IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v41y2024i6p865-891.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy process theories in autocracies: Key observations, explanatory power, and research priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Annemieke van den Dool
  • Caroline Schlaufer

Abstract

The policy process frameworks and theories that are currently considered mainstream were originally developed in the United States, before traveling to other countries. Despite their roots in democratic values, these frameworks and theories are increasingly applied to autocracies. Given important differences between democracies and autocracies, this raises questions about the desirability, limitations, and future directions of this development. In response, this article synthesizes findings from studies that apply existing policy process frameworks and theories to autocracies with the aim of assessing the extent to which the theories are, can, and should be used to explain key aspects of the policy process in autocracies. Based on qualitative content analysis of 146 English‐language peer‐reviewed journal articles that apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory to 39 autocracies, we show that these theories help identify influential institutions, actors, networks, ideas, beliefs, and events. The analysis reveals important differences in policy processes between autocracies and democracies. Future research ought to bring existing literature on authoritarianism and authoritarian politics into policy process research to test existing and new hypotheses. 目前被视为主流的一系列政策过程框架及理论最初源于美国,然后才传播到其他国家。尽管这些框架和理论植根于民主价值观,但却越来越多地应用于独裁国家。鉴于民主国家和独裁国家之间的重要差异,这引发了关于“政策过程框架及理论发展的可取性、局限性和未来方向”的问题。为回答该问题,本文总结了将现有政策过程框架及理论应用于独裁国家的研究结果,旨在评估这些理论在多大程度上正被用于、能够用于、和应该用于解释独裁国家政策过程的关键方面。基于对146篇英文同行评审期刊文章的定性内容分析(这些文章将倡导联盟框架、多源流框架、叙事政策框架和间断平衡理论应用于39个独裁国家),我们表明,这些理论有助于识别有影响力的机构、行动者和网络、想法和信仰、以及事件。分析揭示了独裁国家和民主国家的政策过程的重要差异。未来研究应将有关威权主义和威权政治的现有文献纳入政策过程研究。 Los marcos y teorías de los procesos políticos que actualmente se consideran convencionales se desarrollaron originalmente en los EE. UU., antes de viajar a otros países. A pesar de sus raíces en valores democráticos, estos marcos y teorías se aplican cada vez más a las autocracias. Dadas las importantes diferencias entre democracias y autocracias, esto plantea interrogantes sobre la conveniencia, las limitaciones y las direcciones futuras de este desarrollo. En respuesta, este artículo resume los hallazgos de estudios que aplican marcos y teorías de procesos políticos existentes a las autocracias con el objetivo de evaluar en qué medida las teorías son, pueden y deben usarse para explicar aspectos clave del proceso político en las autocracias. Basado en un análisis de contenido cualitativo de 146 artículos de revistas en inglés revisados por pares que aplican el Marco de Coalición de Defensa, el Marco de Corrientes Múltiples, el Marco de Políticas Narrativa y la Teoría del Equilibrio Puntuado a 39 autocracias, mostramos que estas teorías ayudan a identificar instituciones influyentes., actores y redes, ideas y creencias, y eventos. El análisis revela diferencias importantes en los procesos políticos entre autocracias y democracias. Las investigaciones futuras deberían incorporar la literatura existente sobre autoritarismo y política autoritaria a la investigación de procesos políticos.

