Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Connecting models of the individual and policy change processes: a research agenda

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article proposes that closer attention to models of the individual provides substantial theoretical and empirical leverage to policy studies scholars. Capturing the nuances of individual choice can assist policy researchers in adjudicating between specific theories of policy change. We provide an analytical matrix for parsing models of the individual underpinning various collective processes of policy change and demonstrate the value of our approach by applying it to the case of Canadian provincial renewable energy policy. The article demonstrates that gathering evidence regarding individual choice can support the presence or absence of processes functioning at the collective level. It concludes with a discussion of the implications of this approach for future policy research on the relative explanatory power of different causal processes, sequencing of policy change, and the identification of new mechanisms of policy change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. We chose to focus on these theories and frameworks because, in contrast to those that focus on a single phenomenon (such as diffusion or a common pool resource challenge) or a single causal variable (such as policy networks, or policy frames and narratives), each of these theories and frameworks acknowledges and tries to incorporate the complexity of human behaviour, systems, and institutions into the study of policy process. All four theories are recognized streams of scholarship in policy studies with well-established research programmes in a variety of policy areas and political jurisdictions (Sabatier and Weible 2014).

  2. Google scholar lists nearly 16,000 citations, and that number is still climbing.

  3. Based on our reading of the theoretical underpinnings of the MSF, we contend that there could be a case that the model of the individual in the MSF fits into quadrant 1—in which actors are mostly driven by their material incentives. However, based on the assertions of the lead authors in the field that the model of the individual is that of bounded rationality—implying that the particular institutional context guides choice—we have placed MSF into quadrant 2.

  4. A careful observer will note that this pathway aligns with quadrant 2 in Parsons’ matrix, although the model of the individual in the ACF falls more firmly into quadrant 3. We would suggest that aligning the model of the individual and the internal and external events pathways in the ACF would help provide analytical clarity to these causal processes.

  5. It is important to note that a significant proportion of policy feedback theory also concerns the role of elites (Pierson 1993; Mettler and Soss 2004; Mettler and SoRelle 2014). Although the model of the individual in PFT is often underspecified (Heikkila and Cairney 2017), we contend that the mechanism of policy learning as defined in PFT parallels the specification of belief change and policy-oriented learning in the ACF. We have thus omitted the mechanism of policy learning in PFT to reduce repetition in the illustrative figure.

