research papers on government policy

Research Methods for Public Policy

• Open Access
• First Online: 19 October 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Susan Mbula Kilonzo 3 &
• Ayobami Ojebode 4  

23k Accesses

This chapter examined the nature of public policy and role of policy analysis in the policy process. It examines a variety of research methods and their use in public policy engagements and analysis for evidence-informed policymaking. It explains qualitative methods, quantitative methods, multiple and mixed-method research. Other issues addressed include causal research in public policy, report writing and communication and related issues in public policy research.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Qualitative Methods for Policy Analysis: Case Study Research Strategy

Perspectives on Policy Analysis: A Framework for Understanding and Design

Social Research and Public Policy: Some Cautionary Notes

Introduction.

As implied by the topic, this chapter focuses on research methods applied or applicable in public policy research. Though the overriding focus is on specific research methods, we deemed it necessary to preface these with a brief discussion of the nature of public policy research and the nature of policy-engaged research problem or question. These are then followed by the specific research approaches or traditions and methods as applied to public policy. Given that public policy research deals with issues that have important implications for the society, the mixed-method research is often preferred as a means of arriving at findings and conclusion concrete and reliable enough to serve as a basis for policy. For this reason, we devoted a section to mixing methods in public policy research. This chapter is thus divided into four sections:

Nature of public policy research

The policy-engaged research problem or question,

Specific public policy research approaches and methods, and

Mixing methods in public policy research.

In the first section, we focus on the definitive characteristics of the kind of research that supports or evokes public policy, especially the solution-orientation of such research. In the second section, we focus on what it means for research to be policy-engaged—which is different from being policy-relevant. We propose the nature and source of a good problem or question for policy-engaged research and its basic design. In the third section, we focus on the two broad traditions of research: qualitative and quantitative traditions, and the specific methods under these traditions. We explain how these methods are used in public policy research using both hypothetical and existing examples. In the last section, we discuss mixing research methods in public policy research, stressing the reasons for it and summing up the process of doing it.

Nature of Public Policy Research

Public policy research is one whose primary aim is to understand or explain social, political, economic, cultural and other issues that are significant to the society and which require the intervention or attention of policy actors. In providing an understanding of such issues, the research also presents itself as a trustable basis for the actions and interventions of these policy actors. It must, therefore, be a piece of research based on sound evidence, produced out of convincing rigour and woven from start to finish around a societal issue of concern.

In addition to being thorough and trustable, public policy research must also go beyond describing a problem or situation into engaging the how and why of things (Osifo 2015 : 149) for it to establish causality with reference to a given problem and the options of addressing such a problem. Descriptive studies do sometimes provide an important basis for policy; however, causal studies often interest and command the attention of policy actors more than descriptive ones do.

A good public policy research is sensitive to both the policy and political agenda. These two environments or elements determine action or inaction. Howlett ( 2012 : 451) argues for an approach that encourages absorption of research outputs at two levels: enhancing instrumental arguments about policy programme content and ensuring a deeper political engagement experience.

Though policy makers do not entirely depend on research to make decisions on policy options (Edwards 2004 ; UK Cabinet Office 2009 ), the role of research, and specifically field-based research, in public policy remains critical (Mead 2005 ; Young 2005 ). Since scholarly research competes with expert knowledge, domestic and international policy, stakeholder consultations and evaluation of previous policies, among other sources (UK Cabinet 1999), evidence generated from research that is meant to inform public policy needs a strong basis for argument on the problem under scrutiny, as well as a variety of policy options from field evidence.

Recent studies show that research in policymaking over the last four decades plays a less direct role than is often assumed and expected (Howlett 2012 ). Nevertheless, the role of research in public policy is not to be downplayed, and as Mead ( 2005 : 535) explains, field research is essential to realistic policy research that ties governmental action to good outcomes. However, we need to take cognizance of the fact that, as Tierney and Clemens ( 2011 ) argue, many of today’s most pressing policy issues are extraordinarily complex and will benefit from carefully conceived and analysed studies utilizing multiple methodological approaches. Public policy researchers should understand this complexity of policy problems. This complex web determines, to a great extent, what forms of research and/or research methods a researcher should consider.

