Policy responses to the challenges associated with environmental change, including more frequent and severe climatic events, have interlinked environmental and social impacts. Less attention has been afforded to the latter, and specifically to the question of not just whether but how such responses create or entrench inequality. This paper examines policy responses to drought events in California, United States, and the Western Cape Province, South Africa, in terms of their effects on inequality, revealed in relationships to water access networks. We use concepts of water justice and hydraulic citizenship to evaluate how and why these policy responses reproduced water injustices in the two settings. We focus particularly on two mechanisms linking responses to widened inequalities: values‐reinforcement and strategic communication. Using interviews, policy documents, and media reports, we employ process tracing methods to illustrate these mechanisms through which drought policy impacts hydraulic citizenship experiences, manifesting water injustice. We contribute to emerging examinations of environmental policy responses and maladaptation by demonstrating how concepts of hydraulic citizenship and an emphasis on mechanisms can help us better understand and identify experiences of water injustice. We note policy implications and areas for future research, highlighting droughts as consequential policy sites for advancing social and environmental justice.
{"title":"Whose water crisis? How policy responses to acute environmental change widen inequality","authors":"Olivia David, Sara Hughes","doi":"10.1111/psj.12524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12524","url":null,"abstract":"Policy responses to the challenges associated with environmental change, including more frequent and severe climatic events, have interlinked environmental and social impacts. Less attention has been afforded to the latter, and specifically to the question of not just whether but how such responses create or entrench inequality. This paper examines policy responses to drought events in California, United States, and the Western Cape Province, South Africa, in terms of their effects on inequality, revealed in relationships to water access networks. We use concepts of water justice and hydraulic citizenship to evaluate how and why these policy responses reproduced water injustices in the two settings. We focus particularly on two mechanisms linking responses to widened inequalities: values‐reinforcement and strategic communication. Using interviews, policy documents, and media reports, we employ process tracing methods to illustrate these mechanisms through which drought policy impacts hydraulic citizenship experiences, manifesting water injustice. We contribute to emerging examinations of environmental policy responses and maladaptation by demonstrating how concepts of hydraulic citizenship and an emphasis on mechanisms can help us better understand and identify experiences of water injustice. We note policy implications and areas for future research, highlighting droughts as consequential policy sites for advancing social and environmental justice.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139149337","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}
Narrative storytelling surrounds us. Narratives are especially salient in politics, as policy problems do not simply exist, but are actively created through the stories policy actors tell. Scholars introduced the narrative policy framework (NPF) to create a generalized framework for studying how policy actors use storytelling strategically to influence policy. We use the NPF to examine the recent rise of critical race theory (CRT) in policy debates. We demonstrate that increasing exposure to the ban‐CRT narrative plots led to greater support for a ban on CRT, particularly for White and Republican individuals. Finally, we introduce and test the concept of narrative spillover, which provides a new way of thinking about how micro, meso, and macro policy narratives interact to influence‐related political beliefs and macrolevel beliefs about institutions and culture.
{"title":"Narrative spillover: A narrative policy framework analysis of critical race theory discourse at multiple levels","authors":"Ariell Rose Bertrand, M. Lyon, Rebecca Jacobsen","doi":"10.1111/psj.12523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12523","url":null,"abstract":"Narrative storytelling surrounds us. Narratives are especially salient in politics, as policy problems do not simply exist, but are actively created through the stories policy actors tell. Scholars introduced the narrative policy framework (NPF) to create a generalized framework for studying how policy actors use storytelling strategically to influence policy. We use the NPF to examine the recent rise of critical race theory (CRT) in policy debates. We demonstrate that increasing exposure to the ban‐CRT narrative plots led to greater support for a ban on CRT, particularly for White and Republican individuals. Finally, we introduce and test the concept of narrative spillover, which provides a new way of thinking about how micro, meso, and macro policy narratives interact to influence‐related political beliefs and macrolevel beliefs about institutions and culture.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138954757","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}
In the study of the policy diffusion process, scholars have found that states adopt policies to remain competitive with one another over economic resources. But the rapid spread of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies, which treat college athletes as professionals, is not readily explained by economic competition nor other diffusion mechanisms. The NIL phenomenon points to a new dimension of competition between the states, which is more closely tied to states protecting or enhancing their reputations than it is to directly accruing economic resources. To test if NIL spread as the result of athletic reputation competition, we model the adoption of NIL legislation as a function of internal characteristics (i.e. number, value, and ranking of college football programs) and interstate dynamics (i.e. actions of football, conference, and Power 5 competitors). We test the effect of these measures alongside traditional diffusion indicators, finding that both internal and interstate indicators of athletic competition drive states to adopt and implement NIL. NIL is important to study as it has changed the landscape of amateur sports, as well as our scholarly understanding of policy diffusion in the American federal system, specifically broadening our conceptualization of the competition mechanism and developing customized measures of it.
