The Attitudes of State Legislators and State Medicaid Policies Related to AIDS

As the Medicaid programs become increasingly important payers of AIDS-related care, state governments will face difficult policy choices in allocating limited Medicaid resources among many competing health needs. The state legislatures will play a critical role in these allocation decisions. This research presents the results of an analysis of attitudes concerning Medicaid coverage of AIDS-related care among state legislators serving on health-related committees in all 50 states. The model employed includes characteristics of the state legislators, their districts, and their states to explain the legislators' allocation choices and attitudes relating to Medicaid coverage of AIDS-related care. The relationship of these factors to the actualization of AIDS-related state policy also is examined. The model identified political ideology, party affiliation, and sex of the state legislator as the most important predictors of attitudes about AIDS-related Medicaid policies. AIDS prevalence, constituency characteristics, and legislator attitudes are the most important predictors of actual state policies.     

Campaign Promises,Democratic Governance,and Environmental Policy in the U.S. Congress

One important criterion for assessing the quality of democratic governance is the extent to which the policy process effectively translates citizen preferences into collective choices. Several scholars have observed a discrepancy between citizen preferences for strong environmental protection and weak policies adopted in the United States, indicating that the United States may fall short on this criterion. We examine one possible mechanism contributing to this discrepancy—legislator defection from campaign promises. Our data indicate that legislators in the U.S. Congress routinely defect from their campaign promises in environmental protection, undermining the link between citizen preferences and policy choice. We also find that legislators are much more likely to defect from pro‐environmental campaign promises, which moves government policy toward less stringent environmental programs. Finally, the propensity of legislators to defect from their campaign promises is systematic, with defection affected by partisanship, constituency influence, the influence of the majority party, and the likely consequences of defection for policy choice. These findings contribute empirical evidence relevant to the “mandate theory” perspective on how citizen preferences are translated into collective choices through the policy process. These findings may also complement research in comparative politics concluding that legislatures selected through single member districts adopt less stringent environmental policies than do legislatures chosen via proportional representation in that the mechanism for this effect may go through legislator defection from campaign promises.     

The public-facing policy agenda of state legislatures: The communication of public policy via twitter

How political actors choose which politics to focus on helps shape the outcome of the policy process. While the policy agenda of the federal government has received widespread attention, there is much less known about the policy agendas of the U.S. states. In this paper, we describe how and why states choose to have similar agendas. We rely on the Twitter activity of every state legislator in America to measure the attention that states pay to the categories developed in the Policy Agenda Project (PAP). We develop machine learning tools to measure the proportion of tweets from every state legislature from 2017 in each of the PAP policy topics. Our results show that states that the public-facing policy agenda of a state legislature is correlated with the level of legislative professionalism and the partisan and ideological politics of the state. These results further our understanding of state policymaking and agenda setting.     

Framed for Compromise? The Role of Bill Framing in State Legislative Behavior on Natural Gas Policy

State legislative decision making on natural gas policy has become a balancing act, as legislators are forced to grapple with tensions between economically beneficial policies and environmental impacts. Despite increased public attention to the benefits and costs related to hydraulic fracturing, there has been little scholarly attention paid to how policy framing affects legislator behavior on this issue. We analyze recorded votes on bills relating to natural gas policy in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico between 1999 and 2008; a time period spanning the recent boom. Using a novel database of bill frames, we create a ratio measure that accounts for the proportion of environmental to economic arguments within each piece of legislation. We find status quo–challenging, anti‐development policies can receive bipartisan support, as long as economic frames balance or are greater than environmental frames. Framing natural gas as a win‐win scenario where economic benefit and environmental protection can be achieved simultaneously is an effective legislative strategy. Using the case of natural gas policy, this study demonstrates bill framing substantively affects state legislator vote choice and implies bipartisan compromise is possible given the right balance of frames.     

Legislator Gender and Legislator Policy Priorities in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies and the United States House of Representatives

This paper suggests that the findings of the literature on gender differences in legislator policy priorities in advanced industrial democracies very well may be generalizable to nations in the developing world, particularly those in Latin America. Previous studies of gender differences in legislator policy priorities have been confined to a small number of advanced industrial democracies. These studies have found women legislators to give a higher degree of priority than men to policies in the thematic areas of women's rights and children and families. Employing data on bill introduction, this paper tests for and finds similar gender differences in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies and the United States House of Representatives. Significant gender differences were found in both national legislatures in the areas of women's rights and children and families. No significant gender differences were found in other areas widely considered to be of traditional interest to women.     