Suggested Citation

  • Annemieke van den Dool & Caroline Schlaufer, 2024. "Policy process theories in autocracies: Key observations, explanatory power, and research priorities," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(6), pages 865-891, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:6:p:865-891
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12596
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12596
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12596?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liu, Chun & Jayakar, Krishna, 2012. "The evolution of telecommunications policy-making: Comparative analysis of China and India," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 13-28.
    2. Anna Lührmann & Marcus Tannenberg & Staffan I. Lindberg, 2018. "Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 60-77.
    3. Antti Gronow & Maria Brockhaus & Monica Di Gregorio & Aasa Karimo & Tuomas Ylä-Anttila, 2021. "Policy learning as complex contagion: how social networks shape organizational beliefs in forest-based climate change mitigation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 529-556, September.
    4. Tatiana Nevzorova & Vladimir Kutcherov, 2021. "The Role of Advocacy Coalitions in Shaping the Technological Innovation Systems: The Case of the Russian Renewable Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Oka, Natsuko, 2009. "Ethnicity and Elections under Authoritarianism: The Case of Kazakhstan," IDE Discussion Papers 194, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    6. Xufeng Zhu, 2008. "Strategy of Chinese policy entrepreneurs in the third sector: challenges of “Technical Infeasibility”," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 315-334, December.
    7. Caroline Schlaufer & Marina Pilkina & Tatiana Chalaya & Tatiana Khaynatskaya & Tatiana Voronova & Aleksandra Pozhivotko, 2022. "How do civil society organizations communicate in an authoritarian setting? A narrative analysis of the Russian waste management debate," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 730-751, November.
    8. Johanna Kuhlmann & Jeroen van der Heijden, 2018. "What Is Known about Punctuated Equilibrium Theory? And What Does That Tell Us about the Construction, Validation, and Replication of Knowledge in the Policy Sciences?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(2), pages 326-347, March.
    9. Liu, Dawei & Xu, Hang, 2021. "A rational policy decision or political deal? A multiple streams' examination of the Russia-China natural gas pipeline," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    10. Vanessa A Boese, 2019. "How (not) to measure democracy," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(2), pages 95-127, June.
    11. Yuhao Ba & Kathryn Schwaeble & Thomas Birkland, 2022. "The United States in Chinese environmental policy narratives: Is there a trump effect?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 708-729, November.
    12. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christian Breunig & Christoffer Green‐Pedersen & Bryan D. Jones & Peter B. Mortensen & Michiel Nuytemans & Stefaan Walgrave, 2009. "Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 603-620, July.
    13. Chun Xia & Claudia Pahl-Wostl, 2012. "The Development of Water Allocation Management in The Yellow River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(12), pages 3395-3414, September.
    14. Christopher M. Weible & Paul Cairney & Jill Yordy, 2022. "A diamond in the rough: digging up and polishing Harold D. Lasswell’s decision functions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 209-222, March.
    15. Hossein Gheleji, 2013. "Value Contradiction in Policymaking: The Case of Iranian Foreign Policy," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 20(3), pages 443-451, November.
    16. Hellmeier, Sebastian & Cole, Rowan & Grahn, Sandra & Kolvani, Palina & Lachapelle, Jean & Lührmann, Anna & Maerz, Seraphine F. & Pillai, Shreeya & Lindberg, Staffan I., 2021. "State of the world 2020: autocratization turns viral," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 28(6), pages 1053-1074.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caroline Schlaufer & Annemieke van den Dool, 2024. "Policy processes in authoritarian settings," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(6), pages 860-864, November.
    2. Andreas Thiel & Nora Schütze & Annabelle Buhrow & Ayoub Fouzai, 2024. "State infrastructural power in a neopatrimonialist democratization context: Why Tunisian sustainable land management fails," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(6), pages 985-1016, November.
    3. Ahmed Fouad El Haddad, 2024. "Beyond regulatory capture: Policy entrepreneurs' strategies in regulatory policies under authoritarianism," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(6), pages 961-984, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Milos Popovic, 2022. "Strongmen cry too: The effect of aerial bombing on voting for the incumbent in competitive autocracies," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(6), pages 844-859, November.
    2. Lars Pelke, 2023. "Reanalysing the link between democracy and economic development," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 26(4), pages 361-383, December.
    3. Babayan Ararat & Schlaufer Caroline & Uldanov Artem, 2021. "A policy window and a network of global and local policy entrepreneurs: The introduction of opioid substitution therapy in Belarus," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 15(2), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Boese-Schlosser, Vanessa A. & Eberhardt, Markus, 2023. "How Does Democracy Cause Growth?," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Transformations of Democracy SP V 2023-501, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung, 2022. "Narratives, evidence and public policy in crisis situations," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 704-707, November.
    6. Henri Njangang & Youssouf Nvuh-Njoya, 2023. "Unravelling the link between democracy and economic complexity: fresh evidence from the Varieties of Democracy data," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 1-32, March.
    7. Godfred Bonnah Nkansah, 2022. "Youth Cohort Size, Structural Socioeconomic Conditions, and Youth Protest Behavior in Democratic Societies (1995–2014)," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    8. Omri Carmon & Itay Fischhendler, 2021. "A friction perspective for negotiating renewable energy targets: the Israeli case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 313-344, June.
    9. Travis Sharp, 2019. "Wars, presidents, and punctuated equilibriums in US defense spending," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 367-396, September.
    10. Gründler, Klaus & Krieger, Tommy, 2021. "Using Machine Learning for measuring democracy: A practitioners guide and a new updated dataset for 186 countries from 1919 to 2019," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    11. Inke Torfs & Ellen Wayenberg & Lieselot Danneels, 2023. "Institutional shifts and punctuated patterns in digital policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 363-388, May.
    12. Guriev, Sergei & Treisman, Daniel, 2020. "A theory of informational autocracy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    13. Michael K Miller, 2013. "Electoral authoritarianism and democracy: A formal model of regime transitions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(2), pages 153-181, April.
    14. Köllner, Patrick, 2012. ""Informelle Politik" und "informelle Institutionen": Konzeptionelle Grundlagen, analytische Zugänge und Herausforderungen für das Studium autoritärer und anderer politischer Herrsc," GIGA Working Papers 192, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    15. Freyburg, Tina & Garbe, Lisa & Wavre, Véronique, 2022. "The political power of internet business: A comprehensive dataset of Telecommunications Ownership and Control (TOSCO)," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Online fi, pages 1-1.
    16. Nick Ellison & Paula Blomqvist & Timo Fleckenstein, 2022. "Covid (in)equalities: labor market protection, health, and residential care in Germany, Sweden, and the UK [Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(2), pages 247-259.
    17. Boese-Schlosser, Vanessa A. & Eberhardt, Markus, 2024. "Democracy Doesn’t Always Happen Over Night: Regime Change in Stages and Economic Growth," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Forthcomi, pages 1-29.
    18. Andrea Vaccaro, 2022. "An empirical evaluation of common cross-national measures of state capacity," RIEDS - Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica - The Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies, SIEDS Societa' Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, vol. 76(1), pages 157-168, January-M.
    19. Shuguang Liu & Jiayi Wang & Yin Long, 2023. "Research into the Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Technological Innovation in China’s Natural Gas Industry from the Perspective of Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-34, April.
    20. Andreas Kern & Puspa Amri, 2021. "Political credit cycles," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 76-108, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:6:p:865-891. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.