When the former hegemonic PRI won the 2012 election after 12 years of rule by PAN, the President shared with his predecessors a similar institutional setting and divided government. And yet, the PRI managed to pass all items of an extensive 2013 tax reform. If the setting was the same, why did PRI succeed when PAN had only limited success? Why was the 2013 tax reform progressive if PAN and PRI were ideologically proximate? Current explanations that characterize PAN's 2001 tax reforms as a failure because of an unsuccessful change to the Value‐Added Tax Law can accommodate neither the puzzling 2013 extensive tax overhaul nor the changes to the Income Tax Law that were indeed approved in 2001. To navigate these puzzles, I contrast the elements of both proposals and rely on two public policy theoretical frameworks literature, the Advocacy Coalitions and Multiple Streams frameworks to find that, despite representing political compromise over a shared agenda, the outcomes in 2001 and 2013 had less to do with commitment to a core of mutual beliefs and more with policy entrepreneurs of PRI and PRD taking a gamble on a window of opportunity.
在潘帕克党执政 12 年后，前霸权的革命党赢得了 2012 年大选，总统与前任有着相似的机构设置和分裂的政府。然而，PRI 成功通过了 2013 年广泛税制改革的所有项目。如果机构设置相同，为什么革命党能取得成功，而潘党只能取得有限的成功？如果 PAN 和 PRI 在意识形态上接近，为什么 2013 年的税制改革是渐进的？目前的解释将 PAN 2001 年的税制改革定性为由于对《增值税法》的修改不成功而导致的失败，这种解释既不能解释令人费解的 2013 年大范围税制改革，也不能解释 2001 年确实通过的对《所得税法》的修改。为了解开这些谜团，我对比了这两个提案的要素，并依据两个公共政策理论框架文献，即倡导联盟和多重流框架，发现尽管代表了对共同议程的政治妥协，但 2001 年和 2013 年的结果与对共同信念核心的承诺关系不大，更多的是人民革命阵线和人民民主联盟的政策企业家对机会之窗的赌博。
{"title":"Advocacy coalitions or pragmatic coupling of streams? Explaining policy change in Mexico: The tax reforms of Vicente Fox and Enrique Peña (2001 and 2013)","authors":"Oswaldo A. Mena Aguilar","doi":"10.1111/psj.12537","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12537","url":null,"abstract":"When the former hegemonic PRI won the 2012 election after 12 years of rule by PAN, the President shared with his predecessors a similar institutional setting and divided government. And yet, the PRI managed to pass all items of an extensive 2013 tax reform. If the setting was the same, why did PRI succeed when PAN had only limited success? Why was the 2013 tax reform progressive if PAN and PRI were ideologically proximate? Current explanations that characterize PAN's 2001 tax reforms as a failure because of an unsuccessful change to the Value‐Added Tax Law can accommodate neither the puzzling 2013 extensive tax overhaul nor the changes to the Income Tax Law that were indeed approved in 2001. To navigate these puzzles, I contrast the elements of both proposals and rely on two public policy theoretical frameworks literature, the Advocacy Coalitions and Multiple Streams frameworks to find that, despite representing political compromise over a shared agenda, the outcomes in 2001 and 2013 had less to do with commitment to a core of mutual beliefs and more with policy entrepreneurs of PRI and PRD taking a gamble on a window of opportunity.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140695868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anniina Kotkaniemi, Tuomas Ylä‐Anttila, Ted Hsuan Yun Chen
Social media is an important arena for policy contestation. Although online social media debates can yield notable power over political processes offline, little research has examined the relationship between policy actors' influence in offline policymaking and social media policy arenas. We explore the relationship between four types of influence: reputational and formal‐institutional influence offline, and broadcasting and boosting influence online. We ask (1) are influential policy actors better able than others to broadcast their own messages on social media? and (2) are they better able than others to boost the broadcasting influence of other policy actors in social media? Using exponential random graph models on survey and Twitter data from the Finnish climate policy domain, we find that actors with high reputational influence in offline policymaking are also influential online, when measuring influence as the ability to broadcast one's own message. The pattern does not hold for those with formal‐institutional influence offline. Additionally, offline influence does not translate to the ability to further shape online influence by making boosting other actors' visibility. Our results suggest that although online influence partially corresponds to influence in policymaking, influence varies across arenas of policy contestation.
