Over 30 years, several key frameworks and theories of the policy process have emerged which have guided a burgeoning empirical literature. A more recent development has been a growing interest in the application of a ‘causal mechanism’ perspective to policy studies. This article reviews selected theories of the policy process (Multiple Streams Approach, Advocacy Coalition Framework, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, Narrative Framework Theory, and Institutional Analysis and Development Framework) and reports on an exploratory meta-analysis and synthesis to gauge the take-up of causal-mechanistic approaches. The findings suggest that there has been limited application of causal mechanisms and calls for more theoretical and empirical work on that aspect. Given the overlapping frameworks exploring different aspects of the policy process, further research informed by causal-mechanism approaches points to a new generation of inquiry across these and other policy process theoretical frameworks.
AdsheadM (2011) An advocacy coalition framework approach to the rise and fall of social partnership. Irish Political Studies26(1): 73–93.
2.
AlbrightE (2011) Policy change and learning in response to extreme flood events in Hungary: An advocacy coalition approach. Policy Studies Journal39(3): 485–511.
3.
AstburyBLeeuwFL (2010) Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation31(3): 363–381.
4.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (2009) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBDMortensenP (2014) Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In: SabatierPAWeibleCM (eds) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 59–103.
7.
BirklandT (2015) Introduction to the Policy Process, London: Routledge.
8.
BungeM (1997) Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences27(4): 410–465.
9.
BurnettMDavisC (2002) Getting out the cut – Politics and National Forest Timber Harvests, 1960–1995. Administration & Society34(2): 202–228.
10.
CairneyP (2013) Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies?Policy Studies Journal41(1): 1–21.
11.
Capano G and Howlett M (2021) Causal Logics and Mechanisms in Policy Design: How and Why Adopting a Mechanistic Perspective Can Improve Policy Design. Public Policy and Administration 36(2): 141–162.
12.
CheckelJT (2006) Tracing causal mechanisms. International Studies Review8(2): 362–370.
13.
EllisonBANewmarkAJ (2010) Building the reservoir to nowhere: The role of agencies in advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal38(4): 653–678.
14.
FalletiTGLynchJF (2008) From process to mechanism: Varieties of disaggregation. Qualitative Sociology31(4): 333–339.
15.
FeindtPH (2010) Policy-learning and environmental policy integration in the common agricultural policy, 1973–2003. Public Administration88(2): 296–314.
16.
GoertzGMahoneyJ (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
17.
HedströmPYlikoskiP (2010) Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology36(1): 49–67.
18.
HeikkilaTCairneyP (2017) Comparison of theories of the policy process. In: WeibleCMSabatierPA (eds) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 301–327.
19.
HenstraD (2010) Explaining local policy choices: A multiple streams analysis of municipal emergency management. Canadian Public Administration53(2): 241–258.
20.
HowlettMRameshMPerlA (2009) Studying Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
HysingEOlssonJ (2008) Contextualising the advocacy coalition framework: Theorising change in Swedish Forest Policy. Environmental Politics17(5): 730–748.
22.
IngoldKVaroneF (2012) Treating policy brokers seriously: Evidence from the climate policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22(2): 319–346.
23.
Jenkins-SmithHNohrstedtDWeibleCM, et al. (2014) The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In: SabatierPAWeibleCM (eds) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 183–223.
24.
JohnP (2003) Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: Using evolutionary theory to explain policy change?Policy Studies Journal31(4): 481–498.
25.
JonesBDPetersonHPierceJ, et al. (2016) A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal44(1): 13–36.
26.
JonesMMcBethM (2010) A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong?Policy Studies Journal38(2): 329–353.
27.
KayABakerP (2015) What can causal process tracing offer to policy studies? A review of the literature. Policy Studies Journal43(1): 1–21.
28.
KingdonJW (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, New York: Longman.
29.
KingdonJW (1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, New York: Longman.
30.
KingdonJW (2003) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, New York: Longman.
31.
