How can non-elected representatives secure democratic representation?

Research on the democratic legitimacy of non-elected actors influencing policy while acting as representatives is often lacking in governance literature, despite being increasingly relevant worldwide. Recent theories of representation argue that there are non-electoral mechanisms to appoint such non-elected representatives and hold them responsible for their actions. Consequently, democratic non-electoral representation can be achieved. Through empirical analysis, this article explores democratic non-electoral representation in governance networks by comparing how non-elected representatives, their constituents and the decision-making audience understand the outcome of representation to benefit the constituency, authorisation and accountability. The research findings conclude that all three groups mostly share the understanding of democratic non-electoral representation as ongoing interactions between representatives and constituents, multiple (if any) organisational and discursive sources of authorisation and deliberative aspects of accountability. All of these are non-electoral mechanisms that secure democratic representation. These findings make an important contribution to the literature on non-electoral representation in policymaking.

How partisan politics influence government policies in response to ageing populations

Since old-age programmes mitigate life-course risks that are relevant to individuals across socio-economic groups in ageing societies, all parties have a political incentive to support these initiatives. Nevertheless, pre-existing partisan commitments bind the policy instruments that parties use. Cabinet-level analyses of OECD economies demonstrate that left incumbency relies more on public expenditure than right-wing governments. What is more important is that, in the context of large elderly populations, pension coverage is greater under right-leaning governments, while pension replacement rates are higher in left-leaning governments. This shows that party behaviour related to life course-related policies cannot be explained by the conventional pro-expansion versus the pro-retrenchment partisan politics. Rather, a focus on partisan variation in the use of policy instruments is required.

How do policy transfer mechanisms influence policy outcomes in the context of authoritarianism in Vietnam?

The literature on policy transfer shows that it may result in simultaneous policy convergence and policy divergence. However, little is known about how such results happen when transferring from multiple and possibly contrasting sources. This study finds that civil service reforms in Vietnam’s merit-based policies are influenced by both western and Asian models of meritocracy. This makes them both closer to universal ‘best practices’ and at the same time sharpens the distinctiveness of Vietnam’s policy. The calculations of political actors in combination with the context of a one-party authoritarian state have led to policy transfer through mechanisms of translation and assemblage which brings about a hybrid of convergence and divergence. This study enhances understanding of policy transfer in the context of Asian authoritarianism. In finding hybridity in transfer outcomes in this national context, the article shows the uniqueness of resultant policy change and develops an analytical framework for the influence of policy transfer on policy outcomes.

How diverse and inclusive are policy process theories?

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.

The implications of COVID-19 for concepts and practices of citizenship

Based on a review of citizenship and citizen participation in politics and policy studies, this article reveals diverse concepts of citizens and citizenship and their changing roles within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that the pandemic will result in bringing citizens back into the policy process, given that active participation of citizens in solving wicked social problems has been emphasised. Our results suggest that the pandemic will result in a return of public citizens as their voluntary, active participation and coproduction practices are expected to increase.

Global Public Policy studies

Globalisation has helped to intensify the international flow of people, information and policies. Following this process there has been increasing global concern regarding problems in areas such as immigration, health, poverty, among others. Various agents are transnationally engaged in common responses to these issues. The classic definition of public policies is related to actions undertaken by governments to solve the problems within their jurisdictions. However, often problems do not respect national boundaries. Sometimes, policies need to involve other nations. This article discusses the main issues, concepts and challenges in the study of global public policies.First, the article presents a review of the existing literature. Second, it introduces the key agents and agendas of global public policy. The discussion section focuses on the latest challenges and opportunities for research in Global Public Policy studies. Finally, new avenues of research are introduced, such as the dimension of power, the impact of the far-right and the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Challenging boundaries to expand frontiers in gender and policy studies

Gender and policy studies needs to face challenges and cross boundaries if the discipline is to develop. This article argues that gender and policy studies needs to explicitly foreground the centrality of politics – the analysis of power – in approaching policy. The discipline confronts boundaries in relation to inclusivity, diversity and relevance. Inclusive gender equality demands challenging the hegemonising and marginalising boundaries in the field, which contributes to its relevance by placing politics and power centre stage. Openness to the diversity of gender and policy approaches, a more systematic and thoughtful application of intersectionality, cooperation with LGBTQI+, critical race studies and normative political theory provide opportunities to challenge boundaries and advance knowledge. We argue that explicit reflexivity about power dynamics and knowledge production, employing a plurality of approaches, will better equip the discipline to navigate major challenges and crises, and offer more nuanced democratic and egalitarian societal contributions.

An organisational approach to meta-governance: structuring reforms through organisational (re-)engineering

This article outlines an organisation theory approach to meta-governance by illustrating how public organisations may organise policy change and reform by (re-)designing organisational choice-architectures. First, it outlines an organisational approach to meta-governance and, second, it offers an illustrative case of meta-governance by examining how public innovation processes are shaped by organisational designs. Two arguments are proposed: (i) first, that public meta-governance is an accessible tool for facilitating policy change, and (ii) second, that meta-governance may be systematically biased by organisational structuring. Examining conditions for meta-governance is important since governments experience frequent criticism of existing inefficient organisational arrangements and calls for major reforms of the state. The contribution of this article is to suggest how an organisational approach to meta-governance might both explain meta-governance and make it practically relevant for solving societal challenges in the future.

British counterterrorism, the international prohibition of torture, and the multiple streams framework

After years of violating the basic principles of human rights in the name of counterterrorism, western democracies have begun to implement extraterritorial safeguards that extend protections under the Convention against Torture to foreigners abroad. The case of the UK and the development of the ‘Principles’ in 2019, however, presents a particular puzzle to policymaking research, as it challenges traditional hypotheses regarding the opening of problem windows within the multiple streams framework. Accordingly, the UK presents an interesting case in which a powerful state willingly engaged in self-restraint, despite little electoral pressure to do so and a persistently high terrorist threat. Drawing on theory-building process-tracing, this article addresses this gap using data from semi-structured interviews with British policy experts to present a refined hypothesis, which can also be applied to policy fields of little public interest and processes of foreign policymaking.

Taking risks and breaking new frontiers: introduction to the Special Issue and the cardinal challenges for policy and politics scholarship

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.