Search

Misperceiving political opponents as more influential and evil than they are has been described as the devil shift. More recently, the opposite phenomenon known as the angel shift has been recognised where political allies are misperceived as more influential and virtuous than they are. However, research on the devil and angel shifts has been hampered by the lack of measures that separate these mechanisms analytically. We analyse the misperception of influence and differentiate between the devil and angel shifts. Furthermore, previous research has failed to take notice of how social network positions contribute to these phenomena. We argue that conceptualising the different roles that brokers play between advocacy coalitions helps explain the occurrence of the devil and angel shifts. Our findings demonstrate that the devil and angel shifts are not dyadic but triadic phenomena between advocacy coalitions and that network factors accentuate both ‘shifts’.

This Special Issue makes a statement about the study of policy and politics, where it has been, how it is done, what it is, and where it is going. When addressing the question ‘who gets to speak for our discipline?’ we respond emphatically – many people, from many places, working in many ways. It comprises scholarship that has rarely been combined to explore some cardinal challenges about our scholarship: (1) How do we conceive of policy and political studies? (2) To what extent should our science be ‘normative’ or ‘objective’ or ‘positive’? (3) Who are our audiences, and how do we engage them? (4) Whose knowledge matters, and how does it accumulate? (5) How should we advance the study of policy and politics? We conclude charging the field to consider different ways of thinking about what we can discover and construct in the world and how we can conduct our science.

Maintaining the quality and reliability of electricity transmission lines is central to effective energy governance. However, transmission line siting is often a contentious policy decision since permitting and constructing lines may involve private and public property, residents and communities, and localized and national concerns. Yet, policy conflict in transmission siting across cases and over time has remained largely understudied. This article derives and tests hypotheses about policy conflict in the context of transmission lines completed or constructed between 2017 and 2018 in the United States. In exploring the full population of transmission lines, we find that a majority exhibit relatively low and moderate levels of conflict and attention rather than high levels. We further examine a subset of six of these cases that represent a range of conflict and attention intensity. We describe variation in the diversity of actors and frames, advocacy coalitions, and the volume of discourse associated with transmission line siting over time. As problems related to energy governance have become more complex, energy siting disputes are likely to remain a fruitful area for research on policy conflict.

Researchers often focus on the most intense conflicts, skewing our perception of the diversity and nature of policy conflicts. The paper examines the discourse engaged in the siting of three pipeli...

The Institutional Collective Action (ICA) framework has contributed to understanding collective action problems in fragmented governance and identified mechanisms for overcoming them. Participation in collaboration is risky––even if it has the potential to make all parties better off. This framework has uniquely shown how collaboration risk and other transaction costs can be overcome to create effective collaborations for addressing complex policy issues. However, after over a decade of use, the framework is due for critical evaluation and articulation of its state of the art and science to better inform future scholarship. For this purpose, this article defines key concepts and formulates assumptions, as well as reviews the empirical contributions and longstanding limitations of the ICA framework. A robust agenda for future research is also outlined. To move forward, we believe ICA research should focus on the foundational core of the ICA framework, maintain flexibility in explanatory models, and expand the scope beyond the collective action problems at the local level.

This article introduces the special issue ‘Transformational change through Public Policy’. After introducing the idea of transformational societal change, it asks how public policy scholarship can contribute to fostering it; the research questions we need to do so; what actors we need to study; who our audiences are; and how we need to expand our theories and methods. In our conclusion, we draw five lessons from the special issue articles. Transformational change (1) often results from many instances of policy changes over extended periods of time; (2) involves social movements that reconceptualise problems and possibilities; and (3) requires policy changes across sectors and levels of society, from local communities to national or global communities. As a field, Public Policy will (4) never offer detailed instructions to create transformational change in all circumstances, but (5) must involve scholars taking on different roles, from engaged scholarship to theory development that each provide unique contributions.

The world faces grand challenges that threaten our socio-economical, ecological, and political systems. Inequities, insurrections, invasions, and illiberal democracies represent a sample of the population of problems facing life as we know it. Paramount among these problems lie climate change, caused principally by human activity of burning fossil fuels. This paper offers a perspective on climate change from a “lens” in the social sciences. By analyzing applications (n = 67) of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to climate change, we aim to examine patterns across these applications of the ACF, particularly concerning the characteristics of coalitions, how they behave, change policy, and learn. We conclude that future studies should examine how coalitions and beliefs can better address wicked problems in an increasingly global and interconnected world. We propose the prioritization of studying non-democratic governance arrangements and underrepresented locations of study, pairing the ACF with other theories and frameworks to address complex questions, and prioritizing normative dynamics of climate change politics.