Literature shows that in the history of public policy research, statistical evidence was very important (Mead 2005 ). Studies meant to inform policy were therefore mostly, if not always, survey-based (Mead 2005 ). Survey-based research, as Mead ( 2005 : 544) shows, is good at generating accurate depictions of the clientele served by a given policy. Social problems and their correlates can be clearly captured. Earlier approaches to policy research favoured output that could be generalized across settings that were validated and reliable. In those early approaches, quantitative research, especially survey, was given priority. Qualitative research did not so much move into policy arena and research evidence from qualitative studies did not seem to find a place in policy discussion tables (Tierney and Clemens 2011 : 59).

Over the years, survey-based approach has been criticized for its narrow economistic approach because social problems are complex. The argument is that survey-based policy research projects onto its subjects, the psychology assumed by the quantitative researcher. Simply put on its own, the approach lacks the ability to explain why and how complex social problems arise, and what public policies would best be suited to address them in their complexity. Surveys, for instance, may not give the full range of information required to account for the behaviours of the poor, needy and dependent persons in certain circumstances. These people, though challenged by certain economic factors, can survive in difficult circumstances, but the how and why of their survival would be beyond the easy reach of survey. Thus, as Mead ( 2005 ) argues, there is need for a more complex and robust approach that incorporates those factors that are beyond the statistics. We argue that for a public policy research to claim authenticity of findings that capture the attention of policy makers, and subsequently inform the policy process, an integration of research methods, that is, mixed-method design, is important.

Public policy research is meant to provide solutions to social and public problems that are in many ways complex. Establishing causes and effects of these problems run beyond analysis of existing policies. Mead ( 2013 ), for instance, argues:

[Where] texts in public policy devote attention to both policy analysis and political analysis; they fail to capture the intimate connection between them. The two subjects appear as separate worlds, when they are really two sides of the same coin. The texts do not consider that political constraints should really be part of policy argument or that the policy-making process can sharply limit what best policy means. And in research on public policy, there is even less sense of policy and politics shaping and reshaping each other. Typically, the usual division prevails where economists recommend best policy while political scientists explain what government does. (p. 393)

These views relate to the policy and politics dichotomy, and how political analysis is good in reshaping policy analysis (Mead 2013 : 392). While it is important to pay attention in public policy research to how these two influence each other, it is also important to pay careful attention to the stakeholders. Good research methods for public policy should engage stakeholders in the research process to enhance the use of the research findings and recommendations for effective policies. Besides the policy makers, policy actors include the public, which is always at the receiving end of the end products of public policy research are important. Consultations with them at most, if not all levels, help researchers to articulate policies that include their ideas or address their concerns (Oxman et al. 2009 ) and result in the good policy performance.

The Policy-Engaged Research Problem/Question

With reference to their level of policy engagement, public policy research in Africa can be categorized into three: public policy-appended research, commissioned policy research and public policy analysis. Public policy-appended research is the most common of the three. For most African researchers, there is a mandatory section of their article or thesis that presents policy recommendations. In that section, researchers attempt to point out how their research findings can be applied to real-life policy situations and consequently change those situations for the better. Efforts are made by experienced researchers to ensure a close fit between the recommendations and the findings that precede it in the article or thesis. As common as this genre of public policy research is, it is a flawed approach for many reasons. The approach treats policy not as the centre of the research but as an appendage. Put differently, the researcher decides her or his research problem and question and decides on the methods most suitable for this. At the conclusion of the research, she or he then turns to policy actors with recommendations. Since the research was not informed by a policy need or gap, it can hardly fit into the existing agenda and conversations among policy actors. It neither speaks the language of policy actors nor considers their priorities. The researcher would not have attempted to include policy actors at most, if not all, stages of the research, and as we will discuss shortly, there are consequences of not doing this. It also assumes that policy actors (i.e. policy makers, civil society and other stakeholders, including citizens) are on the lookout for policy recommendations from researchers and can wade through the different sections of the research to find these recommendations. As Oyedele, Atela and Ojebode ( 2017 ) opined, this is hardly so. The researcher’s research is her or his business, not that of the policy actors. As a result, policy actors do not access the tonnes of policy recommendations made by researchers.

