Policy Studies Journal最新文献

{"title":"Manifesting symbolic representation through collaborative policymaking","authors":"Jack Mewhirter, Danielle M. McLaughlin, Brian Calfano","doi":"10.1111/psj.12525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12525","url":null,"abstract":"Collaboration is a widely employed strategy for addressing “wicked” policy problems. While scholars have long recognized that the organizational composition of collaborative forums can have a dramatic impact on the efficacy and equity of associated forum outputs, little is known about whether such composition impacts the manner in which everyday citizens perceive forum processes and/or participating organizations. In this article, we bridge and extend concepts from the collaborative governance and representative bureaucracy literatures, arguing that when forums attract sufficient membership from organizations that citizens perceive as reflective of their own or their community's interests—what we refer to as “forum representation”—those citizens will have more positive perceptions toward all participating organizations. Conversely, failing to achieve sufficient representation can result in degraded perceptions. While there are theoretically multiple ways to increase forum representation, we focus on one potential pathway: the inclusion of civil society organizations in policy‐making processes. Empirically, we assess whether heightened representation of civil society groups within a specific collaborative policing forum impacts citizens' perceptions of the main participating agency—the police department—finding that greater knowledge of this highly representative forum results in positive spillover effects.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":"4 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139445890","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}

{"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":"34 1‐4","pages":""},"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}

{"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":"40 10","pages":""},"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}

{"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":"46 7","pages":""},"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}

{"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":"5 3","pages":"0"},"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}

{"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":"115 2","pages":"0"},"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}

{"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":"85 11","pages":"0"},"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}

{"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":"45 21","pages":"0"},"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}

{"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":"43 1","pages":"0"},"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}

{"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":" ","pages":""},"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}