LIST OF WORKSHOPS

In the last decade, the study of policy dismantling has expanded. From being mostly about social policy termination in developed countries, the literature has looked at new countries and sectors. The literature on policy dismantling, for the most part, has explained the process of dismantling, the factors, and motivations behind it, as well as the approaches taken to dismantle policies (Bauer and Knill, 2014; Jordan, 2013). From different perspectives, the disciplines of political science, public administration, and public policy have provided explanations as to why and when politicians terminate policies, along with how they execute the act of dismantling (such as whether they do so transparently or attempt to shift blame). Nonetheless, a distinct aspect has been widely disregarded: the effects of policy dismantling.  
The purpose of this workshop is to connect the current research on the process of policy dismantling with an examination of its consequences. Just like any other type of policy change, policy dismantling affects the groups it aims to target, can cause organizational and institutional changes, and may set off feedback loops. 
Policy dismantling refers to the termination of policy interventions and the reduction of policy benefits or the number of beneficiaries. Bauer and Knill (2012) propose two dimensions that define policy dismantling: policy density, which refers to the number of policies and instruments used in a certain policy area, and policy intensity, which refers to the strictness and/or generosity of policies. Based on this distinction, Jordan et al. (2013) define policy dismantling as a policy change that reduces the number of policies and instruments, or lowers their intensity in a particular area. 
The dismantling of policies has become a topic of great interest in recent years. The effects of this process have been studied extensively and offer a fruitful research agenda. The literature on termination grew in the late 2000s due to the financial crisis, which led to austerity policies being implemented worldwide. These policies included budget cuts, deregulation, reductions in public services, rollbacks of benefits, and decreases in policy coverage (Jordan et al., 2013). Environmental policies have also been dismantled in both developed and developing countries, leading to discussions about the methods used to do so (Pollex and Lenchow, 2020; Goulart-Menezes and Barbosa, 2021). Recent analyses of scholars interested in populist or new authoritarian regimes have looked at policy changes that reduce policy capacities in central governments and put limits on welfare or environmental policies (Moynihan and Roberts, 2021; Dussauge, 2021). The dismantling of policies has also been studied at the supranational level (Gravey and Jordan, 2016) and the subnational level (Volden, 2016). 

What happens when a policy stops being in effect? What impact would the elimination of government interventions, the termination of policy instruments, or a reduction in the scope or intensity of public programs have on individuals? This is an old debate that has its roots in the literature on policy termination and has been revived in both developed and developing nations experiencing the scaling back of social services, the dismantling of environmental protections, the disenrollment in health insurance, or the repeal of social policies by populist or semi-authoritarian governments.  
 
We invite submissions on policy dismantling in any country or sector. We welcome quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research designs exploring the social, political, economic, institutional, organizational, or individual effects of policy dismantling. We want to include both comparative and single-case studies that offer empirical support for explanations about how policy dismantling affects people, organizations, and institutions.  
 
Among the questions for which we invite submissions are: 
 
What is the impact of policy dismantling (such as dis-enrollment, retrenchment, or contractions of policy instruments) on the targeted population? 
Are there spillover effects of policy dismantling (such as dis-enrollment, retrenchment, or contractions of policy instruments)?  
What are the effects of policy dismantling on the bureaucracy? 
How (former) beneficiaries cope with the reduction/elimination of benefits? 
How policy dismantling leads to a reconfiguration of the policy subsystem? 
What are the political effects of policy termination? 
How does eliminating a policy transform the policy mix in which it belongs? 
How subnational governments react to central government's policy dismantling? 

What happens when a policy stops being in effect? What impact would the elimination of government interventions, the termination of policy instruments, or a reduction in the scope or intensity of public programs have on individuals? This is an old debate that has its roots in the literature on policy termination and has been revived in both developed and developing nations experiencing the scaling back of social services, the dismantling of environmental protections, the disenrollment in health insurance, or the repeal of social policies by populist or semi-authoritarian governments.  
 
The purpose of this workshop is to connect the current research on the process of policy dismantling with an examination of its consequences. Just like any other type of policy change, policy dismantling affects the groups it aims to target, can cause organizational and institutional changes, and may set off feedback loops. We want to include both comparative and single-case studies that offer empirical support for explanations about how policy dismantling affects people, organizations, and institutions. 

Johabed Olvera, Ph.D. is a public policy and public management scholar who examines the impact of public policies on maternal and infant health and families’ well-being and the role of policy implementation and management in the success of these interventions, and the effects of policy dismantling or termination of program’s benefits. She uses an interdisciplinary theoretical frame to explain the mechanisms through which government interventions impact health outcomes. She is a quantitative researcher that uses a variety of empirical approaches—including econometric analyses using administrative and survey data, and lab-in-the-field experiments— and quasi-experimental methods designed to uncover causal effects. Her research has been funded by The National Science Foundation, the Pennsylvania State University Population Research Institute, and the Pennsylvania State University Center for Social Data Analytics. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Pennsylvania State University and an associate faculty member at the Population Research Institute. She holds a Ph.D. in public affairs from Indiana University’s O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. 
 
 
 
Guillermo M. Cejudo is professor at the Public Administration Department of the Center for Research and Teaching on Economics, CIDE, in Mexico City. He has published in leading journals such as Public Administration Review, Policy Sciences, International Review of Administrative Sciences, International Public Management Journal, International Public Management Review, Reforma y Democracia, and Gestión y Política Pública. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Boston University. His research interests are quality of government in new democracies, policy integration, social policy, federalism, and policy analysis. Recent work: Cejudo, G.M., Trein, P. Pathways to policy integration: a subsystem approach. Policy Sci 56, 9–27 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09483-1; Cejudo, G.M., Michel, C.L. Implementing policy integration: policy regimes for care policy in Chile and Uruguay. Policy Sci (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09507-4; Michel, CL, Meza, OD, Cejudo, GM. Interacting institutional logics in policy implementation. Governance. 2022; 35: 403- 420.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12596; Cejudo, G. M., & Gómez-Álvarez, D. (2023).  Uncoordinated federalism: Subnational response to the pandemic crisis in Mexico. Public Administration and Development,  43(2),  176–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2009