Commissioned public policy research projects are initiated by government agencies and non-governmental organizations to address specific policy or implementation problem. The driving research question and the nature of the expected findings are articulated by the commissioning organization. A critical objection to this genre of public policy research is researcher’s autonomy on crucial fronts. To what extent can a researcher turn out findings that conflict with the political aspirations and public image of the funding government or its agency? How can the researcher be sure that his or her findings are not spun or twisted in favour of government? Therefore, while the findings and recommendations of this genre of public policy research are likely to be more easily accepted by policy actors than the findings of public policy-appended research, there is usually a cloud of doubt around its objectivity and integrity.

A third genre of public policy research deals with policy analysis . These studies take on an existing policy and subject its components to critical analysis often conjecturing whether it would produce expected results. They explore inconsistencies, systemic barriers and feasibility of a policy, and then draw conclusions as to why a policy works or does not. They may serve as formative or summative studies depending on when they are conducted in the life cycle of a policy. The challenge of this approach to public policy research has been that the researcher/analyst is basically tied to the outcomes of policies in existence—policies that he or she did not play a role in formulating.

The foregoing genres of public policy research are, at best, only partially policy-engaged. They may be policy-relevant, but they are not policy-engaged. So, the questions for us here are: What is policy-engaged research? How does it differ from policy analysis, commissioned public policy research and public policy-appended research? What is it that the other three misses out that policy-engaged research is good for? And how do we then design research in a way that the methods used are relevant in informing the public policymaking processes?

A policy-engaged piece of research derives its roots from the questions that are being asked in policy circles. As a response to current public policy issues, it is driven by a research question that explores, extends or clarifies a policy question or problem. Policy-engaged research therefore means bringing on board the stakeholders relevant in the development of a given public policy (Lemke and Harris-Wai 2015 ), whether their role is interest or influence. This means that there is an all-round way of understanding the problem that the policy is intended to solve and the politics surrounding the decision-making process.

It is important for a researcher to understand in policy-engaged research, is the need to tailor the research in a way that the policy options suggested are practical. This is because, a policy attempts to solve or prevent a problem, or scale up progress, and policy actors are interested in “what works”. In other words, they are keen about what causes an outcome or makes things happen. A piece of public policy research would, therefore, do well if it were causal, rather than descriptive.

There are two fundamental characteristics of a public policy research problem or question: First, it should explore cause, outcome, and/or causal mechanism in relation to an existing policy or a policy action it intends to propose. In exploring these, the researcher can tease out the specific factors that are responsible for a certain policy problem/issue (outcome) and have conclusive findings from which to confidently suggest specific points of intervention in a policy progression. For instance, if the researcher discovers that misinformation is the cause of vaccine rejection, then he or she knows better than to suggest increased procurement of vaccines but would rather suggest media campaigns or community meetings to increase citizens’ awareness of that vaccination. If, in exploring the mechanism between misinformation and rejection, she discovers that misinformation leads to cognitive dissonance which then leads citizens to seek clarification from traditional birth attendants who then counsels them to abstain from vaccination and whom they then obey by rejecting the vaccination, she is further equipped to make pointed suggestion on which point in the chain to focus intervention or “tweaking”. Public policy research without such causal information can easily become a shot in the dark.

