LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Background

Although there is a flourishing body of literature on policy processes (Weible and Sabatier, 2017), its focus remains on western democracies (Jones et al., 2016; Kuhlmann & van der Heijden, 2018; Williamson & Magaloni, 2020). English-language studies that apply the main theories of the policy process (Weible and Sabatier, 2017) to nondemocracies remain limited in number and scope.

Yet, it is pivotal to better understand policy processes around the world, not just in democracies. A large share of the world population lives in authoritarian regimes. Moreover, in our globalized world, domestic issues can easily travel to other parts of the world. COVID-19 is just one example of this.

In response to this research gap, an emerging body of research has started to adjust and apply theories of the policy process to authoritarian institutional contexts. For example, Chan and Zhao (2015) apply the punctuated equilibrium theory to regional government spending in China; Schlaufer et al. (2021) use the Narrative Policy Framework to examine urban policymaking in Russia; Li and Weible (2021) apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework to China; and Van den Dool (forthcoming) adjusts and applies the multiple streams framework to China.

However, a key question is whether existing policy process theories are sufficiently capable to do so given that their underlying assumptions are clearly rooted in a liberal democratic context. For example, the ACF is implicitly built on a pluralistic concept of political power (Sievers & Jones, 2020), while the NPF assumes that narratives used in policy debates impact policy outputs (Shanahan et al., 2017), and the MSF includes structural elements that clearly relate to democracy, such as the election of policy makers and party politics.

Workshop Aims

The aim of this workshop is threefold. First, it aims to systematically explore the applicability of existing theories of the policy process (Weible and Sabatier, 2017) to authoritarian regimes. Second, it aims to identify the specificities of policy processes and potential factors of policy change in authoritarian systems that go beyond existing theories of the policy process. Thirdly, it aims to start building an inclusive and coherent research community for scholars working on policy process theories in authoritarian settings, which would allow scholars who work on different theories and different countries to engage in comparative studies which would help us identify key characteristics of authoritarian policy processes.

In addition to contributing to a better understanding of policy processes in authoritarian settings, the inherent comparative nature of this workshop furthermore contributes to theory development of existing policy process theories. With this focus on theory development, the workshop’s results are relevant not only for research on policy processes in authoritarian contexts but will also contribute to generate generalizable knowledge across contexts.

Research Questions and Types of Papers

Given that policy process theories in authoritarian contexts is still an emerging field, the workshop takes a rather broad approach. We welcome papers that empirically test existing theories of the policy process in nondemocratic context, empirical papers that use other theoretical approaches, and conceptual papers that move further public policy theory for authoritarian contexts.

Key research questions to be addressed by the panels include:

- To what extent and how do existing policy process theories, including their underlying assumptions and hypotheses, need to be adjusted to fit authoritarian contexts?

- What are blind spots of existing (adjusted) policy process theories to explain policy change in authoritarian contexts, how can existing theories about authoritarianism be integrated into policy process theories, and what other theoretical approaches could be useful?

- How to conduct policy process research in authoritarian contexts given limited data availability, limited funding, censorship, and other research obstacles?

- How are existing policy process theories taught in authoritarian contexts and to what extent are they adjusted to fit local contexts?

Workshop Design

Given that the workshop takes existing policy process theories (Weible & Sabatier, 2017) as a starting point, we envision to organize submitted papers into 3-4 panels that each focus on a specific policy process theory, including at least the Multiple Streams Framework, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, the Narrative Policy Framework. We plan to invite the authors of the relevant chapters in Weible and Sabatier (2017) to the respective panels to provide comments and engage in the wider discussion of the value of that theory in authoritarian settings.

By the end of each panel, we should have a better understanding of the extent to which the theory in question fits in authoritarian contexts, what research gaps exists, what methodological challenges researchers are facing, and how we could move ahead to try overcoming these research gaps and challenges.

In addition to the abovementioned panels, we envision to organize a roundtable on conducting policy process research in authoritarian setting, which addresses issues such as lack of data, censorship, limited funding, as well as how to move from idea to publication. This roundtable in particularly targets junior researchers who work in authoritarian settings.

References

Chan, K. N., & Zhao, S. (2016). Punctuated equilibrium and the information disadvantage of authoritarianism: Evidence from the People’s Republic of China. Policy Studies Journal, 44(2), 134–155.

Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Raney, H. L., and Zahariadis, N. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal 44 (1): 13–36.

Kuhlmann, J., and Van der Heijden, J. (2018). What is known about Punctuated Equilibrium Theory? And what does that tell us about the construction, validation, and replication of knowledge in the policy sciences? Review of Policy Research 35 (2): 326–47.

Li, W., & Weible, C. M. (2021). China’s policy processes and the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 49(3), 703–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12369

Schlaufer, C., Gafurova, D., Zhiryakova, E., Shikhova, M., & Belyaeva, N. (2021). Narrative strategies in a nondemocratic setting: Moscow’s urban policy debates. Policy Studies Journal, early online.

Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Radaelli, C. M. (2017). The narrative policy framework. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 173–214). Westview Press.