{"title":"Athletic competition between the states: The rapid spread of Name, Image, Likeness laws and why it matters for understanding policy diffusion","authors":"Roshaun Colvin, Joshua M. Jansa","doi":"10.1111/psj.12522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12522","url":null,"abstract":"In the study of the policy diffusion process, scholars have found that states adopt policies to remain competitive with one another over economic resources. But the rapid spread of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies, which treat college athletes as professionals, is not readily explained by economic competition nor other diffusion mechanisms. The NIL phenomenon points to a new dimension of competition between the states, which is more closely tied to states protecting or enhancing their reputations than it is to directly accruing economic resources. To test if NIL spread as the result of athletic reputation competition, we model the adoption of NIL legislation as a function of internal characteristics (i.e. number, value, and ranking of college football programs) and interstate dynamics (i.e. actions of football, conference, and Power 5 competitors). We test the effect of these measures alongside traditional diffusion indicators, finding that both internal and interstate indicators of athletic competition drive states to adopt and implement NIL. NIL is important to study as it has changed the landscape of amateur sports, as well as our scholarly understanding of policy diffusion in the American federal system, specifically broadening our conceptualization of the competition mechanism and developing customized measures of it.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138967712","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}
Geoboo Song, Melissa K. Merry, Holly L. Peterson, Davor Mondom, Briana Huett, Izehi Oriaghan, Creed Tumlison, Camille Gilmore, Gwen Arnold, Aaron Smith‐Walter, Saba Siddiki, Heasun Choi
As we approach the end of another year, we are delighted to introduce the final issue of the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ), Volume 51, Issue 4. This issue marks the culmination of an outstanding year with incredible contributions from various research traditions in the field. We are excited to present 10 top-quality articles from established and emerging scholars, which explore diverse themes related to policy theory and a range of substantive policy domains. Alongside these exceptional articles, we are thrilled to announce some significant developments and updates in PSJ's operations, including the addition of new editors, the launch of the PSJ Blog, the addition of short articles, and a call for special issue papers. These developments aim to further enhance the journal's impact as a leading publication outlet in the field. In this editorial, we will provide an overview of these exciting updates, as well as highlight the excellent contributions in this issue. Firstly, we would like to welcome Dr. Saba Siddiki (Syracuse University) as our new Associate Editor. We are confident that her expertise and experience will enhance our editorial team's strengths. Additionally, we are proud to have Drs. Heasun Choi (University of Arkansas), Briana Huett (Drexel University), and Davor Mondom (Syracuse University) join us as Managing Editors. They will contribute to PSJ in various capacities, ensuring that the journal stays up-to-date with cutting-edge research in the field. Aligned with our mission of fostering a vibrant community of policy scholars, practitioners, and citizens, we are excited to launch the PSJ Blog (https://psjblog.net). Led by Dr. Melissa Merry, our Associate Editor, the PSJ Blog provides a platform for authors to extend the reach and impact of their research and encourages dialogue between policy researchers