Editorial introduction: Exploring theories and subtleties of the policy process

Welcome to the third issue of the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ)! We are pleased to present ten exceptional articles covering various topics related to policy theory and substantive policy domains. PSJ is committed to facilitating the exchange of quality policy research while supporting policy theory advancement and its applications across diverse contexts. As such, we invite you to fully explore the theoretical and practical insights presented in this issue. Before discussing the articles, we would like to share some news on PSJ operations. First, on June 30th, Dr. Michael D. Jones (University of Tennessee) stepped down from his role as Editor-in-Chief of PSJ. We want to express our heartfelt appreciation for Dr. Jones' service and contributions to PSJ and the policy community over the past four years. We wish him all the best in his future endeavors. In the same breath, we warmly welcome Dr. Geoboo Song (University of Arkansas) as the new Editor-in-Chief. We are excited about Dr. Song's leadership and look forward to future editorial endeavors under his guidance. Second, we are pleased to announce that Drs. Gwen Arnold (University of California Davis), Melissa K. Merry (University of Louisville), Aaron Smith-Walter (University of Massachusetts Lowell), and Holly Peterson (Louisiana State University) will continue to serve as Associate Editors, and Dr. Creed Tumlison (California State University Bakersfield) will help us as Managing Editor. PSJ has also appointed a new team of Editorial Associates and Assistants, including Ms. Nataliia Borozdina (University of Arkansas), Mr. Ben Galloway (University of Arkansas), Ms. Camille Gilmore (University of Arkansas), Mr. Victor Kwaku Akakpo (University of Arkansas), Ms. Morgan Farrar (University of Arkansas), Ms. Izehi Oriaghan (University of Arkansas), Mr. Eli Polley (University of Louisville), and Mr. Chris Giller (University of Arkansas). We extend our warmest welcome to the new PSJ editorial team! Third, we are proud to share that PSJ achieved a record-breaking Scopus CiteScore of 11.1 for 2022, ranking #4 out of 654 indexed political science/international relations journals. This achievement is a testament to the hard work of our dedicated authors, reviewers, and readers, and we express our sincere gratitude for their support. Fourth, PSJ has embarked on a new venture, publishing its special collection of policy research called Policy Theory and Practice (PT&P). Curated by the PSJ editorial team, this exciting initiative has found its digital home within the PSJ website. We invite you to explore the PT&P webpage and discover more about this captivating endeavor here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/15410072/homepage/ptp. Fifth, PSJ has collaborated with Drs. Saba Siddiki (Syracuse University), Cali Curley (University of Miami), and Davor Mondom (Syracuse University) to launch the PSJ Policy Design Special Issue initiative. The initiative aims to publish a range of papers that address various theories, methods, and topical domains that enhance our understanding of policy design throughout the policy process. You are encouraged to learn more about the initiative by following the link that contains the Call for Papers (CFP) information here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/assets/15410072/PSJ-Special-Issue-on-Policy-Design-1688999883193.pdf. Lastly, PSJ has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with two South Korean higher education institutions: Seoul National University's Graduate School of Public Administration and Sungkyunkwan University's Graduate School of Governance. This strategic partnership will not only foster policy scholarship development in the Asian region but also extend its impact beyond borders. Now, moving on to the articles, the first seven contributions discuss various policy theories as they are related to different aspects of the policy process. The articles address topics such as polycentric governance (e.g., Lubell & Robbins, 2022; Vantaggiato & Lubell, 2022), institutional configurations for policy outcomes (e.g., Herzog et al., 2022; Möck et al., 2022), grammar of institutions for complex legal topics (e.g., Olivier & Schlager, 2022; Siddiki et al., 2022), state legislatures' public-facing policy agendas (e.g., Meza, 2022; Sato & Haselswerdt, 2022), consultants' roles in public policy formulation (e.g., Marchevska & Steen, 2022; Vantaggiato & Lubell, 2022), decision makers' attention to experts (e.g., Schiff & Schiff, 2023; Williams, 2021), and policy feedback via economic behavior (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2022; Lacombe, 2022). These articles shed light on the nuances and complexities of policy theory research and invite you to engage with different theoretical perspectives and frameworks. In the lead article “Building Blocks of Polycentric Governance,” Morrison et al. (2023) argue that a polycentric system's success or failure depends on complex political and social coordination processes, making it challenging to isolate and analyze distinct coordination methods. To address this, a building-blocks approach that uses different patterns or “motifs” has