Second, the public policy research problem should resonate with the questions that policy actors are asking as well as the questions that they should be asking. While it is important for the public policy research question to evolve from policy questions, it is also important to note that policy questions are sometimes wrong or inadequate. Put bluntly, policy actors sometimes do not ask the right questions. It is, therefore, important for the researcher to identify these policy questions and give them the needed redirection. Policy actors, for instance, may be asking if the gap between male and female children about access to education is narrowing or widening following the adoption of an affirmative action policy in favour of the girl child. Whereas this is an important question, it is not likely to reveal information that is specific enough to be a basis for the right adjustment of the policy. It is not only simply descriptive but also narrow and unworthy of much research. The researcher should push harder with questions of cause, outcome and causal mechanism about the male-female disparity in access to education in this case. Has the policy produced a narrowing of the gap? If not, why has it not? What skills or resources are lacking that account for this lack of narrowing? Or what historical, religious or cultural factors combine or act alone to ensure continuity of the gap despite the policy? The public policy research question may not be the exact one that policy actors are asking, but it is indeed a vital extension and reflection of the policy question.

When we have public policy research problems that are unrelated to the problems that policy actors have, the consequence can be predicted. We will come up with findings that may be scientifically sound but unattractive to policy actors. Such findings will have little or no uptake. This approach speaks to the disconnection which a vast amount of literature points out—the disconnection between researchers and policy makers (Edwards 2004 : 2; Young 2005 : 730–1; Saetren 2005 ). When we ask public policy research questions that are not causal, the consequence can as well be predicted—our findings will not be convincing or informing enough to move policy actors to targeted action. Ultimately, questions that are not in line with the policy makers, and non-causal questions, render our research simply as just another piece of research for its sake.

A research question largely dictates its own research design. The type of research question we advocate above implies an iterative approach that begins with policy actors and finally returns to them. It also implies a specific kind of methods. It is a back-and-forth movement that considers the concerns of the actors as the fulcrum. In addition to being iterative, the design is also causal. The stages given below may apply (Fig. 4.1 ).

Approach to designing policy research

The way in which research is designed determines the ability of the researcher to claim causal conclusions (Bachman 2007 ). This is important for it gives indication to policy makers on what influential factors lead to what outcomes. If this is not known, making relevant policy decisions is always not possible.

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Public Policy Research

In this section, we explain the commonly used qualitative and quantitative research methods for public policy.

Qualitative Methods in Public Research

Briefly stated, qualitative methods aim at providing deeper perspectives, attitudes, perceptions and contextual insights that surround the issue under investigation as experienced and understood by those living through it. The outcome of qualitative methods is usually the verbalized thoughts and viewpoints of the subjects of investigation rather than numbers or statistics. The following are some of the research methods used in qualitative research. Note that each of these methods applies a wide range of tools to collect data.

Historical and Archival Research

Libraries and archives store historical information in many forms including diaries, pictures, documents, minutes and artefacts, among others. These mean that they might have been stored as primary or secondary data. Historical or archival information that can be considered as primary is that which was collected from the author or field and stored in its original form without undergoing any form of analysis and change. Such may include minutes, diaries, pictures, artefacts, personal memoirs, autobiographies and others of the same nature. Any historical information that has gone through any studies or analysis then becomes secondary data. These may include journals, books and magazines, among others.

When a researcher wants to use historical and archival data, the aim is to research on the past and already existing information. However, historical and archival research does not always mean deriving data from the archives. A policy researcher may design a historical study in which they endeavour to visit the field and collect data from knowledgeable individuals concerning a certain historical issue of policy concern. They may partly engage documents from archives or libraries to historicize, contextualize and corroborate the issue under research. It is also the nature of many parliamentary researchers to “mine” data from parliamentary libraries/archives, some of which contain data that is classified as primary data.

Historical data is important in public policy, for it helps researchers situate their arguments within existing narratives, contexts and prior solutions suggested for policy problems. Roche ( 2016 ) argues that making assumptions about the ease with which historical research can be done is misleading. He advises that knowledge of context and a sequential approach should be given ascendance in the researcher’s priority. The researcher should be aware of chronology of information to clearly provide a coherent picture of the policy issue at hand. This implies that the past information should be relatable to the most current. With the advent in technology, most data are now digitalized, and as such, it is easy to get information from the Internet.