and practitioners. We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Merry for her enthusiastic commitment to spearheading this initiative as the PSJ Blog Editor. In our dedication to publishing top-notch policy research that facilitates meaningful conversation within the policy community, we are pleased to announce that we are now accepting manuscripts in short article form (3000–5000 words). These submissions are expected to meet the same rigorous standards for theoretical depth and methodological sophistication as full PSJ articles. The difference is that short articles offer a narrower contribution, concisely communicating new ideas or approaches in policy research. We extend our appreciation to Dr. Gwen Arnold, our Associate Editor, for leading this endeavor as the PSJ Short Article Editor and welcome your contributions. We are excited to share that we are currently working on publishing a PSJ special issue on homelessness in the upcoming year. Homelessness is a critical social problem that calls for innovative and resolute policy solutions. We eagerly anticipate more impactful policy research to contribute to the policymaking process in
在又一年即将结束之际，我们很高兴地向大家介绍《政策研究杂志》(PSJ)的最后一期，第51卷第4期。本期杂志标志着这一杰出的一年的高潮，该领域的各种研究传统做出了令人难以置信的贡献。我们很高兴为您呈现来自知名和新兴学者的10篇高质量文章，这些文章探讨了与政策理论和一系列实质性政策领域相关的不同主题。除了这些特别的文章，我们还激动地宣布PSJ的一些重大发展和更新，包括增加新的编辑，PSJ博客的推出，增加短篇文章，以及特刊论文的征集。这些发展旨在进一步提高该期刊作为该领域领先出版渠道的影响力。在这篇社论中，我们将概述这些令人兴奋的更新，并突出这一期的优秀贡献。首先，我们欢迎Saba Siddiki博士(雪城大学)成为我们新的副主编。我们相信，她的专业知识和经验将增强我们编辑团队的优势。此外，我们很荣幸有博士。Heasun Choi(阿肯色大学)，Briana Huett(德雷塞尔大学)和Davor Mondom(雪城大学)加入我们担任总编辑。他们将以各种方式为《PSJ》做出贡献，确保该杂志与该领域的前沿研究保持同步。我们的使命是培养一个充满活力的政策学者、实践者和公民社区，我们很高兴推出PSJ博客(https://psjblog.net)。由我们的副主编梅利莎·梅里博士领导，PSJ博客为作者提供了一个扩大其研究范围和影响的平台，并鼓励政策研究者和实践者之间的对话。我们对Merry博士作为《PSJ》博客编辑的热情承诺表示衷心的感谢。我们致力于发表一流的政策研究成果，促进政策界有意义的对话，我们很高兴地宣布，我们现在接受短文形式的稿件(3000-5000字)。这些提交的论文预计将在理论深度和方法复杂性方面达到与完整的PSJ文章相同的严格标准。不同之处在于，短文的贡献范围较窄，它简明地传达了政策研究中的新思想或新方法。我们感谢我们的副主编Gwen Arnold博士作为《PSJ》短文编辑领导这项工作，并欢迎您的贡献。我们很高兴地告诉大家，我们目前正致力于在即将到来的一年出版一本关于无家可归的PSJ特刊。无家可归是一个关键的社会问题，需要创新和果断的政策解决方案。我们热切期待有更多有影响力的政策研究为这一领域的决策过程做出贡献。我们向我们的副主编格温·阿诺德博士表示衷心的感谢，感谢她出色的领导能力，率先发起了这一期特刊。最后，我们很自豪地宣布，今年美国政治科学协会(APSA)公共政策部门的西奥多·j·洛伊政策研究杂志最佳文章奖将颁给罗博士。Saba Siddiki, Tanya Heikkila, Christopher M. Weible, Raul Pacheco-Vega, David Carter, Cali Curley, Aaron Deslatte和Abby Bennett获奖，他们的文章题为“用制度语法进行制度分析”。在这篇文章中，Siddiki等人(2022)重新引入了ostrom型制度语法，作为评估制度结构和内容的一种方法。祝贺所有获奖者!关于本期的文章，首先，我们有四篇原创研究文章，重点关注各种政策理论及其在政策过程不同方面的应用。这些文章为推进倡导联盟框架(ACF)提供了有价值的见解(佐藤等人，2023;Weible et al.， 2023)、政策设计(Koski & Siddiki, 2022)、政府间合作(Kim et al.， 2022)和问责制度框架(ARF;Hui & Smith, 2022)。在第一篇文章“联盟级联:清洁能源转型中的临界点政治”中，Meckling和Goedeking(2023)提供了一个新的分析框架来研究清洁能源转型背景下政策子系统之间的相互作用。通过分析加州的案例，作者说明了跨子系统的政策反馈和联盟建设如何导致动员协调行动实现可持续能源转型的临界点。在第二篇文章“在公共政策设计中实现社会公平:美国太阳能公平政策的比较分析”中，周等人。
{"title":"Editorial introduction: Exploring policy theories, narratives, and policing","authors":"Geoboo Song, Melissa K. Merry, Holly L. Peterson, Davor Mondom, Briana Huett, Izehi Oriaghan, Creed Tumlison, Camille Gilmore, Gwen Arnold, Aaron Smith‐Walter, Saba Siddiki, Heasun Choi","doi":"10.1111/psj.12521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12521","url":null,"abstract":"As we approach the end of another year, we are delighted to introduce the final issue of the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ), Volume 51, Issue 4. This issue marks the culmination of an outstanding year with incredible contributions from various research traditions in the field. We are excited to present 10 top-quality articles from established and emerging scholars, which explore diverse themes related to policy theory and a range of substantive policy domains. Alongside these exceptional articles, we are thrilled to announce some significant developments and updates in PSJ's operations, including the addition of new editors, the launch