impose burdens – in our case, policies that mandate behaviors – for nearly all target populations, even the positively constructed groups who have power. The public still supports subsidizing most populations, but not those viewed as undeserving. Perhaps the most striking contrast between our findings and the federal policy discourse on climate change is that we find Americans are broadly hostile to giving groups exceptions to climate rules, a carrot they will not share with others.

Future work could consider a more complex, and realistic, view of policymaking, namely, that policies target bundles of populations with multiple tools. For example, the Biden administration has taken two distinct approaches to electric vehicle policies in the US, creating subsidies to purchase or lease EVs as well as proposing fuel economy standards that require automakers to increase fleet efficiency. Our current research and research we plan for the future hope to improve the relationship between design and public support for policy.

Editor’s Note: This article won the 2024 Theodore J. Lowi Policy Studies Journal Best Article Award. Congratulations to the authors!

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Koski, Chris and Paul Manson. 2024. “Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy.” Policy Studies Journal, 52(2): 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12520.

About the Authors

Chris Koski is the Daniel B. Greenberg Professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. He is co-author of Means, Motives, and Opportunities: How Executives and Interest Groups Set Public Policy with Christian Breunig published by Cambridge University Press (2024).

Paul Manson is Assistant Research Professor with the Center for Public Service at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon.

climate change, deservingness, Policy Design, policy tools, social construction framework

Linking Issues for Long-Term Governance Success

by Dana A. Dolan

Governments frequently grapple with a perpetual cycle of reacting to immediate crises, leaving little room for proactive, long-term policy development. The concept of long-term governance, characterized by policies promising future benefits but incurring short-term costs, often faces challenges in securing priority amid more pressing issues.

Nonetheless, the importance of long-term governance cannot be understated, given its historical successes and its relevance in addressing contemporary global challenges. For instance, the establishment of America’s National Park System was a clear investment in preserving nature for future generations. Today, nations worldwide confront a mounting array of long-term challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, immigration reform, and extreme economic inequality.

Lessons from Australian Climate Adaptation Policy

In a 2021 Policy Studies Journal article, I examined the process leading to Australia’s 2007 Water Act, one of the world’s earliest national climate adaptation policies, for insights into achieving long-term governance goals. The case presented several theoretical puzzles: why did Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a known climate science skeptic, champion this policy? Why did the conservative Howard Government support a policy that aimed to redirect water resources from lucrative agriculture to environmental conservation, contrary to its usual priorities? Why did the proposal garner public and political support during a severe decade-long drought, when all water users fiercely protected their allocations?

I applied Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, analyzing the evolution of problem, policy, and political streams, and the process of coupling these streams to favor policy change over the status quo. After analyzing each of the three streams in depth, this study delved deeper into the coupling process. Its unique insight highlighted the interplay among “partial couplings” (illustrated in Figure 1 below) that connected pairs of streams for multiple policy issues.

**Figure 1.** Alternative Approaches to Coupling All Three Streams.

In the Australian case, climate change rose on the policy agenda and became law under the 2007 Water Act, despite not all three streams being ready for coupling. This departure from basic expectations was explained by the policy entrepreneurial strategy known as issue linking. This strategy rhetorically connected the three streams of problems, policies, and politics through partial couplings involving three related issues: climate change (a valid problem with public demand but no viable policy solution), water management (a salient problem with a feasible solution but lacking political will), and adaptive governance (an accepted solution with political backing but no salient problem).

This configuration of multiple partial couplings allowed proponents of policy change to construct a convincing argument for legislative action. For a recent explanation of the MSF theory behind the coupling process, refer to Dolan and Blum’s work (2023/in press)

Issue Linking through Multiple Partial Couplings

Issue linking emerges as a pivotal strategy for overcoming the challenges of long-term policymaking, where problems are recognized, viable policy solutions exist, but political will is lacking. However, not every combination of issues proves effective. Linked issues only succeed when the combination connects all pairs of streams through multiple partial couplings. In essence, issue linking serves as a guiding principle for policymakers navigating the complexities of long-term governance, where decisions today can shape a better and more sustainable tomorrow.

**You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at**

Dolan, Dana A. 2021. “Multiple Partial Couplings in the Multiple Streams Framework: The Case of Extreme Weather and Climate Change Adaptation.” Policy Studies Journal 49(1): 164–89. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psj.12341#

Other References

Dolan, Dana A., and Sonja Blum. 2023/in press. “The Beating Heart of the MSF: Coupling as a Process.” In The Modern Guide to the Multiple Streams Framework, eds. Nikolaos Zahariadis, Nicole Herweg, Reimut Zohlnhöfer, and Evangelia Petridou. Edward Elgar.

About the Author

Dana A. Dolan is a policy fellow and adjunct faculty member at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government. She is also a professorial lecturer in international affairs at The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Her research focuses on long-term governance issues, the politics of policymaking, and refining Kingdon’s Multiple Streams theory of the policy process. Her theory-driven work has been featured in top journals like Policy Studies Journal and Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment.

climate change, environmental policy, long-term governance, Multiple Streams Framework