Archives are used to store vital government records such as personal letters, diaries, minutes, logbooks, plans, maps, photographs, among others, that easily qualify to be analysed as primary data (Roche 2016 : 174). Roche ( 2016 : 183–4) notes the challenge of fragmentation and partial availability of archival documents. He further alludes to technical challenges of the clarity of some of archival data. He cites examples of materials that were handwritten a while back and which may be ineligible. Historical and archival research apply both desk-based methods and interview techniques of data collection. Photography can also be used.

Ethnographic Methods

Ethnographic approach to research studies communities in their natural setting to understand their activities, behaviour, attitudes, perspectives and opinions within their social surrounding (Brewer 2000 ). To do so, ethnography entails close association with the research communities and sometimes participation in their activities (Brewer 2000 : 17). In fact, the commonly used methods of data collection in ethnography are participant (and sometimes non-participant) observation. The former allows for the researcher to get involved in the activities of the communities, while the latter is designed for the researcher to observe from the periphery. As Brewer argues, it is this day-to-day involvement in people’s activities that enable the researcher to make sense of the social worldviews of the research participants.

Non-participant observation describes a research situation where a researcher does not take part in the processes, events or activities that he or she is observing but removes himself or herself from the happenings to critically observe from a distance. This has challenges especially if the observed become aware of intrusion and subsequently alter their behaviour (Hawthorne effect). Sometimes the researcher may structure the observations or decide to use unstructured observations. The two differ in the sense of planning on the observation activities. For the structured type, the researcher has in mind what they want to observe and as such have a list and indications of what they would like to see. Take, for instance, a study on access to water meant to contribute to a water policy. A researcher may choose to observe how (many) times is water served at certain water points; how many people queue for the water in each of these servings; and this is likely to tell the researcher whether the water points are enough or otherwise. In unstructured observation, the researcher gets into the field with a research idea but without the specifics of that nature of data they expect from the field. Qualitative interview methods such as oral interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) may apply where necessary during ethnography. Note taking is often applied as well.

Phenomenology

This method focuses on lived experiences of a given phenomenon by an individual or a group of individuals. Individuals can describe their views and opinions about the phenomenon in question (Johnson and Christensen 2014 ). Research on fertility issues can target women who either have or do not have children, depending on what the researcher wants to unearth, with individual women providing their lived experiences on the issue under investigation. Phenomenology is also applicable when writing biographies (an account of someone’s life written by someone else). Generally, life histories, personal testimonies and experiences are best collected through this method. This implies that oral in-depth interviews and desk-based methods of data collection are important in understanding the stories in question.

Narrative Method

A narrative is a story that structures human activity to give it some form of meaning (Elçi and Devran 2014 ). Research that applies the narrative method encourages the research participants to tell their stories around a certain issue. The researcher listens to the stories and uses them to make informed analysis on the issue at hand. A researcher concerned about experiences of people living in zones of conflicts may ask questions that elicit stories of the victims or perpetrators of violence and present these in narrative form. Researchers who use phenomenology method often apply use of narratives, but not always. Phenomenological research may not rely on story telling alone. A researcher may use desk-based method to gain perspectives of the target communities as well.

Case Studies

A case study is an intensive analysis of a small number of phenomena (events, actors, activities, processes, organizations, communities, among others) in each context. Though one can use a mix of qualitative or quantitative data within a case study, meaning that case studies can also take quantitative route, a case study is always a detailed analysis of the relationships between the contextual factors and a visible occurrence. Case studies are therefore considered when there is need for detailed information on the issue(s) under investigation. A single case study aims at providing details on the variables of interest. A comparative case study has two or more cases (what literature refers to as small-N) for the purpose of making comparative causal explanations. A researcher uses comparative case studies when they want to tease out the similarities and/or differences between or among the cases, usually for the purpose of explaining causation.