of the PSJ Blog, the addition of short articles, and a call for special issue papers. These developments aim to further enhance the journal's impact as a leading publication outlet in the field. In this editorial, we will provide an overview of these exciting updates, as well as highlight the excellent contributions in this issue. Firstly, we would like to welcome Dr. Saba Siddiki (Syracuse University) as our new Associate Editor. We are confident that her expertise and experience will enhance our editorial team's strengths. Additionally, we are proud to have Drs. Heasun Choi (University of Arkansas), Briana Huett (Drexel University), and Davor Mondom (Syracuse University) join us as Managing Editors. They will contribute to PSJ in various capacities, ensuring that the journal stays up-to-date with cutting-edge research in the field. Aligned with our mission of fostering a vibrant community of policy scholars, practitioners, and citizens, we are excited to launch the PSJ Blog (https://psjblog.net). Led by Dr. Melissa Merry, our Associate Editor, the PSJ Blog provides a platform for authors to extend the reach and impact of their research and encourages dialogue between policy researchers and practitioners. We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Merry for her enthusiastic commitment to spearheading this initiative as the PSJ Blog Editor. In our dedication to publishing top-notch policy research that facilitates meaningful conversation within the policy community, we are pleased to announce that we are now accepting manuscripts in short article form (3000–5000 words). These submissions are expected to meet the same rigorous standards for theoretical depth and methodological sophistication as full PSJ articles. The difference is that short articles offer a narrower contribution, concisely communicating new ideas or approaches in policy research. We extend our appreciation to Dr. Gwen Arnold, our Associate Editor, for leading this endeavor as the PSJ Short Article Editor and welcome your contributions. We are excited to share that we are currently working on publishing a PSJ special issue on homelessness in the upcoming year. Homelessness is a critical social problem that calls for innovative and resolute policy solutions. We eagerly anticipate more impactful policy research to contribute to the policymaking process in ","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135041820","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}
Elizabeth Baldwin, Andreas Thiel, Michael McGinnis, Elke Kellner
Abstract Polycentric governance (PG) describes governance systems characterized by multiple, interdependent centers of decision‐making, offering an alternative to centralized governance models. PG is often assumed to be effective at helping policy actors address complex collective action problems, but burgeoning empirical literature on PG shows that it is not a panacea – PG is associated with both positive and negative governance outcomes. In this article, we ask: what do we know about why PG performs well in some cases but not in others? We start with a systematic review, synthesizing findings that provide empirical support for positive and negative features that are theorized to accompany PG. Our review reveals a critical gap in relation to our understanding of PG: the existing empirical literature largely fails to address change and evolution over time in PG systems, undermining our understanding of why PG works – or does not– across different contexts and over time. To fill this gap, we propose a “Context – Operations – Outcomes – Feedbacks” (COOF) framework that draws explicit attention to the interplay between context, operational arrangements, outcomes and identifies feedback pathways and adjustment mechanisms that drive dynamic change and evolution over time.