{"title":"Policy influence and influencers online and off","authors":"Anniina Kotkaniemi, Tuomas Ylä‐Anttila, Ted Hsuan Yun Chen","doi":"10.1111/psj.12535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12535","url":null,"abstract":"Social media is an important arena for policy contestation. Although online social media debates can yield notable power over political processes offline, little research has examined the relationship between policy actors' influence in offline policymaking and social media policy arenas. We explore the relationship between four types of influence: reputational and formal‐institutional influence offline, and broadcasting and boosting influence online. We ask (1) are influential policy actors better able than others to broadcast their own messages on social media? and (2) are they better able than others to boost the broadcasting influence of other policy actors in social media? Using exponential random graph models on survey and Twitter data from the Finnish climate policy domain, we find that actors with high reputational influence in offline policymaking are also influential online, when measuring influence as the ability to broadcast one's own message. The pattern does not hold for those with formal‐institutional influence offline. Additionally, offline influence does not translate to the ability to further shape online influence by making boosting other actors' visibility. Our results suggest that although online influence partially corresponds to influence in policymaking, influence varies across arenas of policy contestation.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140700249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) posits that policy change is incremental for long periods of time with occasional shifts in problem definition and governing authority that produce large changes. Incrementalism results from shared norms and standard operating procedures within policy subsystems. The U.S. Congress experienced a series of institutional changes in the 1990s that both introduced more partisanship into subsystem interactions and made it easier for majority party leaders to enact their agenda. These changes have disrupted many of the processes that produce incrementalism. Using data from 1949 to 2022, I find that U.S. policy outputs, measured through public laws, have experienced fewer incremental changes from one term to the next and more moderate and very large changes since 1995. The shift in outputs has been driven primarily by increased partisan conflict within congressional committees. This study highlights the utility of using the stochastic process approach to compare distributions of outputs across time and not only across countries or institutions.
{"title":"The decline of incrementalism in U.S. lawmaking","authors":"J. Lewallen","doi":"10.1111/psj.12533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12533","url":null,"abstract":"Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) posits that policy change is incremental for long periods of time with occasional shifts in problem definition and governing authority that produce large changes. Incrementalism results from shared norms and standard operating procedures within policy subsystems. The U.S. Congress experienced a series of institutional changes in the 1990s that both introduced more partisanship into subsystem interactions and made it easier for majority party leaders to enact their agenda. These changes have disrupted many of the processes that produce incrementalism. Using data from 1949 to 2022, I find that U.S. policy outputs, measured through public laws, have experienced fewer incremental changes from one term to the next and more moderate and very large changes since 1995. The shift in outputs has been driven primarily by increased partisan conflict within congressional committees. This study highlights the utility of using the stochastic process approach to compare distributions of outputs across time and not only across countries or institutions.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140715363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The policy feedback literature has long argued that policies influence politics. Several scholars have examined the interpretive and resource effects of policies on political participation. However, how different policy design characteristics – say their generosity and their delivery – interact to influence political engagement requires further attention. This article demonstrates that policy characteristics within and between policies interact and can have counteracting or complementary effects on engagement. Through a comparative study of homelessness in Melbourne, Australia and Toronto, Canada, and drawing on over 100 interviews with individuals experiencing homelessness, service providers, and policymakers, this article demonstrates the complex effects of policies. Qualitative interview data reveal that different characteristics of policy interact to influence the venue and form of participation, as well as the experiences associated. Anatomizing policies provides nuance to our understanding of effects and interactions with important contributions and areas of future research for policy feedback theory.
