Narrative stories are crucial to policy change, as they decisively contribute to how policy problems and policies are defined. While this seems to apply for social policy in particular, narrative stories have remained under-researched and not systematically compared for this area. In this article, we theorise on narratives in social policy by focusing on how similarities and differences between narratives in old-and new-social-risks policy reforms can be conceptualised, taking into account expansion and retrenchment. To systematically link those types of social policy reform with narrative elements, we rely on stories of control and helplessness, as well as the deservingness or undeservingness associated with different target populations. Thereby, distinct types of social policy reform narratives are identified: stories of givingto-give, giving-to-shape, taking-to-take, taking-to-control, and takingout-of-helplessness. The article concludes with empirical illustrations of those narrative types, which stem from the case studies presented in this Special Issue.

Since the early 2000s, theorizing on incremental institutional change has made inroads in comparative historical analysis. In particular, the ideas, concepts, and theory introduced by Kathleen Thelen and her collaborators have been widely adopted by scholars. These scholars are not, however, univocally positive about the theory. Three main critiques have been plaguing the theory since its early days: the concepts it builds on lack clarity, the model of agency it uses is too static, and the theory lacks analytical power overall. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis method, this article presents a meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed empirical literature from 2005 to 2015 that applies this theory. It seeks to better understand the reach of the critiques expressed, as this may provide a starting point for improvement. It finds considerable quantitative support for the critiques, and uncovers an additional problematic issue: the tendency for concept stretching and concept proliferation by scholars seeking to overcome the shortcomings of the theory. Paradoxically, concept stretching and proliferation only further reduce the analytical power of the theory. The article concludes with suggestions for improvement of the development and application of the theory.

Building on a critical engagement with the diffusion literature, this article introduces a refined model of diffusion that sheds light on crucial but so far neglected aspects of the diffusion process. First, by introducing four analytically distinct constellations of diffusion, we highlight important differences between the participating units of a diffusion process. Therefore, the model also allows for analysing very early developments of social policy under the conditions of colonialism and relations between states of equal or different economic strength, and under conditions of continuing post-colonial ties. Second, we conceptualize diffusion as consisting of three stages which involve different actors from both units: the stage of perception and translation, the stage of cooperation and conflict and the stage of collective decision-making. Third, we argue that the dominant focus of diffusion research on the macro-level obscures that people, money and procedures are key promoters of diffusion. From this refined model of diffusion, it becomes possible to analyse diffusion processes in a more detailed way. We demonstrate the added value of our model by analysing the development of education policy in Chile and Argentina in the 19th century, and the establishment of project funding for social policy purposes under conditions of colonialism in the British Empire in the mid-20th century.

This article reviews how the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) has been applied in studies analyzing policy change. It builds on a systematic evidence synthesis of peer-reviewed empirical literature that is based on the core readings by Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones. The article identifies trends in the geographical and policy focus of PET studies; maps, explores, and interrogates how core concepts of PET are applied in empirical analyses; and, finally, assesses the analytical and explanatory power of PETwhen applied to empirical phenomena. The article finds that PET studies have contributed a great deal to our knowledge on particular cases, but that more often than not PET is applied in a selective manner. The article deals with the implications of these findings for further theory development in policy analysis.

Following the financial crisis, Bismarckian health systems underwent some major reforms. This article analyzes under which conditions major reforms occurred. To do so, it theoretically combines conditions from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to emphasize the added value of merging them to explain major policy change. By combining these two approaches, it is possible to present a more comprehensive picture of the reform processes, relying on the significance of both policy learning within actor coalitions (as particularly important in the ACF) and the role of ambiguity and timing (as particularly important in the MSF). Empirically, the article focuses on the health care reform packages from 2009 to 2013 in the four traditional European Bismarckian countries, Austria, Belgium, France and Germany. The analysis reveals learning as a necessary condition for major policy change. Consequently, a major reform only happens as a result of learning processes, either combined with a negotiated agreement, which presents a pure ACFrelated configuration, or combined with a window of opportunity opening in the problem stream. The latter configuration thus confirms the need for integrating a condition from the MSF into the ACF to explain major policy change.