KingdonJW (2010) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, New York: Longman.
32.
KiserLOstromE (1982) The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: OstromE (eds Strategies of Political Inquiry, Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 179–222.
33.
LowryWRJoslynM (2014) The determinants of salience of energy issues. Review of Policy Research31(3): 153–172.
34.
McBethMJonesMShanahanE (2014) The narrative policy framework. In: SabatierPAWeibleCM (eds) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 225–266.
35.
MayntzR (2004) Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences34(2): 237–259.
36.
MertonRK (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure; Revised and Enlarged version, Glencoe: Free Press.
37.
MizruchiMFeinL (1999) The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly44(4): 653–2.
38.
MoeT (1990) The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In: WilliamsonO (eds) Organization Theory: From Chester Barnand to the Present and Beyond, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 116–153.
39.
MonteferioM (2014) State versus indigenous peoples’ rights: Comparative analysis of stable system parameters, policy constraints and the process of delegitimation. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis16(4): 335–355.
40.
NataliD (2004) Europeanization, policy arenas, and creative opportunism: The politics of welfare state reforms in Italy. Journal of European Public Policy11(6): 1077–1095.
41.
NovotnýVPolášekM (2016) Multiple streams approach and political parties: Modernization of Czech Social Democracy. Policy Sciences49(1): 89–105.
42.
NowlinMC (2011) Theories of the policy process: State of the research and emerging trends. Policy Studies Journal39(S1): 41–60.
43.
OstromE (1990) Governing the Commons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
OstromE (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
45.
PierceJPetersonHJonesM, et al. (2017) There and back again: A tale of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal45(S1): S13–S46.
46.
Real-DatoJ (2009) Mechanisms of policy change: A proposal for a synthetic explanatory framework. Journal of Comparative Policy Research and Practice11(1): 117–143.
47.
RobinsonR (2014) Culture and legal policy punctuation in the Supreme Court’ s gender discrimination cases. Policy Studies Journal42(4): 555–589.
48.
SabatierPA (1999) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press.
49.
SabatierPA (2007) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press.
50.
SabatierPAJenkins-SmithH (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press.
51.
SabatierPAJenkins-SmithH (1999) The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In: SabatierPA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 117–166.
52.
SabatierPAWeibleCM (2007) The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In: SabatierPA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 189–221.
53.
SaetrenH (2016) From controversial policy idea to successful program implementation: The role of the policy entrepreneur, manipulation strategy, program design, institutions and open policy windows in relocating Norwegian Central agencies. Policy Sciences49(1): 71–88.
54.
SartoriG (1970) Concept misinformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review64(4): 1033–1053.
55.
SchlagerE (2007) A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In: SabatierPA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 293–319.
56.
SchlagerEBlomquistW (1996) A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly49(3): 651–672.
SotirovMWinkelG (2016) Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: Linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory. Policy Sciences49(2): 125–154.
TrueJLBaumgartnerFRJonesBD (2007) Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in policymaking. In: SabatierPA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 155–187.
61.
van der HeijdenJKuhlmannJ (2017) Studying incremental institutional change: A systematic and critical meta-review of the literature from 2005 to 2015. Policy Studies Journal45(3): 535–554.
62.
WeibleCM (2017) Introduction: The scope and focus of policy process research. In: WeibleCMSabatierPA (eds) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 1–13.
63.
WeibleCMSabatierPA (2017) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press.
64.
WellsteadAPaulCKathrynO (2018) Reducing ambiguity to close the science-policy gap. Policy Design and Practice1(2): 115–125.
65.
WorshamJ (2006) Up in smoke: Mapping subsystem dynamics in tobacco policy. Policy Studies Journal34(3): 437–452.
66.
YeeAS (1996) The causal effects of ideas on policies. International Organization50(1): 69–108.
67.
ZahariadisN (2015) The shield of Heracles: Multiple streams and the emotional endowment effect. European Journal of Political Research54(3): 466–481.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
