How diverse and inclusive are policy process theories?

Author(s):  
Tanya Heikkila ◽  
Michael D. Jones

Numerous published efforts have compared and contrasted policy process theories. Few assessments, however, have examined the extent to which they are inclusive or diverse. Here we summarise lessons from previous assessments, paying attention to how Paul Sabatier’s science-based criteria have shaped the contours of the field. In looking at these contours, we explore evidence of diversity and inclusivity of policy process approaches in terms of methods, concepts, topics, geography and authors. We conclude with strategies to address challenges revealed by our examination: creating space for conversations among scholars of differing perspectives and approaches; building sustained and meaningful efforts to recruit and train researchers with diverse backgrounds; establishing research coordination networks that focus on policy problems; and creating better metrics to assess our diversity and inclusivity.

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-127
Author(s):  
Linda J. Allen

AbstractContemporary policy process theories are used to explain important aspects of the policy process, including the emergence or change of policies over time. However, these theories vary notably in their composition, such as their scope of analytical space, key concepts and assumptions, models of individual decision-making, and relationships between process-relevant factors and actors. There is little guidance on which theory may be best suited for explaining particular policy outcomes or how the different elements of the theories influence their analytical power. To begin to address this gap in the literature, a comparative analysis applied four established policy process theories to explain the emergence of the same policy outcome, a set of environmental policies associated with the North American Free Trade Agreement, while varying the analytical space or “field of vision” spatially and temporally. Overall, each theory demonstrated strong explanatory power but within analytical spaces of different scales, which indicates that the dimensionality aspects aspects the analytical space of policy process theories may contribute to a convergence in shared knowledge.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (S1) ◽  
pp. S66-S95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatyana Ruseva ◽  
Megan Foster ◽  
Gwen Arnold ◽  
Saba Siddiki ◽  
Abigail York ◽  
...  

Human Affairs ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcela Veselková

AbstractThis paper discusses how the assumption that individuals and policy makers do not automatically update their prior beliefs with the new information has shaped policy process theories. Rather than the rational


1981 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-28
Author(s):  
Ronald D. Knutson

The papers by Boehm and Spitze provide contrasts in approach, content, and conclusions. The Spitze paper reflects the issues as seen through the eyes of an observant professor located in a major Corn Belt university. Its ideas reflect sensitivity to articulation of policy problems confronting producers in the region. Boehm's paper is particularly strong in that it reflects the day-to-day sensitivity to the contemporary economic and political forces that currently affect the policy process. Both papers lack a clear sensitivity to the policy position and problems of southern agriculture.


1984 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen H. Linder ◽  
B. Guy Peters

ABSTRACTLittle attention has been given in policy analysis to the creative process of designing solutions to public policy problems. There are a number of difficulties in applying macro-level theories – whether from economics, sociology, philosophy or macro-systems theory – in the policy process. Any macro-level theory will tend to provide inadequate guidance in one or more of three aspects of policy-making: a model of causation, a model for evaluating alternatives and outcomes, and a model of how interventions operate. Our current knowledge about which policy strategies work best under which conditions is at best rudimentary. Academic disciplinary perspectives focus on a narrow repertoire of policy instruments. What is required is a design focus which draws on instruments associated with a range of disciplines and professions. A design perspective involves both a systematic process for generating basic strategies and a framework for comparing them. Such an approach will require at least the following elements: (1) the characteristics of problems (scale, collectiveness, certainty, predictability, independence); (2) characteristics of goals (value-laden, operational, process of goal-setting); (3) characteristics of instruments (suitability of different instruments).


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher L. Atkinson

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the roots of environment policy through a review and application of policy literature, portraying a disjointed process worried with procedure over substance and too often removed from the reality of environment degradation and attainment of sustainability. Design/methodology/approach – The paper involves literature review and application of policy literature to sustainability. Findings – Government is responsible for protecting the environment in the face of rapid industrial growth, but ineffectiveness in and misunderstanding of the policy process, confounded by a multitude of actors and interests, and, often inadequate resourcing, threaten the possibility of sustainability. Research limitations/implications – Policy literature is voluminous. This paper seeks to apply public policy literature to the concept of sustainability, but a comprehensive review of all literature would be beyond the scope of a journal article. Practical implications – There is a separation between academic approaches to public policy and complex policy processes in practice. More nuanced sophisticated understanding of the policy process in the literature may allow for greater application to difficult policy problems like sustainability. Social implications – Sustainability is critical and should be promoted by public policy; however, interactions within the policy process are difficult and textbook approaches to defining or delineating processes are insufficient to encourage greater understanding of sustainability and how it may actually be achieved through public policy. Originality/value – Application of policy literature to sustainability in this manner is fairly unique in the literature.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document