Policy Entrepreneurs,Legislators, and Agenda Setting: Information and Influence

Policy entrepreneurs are thought to be instrumental in agenda change, yet we lack knowledge of how legislators perceive their role in the agenda formation process. Using data from a national survey of state legislators, we examine whether entrepreneurs shape the legislative agenda on disaster preparedness and relief, which types of entrepreneurs are most influential, and what strategies they use in their interactions with legislators. The results indicate that legislators who report contact with policy entrepreneurs are more likely to have introduced related legislation, evidence of the important link between entrepreneurs and policy change. While entrepreneurs utilize a variety of different strategies, the analysis reveals policymakers are particularly receptive to entrepreneurs who provide new and reliable information. This finding suggests the influence of entrepreneurs lies not only in their ability to define problems and build coalitions, but also in their distinctive ability to provide information to elected officials, an important role that has largely been overlooked by existing literature.     

Drivers for Policy Agreement in Nascent Subsystems: An Application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework to Fracking Policy in Switzerland and the UK

The study of public policy deals with subsystems in which actors cooperate or compete to turn their beliefs into policy solutions. Yet, most studies concern mature subsystems in which the main actors and their allies and enemies can easily be identified. This paper tackles the challenge of studying nascent subsystems, in which actors have begun to engage in politics but are uncertain about other actors’ beliefs. Actors therefore find it relatively difficult to identify their allies and opponents. Focusing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we examine three main ways in which actors might agree to support the same policy design before they decide whether or not to form long‐term relationships within advocacy coalitions: they see the issue through the same lenses, they follow leaders, or they know each other from earlier cooperation. We use the case of fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK as a key example, in which actors have begun to agree with each other, but where final policy outputs were not yet defined, and long‐term relationships not yet observable. We find that, when dealing with new issues, actors strongly rely on former contacts rather than shared ideologies or leadership.     

Short-Term Versus Long-Term Coalitions in the Policy Process: Automotive Pollution Control, 1963–1989

Research on coalitions in the policy process has found evidence of both short-term and long-term coalitions. Two possible methodological reasons for the varied results are that (1) there has been little systematic longitudinal research on the topic, and (2) most scholars have not distinguished situations where fundamental versus secondary interests are at stake. This article addresses both points by first applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which distinguishes fundamental from secondary beliefs/interests, and then performing a quantitative analysis of the content of organizations' testimonies regarding automotive pollution control over 26 years. Consistent with the ACF, we find that coalitions of interest groups, legislators, local governments, and agencies are relatively stable over time, despite two potentially disruptive events—the 1973–74 Oil Embargo and the 1980 Elections. On the other hand, there is little support for the ACF's hypothesis that broader beliefs will be more stable than narrower secondary beliefs. Our systematic methodology also enables us to separate the general pattern of stability from interesting exceptions of instability.     

TRUST IN THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY INTEREST GROUPS: THE VIEWS OF LEGISLATORS, ACTIVISTS, EXPERTS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC

The timely provision of information is crucial to the success of interest groups seeking to influence policymakers, the public and their own members. This paper examines the extent to which legislators, citizens, and policy area experts and activists trust the information provided by specific interests in the water resources managment area. It is shown that citizens and policy area activists are less trusting than are legislators and experts, and that they also discriminate more among information sources than either of those types of actors. On the individual level, multiple regression analysis is employed to investigate the extent to which partisanship, ideology, environmentalism and degree of informedness influence the level of trust accorded particular interest groups among citizens, legislators, activists, and experts.     

The Politics of Environmental Risk: Perceptions of Risk Assessment in the State Legislatures

As state governments increasingly turn to the process of quantitative risk assessment to set environmental policy, the question of what state lawmakers know and believe about risk and the risk assessment process has become critical. The perceptions of state legislators may affect their decisions about a wide range of environmental conflicts, from funding water treatment facilities to siting hazardous waste incinerators. This article reports the results of a nationwide survey of state legislators and their staff that explored their intuitive understanding of environmental risk and risk assessment. The survey revealed strong support for the use of risk assessment by most state lawmakers, but significant differences, by gender and political affiliation, in perceptions of the risks from chemicals, the value of risk assessment for setting environmental policies, and the environmental risks faced by racial minorities.     

