Addressing Policy Change and Stasis in Public Policy and Policy Process Research

How public policies change or remain stable is at the heart of public policy and policy process research. Contemporary public policies experience various change dynamics driven by internal and external factors. These dynamics deserve close attention and the consideration of challenges and crises in our societies to better understand contemporary policy-making. The 2025 section, endorsed by the ECPR Standing Group on Public Policy, will provide a platform for discussing research on policy change and stasis. The Section stimulates critical and ongoing dialogue, demonstrated during previous ECPR Sections. It brings together policy scholars at all career levels from Europe and globally to reflect on cutting-edge research in their field and contribute papers with diverse theoretical and methodological orientations in sub-national, national, international, or comparative settings. The Section ▪ provides a networking and community-building opportunity for policy scholars from different generations and countries who share common interests in public policy and policy process research; ▪ assesses and develops theoretical, methodological, and empirical knowledge concerning policymaking and policy change; ▪ encourages dialogue among different perspectives and on cross-cutting themes concerning the policy process and public policy. FRAMEWORKS’ PANELS Panel: Advocacy Coalitions, Conflicts, and Policy Change Chair: Tuomas Ylä-Anttila (University of Helsinki) Discussant: Metodi Sotirov (University of Freiburg) Explaining policy change and stasis has always been the central objective of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). This panel welcomes all papers contributing to the development of the ACF, but particularly encourages papers that contribute to the understanding of policy change and stasis and the relation of these to learning and conflicts in policy subsystems. Dialogue between the ACF and other policy process frameworks is also encouraged. Panel: How Actors and Social Groups Stabilize or Transform Public Policies Chairs: Nils C. Bandelow (TU Braunschweig) & Johanna Hornung (University of Lausanne) The Programmatic Action Framework (PAF) builds on the idea that strong relations between actors, based on shared social identities, can stabilize or change public policies over longer periods of time. The panel invites papers that present theoretical or empirical contributions on the psychological drivers of actors’ collaboration and how it leads to policy change and stability. Panel: Navigating Policy Change and Stasis: Insights from the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework Chair(s): Nora Schütze (University of Kassel) & Giulia Bazzan (Tilburg University) This panel explores the dynamics of policy change and stasis through the lens of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. We aim to dissect how institutional arrangements, actor interactions, and contextual factors influence policymaking processes, particularly in the face of contemporary challenges and crises. Panel: Unpacking Policy Change and Stasis through the Narrative Policy Framework Chair(s): Jule Ksinsik (University of Bern) & Hilda Broqvist (Midsweden University) In the latest NPF version, three narrative mechanisms of policy change are proposed: narrative persuasion and/or manipulation and narrative attention. Still, the framework lacks research that explicitly examines those mechanisms on all analytical levels, which is something this panel will address. The panel welcomes all papers contributing to the advancement of the NPF through theoretical contributions, innovative methods, or novel applications in terms of context, policy debate, or narrative data. Panel: Using the Multiple Streams Framework to explain policy change and stasis Chair(s): Evangelia Petridou (Mid-Sweden University) & Nikolaos Zahariadis (Rhodes College) Discussant: Reimut Zohlnhöfer (University of Heidelberg) The Multiple Stream Framework has been widely applied to study policy (including agenda) change and stasis. While its fundamental assumptions of ambiguity and timing are ubiquitous in public policy, the framework still needs considerable refinement and testing to (dis)confirm and nuance its predictions. In this panel, we welcome contributions focusing on the entire framework or on one or more of its components to explain policy change and/or stasis. CROSS-CUT AND METHODOLOGY PANELS Panel: Policy Change Between Actors and Stages Chairs: Giliberto Capano (University of Bologna), Johanna Hornung (University of Lausanne) Short abstract related to the section main topic issue: Policy change happens because actors pursue it and can characterize each of the stages of policy making. Actors pursue policy change not only in the way of agenda-setting, instruments and goals design, decision-making, implementation and evaluation of the final outcomes but also in the processual dimensions of policies concerning the distribution of power among actors themselves, procedures adopted, patterns of interactions, policy styles, etc. The panel aims to explore different ways in which actors can pursue changes that can affect the different stages of the processual dimension of policy-making. Panel: Emotions and Wicked Policy Problems Chairs: Kayla Gabehart (Michigan Technological University) & Christoph Stefes (University of Colorado Denver) Discussant: Kristin Olofsson (Colorado State University) While numerous theories of the policy process acknowledge the potential influence of emotion-laden discourse on policy change, a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between emotions and policy dynamics remains elusive. This panel seeks to explore the interplay between emotional discourse and identity politics in shaping policy change, particularly in the context of wicked policy problems within polarized environments. Panel: Policy Processes Beyond Democracies Chairs: Annemieke van den Dool (Duke University Kunshan) & Caroline Schlaufer (University of Bern) The panel aims to systematically test existing theories of the policy process in authoritarian political systems and helps identify the differences and similarities in policy processes between authoritarian and democratic political systems. It is open to different policy process theories and stages of the policy process. Panel: The methodological aspect of policy change: operationalization, measurement, analysis. Chairs: Johanna Hornung (University of Lausanne), Giliberto Capano (University of Bologna) Public policy research frequently analyzes policy change as a dependent variable but seldomly addresses its operationalization and measurement. This panel invites contributions that present and/or discuss ways to operationalize and measure policy change and advance the comparability and standardization of policy change analysis. Panel: Public Policy Analysis Mishaps Chairs: Mario Angst (University of Zurich) & Federico Holm (Center for Progressive Reform; Colorado State University) There is a lot that can go wrong in analyzing public policy. Let's talk about it. Bring your horror stories and let's learn from each other.