Action Research

Action research is problem-solution focused. It falls under the category of applied research and subsequently, uses practical approach to solve an immediate problem. In this case, the researcher works together with a community or practitioners to identify a challenging issue within the community that requires a possible solution. They formulate the problem together and design the research in a way that the aim is to work towards getting a solution to the problem. Once the data collected is analysed and recommendations given, a plan of action is drawn and applied to the problem that the research was designed for. The community (and researcher) reflects on the effectiveness of the solutions applied to take appropriate measures. In a nutshell, Huang ( 2010 : 99) explains that action research proceeds from a praxis of participation guided by practitioners’ concerns for practicality; it is inclusive of stakeholders’ ways of knowing and helps to build capacity for ongoing change efforts. This form of research requires money and time. As Huang ( 2010 ) notes, action research can take a qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method perspective. Various methods of data collection including oral interviews, surveys, community mapping, observation, among others, may be applied in action research.

Grounded Theory Research

A researcher may apply two approaches, inductive or deductive, to do research. The deductive approach means that one has a theoretical basis from where hypotheses can be formulated and tested. Inductive approach, on the other hand, is grounded or bottom-up. The researcher in this case starts by making observations that then provide him or her with patterns from where conclusions and theory can be drawn. Grounded research therefore moves from the point of poor or no theory up to where a researcher can deduce an informed hypothesis and towards theory building, all from the observations and analysis made from data. It is similar with other qualitative methods in the use of the various methods of data collection including oral interviews, observation and use of all forms of documents (Strauss and Corbin 1994 ).

Quantitative Methods in Public Policy Research

Quantitative research generates numerical data using such research instruments as the questionnaire, tests, code sheets for content analysis and similar other sources. The data is then subjected to mathematical or statistical analysis (Muijs 2004 ).

Literature divides quantitative research methods into two—experimental and non-experimental methods. Experimental methods are the quantitative approaches that are mainly concerned with manipulation situations with an aim of establishing cause and effect. Bachman ( 2007 : 151) argues that “the experimental design provides the most powerful design for testing causal hypotheses about the effect of a treatment or some other variable whose values can be manipulated by the researchers”. Experiments allow us to explain causality with some confidence because of the use of treatment and control. The basic and elementary type of experimental research involves setting up two groups (treatment and control groups) and introducing change to the treatment but nothing to the control. The effect of the change is measured in the differences in the behaviour or performance of the two groups after the treatment.

Experimental research has been criticized for their weakness in reflecting reality in that they take people out of their natural settings into a laboratory or pseudo-labs. Despite this, they can make important input to policymaking. For instance, micro-level policies on classroom instruction and curriculum have been largely influenced by experimental research.

Non-experimental methods do not manipulate. They are aimed and providing a descriptive picture of what is being studied. Non-experimental methods, as Muijs ( 2004 ) indicates, are more varied and may range from surveys to historical research, observations and analysis of existing data sets (applied quantitative methods). We will briefly look at the experimental and non-experimental quantitative research in the following sections.

Experimental Methods

The different types of experiments can range from randomized control trials (RCTs) to quasi-experiments, and sometimes, natural experiments.

Randomized Control Trials (RCTs)

In their simplest form, RCTs involve assigning individuals, groups, communities or settlements to experimental/treatment and control groups. The experimental group receives treatment—school feeding—while the control group receives no treatment (no school feeding). The difference in school attendance rates between these groups could then be attributed to the treatment, that is, school feeding. If statistics shows that attendance increases in the treatment group but stays the same or decreases in the control group, other things being equal, the researcher can make claims about school feeding causing increase in school attendance. Randomized control trials are expensive and are usually beyond the budget reach of most researchers. Public policy researchers therefore embark on other forms of experimental methods generally described as quasi-experimental methods.