Rethinking Bureaucrats in the Policy Process: Criminal Justice Agents and the National Crime Agenda

Policy scholars have noted that bureaucrats can play an important role in defining policy alternatives. Few studies, however, examine the extent of their involvement in this process. This study contributes to public policy scholarship by offering a framework for understanding the strength of bureaucratic involvement in the process of defining problems and policy alternatives. Using witness data from congressional hearings on crime between 1947 and 1998, I find that federal, state, and local criminal justice bureaucrats have come to occupy a central role in the process of defining policy alternatives. In addition, I find that the centrality of criminal justice actors comes at the expense of interest groups, community organizations, and citizens/victims. Implications for criminal justice policy and understanding bureaucratic involvement in the policy process are discussed.     

Cross-Coalition Coordination in Collaborative Environmental Governance Processes

Collaborative governance processes seek to engage diverse policy actors in the development and implementation of consensus-oriented policy and management actions. Whether this is achieved, however, largely depends on the degree to which actors with different beliefs coordinate their actions to achieve common policy goals—a behavior known as cross-coalition coordination. Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and collaborative governance literatures, this study analyzes cross-coalition coordination in three collaborative environmental governance processes that seek to manage water in the Colorado River Basin. Through comparative analysis, it highlights the complex relationship among the institutional design of a collaborative governance process, how and why actors choose to engage in cross-coalition coordination, and the consequent policy outputs they produce. The findings advance policy scholars’ nascent understanding of cross-coalition coordination and its potential to affect policymaking dynamics.     

The Advocacy Coalition Index: A new approach for identifying advocacy coalitions

Policy scholars have increasingly focused on collaborative and competitive relationships between stakeholder coalitions. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in particular has directed scholarly attention toward such relationships. The ACF defines advocacy coalitions as groups of actors who share beliefs and coordinate their action. However, previous research has been inconsistent in defining and measuring coalitions, which has hampered comparative research and theory building. We present a method called the Advocacy Coalition Index, which measures belief similarity and the coordination of action in a manner that makes it possible to assess the extent to which advocacy coalitions are found in policy subsystems, whether subgroups resemble coalitions, and how individual actors contribute to coalition formation. The index provides a standardized method for identifying coalitions that can be applied to comparative research. To illustrate the effectiveness of the index, we analyze two climate change policy subsystems, namely Finland and Sweden, which have been shown to differ in terms of the association of belief similarity with coordination. We demonstrate that the index performs well in identifying the different types of subsystems, coalitions, and actors that contribute the most to coalition formation, as well as those involved in cross-coalition brokerage.     

The Effects of Risk,Beliefs, and Trust in Education Policy Networks: The Case of Autism and Special Education

There are multiple theoretical accounts of how actors address problems of collective action in policy networks, but the two most prominent hypotheses are the risk and belief homophily hypotheses. The risk hypothesis claims that relational structures (e.g., bridging, bonding) depend on the benefits actors receive from uncooperative behavior, while the belief homophily hypothesis claims that relational ties form around shared policy beliefs. This study incorporates the case of autism and special education policy, a subsystem best characterized by Berardo and Scholz's (2010) conceptualization of a low-risk environment, to test hypotheses about the influence of risk, policy beliefs, and trust on the formation on relational ties in education policy networks. Utilizing data from a 2016 network survey of public and private special education stakeholders in Virginia, results from exponential random graph models provide support for the effects of bridging structures, beliefs related to the medical model of disability, and social trust on strong (collaboration) and weak (information/advice) relational ties in policy networks. The findings reinforce the importance of using policy networks to understand how actors build connections across multiple jurisdictions and policy sectors to mitigate problems of coordination in policy decision making and implementation.     

The Dynamics and Interactions Between the President's and the Public's Civil Rights Agendas: A Study in Presidential Leadership and Representation

Past research views presidents as reactive and minor actors in the civilrights policy process. However, that research has focused solely on the latter stages of the policy process. This report views the president's role from an agendasetting perspective. A content analysis reveals that presidents lead public opinion on civil rights, but that the public has little impact on the president's civil rights agenda. The distinction between discretionary and required agenda items explains this asymmetry between the president and the public in civil rights policymaking. A fuller notion of policymaking that includes all stages of the process, from agendasetting to implementation and evaluation, is required to understand the role of the president in civil rights policymaking and leads us to revise the perception that presidents play reactive and minor roles in civil rights policy.     