The concept of “advocacy coalitions” is the bedrock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), one of the most established and successful approaches for understanding policy processes across the globe. This article revisits and sharpens the conceptual definition of advocacy coalitions. We summarize the lessons from its theoretical emphases under the ACF and specify its five attributes (policy actors, shared beliefs, coordination, resources, and stability). Through this specification, we identify the ideal coalition type and several coalition subtypes. We then clarify and make a distinction between how we think about coalitions as a concept and how we approach coalitions empirically. This article sharpens the lens for describing and explaining coalitions toward better observations, theorizing, and measurements. It ends with next steps for further deepening and broadening knowledge about advocacy coalitions

After an existential crisis, we realized we needed to think more deeply about our careers, say Orjan Bodin and Christopher M. Weible. After an existential crisis, we realized we needed to think more deeply about our careers, say Orjan Bodin and Christopher M. Weible.

This chapter highlights advocacy coalitions, which refer to a type of alliance that involves people aligned around a shared policy goal. It describes people associated with the same advocacy coalition and similar ideologies and worldviews who wish to change a given policy in the same direction. It also examines the coalition that forms an informal network of allies who operate against an opposing coalition that consists of other people who advocate for different policy directions. The chapter offers an argument that builds from the various ways of thinking about political relations in the form of advocacy coalitions. It elaborates how people can effectively deal with coalitions without becoming so particularised that the arguments lack any generalisations.

This chapter presents ways to synthesise and communicate state-of-the-art knowledge from intellectually distinct fields, each with their own reference points and key foundational texts. It explains why the judgement of a theoretical contribution should change, from the need to provide new empirical material to demonstrating a particular way about a theory or approach. It also identifies lessons from policy theories for persuasion and learning, political participation and collective action, and structuring governments and designing public policies. The chapter defines policy process research as the study of the patterns of interactions surrounding public policy over time. It highlights the nature of political systems, policy subsystems within larger political systems, and authoritative decision-making venues.

This chapter summarises the state-of-the-art developments of different theories and aspects of relatively complicated and dynamic policy process theories, such as the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and Advocacy Coalition Framework. It offers practical insights that sometimes overlap in dealing with various themes of the policy process and focuses on the cognitive aspects of the policy processes by dealing with strategies related to persuasion and learning. It also covers lessons on recognising cognitive shortcuts, telling good stories, and developing the right opportunities for learning. The chapter points out how policy theories offer a different lens for influencing public policy than those commonly found in political science. It outlines the assumption that policy actors are subject to bounded rationality, which prompts them to develop strategies for persuasion and learning to build and maintain coalitions over the long haul with policy actors.

The essence of policy conflicts remains largely underdeveloped, both theoretically and empirically. We explore policy conflict and explain its cognitive and behavioral characteristics using data from a survey administered to policy actors involved in oil and gas politics in Colorado, USA. The analysis begins with a description of the cognitive and behavioral characteristics of policy actors and then combines them into a single index to depict varying intensities of conflict. Cognitive characteristics are comprised of three dimensions: disagreement on public policy, perceived threats from opponents, and an unwillingness to compromise. Behavioral characteristics include engagement by policy actors in a range of activities, from mobilizing opponents to providing information to the media. Ordered Logit models are used to associate the attributes of policy actors with cognitive and behavioral characteristics and an index of conflict intensity that combines these two characteristics. The conclusion offers questions and recommendations for future research.

This paper portrays a polycentric governance system by exploring the evolution of its structure and the interdependencies of its policymaking venues. It utilizes a semi-automated approach developed from the institutional grammar to analyze four policymaking venues by their 55 public policies adopted from 2007 through 2019 in the context of oil and gas development in Colorado, USA. The results show that this governance system continuously evolves through the adoption of public policies, which modifies its constellation of actors, issues, rules, and deontics (i.e., imperatives). In analyzing the content of these policies, we show how the four policymaking venues display interdependencies as well as distinct emphases. The conclusion summarizes the contributions and raises challenges for advancing knowledge about polycentricity.

“Tempest in a teapot” is an idiom that refers to a problem that has been blown out of proportion, which is how we see the supposedly divisive relationship between two research traditions: mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies. In this commentary, we explore both research traditions, comparing and contrasting their views of public policy and policy processes, uses of theories, and approaches to research. Our aim is not to unite them or reject points of debate. Instead, we offer strategies for more productive collaborations, including side-by-side research, integrative research, engagement in constructive discussions of research techniques, and applied research.

First published online: 18 April 2020 The world is in the grip of a crisis that stands unprecedented in living memory. The COVID-19 pandemic is urgent, global in scale, and massive in impacts. Following Harold D. Lasswell’s goal for the policy sciences to offer insights into unfolding phenomena, this commentary draws on the lessons of the policy sciences literature to understand the dynamics related to COVID-19. We explore the ways in which scientific and technical expertise, emotions, and narratives influence policy decisions and shape relationships among citizens, organizations, and governments. We discuss varied processes of adaptation and change, including learning, surges in policy responses, alterations in networks (locally and globally), implementing policies across transboundary issues, and assessing policy success and failure. We conclude by identifying understudied aspects of the policy sciences that deserve attention in the pandemic’s aftermath.