Quasi-experiments

There is an unending controversy as to what constitutes a quasi-experiment. Given the little profit accruing from such a controversy, we would take a simple definition of that concept: any experiment that mimics as closely as possible the advantages of RCT (Muijs 2004 : 27). In quasi-experiments randomization is not possible (Muijs 2004 ). This makes it difficult to eliminate bias. The experimental group is already determined—they are the ones enjoying or experiencing the treatment of concern to the researcher. What the researcher does is to compare this group with another that is not experiencing the treatment. Often, the treatment is a government programme or some other kind of intervention out of the researcher’s control. Where it is possible to have another group to compare with, the researcher might work with data before treatment comparing that with data after treatment.

Take, for instance, the introduction of government-funded public examinations in some Nigerian prisons in 2019. Would the incidence of violence reduce in prisons because of this policy? A few years into the policy, a researcher might compare incidence of violence in Prison A where the policy is being implemented with Prison B where it is not being implemented. Or, where, for certain reasons that two-prison comparison is not possible, she might compare data on the incidence violence in Prison A before the policy with data on the incidence of violence in the same prison after the policy has been implemented.

Quasi-experiment templates consider space (spatial variation) and time (temporal variation) as important aspects that influence setting up of experimental research designs. Gerring ( 2007 ) and other scholars provide a variety of these templates. For instance, a researcher might be interested in explaining if and how a certain programme or policy, say a school feeding programme, increases students’ performance in national examinations. She can select two local government areas or sub-counties—one with a school feeding programme and the other without—and then compare school performances of students in both sub-counties and local government areas in national examination. It is important to ensure that the two cases (i.e. sub-counties or local government areas in this example) are similar in all other factors that might influence students’ performance in a national examination, the only difference being the presence of a school feeding programme in one and its absence in the other. The data can be collected by a variety of means—questionnaire, secondary data such as attendance registers, observation guide or any other that suits the research objective and question. A fruitful study of this type does not stop at showing that students in local government A where there is a school feeding programme perform better than their counterparts in local government B. That would be an interesting finding, but it leaves a lot unsaid. Rather, it should press on with an explanation of the causal mechanism—the pathway or trajectory by which the school feeding programme leads to better grades. This implies that what is largely categorized as quantitative study may require aspects of qualitative data to allow the researcher to get a complete picture of the issue under investigation.

Ojebode et al. ( 2016 ) attempted to explain the (in)effectiveness of community-based crime prevention practices in Ibadan, Nigeria. They selected two communities—one with a successful community-based crime prevention programme and another with a clearly unsuccessful one. These communities are similar in all the factors that matter to community-based crime prevention—population, ethnic mix, youth population, socio-economic status, and both have community-based crime prevention practices. Their puzzle was: why did the practice work so well in one community and fail so woefully in the other despite the similarities in these communities. Through different rounds of data collection and different instruments, their quantitative and qualitative analysis shows that the settlement patterns in the communities—dating several hundred years—perhaps explained the variation in the outcomes of the crime prevention practices.

Natural Experiments

Natural experiments take advantage of exogenous effect, that is, an intervention that is outside of the control of the researcher, which was also not intended to affect the outcome/dependent variable. The exogenous effect can be in the form of natural (such as a natural disaster), physical (like in the case of the colonial/government border) or historical event. They may also be a policy intervention. These were not intended for research or academic purposes. In other words, what becomes the treatment or causal factor happens through some “natural” occurrence or unplanned event. In some ways, these events may allow for observation of before and after they occurred. An example is Friedman et al. ( 2001 ) who carried out a kind of natural experiment during the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, Georgia. The researchers wanted to find out whether heavy traffic in the city was a cause of asthma in children. They made observations on how the city was organized during the 17 days of Olympics where the traffic rules changed. Small cars were forced onto alternative routes to leave main routes for mass transport, and this reduced traffic congestion on the major roads of the city. Through paediatric records (before and after Olympics), the study discovered 40% reduction in asthma attacks and emergency hospitalization. The researchers made a conclusion that traffic congestion contributes to paediatric asthma. This can be classified as a natural experiment, where the Olympics (manipulation/treatment) was not planned by the researcher and was exogenous (not related in any known way) to asthma. Such critically thought-out research can easily contribute to change in transport policies. Other studies, for instance, Daniel Posner’s on Chewas and Timbukas of Zambia and Malawi ( 2004 ), have used borders artificially created by colonial governments as boundaries of study groups. In his case, Posner shows how governments in two countries differently exploit similar ethnic compositions and the effect of this exploitation on inter-ethnic relations.