References

  • Barry, J., Ellis, G., & Robinson, C. (2008). Cool rationalities and hot air: A rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), 67–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Mortensen, P. B. (2014). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 59–104). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J., Morzaria, R., & Hirsch, R. (2013). A case–control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict. Energy Policy, 61, 931–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2016). Causal case study methods: Foundations and guidelines for comparing, matching, and tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D., Gray, T., & Haggett, C. (2005). The ‘Social Gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics, 14(4), 460–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, R. G., Ashtiani, P., Ollson, C. A., Aslund, M. W., McCallum, L. C., Leventhall, G., et al. (2015). Health-based audible noise guidelines account for infrasound and low-frequency noise produced by wind turbines. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesbroek, R., Dupuis, J., & Wellstead, A. (2017). Explaining through causal mechanisms: Resilience and governance of social–ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., & Heikkila, T. (2014). A comparison of theories of the policy process. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 363–390). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., & Weible, C. M. (2017). The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis. Policy Sciences, 50, 619–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. L. (2003). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. L. (2012). Policy makes mass politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1), 333–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (2006). Tracing causal mechanisms. International Studies Review, 8, 362–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falleti, T. G., & Lynch, J. F. (2009). Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9), 1143–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fast, S., & Mabee, W. (2015). Place-making and trust-building: The influence of policy on host community responses to wind farms. Energy Policy, 81, 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fast, S., Mabee, W., Baxter, J., Christidis, T., Driver, L., Hill, S., et al. (2016). Lessons learned from Ontario wind energy disputes. Nature Energy. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2015.28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 44(1), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2008). The mechanismic worldview: Thinking inside the box. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse, A. (2011). Time will tell? Temporality and the analysis of causal mechanisms and processes. Comparative Political Studies, 44(9), 1267–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, J. S. (2002). The divided welfare state: The battle over public and private social benefits in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). (1998). Social mechanisms: An introductory essay. In Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 1–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hedström, P., & Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T., & Cairney, P. (2017). Comparisons of theories of the policy process. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 301–328). Boulder CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T., Pierce, J. J., Gallaher, S., Kagan, J., Crow, D. A., & Weible, C. M. (2014). Understanding a period of policy change: The case of hydraulic fracturing disclosure policy in Colorado. Review of Policy Research, 31(2), 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, S. D., & Knott, J. D. (2010). Too close for comfort: Social controversies surrounding wind farm noise setback policies in Ontario. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 2, 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh, R., & Matthews, C. (2008). Deliberative speak at the turbine face: Community engagement, wind farms, and renewable energy transitions in Australia. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10(3), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, T. (2015). Olive branches and idiot’s guides: Frameworks for community engagement in Australian wind farm development. Energy Policy, 78, 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, A. M., & Kent Weaver, R. (2015). When policies undo themselves: Self-undermining feedback as a source of policy change. Governance, 28(4), 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolutions, and ongoing research. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 183–224). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, P. (2003). Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: Using evolutionary theory to explain policy change? Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, P. (2018). Theories of policy change and variation reconsidered: a prospectus for the political economy of public policy. Policy Sciences, 51(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D. (1999). Bounded rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 297–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D. (2001). Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D. (2017). Behavioural rationality as a foundation for public policy studies. Cognitive Systems Research, 43, 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems (1st ed.). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., Baumgartner, F. R., Breunig, C., Wlezien, C., Soroka, S., Foucault, M., et al. (2009). A general empirical law of public budgets: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 855–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. R., & Eiser, J. R. (2009). Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy, 37, 4604–4614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A., & Baker, P. (2015). What can causal process tracing offer to policy studies? A review of the literature. Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knopper, L. D., & Ollson, C. A. (2011). Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature. Environmental Health, 10, 78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1996). Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance, 9(3), 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2008). Methods for measuring mechanisms of contention. Qualitative Sociology, 31, 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRobert, D., Tennent-Riddell, J., & Walker, C. (2016). Ontario’s Green Economy and Green Energy Act: Why a well-intentioned law is mired in controversy and opposed by rural communities. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review (RELP), 2016, 91–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S. (2002). Bringing the state back into civic engagement: Policy feedback effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II Veterans. American Political Science Review, 96(2), 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S., & SoRelle, M. (2014). Policy feedback theory. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 151–182). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowlin, M. C. (2011). Theories of the policy process: State of the research and emerging trends. Policy Studies Journal, 39(S1), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paquet, M., & Broscheck, J. (2017). This is not a turn: Canadian political science and social mechanisms. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, C. (2007). How to map arguments in political science. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phadke, R. (2010). Steel forests or smoke stacks: The politics of visualisation in the cape wind controversy. Environmental Politics, 19(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prindle, D. F. (2012). Importing concepts from biology into political science: The case of punctuated equilibrium. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietig, K. (2016). The links among contested knowledge, beliefs, and learning in European Climate Governance: From consensus to conflict in reforming biofuels policy. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I. H. (2007). The development of renewable electricity policy in the province of Ontario: The influence of ideas and timing. Review of Policy Research, 24(3), 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (2007). The need for better theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 3–17). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–222). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk, T., & Stokes, L. C. (2013). The power of collaboration: Engaging all parties in renewable energy infrastructure development. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 11(3), 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E. (2007). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of the policy process. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 293–320). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simeon, R. (1976). Studying public policy. Canadian Journal of Political, 9(4), 548–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skogstad, G. (2017). Policy feedback and self-reinforcing and self-undermining processes in EU biofuels policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. The American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soss, J., & Schram, S. F. (2007). A public transformed? Welfare reform as policy feedback. The American Political Science Review, 101(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, P. F. (2007). Causal assessment in small N policy studies. Policy Studies Journal, 35(2), 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, L. C. (2013). The politics of renewable energy policies: The case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy, 56, 490–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, L. C. (2016). Electoral backlash against climate policy: A natural experiment on retrospective voting and local resistance to public policy. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 958–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (2001). Mechanisms in political processes. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2002). Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review, 67(6), 777–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2017). ‘It’s easy to throw rocks at a corporation’: Wind energy development and distributive justice in Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(6), 754–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C., Baxter, J., & Ouellette, D. (2014). Beyond rhetoric to understanding determinants of wind turbine support and conflict in two Ontario, Canada communities. Environment and Planning A, 46(3), 730–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C., Baxter, J., & Ouellette, D. (2015). Adding insult to injury: The development of psychosocial stress in Ontario wind turbine communities. Social Science and Medicine, 133, 358–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, V. M., & Lerman, A. E. (2010). Political consequences of the carceral state. American Political Science Review, 104(04), 817–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 615–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., & Nohrstedt, D. (2012). The advocacy coalition framework: Coalitions, learning and policy change. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 125–137). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & de Leon, P. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyland, K. (2006). Bounded rationality and policy diffusion: Social sector reform in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Workman, S., Jones, B. D., & Jochim, A. E. (2009). Information processing and policy dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and multiple streams. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 25–58). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A previous version of this article was presented at the Canadian Political Science Association (CPSA) conference, Ottawa, 2–4 June 2015. The authors thank conference participants who offered constructive criticisms, in particular, Daniel Béland, Lior Sheffer, Grace Skogstad, and Jennifer Wallner. The authors are also grateful to the Policy Sciences anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3, Canada

    Heather Millar, Matthew Lesch & Linda A. White

Authors
  1. Heather Millar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Lesch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda A. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Millar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Millar, H., Lesch, M. & White, L.A. Connecting models of the individual and policy change processes: a research agenda. Policy Sci 52, 97–118 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9327-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9327-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation