Advancing Policy Process Research at Its Overlap with Public Management Scholarship and Nonprofit and Voluntary Action Studies

Abstract

A scholarly nexus is defined as identifiable spheres of theoretical and empirical overlap between academic fields or disciplines. This article explores the nexus between policy process research, public management scholarship, and nonprofit and voluntary action studies, oriented from the perspective of policy process scholars. The article begins with a description of policy process research, including some of its major thematic emphases regarding governance problems and processes. It next discusses limitations of policy process research imposed by its scope of inquiry, theoretical black boxes, and omitted factors. Three strategies-filling, zooming, and linking-for addressing these limitations are introduced. The article ends with rationales for leveraging research at the nexus to advance both specialized and general knowledge about public policy processes and governance issues.

Context matters: A Bayesian analysis of how organizational environments shape the strategic management of sustainable development

“…Public organizations have often been conceptualized as a ‘black box’ where the outputs of policy processes interact in mostly unobserved ways with the managerial activities of administrators tasked with translating policy ideas into actions (Weible and Carter ). This is because policy process research often fails to extend the scope of its enquiry to organizational activities, while management scholarship tends to overlook the role policy design or changes play on organizational outputs and outcomes (Sowa and Lu ).…”

Multiple Streams in Hawaii: How the Aloha State Adopted a 100% Renewable Portfolio Standard

“…Policy process research refers to the “study of the interactions that occur over time between public policies and surrounding actors, events, contexts, and outcomes” (Weible & Carter, , pp. 27–28).…”

Processo das políticas públicas: revisão de literatura, reflexões teóricas e apontamentos para futuras pesquisas

“…Thus, Weible and Carter (2017, p. 27) argue that studying the policy process means analyzing "interactions that occur over time between public policies and actors, events, contexts, and outcomes." A range of theoretical models have been developed in order to explain the various aspects of the policy process (WEIBLE and CARTER, 2017). The most important are those well-known in the international literature (PETRIDOU, 2014;WEIBLE and CARTER, 2017) and that have been applied to the Brazilian reality more frequently (BRASIL and CAPELLA, 2016;CAPELLA, SOARES and BRASIL, 2014): the multiple streams model proposed by John Kingdon in 1984; the advocacy coalitions framework, by Paul Sabatier and Jekins-Smith (presented in 1993 and revised and improved by the same authors in 1999); and finally the punctuated equilibrium model, by Baumgartner and Brian Jones (1993).…”

“…The choice of the constructs 'change/stability' and 'actors' capability to influence' is justified by the fact that one of the great themes of scholars in studying the policy process, according to Weible and Carter (2017), is the investigation of the engagement and influence of certain actors and political groups, since it is understood that the actors compete to influence public policy directly or indirectly, "aiming to influence the results of decision-making; changing the rules that provide government with structure, often through the creation, modification and elimination of decision-making sites; or by electing people to take over official positions" (WEIBLE and CARTER, 2017, p. 28). Another great research theme pointed out by these authors is the change in the process, promoted in the work by Baumgartner and Jones (1993).…”

“…Another great research theme pointed out by these authors is the change in the process, promoted in the work by Baumgartner and Jones (1993). From its publication to the present day, a considerable number of studies have been concerned with understanding the patterns of policy change in space and time (WEIBLE and CARTER, 2017). Therefore, these two dimensions (capability to influence and change/stability), presented in different ways in each model, can constitute units of comparison between them.…”