been developed and tested to measure and compare coordination over time in Australia's Great Barrier Reef. The approach confirms that polycentric governance is an ever-evolving network of interdependent venues and actors. While mobilizing venues can improve issue specialization and actor participation, it can also fragment the polycentric capacity to solve conflict and adapt to new problems. The building-blocks approach advances the understanding and practice of polycentric governance by enabling a sharper diagnosis of internal dynamics in complex environmental governance systems. This contributes significantly to the field and provides a more nuanced approach to studying the coordination processes required for effective polycentric governance. In the second article “Identifying Institutional Configurations for Policy Outcomes: A Comparison of Ecosystem Services Delivery,” Bazzan et al. (2023) utilize the Institutional Analysis and Development framework to identify factors that contribute to the successful implementation of ecosystem delivery measures in the European Union. Through comparative institutional analysis, the authors examine the effects of various types of rules on outcomes and provide insight into how different institutional configurations can lead to different levels of success. By applying explanatory typology methods, they identify the institutional features that best explain variation in implementation success across multiple cases. The authors argue that institutional rules work together rather than independently to influence outcomes and that implementation success can be attributed to differences in knowledge exchange, flexibility in implementation, and participation in the policy design process. Next, in his article “A Grammar of Institutions for Complex Legal Topics: Resolving Statutory Multiplicity and Scaling up to Jurisdiction-Level Legal Institutions,” DeMattee (2023) discusses a principled method to assess the effects of multiple laws that overlap and cross-reference each other. The proposed method utilizes Institutional Grammar to group the legal rules enforced by multiple statutes into a single legal institution. This improves the accuracy of coded values and allows for the estimation of jurisdiction-level measures. To illustrate the effectiveness of this method, the author analyzes the laws regulating civil society organizations (CSOs). The author asserts that this method provides a useful prism through which to study the cause and effect of legal texts on social phenomena or political outcomes. The next piece uses a different lens to examine factors that affect policy outcomes: the policy agendas of political actors. While the policy agenda of the federal government has been widely discussed, there is limited research on the policy agendas of individual U.S. states. In their article “The Public-Facing Policy Agenda of State Legislatures: The Communication of Public Policy via Twitter,” Peterson et al. (2023) explore how states determine their policy agendas and the factors that influence this process. Using Twitter as a tool to measure the attention that state legislators pay to different policy topics, the authors use machine learning techniques to assess the proportion of tweets related to Policy Agenda Project (PAP) policy topics. The results reveal that a state legislature's public-facing policy agenda is influenced by the level of legislative professionalism and partisan/ideological politics of the state. These findings expand our understanding of state policymaking and agenda-setting. The next article sheds light on an understudied aspect of public policy formulation: the role of consultants. While consultants are often seen only as experts, in practice, their interaction with and contribution to policy formulation is much broader. In her article “More than Just Experts for Hire: A Conceptualization of the Roles of Consultants in Public Policy Formulation,” Marciano (2023) develops a conceptualization of consultants' formulation roles by demonstrating that they interact with policymakers in several ways. Her article uses two main axes for analysis: a policy network/subsystem distinction and a substance/process distinction, developing four role categories. This research provides much-needed clarity on how consultants engage with policy formulation and policymakers and advances our understanding of how consultants exert policy influence. Relatedly, in their article “When Do Decision Makers Listen (Less) to Experts? The Swiss Government's Implementation of Scientific Advice during the COVID-19 Crisis,” Eichenberger et al. (2023) examine the conditions under which politicians listen to scientific experts during a crisis, with a focus on the Swiss government's implementation of policy recommendations from the National COVID-19 Science Task Force (STF) during the first year of the pandemic. Using multiple regression analyses, the study finds that the impact of problem pressure on the government's propensity to implement experts' recommendations varied over time, with a larger effect observed during the initial phase of the pandemic than afterward. This is attributed to a change in the STF's status during the second phase, as it was increasingly distanced from the