"New Governance" and Associative Pluralism: The Case of Drug Policy in Swiss Cities

Throughout the 1990s, hierarchical administrative governance structures have been replaced by self-governing networks for various motives, one of which is to improve the authenticity and democratic quality of public decisions. Thus, "new governance" has been praised for its propensity to provide a plurality of civil society organizations with access to the decision process. This article explores these claims based on the case of drug policy in Swiss cities. We show that self-governing networks indeed seem to have increased the involvement of civil society organizations in the policy process. However, we also find evidence that self-governing networks may in the longer run induce state control over civil society organizations, thus ultimately reducing associative pluralism. They do so either by imposing a policy paradigm or by excluding actors who do not comply with the dominant paradigm from the networks. We conclude by arguing that self-organizing networks should not be dismissed, given that former hierarchical bureaucratic approaches to drug-related problems have failed even worse. Rather, their long-term effects should be subject to further examination aimed at developing adequate responses to their shortcomings.     

“Vote with your feet”: Neoliberalism,the democratic nation-state,and utopian enclave libertarianism

This paper examines a series of emerging utopian discourses that call for the creation of autonomous libertarian enclaves on land ceded by or claimed against existing states. These discourses have emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and can be seen as a response to the crisis on the part of free-market advocates who critique previous waves of neoliberal reform for failing to radically transform the existing structures of the state. Enclave libertarianism seeks to overcome neoliberal capitalism's contradictory relationship to the liberal democratic state by rethinking the state as a “private government service provider” and rethinking citizens as mobile consumers of government services. Citizens are thus called to “vote with their feet” by opting-in to the jurisdiction that best fits their needs and beliefs. The paper argues that these utopian imaginaries are key to understanding specific new manifestations of post-crisis neoliberalism, and calls for more research into the diversity of discourses and imaginaries that circulate through networks of neoliberal actors beyond specific policy initiatives.     

Narratives and expert information in agenda-setting: Experimental evidence on state legislator engagement with artificial intelligence policy

Are narratives as influential in gaining the attention of policymakers as expert information, including for complex, technical policy domains such as artificial intelligence (AI) policy? This pre-registered study uses a field experiment to evaluate legislator responsiveness to policy entrepreneur outreach. In partnership with a leading AI think tank, we send more than 7300 U.S. state legislative offices emails about AI policy containing an influence strategy (providing a narrative, expert information, or the organization's background), along with a prominent issue frame about AI (emphasizing technological competition or ethical implications). To assess engagement, we measure link clicks to further resources and webinar registration and attendance. Although AI policy is a highly technical domain, we find that narratives are just as effective as expert information in engaging legislators. Compared to control, expert information and narratives led to 28 and 34 percent increases in policymaker engagement, respectively. Furthermore, higher legislature professionalism and lower state-level prior AI experience are associated with greater engagement with both narratives and expert information. Finally, we find that policymakers are equally engaged by an ethical framing of AI policy as they are with an economic one. The findings advance efforts to bridge scholarship on policy narratives, policy entrepreneurship, and agenda-setting.     

Private Citizens as Policy Entrepreneurs: Evidence from Autism Mandates and Parental Political Mobilization

Growing bodies of research in the social sciences point to politicians, bureaucratic officials, interest groups, and other actors who serve as policy entrepreneurs. In this paper, we argue that private citizens can also serve a primary role as policy entrepreneurs. To analyze this phenomenon, we investigate the behavior of private citizens and their role in changing state policies surrounding insurance mandates for autism coverage. Using a thematic analysis of focus groups and interviews conducted with individuals active in the push for autism policy change, we demonstrate that private citizens meet all of the requirements identified for policy entrepreneurs in the existing literature. We then investigate when, why, and how these private citizens step forward into the policy process as entrepreneurs. We show that entrepreneurship occurs when private citizens have needed resources, a sense of duty to fix a policy status quo they see as unjust, and a stake in policy change. We conclude by discussing the importance of our findings to the study of public policy and their generalizability beyond autism policy.     

Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions,Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a prominent approach to investigate the formation of coalition and their impact on policy outputs. Although the ACF combines both the network structures of a political process with actors' values and belief systems, most empirical tests focus mainly on beliefs rather than network structures. Considering a relational approach makes particular sense when one wants to investigate the structural patterns of a subsystem and to assess coalition formation and maintenance. The author therefore proceeds by taking two steps to study the existence of coalitions, power relations, and policy preferences: first, social network analysis frames the empirical study of network structures, based on the assumption that common beliefs are reflected in relations among actors involved in policy processes. Second, using a sophisticated mathematical algorithm, the multicriteria analysis furnishes a systematic evaluation of the elite's belief system. This methodological combination constitutes the added value of this research and allows for testing to establish if common beliefs are reflected in network structures.