Editorial introduction: Exploring the frontier of policy theory research

Welcome to the second issue of the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) for 2024! We are thrilled to present this issue, which includes 10 exceptional research articles meticulously selected to cover a wide range of topics within policy theories and substantive policy areas as they relate to policy processes across different contexts. Before we dive into the articles, we want to pause and share some exciting updates about PSJ operations. These developments are designed to enhance the journal's contribution to the field, offering new opportunities for engagement and discourse among our community. As discussed elsewhere, we have expanded the range of article types that we publish, including short articles such as research notes and perspectives, and Policy Theory & Practice (PT&P) articles. If you plan to submit your manuscript to PSJ, we urge you not to worry too much about which article type is the best fit for your manuscript. Instead, focus on the quality of your research, and we will sort out any article type issues later. When submitting your manuscript, we encourage you to select PT&P as your possible publication option. Should your manuscript not align perfectly with the standard PSJ research article, we will evaluate it for publication under PT&P. It is important to note that PT&P operates as a rolling special issue within PSJ, meaning that your article, if accepted for PT&P, will be published as a part of the PSJ collection. We have a few updates regarding ongoing special issue initiatives. Drs. Saba Siddiki (PSJ Associate Editor) and Davor Mondom (PSJ Managing Editor) have successfully managed the manuscript review process for the Policy Design special issue, collaborating with Drs. Cali Curley (University of Miami) and Tomás Olivier (Syracuse University). We are delighted with the progress made and grateful for their leadership throughout the process. Dr. Holly Peterson (PSJ Associate Editor) is leading a special issue on Policy Advisory Systems (https://psjblog.net/2024/03/25/the-policy-studies-journal-psj-invites-submissions-for-a-special-issue-focusing-on-policy-advisory-systems/) while working with Drs. Jonathan Craft (University of Toronto) and Claire Dunlop (University of Exeter). Additionally, Drs. Geoboo Song (PSJ Editor-in-Chief), Gwen Arnold (PSJ Associate Editor), and Aaron Smith-Walter (PSJ Associate Editor) are curating a special issue focusing on the conception of power (https://psjblog.net/2024/04/19/call-for-papers-psj-special-issue-on-power-in-policy-theory-research/) while working with many other prominent policy scholars. We welcome your submissions for these special issues. In March, we hosted a virtual “Authors Meet Editors” event in collaboration with the American Political Science Association (APSA) Public Policy Section. We had the opportunity to engage in stimulating conversations with policy scholars from around the world about PSJ, review processes, research trends, and publication tips. We are grateful to the APSA Public Policy Section leaders/members, especially Dr. Kenicia Wright (Arizona State University), for organizing and moderating the panel discussion. We would also like to extend our appreciation to Drs. Ping Xu (University of Rhode Island), Hongtao Yi (Florida State University), Sam Workman (West Virginia University), and others for their invaluable support. In April, we held the PSJ editorial board/reviewer meeting at the historic Palmer House hotel during the Midwest Political Science Association (MPSA) conference in Chicago. The meeting was open to anyone interested in attending and provided an opportunity to discuss recent developments and day-to-day operations regarding PSJ. This issue features 10 outstanding research articles that offer profound insights into the interplay between policy theories and substantive issues, showcasing innovative approaches to policy studies. These articles analyze diverse topics, from the nuanced effects of climate change policy frameworks to the spread of Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) laws among states. Notably, the works delve into how narratives and emotional expressions influence policy advocacy and public discourse, particularly in sensitive areas like gender identity politics and critical race theory. Other studies highlight the unequal impacts of environmental policies, urging a closer examination of equity in policy outcomes. Together, these articles enhance our understanding of policy mechanisms and their effects, reinforcing the importance of nuanced, theory-driven research in crafting effective public policy. The Social Construction Framework (SCF) suggests that the public rewards policymakers for distributing benefits and burdens to target populations (Blanton & Jones, 2023; Maltby & Kreitzer, 2023). In the lead article “Policy design receptivity and target populations: A social construction framework approach to climate change policy,” Koski and Manson (2024) investigate how public receptivity to policy design varies with target population choice. The findings reveal that perceptions of deservingness play a more significant role in policy support than power dynamics. Intriguingly, the study also uncovers instances where the public favors imposing burdens on powerful groups based on deservingness, independently of their power, thus challenging some of the SCF's initial assumptions. These insights offer substantial contributions to the development of the SCF, particularly in understanding how policymakers' perceptions of public approval can shape the formulation and implementation of public policies. Preemption is a key aspect of American policymaking that influences the decisions of policymakers, organized interests, and voters at all government levels. Despite its importance, the political consequences of preemption have not been fully explored. In the second article “The policy feedback effects of preemption,” SoRelle and Fullerton (2024) use the policy feedback theory (Jacobs et al., 2022; Schober, 2023) to analyze these consequences, explaining how federal-state and state-local preemption can have distinct effects that influence the political actions of policymakers, organized interests, and the public. This article fills a gap in the preemption literature and extends policy feedback theory, suggesting a research direction to better understand the politics of this commonly used policy tool. Interest group research shows reformer advocacy groups, aiming for policy change, tend to win policy victories in local government more than entrenched groups, which prefer maintaining current policies and are more successful at the state level. Consequently, entrenched groups have persuaded state legislatures to restrict local governments’ powers on issues like tobacco, gun control, marriage rights, and climate change. However, few studies have explored how advocacy groups strategically present their arguments in these debates. In their article “Advocacy strategies in state preemption: the case of energy fuel bans,” Struthers and Ritzler (2024) argue that opposing groups differ in how they define issues, their relational tactics, and their use of institutional contexts, based on the “scope of conflict” literature (Koebele & Crow, 2023). The findings prompt questions