{"title":"Empirical research on polycentric governance: Critical gaps and a framework for studying long‐term change","authors":"Elizabeth Baldwin, Andreas Thiel, Michael McGinnis, Elke Kellner","doi":"10.1111/psj.12518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12518","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Polycentric governance (PG) describes governance systems characterized by multiple, interdependent centers of decision‐making, offering an alternative to centralized governance models. PG is often assumed to be effective at helping policy actors address complex collective action problems, but burgeoning empirical literature on PG shows that it is not a panacea – PG is associated with both positive and negative governance outcomes. In this article, we ask: what do we know about why PG performs well in some cases but not in others? We start with a systematic review, synthesizing findings that provide empirical support for positive and negative features that are theorized to accompany PG. Our review reveals a critical gap in relation to our understanding of PG: the existing empirical literature largely fails to address change and evolution over time in PG systems, undermining our understanding of why PG works – or does not– across different contexts and over time. To fill this gap, we propose a “Context – Operations – Outcomes – Feedbacks” (COOF) framework that draws explicit attention to the interplay between context, operational arrangements, outcomes and identifies feedback pathways and adjustment mechanisms that drive dynamic change and evolution over time.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135341608","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}
Abstract The public‐elite policy feedback mechanism of the Social Construction Framework (SCF) postulates that the public rewards policymakers for the appropriate distribution of benefits and burdens to target populations. In this article we test a key part of this dynamic by examining public receptivity to policy design features as a function of target population choice. We conduct a national survey experiment of approximately 3350 Americans. Our instrument asks respondents to indicate support or opposition to a range of policy tools in a suite of six climate change policies, but varies who would be responsible for options based upon Schneider and Ingram's idealized types. Our research design tests the independent effects of deservingness and power foundational to the construction of target populations in the SCF. We find, in general, deservingness to be a stronger predictor of support for policy tools than notions of power. We also identify situations where deservingness acts independently of power in ways not anticipated by the SCF—notably public favor for burdens on powerful groups. Our findings offer implications for theoretical and empirical development of the SCF regarding the influence of policymakers' perceptions of public acceptance of policy design in crafting public policies.
{"title":"Policy design receptivity and target populations: A social construction framework approach to climate change policy","authors":"Chris Koski, Paul Manson","doi":"10.1111/psj.12520","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12520","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The public‐elite policy feedback mechanism of the Social Construction Framework (SCF) postulates that the public rewards policymakers for the appropriate distribution of benefits and burdens to target populations. In this article we test a key part of this dynamic by examining public receptivity to policy design features as a function of target population choice. We conduct a national survey experiment of approximately 3350 Americans. Our instrument asks respondents to indicate support or opposition to a range of policy tools in a suite of six climate change policies, but varies who would be responsible for options based upon Schneider and Ingram's idealized types. Our research design tests the independent effects of deservingness and power foundational to the construction of target populations in the SCF. We find, in general, deservingness to be a stronger predictor of support for policy tools than notions of power. We also identify situations where deservingness acts independently of power in ways not anticipated by the SCF—notably public favor for burdens on powerful groups. Our findings offer implications for theoretical and empirical development of the SCF regarding the influence of policymakers' perceptions of public acceptance of policy design in crafting public policies.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135726606","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 American policy process is characterized by a pattern known as “Punctuated Equilibrium,” manifesting as periods of stasis interspersed with large periods of change. Punctuated equilibrium suggests that friction in the policy process and uneven information processing result in a policy process that over‐ and underreacts to problems. Increasingly, American political institutions are also characterized by high levels of partisanship, which are rising steadily and represent one of many sources of institutional friction. We argue that with increased polarization, the policy process has become longer, exaggerating patterns of stasis and punctuation—the periods of stasis being more prolonged and punctuations less frequent. In sum, increased partisan polarization in Congress amplifies patterns of punctuated equilibrium. We test this theory using data from the Comparative Agendas Project on the federal budget and public laws, using kurtosis scores to measure the relative force of punctuations versus statis. We find increasingly leptokurtic distributions of budget changes from 1948 to 2020, but a decreasingly leptokurtic distribution of public law passage across the same time. These findings indicate that polarization has resulted in exaggerated patterns of punctuated equilibrium in the legislative process, and a tendency toward fewer, higher‐stakes public laws.
