Politics & Policy最新文献

Assisted dying/assisted suicide (AD/AS) has emerged as an important policy issue across the world, with an increasing number of jurisdictions legalizing the practice in recent years. In this context, the article by Bache published earlier this year (2025) in Politics & Policy applied agenda-setting theory to consider why AD/AS has not been legalized in the United Kingdom (UK) despite consistently high levels of public support. In addition, it considered the prospects for policy change and identified the factors that made policy change likely in the near future. Shortly after this article was published, a Parliamentary vote indicated that AD/AS would likely become available in the UK within a few years. While the original article outlined a range of factors that explained this probable policy change, it offered very limited space to consider developments in other jurisdictions and to reflect on what might be learned about the nature, pace, and timing of developments in the UK from these cases. Therefore, this additional piece is intended to extend and update the previous article in these areas. The discussion looks at the three cases that have featured most prominently in UK debates, and which have legalized through different routes—Oregon (referendum), Canada (courts), and the Netherlands (legislature)—thus drawing attention to systemic differences that provide insights for the UK case. I situate the discussion within the literature on morality policy, taking the comparativist “Two Worlds” approach as its starting point.

Related Articles

Bache, I. 2025. “The Multiple Streams Framework and Non-Politicized Issues: The Case of Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide.” Politics and Policy 53, no. 1: e70016. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70016.

Silagadze, N. 2021. “Abortion Referendums: Is There a Recipe for Success?” Politics and Policy 49, no. 2: 352–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12398.

Angervil, G. 2021. “A Comprehensive Application of Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework: An Analysis of the Obama Administration's No Child Left Behind Waiver Policy.” Politics and Policy 49, no. 5: 980–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12432.

One of the most significant innovations within policy process theories is the concept of advocacy coalitions, namely how policy actors self-organize to collectively pursue shared goals. Despite the centrality of advocacy coalitions and extensive research spanning decades on this concept, questions remain about their functional purpose in a democracy. For this paper, we introduce the novel concept of “advocacy coalition representation” to describe how advocacy coalition members act as representatives of their constituencies. Taking an Advocacy Coalition Framework perspective, this paper begins with an argument incorporating democratic representation into the theoretical infrastructure of the Framework. It illustrates this argument by examining advocacy coalition representation in Colorado's abortion policy subsystem through interviews with pro- and anti-abortion-access actors. Ultimately, we find that the two coalitions offer patterns of advocacy coalition representation distinct from one another along two key variables: constituencies (who advocates represent) and engagement (how advocates represent). This paper ends with theoretical and empirical implications before returning to the theme of democracy and policy process research.

Related Articles

Myers, N., A. T. Ann Pendergast, H. A. Gage Atwood, W. Brian and H. Danielle. 2025. “Roles in Resilience: The Intersection of Genetic Counseling, Policy Advocacy, and Community Resilience.” Politics and Policy 53, no. 2: e70023. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70023.

Silagadze, N. 2021. “Abortion Referendums: Is There a Recipe for Success?” Politics and Policy 49, no. 2: 352–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12398.

Swigger, A. and B. T. Heinmiller. 2014. “Advocacy Coalitions and Mental Health Policy: The Adoption of Community Treatment Orders in Ontario.” Politics and Policy 42, no. 2: 246–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12066.

This article examines Thailand's 2019 National Screening Mechanism (NSM) for urban refugees and asylum seekers, analyzing its legal principles, implementation challenges, and political implications. Despite not being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Thailand has taken steps to formalize refugee protection through the NSM. However, the mechanism faces significant limitations in adopting a human rights-based approach. This study employed a qualitative, two-pronged approach that combined documentary analysis and expert interviews. The NSM's establishment reflects Thailand's attempt to manage “alien” populations while balancing international obligations. Yet, practical challenges persist, including insufficient rights and protections. The article argues that although the NSM represents a significant institutional change by creating an official process for identifying “Protected Persons,” it remains deeply rooted in a securitized and exclusionary framework that prioritizes national and regional political interests over comprehensive humanitarian protection. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on securitization and refugee protection in non-signatory contexts, highlighting the enduring impact of legal and bureaucratic tools in justifying exclusion, perpetuating vulnerability, and limiting the implementation of international protection standards.

Related Articles

Iwuoha, V. C. 2025. “European Biometric Borders and (Im)Mobilities in West Africa: Reflections on Migrant Strategies for Border Circumvention and Subversion.” Politics & Policy 53, no. 1: e12653. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12653.

Obinna, D. N. 2023. “Title 42 and the Power to Exclude: Asylum Seekers and the Denial of Entry into the United States.” Politics & Policy 51, no. 4: 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12542.

Chao, C. A., and Myers, N. 2018. “State Biotechnology and Genomic Development: Critical Resources and Barriers.” Politics & Policy 46, no. 6: 985–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12279.