{"title":"The interactive effects of policies: Insights for policy feedback theory from a qualitative study on homelessness","authors":"Anna Kopec","doi":"10.1111/psj.12532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12532","url":null,"abstract":"The policy feedback literature has long argued that policies influence politics. Several scholars have examined the interpretive and resource effects of policies on political participation. However, how different policy design characteristics – say their generosity and their delivery – interact to influence political engagement requires further attention. This article demonstrates that policy characteristics within and between policies interact and can have counteracting or complementary effects on engagement. Through a comparative study of homelessness in Melbourne, Australia and Toronto, Canada, and drawing on over 100 interviews with individuals experiencing homelessness, service providers, and policymakers, this article demonstrates the complex effects of policies. Qualitative interview data reveal that different characteristics of policy interact to influence the venue and form of participation, as well as the experiences associated. Anatomizing policies provides nuance to our understanding of effects and interactions with important contributions and areas of future research for policy feedback theory.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140718935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Does anxiety affect how public officials process policy information? It is often argued that the increasing number of policy failures can be explained by a lack of policy learning by decision makers. While previous studies show that socioeconomic and partisan variables are related to the perception of policy information, little attention has been paid to the role of emotions, such as anxiety, in the policymaking process. In this paper, we investigate the impact of anxiety on the policy learning of local office holders at the individual level in Switzerland. We introduce the Marcus' Affective Intelligence Model—which examines how emotions affect individuals' information processing—to the policy learning literature. To test the expectations of the model, we draw on novel experimental data collected among local elected officials from the 26 Swiss cantons. In the experiment, we randomly display anxiety‐inducing images along with policy information. We provide evidence that anxiety has a positive causal effect on learning. Considering potential moderators of this effect, we show that the relationship is not conditioned by the strength of priors or the perceived complexity of public policies. However, these variables are substantially correlated with policy learning. Our findings have important implications for better understanding how information influences policymaking.
{"title":"Does anxiety increase policy learning?","authors":"Moulay Lablih, Pirmin Bundi, Lea Portmann","doi":"10.1111/psj.12529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12529","url":null,"abstract":"Does anxiety affect how public officials process policy information? It is often argued that the increasing number of policy failures can be explained by a lack of policy learning by decision makers. While previous studies show that socioeconomic and partisan variables are related to the perception of policy information, little attention has been paid to the role of emotions, such as anxiety, in the policymaking process. In this paper, we investigate the impact of anxiety on the policy learning of local office holders at the individual level in Switzerland. We introduce the Marcus' Affective Intelligence Model—which examines how emotions affect individuals' information processing—to the policy learning literature. To test the expectations of the model, we draw on novel experimental data collected among local elected officials from the 26 Swiss cantons. In the experiment, we randomly display anxiety‐inducing images along with policy information. We provide evidence that anxiety has a positive causal effect on learning. Considering potential moderators of this effect, we show that the relationship is not conditioned by the strength of priors or the perceived complexity of public policies. However, these variables are substantially correlated with policy learning. Our findings have important implications for better understanding how information influences policymaking.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140435589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scholars have charted a dramatic rise in the use of preemption both at the federal and state levels since the 1970s, with courts and politicians from both parties enacting preemptions across a range of contentious issues. Thus, preemption is a critical feature of American policymaking—one that almost certainly shapes the political choices of policymakers, organized interests, and voters across levels of government. Despite its significance to the politics of policymaking, scholars have yet to systematically consider the political consequences of preemption. We apply the logic of policy feedback theory to create a framework for analyzing the political consequences of preemption. Specifically, we detail how the use of both federal‐state and state‐local preemption might produce unique resource and interpretive effects that shape the subsequent political behaviors of policymakers, organized interests, and the public. We then consider two illustrative cases—federal preemption of state consumer financial protections and state preemption of local gender identity anti‐discrimination statutes—to demonstrate our framework's application. The article addresses a gap in the preemption literature and provides a critical extension of policy feedback theory, proposing a research agenda for future work to help better understand the politics of a widely used policy tool.
{"title":"The policy feedback effects of preemption","authors":"Mallory E. SoRelle, Allegra H. Fullerton","doi":"10.1111/psj.12528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12528","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have charted a dramatic rise in the use of preemption both at the federal and state levels since the 1970s, with courts and politicians from both parties enacting preemptions across a range of contentious issues. Thus, preemption is a critical feature of American policymaking—one that almost certainly shapes the political choices of policymakers, organized interests, and voters across levels of government. Despite its significance to the politics of policymaking, scholars have yet to systematically consider the political consequences of preemption. We apply the logic of policy feedback theory to create a framework for analyzing the political consequences of preemption. Specifically, we detail how the use of both federal‐state and state‐local preemption might produce unique resource and interpretive effects that shape the subsequent political behaviors of policymakers, organized interests, and the public. We then consider two illustrative cases—federal preemption of state consumer financial protections and state preemption of local gender identity anti‐discrimination statutes—to demonstrate our framework's application. The article addresses a gap in the preemption literature and provides a critical extension of policy feedback theory, proposing a research agenda for future work to help better understand the politics of a widely used policy tool.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139803341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scholars have charted a dramatic rise in the use of preemption both at the federal and state levels since the 1970s, with courts and politicians from both parties enacting preemptions across a range of contentious issues. Thus, preemption is a critical feature of American policymaking—one that almost certainly shapes the political choices of policymakers, organized interests, and voters across levels of government. Despite its significance to the politics of policymaking, scholars have yet to systematically consider the political consequences of preemption. We apply the logic of policy feedback theory to create a framework for analyzing the political consequences of preemption. Specifically, we detail how the use of both federal‐state and state‐local preemption might produce unique resource and interpretive effects that shape the subsequent political behaviors of policymakers, organized interests, and the public. We then consider two illustrative cases—federal preemption of state consumer financial protections and state preemption of local gender identity anti‐discrimination statutes—to demonstrate our framework's application. The article addresses a gap in the preemption literature and provides a critical extension of policy feedback theory, proposing a research agenda for future work to help better understand the politics of a widely used policy tool.
