The Politics of the Policy Process

Theme Different theories point to quite distinct conceptions of what matters in the policy making process. The Section provides a forum for the proponents of various theoretical frameworks of the policy process (Multiple Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, Punctuated Equilibrium, Social Construction, and others) to share the logic, concepts, hypotheses, empirical developments and challenges of a variety of perspectives. It is open to proposals of Panels and Papers using different methodologies and covering any empirical topic, operational setting, national context or theoretical aspect using the policy process research orientations. We are especially interested in scholarship that is comparative/international in scope, examines particular elements or the entire policy process, and is open to dialog with other theoretical perspectives. Aims The Section has the following objectives: 1. Develop communities and provide opportunities for networking for scholars sharing common theoretical orientations and interests on the policy process. 2. Encourage dialogue among policy process theoretical orientations within a single conference setting. 3. Solicit contributions that conceptualize overlapping and complementary aspects to promote the generation of new research agendas. Contributors and Target Population The Section is a continuation of the success of the ECPR 2016 meeting and is expected to involve a healthy mix of contributors consisting of established and junior scholars and advanced graduate students from Europe as well as other continents. We invite proposals from any sub-discipline of political science and public administration that uses any (single or in combination) of the policy process frameworks (Multiple Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, Punctuated Equilibrium, Social Construction, or others). We are interested in works that employ diverse methodological orientations, explore particular elements or the entire policy process, are pitched at sub-national, national, comparative or international settings, and address any functional policy domain or topic. Proposed Panel Topics, Chairs, and Discussants 1. Roundtable: Practical Lessons from Theories of the Policy Process Chair: Chris Weible, University of Colorado Denver, United States, Chris.Weible@ucdenver.edu Discussant: Paul Cairney, University of Stirling, United Kingdom, p.a.cairney@stir.ac.uk Summary: Over several decades, there have been major theoretical advances in the study of the policy process. This Roundtable seeks to summarize from this theoretical literature the practical lessons for those people actively involved in policy and political issues. The Roundtable will feature scholars representing diverse theoretical literatures including (but not limited to) coalitions and networks, institutional design, narratives and discourse, information processes and policy change, learning, agenda setting, and collective action and governance. The Roundtable will then offer practical insights from this theoretical literature and how people can use these insights to act more effectively in the policy process. 2. Multiple Streams Framework in Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives Chairs: Reimut Zohlnhöfer (University of Heidelberg, Germany), reimut.zohlnhoefer@ipw.uni-heidelberg.de Vilém Novotný (Charles University, the Czech Republic), vnovotny@fsv.cuni.cz Discussant: Nikolaos Zahariadis, Rhodes College, United States, zahariadisn@rhodes.edu Summary: The Panel focuses on Papers, which aim to advance conceptualization of Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), or its particular elements (streams, policy window, policy entrepreneurs) by applying it to different fields, scopes, and settings (e.g. subnational, national, or supranational) and by using diverse methodologies (quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods designs). Papers that include sound discussion of their propositions and of relations of MSF to politics are particularly welcome. 3. Advancing the Comparative Study of Learning, Coalitions, and Policy Change Chairs: Daniel Nohrstedt, Uppsala University, Sweden, Daniel.Nohrstedt@statsvet.uu.se Stéphane Moyson, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium, Stephane.Moyson@uclouvain.be Discussant: Christopher Weible, University of Colorado Denver, USA, Chris.Weible@ucdenver.edu Summary: The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is one of the leading theoretical approaches for advancing comparative study of the policy process. This Panel seeks Papers that apply the ACF to explore effects of contextual factors on policy learning, advocacy coalitions, and policy change. Contextual factors include - but are not limited to - cultural, social, economic, institutional, biophysical, and organizational conditions. All methodological approaches are welcome. Papers that deal directly with the methodological challenges of conducting comparative policy process research through the ACF lens are also encouraged. 4. Cross-fertilization of Ideas Across Policy Process Theories Chairs: Åsa Knaggård (Lund University, Sweden), asa.knaggard@svet.lu.se Reimut Zohlnhoefer (University of Heidelberg, Germany), reimut.zohlnhoefer@ipw.uni-heidelberg.de Discussant: Christopher Weible (University of Colorado, Denver, USA), chris.weible@ucdenver.edu. Summary: This Panel seeks strategies for advancing knowledge about the policy process by combining frameworks or inserting certain elements of one lens into another. The Panel will thus explore barriers, opportunities, and strategic ideas for taking leaps in knowledge in policy process research. Theoretical Papers can discuss whether and how cross-fertilization can increase explanatory leverage. Empirical Papers investigate the possibility and usefulness of cross-fertilization. Moreover, Papers that discuss the same case from the perspective of more than one theory are also welcome. Other proposals of Panels and Papers are welcome and they will be organised either according to their theoretical orientation (Social Construction, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, and so on), the theoretical aspect of the policy process research (institutions, change, ideas and so on), the policy domain analysed, or the operational setting (local, regional, national, supranational, international).