political-strategic level of crisis management and faced challenges to its epistemic authority from political parties and interest groups. The authors call for greater attention to how rapidly the government's reliance on expert advice can shift during a crisis. Lastly, in his article “Policy Feedback via Economic Behavior: A Model and Experimental Analysis of Consumption Behavior,” Schober (2023) introduces a policy feedback model of consumption behavior and presents a theoretical argument on the consequences of targeted cash assistance policies (TCAPs) for consumer spending behavior and government provision of basic utilities in developing countries. Using a randomized field experiment in Mexico and pre–post analysis, the study finds that TCAPs increase consumer spending on private access to basic utilities in the short term and reduce government provision of basic utilities in the medium term. These findings have important implications for social policy and human development in developing countries and highlight the need for policy feedback theorists to explore the impact of public policies beyond the realm of mass politics. The next three articles discuss three policy topics of key importance in the context of policy theory discussion: transgender rights (e.g., Flores et al., 2023), immigration (e.g., Schreckhise & Chand, 2021), and corruption control (Zhan & Zhu, 2023). These contributions approach the policy topics from different angles and provide insights into policy implications and their effects on the policy process. In their article “‘Protect the Women!’ Trans-Exclusionary Feminist Issue Framing and Support for Transgender Rights,” Turnbull-Dugarte and McMillan (2023) investigate the rising opposition to the right of transgender individuals to self-identify their gender via legal means. A coalition of trans-exclusionary feminists and traditionalist conservatives has emerged, presenting transgender individuals as a threat to the safety and security of cisgender women in single-sex spaces. The coalition employs issue frames that appeal to women's safety, and surveys indicate that such frames significantly depress support for trans rights, especially among women. The article also explores the question of who supports the right to self-identification for trans individuals in a relatively LGBT+-friendly policy environment. The authors use an original pre-registered survey experiment embedded within the 2021 Scottish Election Study to answer these questions. Highlighting the effectiveness of such frames in increasing opposition to reforms aimed at improving the welfare of transgender individuals, the authors consider the concerns of advocates of self-identification policies. Next, in their article “Mixed Messages & Bounded Rationality: The Perverse Consequences of Real ID for Immigration Policy,” Stobb et al. (2023) discuss how the ambivalence of policies concerning undocumented immigrants creates uncertainty and confusion in the implementation process. The authors identify a clear example of this ambivalence in U.S. law setting standards for determining the credibility of asylum seekers. The REAL ID Act of 2005 sent mixed messages to immigration judges (IJs), who are street-level bureaucrats responsible for implementing immigration policy. This policy increased IJ discretion but set vague limits. The authors argue that IJs, behaving in a bounded rationality framework, use their professional legal training as a shortcut and look primarily to the courts for guidance and that their decision-making is more closely aligned with the preferences of their political and legal principals. Lastly, in their article “Policy Coordination and Selective Corruption Control in China,” Zhan and Zhu (2023) examine how autocracies deal with corruption and allocate resources to combat it. The authors focus on the Chinese government and propose that single-party regimes can steer anti-corruption attention to the policy domains prioritized by the central authority through the mechanism of cross-organizational policy coordination. The authors demonstrate this effect using original datasets compiled from Chinese governmental and procuratorial policy papers from 1998 to 2016. They also conducted field interviews to support their findings and reveal possible disruptions of anti-corruption efforts in policy domains falling off the central government's top list. The authors extend research on political influence over anti-corruption agencies and show how single-party regimes can instrumentalize anti-corruption to serve the government's policy agenda, driving the allocation of limited anti-corruption attention across policy areas. The PSJ editorial team takes great pride in presenting this issue and is thrilled about the ongoing developments in policy research and the policy community. We wholeheartedly invite you to immerse yourself in the articles, share your reflections, and keep the conversations on policy theory and practice going. PSJ is dedicated to nurturing diverse theoretical, methodological, and topical approaches, and strongly encourages submissions from historically underrepresented groups. We hope you enjoy this issue and wish you an excellent remaining summer! We look forward to seeing you again soon! —PSJ Editorial Team—