Suchergebnisse

AbstractMany theories and approaches to policy studies have recently begun to question and research how emotions interact with peoples' understanding and behaviors, especially in policy and politics. This paper builds on and contributes to studying emotions in policy and politics via the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). In applying Emotional‐Belief Analysis, this paper examines the legislative testimony on one of the US' first gender‐affirming care (GAC) bans. It shows that those testifying can be organized in competing advocacy coalitions with distinct emotion‐belief expressions in combination with deep core and policy core beliefs. Moreover, expressions of negative emotions and policy core beliefs display significant and the largest effects in explaining coalition affiliation and shared views of the bill banning GAC. The conclusion summarizes the paper's empirical themes with suggestions for incorporating emotions more into the ACF and the broader policy studies field.

AbstractScholars have charted a dramatic rise in the use of preemption both at the federal and state levels since the 1970s, with courts and politicians from both parties enacting preemptions across a range of contentious issues. Thus, preemption is a critical feature of American policymaking—one that almost certainly shapes the political choices of policymakers, organized interests, and voters across levels of government. Despite its significance to the politics of policymaking, scholars have yet to systematically consider the political consequences of preemption. We apply the logic of policy feedback theory to create a framework for analyzing the political consequences of preemption. Specifically, we detail how the use of both federal‐state and state‐local preemption might produce unique resource and interpretive effects that shape the subsequent political behaviors of policymakers, organized interests, and the public. We then consider two illustrative cases—federal preemption of state consumer financial protections and state preemption of local gender identity anti‐discrimination statutes—to demonstrate our framework's application. The article addresses a gap in the preemption literature and provides a critical extension of policy feedback theory, proposing a research agenda for future work to help better understand the politics of a widely used policy tool.

While many policy process theories mention emotions, they have remained mostly unexplored theoretically and empirically, even as broader social science literature incorporates emotions into understanding policy process-related phenomena such as political beliefs and behaviors. This paper introduces the theoretical arguments and a method for studying advocacy coalitions using a combination of emotions and beliefs within the Advocacy Coalition Framework. An application is illustrated in a natural gas pipeline siting conflict in the US using data from news media coverage. The empirical results show that coalitions express emotions and beliefs differently, and that the dyadic relationship between emotions and beliefs significantly distinguishes coalitions rather than emotions by themselves. This paper takes a significant step forward in integrating emotional and belief expressions into the ACF, adding to coalition identification methods, providing a foundation for advancing theory, and contributing to the broader community of policy studies.

AbstractLaws are only as good as their enforcement. International treaties are no exception. We investigate how Germany implements international wildlife protection treaties, namely the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Bern Convention. We find that Germany's federal system allows for uneven enforcement of national legislation across the 16 federal states. We utilize Policy Feedback Theory as a theoretical lens to examine how federalism (re‐)produces different enforcement regimes. We rely on qualitative analysis of interviews of German street‐level bureaucrats, government officials, and NGO representatives. We find that macrolevel context impacts how institutions enforce wildlife protection policies. Particularly, Germany's federal structure permits either centralized, decentralized, or cooperative arrangements that result in differences in resources, affecting the ways bureaucrats view their roles and responsibilities. These resource and interpretive effects further feedback into the contextual structure of the federal enforcement system.

The sociology of emotions reveals how emotion contributes to and helps inform social and political issues. This study contributes to the literature by examining how competing advocacy coalitions ascribe emotions to their allies and opponents in the politically contentious issue of siting a gas pipeline project in the US. It analyses the emotional and belief expressions of people engaged in the debate in approximately 370 newspaper articles. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework as a theoretical guide, people's position on the pipeline and assignment to one of two advocacy coalitions coincides with similar emotional expressions. Moreover, allies tend to attribute more positive than negative emotions to other allies and more negative than positive emotions to opponents. This study concludes with a research agenda for furthering the empirical study of emotions in political and social life to understand the use of emotions in contentious politics.

AbstractWhile emotions are an inherent component of the human experience that influence behavior, values, and beliefs, they have largely been left out of policy process studies theoretically and methodologically. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), with its focus on how individuals coalesce into coalitions around a set of common beliefs, we begin to situate emotions as a critical component of belief systems and discourse about public policies. This study analyzes legislative testimony from four policies debated during the 2021 Colorado Legislative Session using discourse analysis to identify the emotions and coalitional beliefs. We find that policy actors express emotions and beliefs similarly to other policy actors in the same coalition and differently from policy actors in the opposing coalition. We conclude this paper by discussing the theoretical and methodological contributions of including emotions in the ACF. The move to incorporate the analysis of emotional expressions, and hence the study of affect, into the ACF mirrors the ongoing incorporation of how people feel in politics and not just how they think.

Advocates often present veterans as an untapped resource for local governments to boost the public service workforce. However, there is a lack of understanding of how human resource (HR) professionals value military experience when assessing candidate preparedness for a managerial career in public service. We examine how veteran status affects U.S. city and county HR directors' evaluations of candidates for entry-level managerial positions in local government. Using an experimental design, we randomly assign candidate characteristics of veteran status and gender, and we observe HR directors' assessments of candidate preparedness. Our findings reveal a premium on veteran status for candidate assessments relative to similar private sector experience in assessments of candidate experience. At the same time, the results are less conclusive when compared to similar public sector experiences. In addition, we find no clear evidence of disparate assessments of candidate preparedness as a function of candidate gender.