Sievers, T., & Jones, M. D. (2020). Can power be made an empirically viable concept in policy process theory? Exploring the power potential of the Narrative Policy Framework. International Review of Public Policy, 2(1), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.942

Van den Dool, A. (forthcoming). The Multiple Streams Framework in a Nondemocracy: The Infeasibility of a National Ban on Live Poultry Sales in China. Policy Studies Journal.

Weible, C. M, and Sabatier, P. A. (2017). Theories of the Policy Process, 4th ed. Westview Press.

Williamson, Scott, and Beatriz Magaloni. 2020. Legislatures and Policy Making in Authoritarian Regimes. Comparative Political Studies 53 (9): 1525–1543.

Although there is a flourishing body of literature on policy processes (Weible and Sabatier, 2017), its focus remains on western democracies (Jones et al., 2016; Kuhlmann & van der Heijden, 2018; Williamson & Magaloni, 2020). English-language studies that apply the main theories of the policy process (Weible and Sabatier, 2017) to nondemocracies remain limited in number and scope. In response to this research gap, an emerging body of research has started to adjust and apply theories of the policy process to authoritarian institutional contexts.

However, a key question is whether existing policy process theories are sufficiently capable to do so given that their underlying assumptions are clearly rooted in a liberal democratic context.

The aim of this workshop is threefold. First, it aims to systematically explore the applicability of existing theories of the policy process (Weible and Sabatier, 2017) to authoritarian regimes. Second, it aims to identify the specificities of policy processes and potential factors of policy change in authoritarian systems that go beyond existing theories of the policy process. Thirdly, it aims to start building an inclusive and coherent research community for scholars working on policy process theories in authoritarian settings. To address the relative lack of studies on policy process theories in authoritarian settings, we welcome papers that empirically test existing theories of the policy process in nondemocratic context, empirical papers that use other theoretical approaches, and conceptual papers that move further public policy theory for authoritarian contexts.

We welcome papers that empirically test existing theories of the policy process in nondemocratic context, empirical papers that use other theoretical approaches, and conceptual papers that move further public policy theory for authoritarian contexts.

Key research questions to be addressed by the workshop include:

- To what extent and how do existing policy process theories, including their underlying assumptions and hypotheses, need to be adjusted to fit authoritarian contexts?

- What are blind spots of existing (adjusted) policy process theories to explain policy change in authoritarian contexts, how can existing theories about authoritarianism be integrated into policy process theories, and what other theoretical approaches could be useful?

- How to conduct policy process research in authoritarian contexts given limited data availability, limited funding, censorship, and other research obstacles?

- How are existing policy process theories taught in authoritarian contexts and to what extent are they adjusted to fit local contexts?

Although there is a flourishing body of literature on policy processes (Weible and Sabatier, 2017), its focus remains on western democracies (Jones et al., 2016; Kuhlmann & van der Heijden, 2018; Williamson & Magaloni, 2020). English-language studies that apply the main theories of the policy process (Weible and Sabatier, 2017) to nondemocracies remain limited in number and scope. In response to this research gap, an emerging body of research has started to adjust and apply theories of the policy process to authoritarian institutional contexts. However, a key question is whether existing policy process theories are sufficiently capable to do so given that their underlying assumptions are clearly rooted in a liberal democratic context. The aim of this workshop is threefold. First, it aims to systematically explore the applicability of existing theories of the policy process (Weible and Sabatier, 2017) to authoritarian regimes. Second, it aims to identify the specificities of policy processes and potential factors of policy change in authoritarian systems that go beyond existing theories of the policy process. Thirdly, it aims to start building an inclusive and coherent research community for scholars working on policy process theories in authoritarian settings. To address the relative lack of studies on policy process theories in authoritarian settings, we welcome papers that empirically test existing theories of the policy process in nondemocratic context, empirical papers that use other theoretical approaches, and conceptual papers that move further public policy theory for authoritarian contexts.

Biography of the Chairs

Dr. Caroline Schlaufer’s research focuses on the link between (non)democratic institutions and public policy, policy process theories in nondemocratic polities and the use of narratives and scientific evidence in policymaking. She presently works as a lecturer at the KPM Center for Public Management at the University of Bern, Switzerland. Before, she was professor of public policy at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, where she managed a research project to further develop and apply the Narrative Policy Framework in an authoritarian setting. She has also applied the MSF and the ACF to explain public policy in nondemocratic contexts, above all in Russia and Belarus. Her research has been published in the Policy Studies Journal, Governance, Policy & Politics, and Policy Studies, among others.

Dr. Annemieke van den Dool is an assistant professor in the Social Sciences Division at Duke Kunshan University in China, where she teaches policy analysis, policy processes, crisis management, and environmental policy. Her research focuses on policymaking, policy process theories, and crisis management in China, especially in the areas of health and the environment. She aims to build bridges between existing literature on theories of the policy process and crisis management (both are predominantly based on studies conducted in democracies) and research on authoritarian settings. To this end, she is currently developing a book proposal on authoritarian crisis management and (co)authoring several (invited) papers/chapters on policy process theories in authoritarian settings. This includes a chapter on the multiple streams framework in an edited volume by Zahariadis et al.; a co-authored paper on the punctuated equilibrium theory in China; and a co-authored comparative paper on policy process theories in authoritarian settings. Her most recent article, forthcoming in the Policy Studies Journal, adjusts the Multiple Streams Framework to authoritarian China.