{"title":"The policy feedback effects of preemption","authors":"Mallory E. SoRelle, Allegra H. Fullerton","doi":"10.1111/psj.12528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12528","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have charted a dramatic rise in the use of preemption both at the federal and state levels since the 1970s, with courts and politicians from both parties enacting preemptions across a range of contentious issues. Thus, preemption is a critical feature of American policymaking—one that almost certainly shapes the political choices of policymakers, organized interests, and voters across levels of government. Despite its significance to the politics of policymaking, scholars have yet to systematically consider the political consequences of preemption. We apply the logic of policy feedback theory to create a framework for analyzing the political consequences of preemption. Specifically, we detail how the use of both federal‐state and state‐local preemption might produce unique resource and interpretive effects that shape the subsequent political behaviors of policymakers, organized interests, and the public. We then consider two illustrative cases—federal preemption of state consumer financial protections and state preemption of local gender identity anti‐discrimination statutes—to demonstrate our framework's application. The article addresses a gap in the preemption literature and provides a critical extension of policy feedback theory, proposing a research agenda for future work to help better understand the politics of a widely used policy tool.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139863119","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The complexity of metropolitan polycentric governance is still challenging scholars and practitioners, who have mostly been engaged in a normative debate in which scant attention has been paid to the coexistence and interdependence of institutional solutions. The ecology of games framework (EGF) can be used to remedy this gap. By incorporating the analysis of institutional variation into EGF propositions about venues' interdependence, this article examines the mechanisms of metropolitan governance configuration resulting from institutional complexity at the inter‐municipal level. Provincial forums, municipal associations, and inter‐municipal agreements are the policy venues studied in the Santiago Metropolitan Region, Chile. Official documents reporting formal agreements in 2017–2021 help to capture the inter‐municipal governance network to which we apply exponential random graph models (ERGMs). The results show the positive effects of mandated provincial venues on inter‐municipal ties and the absence of the effect of self‐organized municipal associations, tendencies that prevail even when incorporating other relevant covariates into the models. These results nourish the EGF debate about interdependencies between coexisting policy venues, emphasizing the role of the different institutional attributes framing the policy venues and the effects of these differences on governance formation.
{"title":"Participation in multiple policy venues in governance of Chile's Santiago Metropolitan Region: When institutional attributes can make the difference","authors":"Karina Arias-Yurisch, Karina Retamal-Soto, Camila Ramos-Fuenzalida, Alejandro Espinosa-Rada","doi":"10.1111/psj.12527","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12527","url":null,"abstract":"The complexity of metropolitan polycentric governance is still challenging scholars and practitioners, who have mostly been engaged in a normative debate in which scant attention has been paid to the coexistence and interdependence of institutional solutions. The ecology of games framework (EGF) can be used to remedy this gap. By incorporating the analysis of institutional variation into EGF propositions about venues' interdependence, this article examines the mechanisms of metropolitan governance configuration resulting from institutional complexity at the inter‐municipal level. Provincial forums, municipal associations, and inter‐municipal agreements are the policy venues studied in the Santiago Metropolitan Region, Chile. Official documents reporting formal agreements in 2017–2021 help to capture the inter‐municipal governance network to which we apply exponential random graph models (ERGMs). The results show the positive effects of mandated provincial venues on inter‐municipal ties and the absence of the effect of self‐organized municipal associations, tendencies that prevail even when incorporating other relevant covariates into the models. These results nourish the EGF debate about interdependencies between coexisting policy venues, emphasizing the role of the different institutional attributes framing the policy venues and the effects of these differences on governance formation.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139595139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Several theories of policy change posit that the politics of defining and prioritizing problems differs from the politics of devising and selecting solutions. The former involves simplifying through heuristics like indicators and ideology while the latter incorporates policy analysis and expertise to a greater degree. By employing two large datasets of U.S. congressional hearings to analyze policymakers' behavior of sending political messages, which we call “grandstanding,” we offer two findings. First, consistent with our hypotheses, grandstanding is more prevalent when committees are focused on new and emerging problems than when committees examine proposed alternatives or the implementation of existing policies. Second, the cognitive dynamics of problem solving and the incentives to grandstand vary depending on policy issues considered in hearings. Our analysis helps put dissatisfaction with contemporary U.S. policymaking in context: a rise in “messaging politics” derives at least in part from an increased focus on contesting the problem space in agenda‐setting venues.