{"title":"Measuring the stasis: Punctuated equilibrium theory and partisan polarization","authors":"Clare Brock, Daniel Mallinson","doi":"10.1111/psj.12519","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12519","url":null,"abstract":"The American policy process is characterized by a pattern known as “Punctuated Equilibrium,” manifesting as periods of stasis interspersed with large periods of change. Punctuated equilibrium suggests that friction in the policy process and uneven information processing result in a policy process that over‐ and underreacts to problems. Increasingly, American political institutions are also characterized by high levels of partisanship, which are rising steadily and represent one of many sources of institutional friction. We argue that with increased polarization, the policy process has become longer, exaggerating patterns of stasis and punctuation—the periods of stasis being more prolonged and punctuations less frequent. In sum, increased partisan polarization in Congress amplifies patterns of punctuated equilibrium. We test this theory using data from the Comparative Agendas Project on the federal budget and public laws, using kurtosis scores to measure the relative force of punctuations versus statis. We find increasingly leptokurtic distributions of budget changes from 1948 to 2020, but a decreasingly leptokurtic distribution of public law passage across the same time. These findings indicate that polarization has resulted in exaggerated patterns of punctuated equilibrium in the legislative process, and a tendency toward fewer, higher‐stakes public laws.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135819702","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}
Abstract Interest group literature suggests reformer advocacy groups, seeking policy change and innovation, are more likely to secure policy victory in local government. Entrenched advocacy groups, favoring current policies, are better suited to win policy battles at the state level. Consequently, entrenched groups have pushed state legislatures to limit local governments' decision authorities through preemption across a wide range of public‐interest issues including tobacco use, gun control, marriage rights, and climate change. Yet few studies have considered how competing advocacy groups strategically frame their agenda in preemption debates. We draw on the “scope of conflict” literature to show that opposing camps vary in their issue definition, relational strategies, and institutional frames. For example, while entrenched advocates focus on the main issue under debate, reformer advocates link multiple issues together. Our study case is preemption legislation that prohibits local governments from banning energy fuels like natural gas in new buildings. We use computational text analysis and descriptive inference to analyze state committee testimony of 117 advocacy groups. Results raise important questions about the effectiveness of conflict expansion strategies in venues like committee systems and provide considerations for reformer advocates in their efforts to secure state support and build clean energy campaigns.
{"title":"Advocacy strategies in state preemption: The case of energy fuel bans","authors":"Cory L. Struthers, Cary Ritzler","doi":"10.1111/psj.12517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12517","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Interest group literature suggests reformer advocacy groups, seeking policy change and innovation, are more likely to secure policy victory in local government. Entrenched advocacy groups, favoring current policies, are better suited to win policy battles at the state level. Consequently, entrenched groups have pushed state legislatures to limit local governments' decision authorities through preemption across a wide range of public‐interest issues including tobacco use, gun control, marriage rights, and climate change. Yet few studies have considered how competing advocacy groups strategically frame their agenda in preemption debates. We draw on the “scope of conflict” literature to show that opposing camps vary in their issue definition, relational strategies, and institutional frames. For example, while entrenched advocates focus on the main issue under debate, reformer advocates link multiple issues together. Our study case is preemption legislation that prohibits local governments from banning energy fuels like natural gas in new buildings. We use computational text analysis and descriptive inference to analyze state committee testimony of 117 advocacy groups. Results raise important questions about the effectiveness of conflict expansion strategies in venues like committee systems and provide considerations for reformer advocates in their efforts to secure state support and build clean energy campaigns.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135823235","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}
Sustainability governance in polycentric systems needs to ensure both effectiveness and procedural justice. Effectiveness and procedural justice are intricately linked to power dynamics in governance. To assess polycentric sustainability governance, understanding different types, sources, and effects of power is key. Here, we investigate network‐derived bonding and bridging social capital of actors as specific sources of power in polycentric sustainability governance. We ask two questions: How does bridging and bonding social capital translate into power? And: How is the power associated with satisfaction with inclusion? We relate levels of bonding and bridging social capital to power and satisfaction with inclusion in governance processes for 299 actors in 10 cases of Swiss wetlands governance. Using a Bayesian multi‐level regression model, we find that especially bonding social capital is a source of power for actors. Further, network‐derived power but also nonnetwork‐derived power by design translates into satisfaction with inclusion. Research and practice of sustainability governance need to be careful to account for power in nuanced ways, acknowledging its sources and relation to procedural justice.
