The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) has provided policy scholars with a valuable method to gain empirical insight into the power of narratives in the policy process. However, a significant limitation of the NPF has been its ability to deploy this framework on large N datasets due to the labor-intensive nature of collecting narrative data. In recent years, NPF scholars have turned to computational social science tools to address this challenge. This study builds upon this emerging body of literature and our previous work, which uses sentiment analysis, a natural language processing technique, to evaluate the use of the angel/devil shift across coalitions before and after a major policy change. We examined Tweets that included the terms “fracking” and “New York” before and after the introduction of a moratorium. While sentiment analysis allowed us to gain insight into the narrative structure of the fracking policy discourse space, the labor involved in hand-coding Twitter users into neutral-, pro-, or anti-fracking groups was onerous. This project aims to supplement our natural language processing method by employing supervised machine learning techniques to increase the universe of respondents. We hand-coded 500 Twitter users into neutral-, pro-, or anti-fracking groups and trained a much larger dataset using an extreme gradient boost algorithm to classify a broader corpus of Tweets. This enabled us to expand the number of Tweets used in the analyses. We then applied sentiment analysis on this newly classified larger dataset to reveal differences in the pro-fracking and anti-fracking advocacy coalitions. By using machine learning to classify pro and con Tweets, we gained the ability to achieve significantly greater insight into how these two subgroups employed different narrative and linguistic devices in their Twitter discussions about fracking.
Merry, Melissa K. 2022. “Trump's Tweets as Policy Narratives: Constructing the Immigration Issue via Social Media.” Politics & Policy 50(4): 752–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12487.
Robles, Pedro, and Daniel J. Mallinson. 2023. “Catching Up with AI: Pushing toward a Cohesive Governance Framework.” Politics & Policy 51(3): 355–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12529.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Mark K. McBeth, and Paul L. Hathaway. 2011. “Narrative Policy Framework: The Influence of Media Policy Narratives on Public Opinion.” Politics & Policy 39(3): 373–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00295.x.
This article examines the impact of populism on the rule of law in Hungary and Poland. It argues that political discourse is important in setting the political agenda and is often followed by the criminalization of minorities, Euroskepticism, intervening in the operation of supreme courts, affecting the decisions of the judges, and disregarding international law and/or supranational legal orders. It also highlights how politicization and securitization increasingly operate under populist authoritarian regimes through the legal system and legislative initiatives to increase the power of the government and the ruling party. Discourse analysis is a valuable tool to reveal whether a legislator's intention serves the people or exploits power to change the structure and functioning of the political system. Thus, this article follows the course of politics in Hungary and Poland from discourse to hijacking democracy through instrumentalizing the rule of law.
Deegan-Krause, Kevin, and Tim Haughton. 2009. “Toward a More Useful Conceptualization of Populism: Types and Degrees of Populist Appeals in the Case of Slovakia.” Politics & Policy 37(4): 821–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00200.x.
Skowronska, Kaja. 2021. “The Recent Politicization of Immigration in Poland in Light of Preexisting State Practices: Continuity or Change in the Understanding of Citizenship and Nationhood?” Politics & Policy 49(4): 940–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12424.
Zafirovski, Milan. 2022. “Toward a New Political Democracy Index: Construction, Validation, and Calculation for Individual Societies and Types of Society.” Politics and Policy 50(4): 663–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12488.
Despite the importance of food for both economic and political reasons, why do governments respond differently to food crises? To answer this question, this article assesses the politics of state responses to food crises in Indonesia and Nigeria in the 1960s and 1970s. Using the state-in-society approach to politics, this research finds that variation in state–society conflicts explains the differences in Indonesia's and Nigeria's responses to the food crises. Conflicts between the state and urban workers led Nigeria to align its food policies with the need to contain urban workers' grievances, while in Indonesia conflicts between peasants and the state led the government to align its food policies with rural development to raise food production and eliminate the source of rural threats. State responses to food crises are therefore context-dependent policies, deeply influenced by the salient form of state–society conflicts.
Asare-Nuamah, Peter, Anthony Amoah, and Simplice A. Asongu. 2023. “Achieving Food Security in Ghana: Does Governance Matter?” Politics & Policy, Early View. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12540.
Ayanoore, Ishmael, and Sam Hickey. 2022. “Reframing the Politics of Natural Resource Governance in Africa: Insights from the Local Content Legislation Process in Ghana.” Politics & Policy 50(1): 119–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12449.
Oehmke, James F., Sera L. Young, Godfrey Bahiigwa, Boaz Blackie Keizire, and Lori Ann Post. 2018. “The Behavioral-Economics Basis of Mutual Accountability to Achieve Food Security.” Politics & Policy 46(1): 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12244.
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：