Policy Sciences最新文献

Although causal evidence synthesis is critical for the policy sciences—whether it be analysis for policy or analysis of policy—its repeatable, systematic, and transparent execution remains challenging due to the growing volume, variety, and velocity of policy-relevant evidence generation as well as the complex web of relationships within which policies are usually situated. To address these shortcomings, we develop a novel, semi-automated approach to synthesizing causal evidence from policy-relevant documents. Specifically, we propose the use of natural language processing (NLP) for the extraction of causal evidence and subsequent homogenization of the text; causal mapping for the collation, visualization, and summarization of complex interdependencies within the policy system; and graph analytics for further investigation of the structure and dynamics of the causal map. We illustrate this approach by applying it to a collection of 28 articles on the emissions trading scheme (ETS), a policy instrument of increasing importance for climate change mitigation. In all, we find 300 variables and 284 cause-effect pairs in our input dataset (consisting of 4524 sentences), which are reduced to 70 unique variables and 119 cause-effect pairs after homogenization. We create a causal map depicting these relationships and analyze it to demonstrate the perspectives and policy-relevant insights that can be obtained. We compare these with select manually conducted, previous meta-reviews of the policy instrument, and find them to be not only broadly consistent but also complementary. We conclude that, despite remaining limitations, this approach can help synthesize causal evidence for policy analysis, policy making, and policy research.

Risk perception influences the perceived salience of various policy issues. In this study, we examine the pathways through which environmental identity influences the perceived salience of two kinds of policy issues—climate change (climate mitigation and climate adaptation) and development (economic growth and infrastructure). Based on a dataset of 503 respondents from coastal communities along the east coast of the United States, our findings indicate that environmental identity is associated with a greater perceived salience of climate mitigation, and that this relationship is mediated by hydrometeorological disaster risk perception. While we found no significant total effect of environmental identity on the perceived salience of climate adaptation, perceived salience of infrastructure development, and perceived salience of economic growth, hydrometeorological disaster risk perception was found to fully mediate all three relationships. Also, the mediated relationships were found to be significantly moderated by gender identity, but not by age (except for the perceived salience of infrastructure development). The study highlights the pivotal role of hydrometeorological risk perception in modifying the perceived importance of different policy issues among environmentalists and has implications for policy and planning in coastal regions.

The concept of nudge has been prevalent in studies that explore behavioral changes for better individual decision-making. While nudging has been applied to study public policy, a puzzling under-explored issue in this context is coproduction. In this study, I build on the rich literature on nudging theory and conduct an empirical assessment that compares different strategies intended to increase public willingness to engage in coproduction. In public administration, the concept of coproduction refers to citizens’ willingness to contribute to policies that improve their lives. Therefore, a nudging approach offers multiple benefits in employing strategies that do not compel but can motivate greater citizen participation. My approach focuses on comparing common nudging strategies in two unique coproduction areas: natural hazards resilience and public health, and identifying the most efficient ways to increase citizens’ willingness to contribute to proposed policies. The results suggest that nudging strategies are a useful tool for increasing hazard resilience coproduction, while they backfire for organ donations and reduce the willingness to participate. Also, norm-nudge and loss aversion are more powerful strategies in increasing intention to join compared to a default strategy. Lastly, I provide evidence showing relative consistency between respondents’ stated intention and actual coproduction behavior in both policy areas. These findings provide valuable insights to policymakers in designing effective tools to encourage greater public engagement with policy. It also offers theoretical contributions to research on coproduction and how to more directly integrate behavioral theories into public administration studies and investigate individuals’ attitudes towards participation in policy solutions.

Although abortion policy is often discussed as a black-and-white conflict characterized by polarization and a lack of compromise, this study explores the validity of such a presupposition by asking how advocates articulate their belief systems about abortion policy and in what ways—if at all—are those beliefs shared within and across coalitions and create fissures within and between coalitions? Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we interviewed advocates, representing both pro-abortion-access and anti-abortion-access perspectives, about their beliefs, coalition allies, and opponents in Colorado. The result reveals nuanced belief systems that address competing conceptions of morality, gender, and life with a tendency toward deep core beliefs. This paper contributes to the ACF literature by highlighting a policy issue not often raised by ACF scholars, bridging morality policy and abortion policy literature with more mainstream policy process research, and surpassing simple “pro-life vs. pro-choice” dichotomies to reveal complex belief systems about abortion.

Grand sustainability challenges span multiple sectors and fields of policymaking. Novel technologies that respond to these challenges may trigger the emergence of new policy subsystems at the intersection of established sectors. We develop a framework that addresses the complexities of ‘multi-system settings.’ Empirically, we explore belief and coalition formation in the nascent policy subsystem around hydrogen technologies in Germany, which emerges at the intersection of electricity, transport, heating, and industry and is characterised by a broad range of actors from different sectoral backgrounds. We find two coalitions: a rather unusual coalition of actors from industry, NGOs, and research institutes as well as an expectable coalition of gas and heat sector actors. Actors disagree over production, application, and import standards for hydrogen. However, there is widespread support for hydrogen and for a strong role of the state across almost all actors. We explain our findings by combining insights from the advocacy coalition framework and politics of transitions: Belief and coalition formation in a nascent subsystem are influenced by sectoral backgrounds of actors, technology characteristics, as well as trust and former contacts. Our study contributes to a better understanding of early stages of coalition formation in a multi-system setting.

