LIST OF PANELS

Over recent decades, scholars in public policy can argue that the field has evolved over time as it has gone global, theories have proliferated and improved, and methodologies have advanced.  Yet, some may look at the field, see its challenges and make claims that the field has plateaued; after all, the questions remain mostly the same about the mechanisms and pathways of policy change, about the relative influence of behavioral and structural explanations of policy change, and about the usefulness of theories comparatively.  The spirit underlying this panel and its sessions is to tackle questions about the growth and stagnation of the field of public policy by focusing on three of its most central challenges.  The first is integrating behavioral and structural explanation for policy-related choices, the second is explanations for policy change, and the third is the vertical and horizontal portability of theories in comparative research.

Session 1. Integrating Behavioral and Structural Explanations for Policy Choices

The goal of the first session is to explore the conflict between structure and agency. Such conflict has been endemic in the social sciences, as well as in the study of public policy.  Both sides of this debate can make strong cases for the primacy of their form of explanation, but the importance of this challenge appears to be finding ways on integrating these forms of explanation.   This integration has become more important in public policy studies with the increasing interest in behavioral policy analysis, as well as behavioral public administration.  Although perhaps seen most clearly in the study of policy instruments, e.g. “nudge”, questions about appropriate forms of explanation and policy design touch all aspects of public policy.   This session will discuss alternative forms of explanation and design, and how they can be brought together for a more rounded conception of how public policies are formed and how they function. This session welcomes research questions that explore cognitive/mental models of the individual and how such models integrate in different settings.   This session embraces different theoretical and methodological approaches to this puzzle, including (but not limited to) interpretive/constructive approaches, traditional frameworks and theories of public policy, and new and different approaches.  It also welcomes novel theories and synthesized critiques of the field.

Session 2. Policy Change: New Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives

The goal of the second session is to explore old and new theoretical and methodological perspectives in the analysis of policy change. In its origins, the study of policy change was mainly about the nature of decision-making. The main goal of the heuristic stage model, incrementalism, or rational choice models was mainly to explain the process of decision-making and the capacity of policy-makers to process information. These studies seek to understand why policies emerge, and how policy actors influence final decisions. One of the main features of this first set of theories was their focus on agency leaving aside institutional factors.

A second set of theoretical frameworks was developed to explain agency and decision-making. All these theories, from Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory are aimed to explain how and why policy change occurs focusing mainly on the role of power, ideas, and framing strategies. In Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Kingdon (1984) argues the selection of policy alternatives (i.e, policy change) occurs as the result of the interaction of three different processes, one connected with ideas, another connected with the functioning of the political system, and a third one connected with problems. In a different fashion, the Advocacy Coalition Framework developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith made a major contribution to the study of the importance of ideas in the process of decision-making. In each policy area one can identify different advocacy coalitions composed by a set of different policy actors that share the same ideas and ways of understanding policy issues.   In a different vein, Baumgartner and Jones’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory stresses most issues follow long periods of policy stability that are abruptly interrupted by sudden changes or punctuations. In their theory, Baumgartner and Jones take into account the interaction between ideas, institutions and flows of information.

All these theories of policy change have generated a long number of publications and the development of international research programs like the Comparative Policy Agendas (www.policyagendas.org). However, as John (2017) argues, there have been no major innovations that challenge existing theories, with a few exceptions.  Some of these challenges come from the use of alternative methodologies like the comparative method in the study of public policy, others from the development of interpretative public policy, while others are more focused on the current debates in political economy. The goal of this panel is to discuss about these new approaches to policy change and their connection with previous theoretical frameworks from a theoretical and empirical point of view.  This session welcomes papers that tackle policy change from old and new perspectives, explore this theme of whether and how the field has advanced in the study of policy change, present this theme via methodological innovations, and offers different epistemological and ontological perspectives.

Session 3. Vertical and Horizontal Portability of Policy Theories

The goal of this third session is to explore the portability of policy theories in comparative research agendas.  Theories are being applied vertically from local to international scales and horizontally across various topics and similar jurisdictions.  This raises a host of challenges including how to incorporate context into the theories, what factors explain citizen engagement in the policy process across different political systems, how do interest groups vary in different types of pressure systems as they try to influence public policy, and to what extent do the factors associated with policy change vary across different contexts.  All of this raises central questions about what it means to conduct comparative research on public policy.   Assuming we need theories to help answer these questions (and many others) within a comparative perspective, do we need new theories, are existing theories effective across different contexts, and what's working and what's not working?   The spirit of this session is to focus on the portability of theories and the role of theories in comparative public policy research.

This panel is open to any paper that fits within its themes.  If your paper fits within this panel and its sessions, we welcome its submission.