{"title":"The politics of problems versus solutions: Policymaking and grandstanding in congressional hearings","authors":"J. Lewallen, Ju Yeon Park, Sean M. Theriault","doi":"10.1111/psj.12526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12526","url":null,"abstract":"Several theories of policy change posit that the politics of defining and prioritizing problems differs from the politics of devising and selecting solutions. The former involves simplifying through heuristics like indicators and ideology while the latter incorporates policy analysis and expertise to a greater degree. By employing two large datasets of U.S. congressional hearings to analyze policymakers' behavior of sending political messages, which we call “grandstanding,” we offer two findings. First, consistent with our hypotheses, grandstanding is more prevalent when committees are focused on new and emerging problems than when committees examine proposed alternatives or the implementation of existing policies. Second, the cognitive dynamics of problem solving and the incentives to grandstand vary depending on policy issues considered in hearings. Our analysis helps put dissatisfaction with contemporary U.S. policymaking in context: a rise in “messaging politics” derives at least in part from an increased focus on contesting the problem space in agenda‐setting venues.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139602236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jack Mewhirter, Danielle M. McLaughlin, Brian Calfano
Collaboration is a widely employed strategy for addressing “wicked” policy problems. While scholars have long recognized that the organizational composition of collaborative forums can have a dramatic impact on the efficacy and equity of associated forum outputs, little is known about whether such composition impacts the manner in which everyday citizens perceive forum processes and/or participating organizations. In this article, we bridge and extend concepts from the collaborative governance and representative bureaucracy literatures, arguing that when forums attract sufficient membership from organizations that citizens perceive as reflective of their own or their community's interests—what we refer to as “forum representation”—those citizens will have more positive perceptions toward all participating organizations. Conversely, failing to achieve sufficient representation can result in degraded perceptions. While there are theoretically multiple ways to increase forum representation, we focus on one potential pathway: the inclusion of civil society organizations in policy‐making processes. Empirically, we assess whether heightened representation of civil society groups within a specific collaborative policing forum impacts citizens' perceptions of the main participating agency—the police department—finding that greater knowledge of this highly representative forum results in positive spillover effects.
{"title":"Manifesting symbolic representation through collaborative policymaking","authors":"Jack Mewhirter, Danielle M. McLaughlin, Brian Calfano","doi":"10.1111/psj.12525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12525","url":null,"abstract":"Collaboration is a widely employed strategy for addressing “wicked” policy problems. While scholars have long recognized that the organizational composition of collaborative forums can have a dramatic impact on the efficacy and equity of associated forum outputs, little is known about whether such composition impacts the manner in which everyday citizens perceive forum processes and/or participating organizations. In this article, we bridge and extend concepts from the collaborative governance and representative bureaucracy literatures, arguing that when forums attract sufficient membership from organizations that citizens perceive as reflective of their own or their community's interests—what we refer to as “forum representation”—those citizens will have more positive perceptions toward all participating organizations. Conversely, failing to achieve sufficient representation can result in degraded perceptions. While there are theoretically multiple ways to increase forum representation, we focus on one potential pathway: the inclusion of civil society organizations in policy‐making processes. Empirically, we assess whether heightened representation of civil society groups within a specific collaborative policing forum impacts citizens' perceptions of the main participating agency—the police department—finding that greater knowledge of this highly representative forum results in positive spillover effects.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139445890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：