Understanding and influencing the policy process

Abstract

This essay translates some of the underlying logic of existing research of policy processes into a set of strategies for shaping policy agendas and influencing policy development and change. The argument builds from a synthesized model of the individual and a simplified depiction of the political system. Three overarching strategies are introduced that operate at the policy subsystem level: developing deep knowledge; building networks; and participating for extended periods of time. The essay then considers how a democratic ethic can inform these strategies. Ultimately, the success or failure of influencing the policy process is a matter of odds, but these odds could be changed favorably if individuals employ the three strategies consistently over time. The conclusion contextualizes the arguments and interprets the strategies offered as a meta-theoretical argument of political influence.

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

“…In reality, one must overcome the two communities problem and decipher the many rules of policymaking. A general strategy is to engage for the long term to learn the 'rules of the game', understand how best to 'frame' the implications of evidence, build up trust with policymakers through personal interaction and becoming a reliable source of information, and form coalitions with people who share your ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0143-3 outlook (Cairney et al 2016;Weible et al 2012;Stoker, 2010, pp. 55-57).…”

The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis

“…The audience for these theories tend to be academics, and policy process theorists have struggled to translate strategies from their science into practice. There is clear potential to do so (Weible and Cairney 2018;Weible et al 2012;Cairney 2015Cairney , 2016Shipan and Volden 2012), but most efforts are halfhearted and ineffective. For example, writing policy implications in the conclusion of articles-published in academic journals that are inaccessible to policymakers, because they are behind a paywall and an opaque language-guarantees limited impact (deLeon and Weible 2010).…”

“…Each example points to the same implication: focus on engagement for the long term to develop the resources necessary to maximize the impact of policy analysis and understand the context in which the information is used. Among the advantages of longterm engagement are learning the 'rules of the game' in organizations, forming networks built on trust and a track record of reliability, learning how to 'soften' policy solutions according to the beliefs of key policymakers and influencers, and spotting 'windows of opportunity' to bring together attention to a problem, a feasible solution, and the motive and opportunity of policymakers to select it Weible et al 2012;Kingdon 1984). In short, the substance of your analysis only has meaning in relation to the context in which it is used.…”

The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

“…3-4;Cairney 2012a, p. 183). So, policy theories identify the links between evidence and persuasion when actors combine facts with emotional appeals (True et al 2007, p. 161); produce feasible policy solutions and exploit times when policymakers have the motive to adopt them (Kingdon 1984); tell stories which manipulate biases, apportion praise and blame, and highlight the moral value of solutions (Jones et al 2014); and interpret evidence through the lens of established beliefs (Weible et al 2012). …”

“…• Shifting policy conditions and events-only some of which are predictable-can prompt major shifts of policymaker attention at short notice (Cairney and Heikkila 2014;Cairney 2015;Hall 1993;Ostrom 2007;Weible et al 2012). …”