This article applies the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to examine post-Brexit antimicrobial resistance (AMR) governance in UK agriculture, focusing on the contested regulation of prophylactic antibiotic use in farm animals. The study reveals how Brexit created a structural policy window, yet political and ideological dynamics rendered it functionally ineffective. While the problem and policy streams were well developed—supported by strong scientific evidence and viable alternatives—the politics stream, shaped by narratives of sovereignty, deregulation, and trade competitiveness, consistently blocked reform. The paper introduces the concept of a “meta-policy window” and shows how evidence was strategically mobilized rather than uniformly accepted. This case demonstrates how ideological filtering and institutional ambiguity can constrain policy change, even in moments of apparent opportunity. It contributes to policy theory by refining MSF for complex, post-crisis environments and offers broader lessons on evidence use, regulatory drift, and the politics of inaction.

Related Articles

Bache, Ian. 2025. “The Multiple Streams Framework and Non-Politicized Issues: The Case of Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide.” Politics and Policy 53(19): e70016. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70016.

Angervil, G. 2021. “A Comprehensive Application of Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework: An Analysis of the Obama Administration's No Child Left Behind Waiver Policy.” Politics and Policy 49, no. 5: 980–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12432.

Peterson, Holly L., Mark K. McBeth, and Michael D. Jones. 2020. “Policy Process Theory for Rural Studies: Navigating Context and Generalization in Rural Policy.” Politics and Policy 48(4): 576–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12366.

On October 12, 2022, the Biden administration abruptly changed course and announced that Venezuelan refugees would be immediately subject to Title 42—the policy that effectively means that those migrants would be summarily forced to return, or expelled, to Mexico. For FY 2022, Customs and Border Protection apprehended and/or expelled a total of 2,766,582 enforcement actions (CBP FY 2022). The resulting media spectacle illustrates another example of border securocracy—defined as the globalized border industrial apparatus oppressing the masses from the global south. We construct a case study based on Boje's narrative approach to illustrate how guided discussions of Title 42 policy changes can be understood using existing literature by Agamben and Debord. Additionally, Anzaldua's concept of nepantla shows promise as a foil for border securocracy while allowing us to maintain a nuanced understanding of the “in-between-ness” and socio-cultural identity of border crossers, mostly from Latin America, as influenced by the US policy apparatus.

Related Articles

Garrett, T. M. 2020. “The Security Apparatus, Federal Magistrate Courts, and Detention Centers as Simulacra: The Effects of Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy on Migrants and Refugees in the Rio Grande Valley.” Politics & Policy 48, no. 2: 372–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12348.

Garrett, T. M. and A. J. Sementelli. 2023. “Revisiting the Policy Implications of COVID-19, Asylum Seekers, and Migrants on the Mexico–U.S. Border: Creating (and Maintaining) States of Exception in the Trump and Biden Administrations.” Politics & Policy 51, no. 3: 458–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12537.

Obinna, D. N. 2023. “Title 42 and the Power to Exclude: Asylum Seekers and the Denial of Entry Into the United States.” Politics & Policy 51, no. 4: 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12542.

Although coups remain a defining feature of Africa's political landscape, the role of ethnic diversity in shaping their likelihood is still debated and has received little attention when considered as a potential pretext for coups, particularly in the early decades of the 21st century. Therefore, this study tests whether ethnic heterogeneity moderates the effects of institutional, demographic, and economic factors on coup risk using aggregated country-level data for 54 independent African states (2000–2021) and the Bayesian approach. The results support the protective role of strong intrasystemic institutional mechanisms on political system stability, which is specifically pronounced in diverse societies.

Related Articles

Kim, H.S. 2009. “The Complexities of Internal Conflict in the Third World: Beyond Ethnic and Religious Conflict.” Politics & Policy 37(2): 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00177.x.

Hunter, L.Y., J. Rutland, and Z. King. 2020. “Leaving the Barracks: Military Coups in Developing Democracies.” Politics & Policy 4(6): 1062–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12383.

Hiroi, T.O and S. Omori. 2013. “Causes and Triggers of Coups d'état: An Event History Analysis.” Politics & Policy 41 (1): 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12001.

Why have student outcomes deteriorated so much in the United States? This paper explores the role of unions in educational resource allocation. Using data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data and the American Community Survey (ACS), we estimate the relationship between unionization and staffing patterns, controlling for a wide array of local demographic and economic characteristics and year fixed effects. We find a robust positive relationship between union density and staff-to-student ratios, as well as a negative effect of right-to-work (RTW) laws on these ratios, driven largely by the expansion of administrative and support roles, rather than teachers. Furthermore, the expansion of these ratios also predicts the deterioration in math and reading scores, particularly among 8th graders, across states over time.

Related Articles

Ertas, N. 2015. “Policy Narratives and Public Opinion Concerning Charter Schools.” Politics & Policy 43, no. 3: 426–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12120.

Holyoke, T. T. 2022. “Path Dependence and Resistance to It in Public Policies: The Case of Charter School Policies in the United States.” Politics & Policy 50, no. 6: 1203–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12506.

