Between incrementalism and punctuated equilibrium: the case of budget in Poland, 1995–2018

Incrementalism and punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) have secured their standing in public policy research when studying change in budgetary data. On the other hand, however, new empirical evidence is constantly developed to confront it with theoretical assumptions. In line with the above, the aim of the paper is threefold. First, it is examined if budgetary outlays in Poland follow either incrementalism or PET's core premises. Second, the paper aims at facilitating discussion on identifying punctuations. It is claimed that any cut-off point should be data-driven, category-responsive, and generalizable across different types of outliers. And third, it is investigated which of the budget categories have the most punctuations. Methodologically, the study is based on descriptive and distributional statistics provided to tackle the above two issues comprehensively. Consequently, the paper aims at filling the gap in theory-driven literature on Polish budget shifts and their empirical rigorous explanations. Thus, it is claimed that the Polish case study contributes to the debate on the verification of empirical research on public policy agendas and public policy change.

Incorporating Intersectionality in Public Policy: A Systematic Literature Review

Intersectionality is an ascending perspective in public policy research, gaining ever wider recognition in the discipline. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to assess the current state of intersectional public policy research. This study describes the temporal and research site trends, discipline, type of research methodology, multiple categories of intersectionality in public policy studies, and policy area. Particular attention is given to the categorization of the multiple applications of intersectionality in public policy studies identified in this review: intersectional framework, intersectional perspective, and intersectional critique. The results give a comprehensive picture of existing research on the topic, thus providing researchers with a solid foundation for further study.

How can better monitoring, reporting and evaluation standards advance behavioural public policy?

Behavioural public policy interventions have been implemented across the world, targeting citizens, professionals, politicians and policymakers. This article examines poor quality reporting of interventions and methods in some behavioural public policy research. We undertake a review of existing reporting standards to assess their suitability for the behavioural public policy context. Our findings reveal that the adoption of standards can improve the reliability and reproducibility of research; provide a more robust evidence base from which to generalise findings; and convince sceptics of the value of behavioural public policy research. We conclude that use of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy (BCTTv1) would add rigour to intervention reporting. We argue there is a need for a combined tool to guide the design and reporting of randomised controlled trials, incorporating elements from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and other sources.