about the effectiveness of broadening the scope of conflict in legislative committees and offer insights for reformer advocates aiming to gain state support for clean energy campaigns. Collaboration is often used to tackle complex policy problems. In their article “Manifesting symbolic representation through collaborative policymaking,” Mewhirter et al. (2024) attempt to connect ideas from collaborative governance (Dobbin et al., 2023) and representative bureaucracy (Keiser et al., 2022), suggesting that “forum representation”—which occurs when forums include enough members from organizations seen as aligning with citizens’ or their community's interests—leads to more positive views of all involved organizations. Their empirical study demonstrates that collaborative policing has far-reaching impacts on non-participating citizens that align well with democratic goals and organizational objectives. Polycentric governance (PG) refers to systems with multiple, interdependent decision-making centers, offering an alternative to centralized governance models (Lubell & Robbins, 2022; Morrison et al., 2023). While PG is thought to help with complex collective action problems, evidence shows it is not a cure-all, having both positive and negative outcomes. In their article “Empirical research on polycentric governance: Critical gaps and a framework for studying long-term change,” Baldwin et al. (2024) explore why PG succeeds in some situations but not others. In doing so, the authors introduce a “Context–Operations–Outcomes–Feedbacks” (COOF), highlighting how the interaction among these mechanisms drives change and adaptation in PG systems over time. Social media plays a crucial role in policy debates (Aslett et al., 2022). While online discussions can significantly impact political processes, the link between policy actors' offline influence and their online presence has been rarely explored. In their article “Policy influence and influencers online and off,” Kotkaniemi et al. (2024) investigate how offline reputational and formal-institutional influence, along with online broadcasting and boosting capabilities, relate to each other. The authors find that those with high offline reputational influence also have notable online broadcasting power. However, this does not apply to those with formal-institutional influence, nor does offline influence necessarily enhance online boosting abilities. The findings indicate that while online and offline influences are interconnected, they vary across different policy contestation arenas. Recent shifts in policy studies have sparked an intriguing exploration into how emotions influence individuals’ understanding and behaviors, particularly within the realms of policy and politics. In their article “Examining emotional belief expressions of advocacy coalitions in Arkansas' gender identity politics,” Fullerton and Weible (2024) advance this line of research by integrating the study of emotions into the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) (Satoh et al., 2023; Weible et al., 2023). Utilizing Emotional-Belief Analysis, this research scrutinizes legislative testimony regarding one of the first bans on gender-affirming care (GAC) in the US. The findings reveal that those providing testimony align with distinct advocacy coalitions, characterized by unique combinations of emotion-belief expressions alongside core policy beliefs. Furthermore, the study highlights that expressions of negative emotions and policy core beliefs have a significant and pronounced impact on coalition affiliation and the collective perspective on the GAC ban. Narrative storytelling is a powerful tool that pervades our lives, with a particularly strong presence in politics (Kuenzler & Stauffer, 2023; Schito, 2023). Here, policy issues are not merely existent; they are crafted and shaped through the stories told by policy actors. Recognizing this, policy scholars developed the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to systematically explore how strategic storytelling by these actors can sway policy outcomes. Through the lens of the NPF, Bertrand et al. (2024) delve into the ascendancy of critical race theory (CRT) within policy discussions in their article “Narrative spillover: A narrative policy framework analysis of critical race theory discourse at multiple levels.” Their findings reveal that heightened exposure to narratives advocating for the ban of CRT significantly bolstered support for such bans, notably among White individuals and Republicans. This study also introduces and examines the concept of narrative spillover, offering a fresh perspective on the interplay between narratives across different levels—micro, meso, and macro—and their collective impact on political beliefs as well as overarching perceptions of institutions and culture. Policy responses to environmental change and extreme climatic events have intertwined environmental and social impacts, with the latter receiving less attention, especially regarding how such responses may perpetuate inequality. In their article “Whose water crisis? How policy responses to acute environmental change widen inequality,” David and Hughes (2024) investigate how policy measures for droughts in California, US, and the Western Cape Province, South Africa, affect inequality through water access while focusing on how values-reinforcement and strategic communication link policy responses to growing inequalities. This research contributes to the study of environmental policy and maladaptation (Peterson, 2023; Sun et al., 2023), arguing that understanding hydraulic citizenship and focusing on specific mechanisms can improve our grasp of water injustice. In studying policy diffusion, researchers have found that states often adopt new policies to stay competitive economically (An et al., 2024). However, the fast adoption of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies, recognizing college athletes as professionals, goes beyond simple economic competition. The NIL trend suggests a new form of state competition, focusing more on reputation than direct economic gains. In their article “Athletic competition between the states: The rapid spread of Name, Image, Likeness laws and why it matters for understanding policy diffusion,” Colvin and Jansa (2024) analyze NIL legislation adoption based on factors like the number, value, and ranking of college football programs and the actions of competitors. Their findings show that both internal and interstate athletic competition motives drive states to adopt NIL laws. This is noteworthy as NIL has significantly altered amateur sports and reshaped our understanding of policy diffusion in the US, expanding how we view competition and how it is measured. In closing, we cannot express enough how grateful we are to share with you these insightful articles and updates about PSJ. The contributions made by our policy community are invaluable, and we are honored to be a part of it. As we approach the end of the semester, we wish you all the best in wrapping up your academic pursuits. We at the PSJ look forward to continuing our contributions to the policy community and hearing from you in the future. Take care and stay connected with us as we continue to explore the frontiers of policy theory research.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.