Mallinson, D. J., and D. Lovell. 2022. “Race to the Top and the Diffusion of State Education Intervention Policy in the American States.” Politics & Policy 50, no. 6: 1221–1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12508.

Our knowledge of the innerworkings of coalitions in policy debates is wanting, particularly those that focus on instrumental questions of how policies will be implemented after initial questions and conflicts regarding if they will be passed are settled. A deeper and more frequent focus on if questions in studies of coalitions may have resulted in blind spots to the importance of secondary-belief conflict. To begin to construct a better understanding of the innerworkings of political groups, this study utilizes the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). It also incorporates the role of emotions in belief formation via the Emotion Belief Analysis (EBA). This study examines three legislative policies in the state of Colorado debated by the Colorado General Assembly during the 2021 legislative session that implicate rural–urban conflict in agricultural policy and the discourses and emotional expressions used therein.

Related Articles

Kanol, Direnç. 2022. “Narrative Strategies for Emerging Disruptive Technologies: A Case Study of Blockchain for Europe.” Politics & Policy, 50(5): 952–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12492.

Nowlin, Matthew C., Maren Trochmann, and Thomas M. Rabovsky. 2022. “Advocacy Coalitions and Political Control.” Politics & Policy 50(2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12458.

O'Donovan, Kristin T. 2018. “Does the Narrative Policy Framework Apply to Local Policy Issues?” Politics & Policy 46(4): 532–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12265.

This paper examines how political agendas across the ideological spectrum compromise ethical principles in emergency management in the United States. Through a literature review and comparative fact-based scenario analysis, it demonstrates that both conservative and liberal governments have politicized disaster declarations, resource distribution, and recovery processes, often in direct violation of professional ethics codes, including those of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Examples include selective disaster declarations driven by electoral incentives, inequitable funding allocations, and the strategic minimization of climate-related risks. Drawing on the core principles of neutrality, impartiality, and humanity, aligned with both emergency management ethics and international humanitarian standards, this study highlights how bipartisan political pressures systematically erode public trust and fairness in disaster response and recovery. The findings argue for the depoliticization of disaster management processes and propose actionable strategies to reinforce ethical integrity across government. This analysis is critical for advancing a more transparent, equitable, and accountable disaster management framework in an increasingly polarized political landscape.

Related Articles

Ash, J. 2010. “New Nuclear Energy, Risk, and Justice: Regulatory Strategies for an Era of Limited Trust.” Politics & Policy 38, no. 2: 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00237.x.

Belligoni, S. 2024. “Held in the Grip: Political Status, Governing Institutions, and Emergency Management Procedural Arrangements in the Cases of Florida and Puerto Rico.” Politics & Policy 52, no. 2: 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12581.

Liu, Z., and Z. Zhu. 2023. “China's Pathway to Domestic Emergency Management: Unpacking the Characteristics in System Evolution.” Politics & Policy 49, no. 3: 619–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12407.

Comparative evidence of how two Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states translate artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions into post–New Public Management (post-NPM) outcomes are scarce because most studies focus on Western democracies. To fill this gap, we examine constitutional, collective choice, and operational rules that shape AI uptake in two contrasting GCC members, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait, and whether they foster citizen centricity, collaborative governance, and public value creation. Anchored in Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development framework, the study integrates a most similar/most different systems design with multiple sources: 62 public documents issued between 2018 and 2025, embedded UAE cases (Smart Dubai and MBZUAI), and 39 interviews with officials conducted from Aug 2024 to May 2025. Dual coding and process tracing connect rule configurations to AI performance. Our cross-case analysis identifies four mutually reinforcing mechanisms behind divergent trajectories. In the UAE, concentrated authority, credible sanctions, pro-innovation narratives, and flexible reinvestment rules transform pilots into hundreds of operating services and significant recycled savings. Kuwait's dispersed veto points, exhortative sanctions, cautious discourse, and lapsed AI budgets, by contrast, confine initiatives to pilot mode despite equivalent fiscal resources. These findings refine institutional theory by showing that vertical rule coherence, not wealth, determines AI's public value yield, and temper post-NPM optimism by revealing that efficiency metrics advance societal goals only when backed by enforceable safeguards. To curb ethics washing and test the transferability of these mechanisms beyond the GCC, future research should track rule diffusion over time, experiment with blended legitimacy-efficiency scorecards, and investigate how narrative framing shapes citizen consent for data sharing.

Related Articles

Robles, P. and D. J. Mallinson 2023. “Catching up With AI: Pushing Toward a Cohesive Governance Framework.” Politics & Policy, 51, no. 3: 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12529.

Veloso Meireles, A. 2024. “Digital Rights in Perspective: The Evolution of the Debate in the Internet Governance Forum.” Politics & Policy 52, no. 1: 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12571.

Zeng, J., T. Stevens, and Y. Chen. 2017. “China's Solution to Global Cyber Governance: Unpacking the Domestic Discourse of ‘Internet Sovereignty.’” Politics & Policy 45 no. 3: 432–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12202.