{"title":"Who is satisfied with their inclusion in polycentric sustainability governance? Networks, power, and procedural justice in Swiss wetlands","authors":"Mario Angst, Martin Nicola Huber","doi":"10.1111/psj.12515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12515","url":null,"abstract":"Sustainability governance in polycentric systems needs to ensure both effectiveness and procedural justice. Effectiveness and procedural justice are intricately linked to power dynamics in governance. To assess polycentric sustainability governance, understanding different types, sources, and effects of power is key. Here, we investigate network‐derived bonding and bridging social capital of actors as specific sources of power in polycentric sustainability governance. We ask two questions: How does bridging and bonding social capital translate into power? And: How is the power associated with satisfaction with inclusion? We relate levels of bonding and bridging social capital to power and satisfaction with inclusion in governance processes for 299 actors in 10 cases of Swiss wetlands governance. Using a Bayesian multi‐level regression model, we find that especially bonding social capital is a source of power for actors. Further, network‐derived power but also nonnetwork‐derived power by design translates into satisfaction with inclusion. Research and practice of sustainability governance need to be careful to account for power in nuanced ways, acknowledging its sources and relation to procedural justice.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47539030","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}
Many public services are co‐produced through networks of governmental and non‐governmental organizations that choose to or are obliged to contribute resources, a trend that has been reinforced through decentralization reforms. We utilize original data for 826 organizations across 65 local governance networks to assess how decentralization affects resource contributions while accounting for municipality context, network environment, and organizational attributes. Drawing on a quasi‐experimental design in the context of health sector reform in Honduras, we find that decentralization is associated with a slight reduction in the number of resource ties an organization contributes to other organizations in its network. This association is most prominent where municipal governments, rather than non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) or associations, are lead intermediary organizations under decentralization. Additionally, NGOs contribute more resource ties relative to community associations or public organizations, and consistent with a crowding‐out dynamic, we find that this relationship is attenuated under decentralization. Our results suggest that administrative reforms can influence resource contributing behavior by organizations and the structure of inter‐organizational networks, which are important but underemphasized mechanisms potentially linking decentralization to service delivery outcomes. This is particularly relevant for policymakers working to support network governance for the joint production of public services in under‐resourced settings.
{"title":"Decentralization and resource contributions within local governance networks: Evidence from health sector reform in Honduras","authors":"Alan Zarychta, Jade Wong","doi":"10.1111/psj.12509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12509","url":null,"abstract":"Many public services are co‐produced through networks of governmental and non‐governmental organizations that choose to or are obliged to contribute resources, a trend that has been reinforced through decentralization reforms. We utilize original data for 826 organizations across 65 local governance networks to assess how decentralization affects resource contributions while accounting for municipality context, network environment, and organizational attributes. Drawing on a quasi‐experimental design in the context of health sector reform in Honduras, we find that decentralization is associated with a slight reduction in the number of resource ties an organization contributes to other organizations in its network. This association is most prominent where municipal governments, rather than non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) or associations, are lead intermediary organizations under decentralization. Additionally, NGOs contribute more resource ties relative to community associations or public organizations, and consistent with a crowding‐out dynamic, we find that this relationship is attenuated under decentralization. Our results suggest that administrative reforms can influence resource contributing behavior by organizations and the structure of inter‐organizational networks, which are important but underemphasized mechanisms potentially linking decentralization to service delivery outcomes. This is particularly relevant for policymakers working to support network governance for the joint production of public services in under‐resourced settings.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43122202","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：