In Canada, in the early 2000s, the decriminalization of cannabis for recreational use seemed imminent. Between 2003 and 2005, three government decriminalization bills were introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, but none were adopted, and decriminalization efforts were abandoned. Subsequently, Canada went beyond decriminalization and legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. This paper examines why the Canadian decriminalization efforts failed, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and ACF policy change theory. Three ACF-based hypotheses to explain the failed reform attempts are developed and investigated, but none are empirically supported. A fourth hypothesis is developed using information processing insights from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) but adapted to the ACF. This hypothesis is empirically supported showing that Canada’s decriminalization efforts failed, despite a supportive advocacy coalition, favourable conditions in the cannabis policy subsystem and favourable conditions in the Canadian political system, because its systemic advocates did not give it priority relative to other issues from other subsystems. This finding has implications for ACF policy change theory, identifying a necessary condition for major policy change that has been potentially overlooked, and illustrates the potential for cross-fertilization between PET and ACF theories of policy change.

This paper aims to understand coalition building between national and international actors in the context of an emerging subsystem. In applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework to the case of Uruguay, where a new field of social policy – the National Care System – was introduced in 2015 after a process involving different national actors from academia, civil society, politics, and administration, but also United Nations agencies, the paper explores the role of these international organizations in coalition building, and examines how a dominant coalition of national and international actors shaped the development of the new system. Using interview data and documents, the findings suggest that the involvement of international organizations in the coalition was based on shared beliefs and personal and institutional relationships. While powerful opposing coalitions were absent due to the nascent nature of the subsystem, the dominant coalition was able to influence the policy’s introduction based on their beliefs regarding gender equality and rights.

Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) describes policy change as occurring mostly through incremental movements with infrequent periods of dramatic change. An impressive body of empirical literature relating to budgeting supports this view, but virtually all empirical tests have focused on examining distributions of annual changes, thus nullifying chronology. In this article, we focus on the time element. Using the same databases as previously used in canonical PET studies, we explore multi-year trends, not only annual observations. For our analyses, we identify directional series of changes (while allowing for one-year changes in direction if these are immediately offset in the following year) on a U.S. budget distribution dataset covering the period of 1947 through 2014, with 60 categories of spending consistently defined over time and adjusted for inflation. We then assess the robustness of the PET findings when incorporating a longer time units of trending series of annual changes into the analysis. We find that almost 65% of changes occur in series of 4 years or more. Nonetheless, the signature PET literature pattern of high kurtosis is equally present in these series as well as in shorter series. Moreover, within growing and trending series, we find that 21% of these series generate 80% of positive budget change. Within these series, we identify a small group of “super-trends” that account for a large share of the overall change. We conclude that expanding methodologies for the study of budgetary change to incorporate longer-term dynamics helps to better understand policy change, but such findings remain consistent with the PET perspective.

Since the 1980’s, the growing involvement of private consultancy firms in the public sector worldwide has instigated concerns about the outsourcing of public policy advising to market-driven actors. Although these firms participate in spreading policy ideas, their roles have not received sustained attention, despite being observed by a few scholars. Against this background, the aim of this paper is threefold. First, from established policy concepts relating to policy diffusion, we identify the potential roles that consultancy firms may take on in spreading policy ideas. Second, we use a systematic literature review to collect and distil what is currently known about what different roles consultancy firms fulfil, and what kinds of tensions arise in their interactions with both clients and other actors. Third, we draft an agenda for future research on consultancy firms’ impact in governance processes. To focus our study, our review hones in on environmental governance, more specifically water governance, a significant area of activity for such firms where they play an important in-between role in providing policy ideas. We found indications that consultancy firms possess six types of capabilities (trusted facilitators, reactors to environmental policies, shapers of environmental policies, market drivers, interest navigators, and managers of public participation), and face various dilemmas around biases, decontextualized global practices, market interests, and manipulative practices. We conclude that more attention should be given to empirically refining capabilities involved in shaping policies and markets and to further highlighting how consultancy firms impact the diffusion of governance ideas in and beyond the water and environmental sectors.

This article proposes an integration of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) with prospect theory to investigate how the status quo and policy change are recounted in public debates. By integrating insights from prospect theory into the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), we investigate narratives in the policy domain of farm animal welfare, which is characterized by a strong polarization of actor coalitions. We compare public debates in France and Germany between 2020 and 2021. Our analysis shows that the NPF’s analytical strength is enhanced by integrating the distinction between status quo and policy change in narrative elements. This distinction enables further empirical nuancing of actors’ narrative communication, and in combination with insights from prospect theory, it allows for new conjectures about actors’ use of narrative strategies such as the devil shift and the angel shift. In addition to the theoretical contribution, we shed light on debates surrounding farm animal welfare in Western Europe: Both animal welfare and agricultural coalitions are unsatisfied with the status quo, but they promote policy change of different kinds.