Non-experimental Quantitative Methods

Most quantitative researchers collect data using a standard questionnaire containing mostly close-ended questions. Some researchers may use a questerview, which combine both closed-ended and open-ended question. The latter is applicable when corroborative data or explanations to the closed-ended questions are needed. Survey questionnaires for this reason provide some standardized data that can be keyed into software for organization and analysis. The type of survey questionnaire depends on the nature of data that the researcher requires, the reach of the study population and ways in which the data is to be collected. One can decide to do telephone interviews, post the questionnaire, administer it online or have an ordinary written questionnaire.

Survey research considers a variety of factors including samples and sampling procedures, characteristics of the study population, among other issues. Surveys mainly apply probability sampling with an aim of giving all the elements a chance to be included in the study sample. This is the opposite of non-probability sampling those centres on purposive and convenient sampling. There are various sampling techniques in probability sampling, and these are available in various research methods books. Just to mention, some of the probability sampling approaches include simple random, stratified random, cluster, quota and multistage (see Muijs 2004 , 2011 ; Babbie 2004 ; Kothari 2004 ; Kumar 2011 ). For sample sizes, there are suggested formulas that researchers can apply for both finite and infinite populations.

Observational Studies

Observations are important for both qualitative and quantitative research. In quantitative research, observation is applied both as a research method and as a method of data collection. In qualitative research, observation is mostly categorized as a method of data collection and features in various research methods including ethnography, case study and action research. In quantitative studies, observational methods are important, for they enable a researcher to interact with the study environment and participants in a way that the questionnaire would not. Observational data for quantitative research is collected using standardized/structured observation schedules. A researcher can develop a descriptive observational record or a rating scale to help them collect observational data. This enables the researcher to observe and record the behaviour and activities in the selected study sites in a standardized way. Observations can also be made on existing reports within the institutions being studied, say for instance, school performance and statistical data collected from such reports (see Muijs 2004 ). In the end, the different methods may generate descriptive data of various types, that is, from open-ended and closed-ended descriptions. The selection of participants is also randomized to give all a chance to participate, and subsequently, those falling within the sample size are meant to represent the study population on which generalizations can be made.

Applied Quantitative Method

This method makes use of existing data sets. It applies analytical methods to facilitate description of data that has already been recorded and stored. Different research institutes store varied forms of data sets. These could be useful if a researcher is interested in analysing them with the purpose of achieving a certain research objective. For instance, one might be interested in understanding and describing the population growth trends. In such instances, one does not need to go to the field to collect fresh information when the national bureaux or offices of statistics have the data sets. All one needs is to get permission from relevant authorities to access such information. The challenge with using such data sets is that if they are erroneous in any way, then the errors are carried forth in the analysis. As Muijs ( 2004 ) indicates, the various quantitative research methods can be combined in a single study if this is necessary.

Mixed Methods in Public Policy Research

The advent of mixed-method research and the place that it currently occupies in social science research reinforce the arguments for the use of both traditions of qualitative and quantitative methods in public policy research. Statistics should be complemented and explained by meaning-making concepts, metaphors, symbols and descriptions from qualitative research to make sense of hard data. On the other hand, narratives on their own are not enough. Jones and McBeth ( 2010 : 330) show that despite the apparent power of stories in public policy, public policy studies have largely remained on the side-lines of the use narratives. The two scholars suggest the relevance of using a narrative policy framework as a methodological complement for positivists in the study of policy. Some scholars have also shown that for policy problems to be clearly defined, a narrative structure is needed. Narration, as Fischer ( 1998 ) and Stone ( 2002 : 138) explain, helps make sense of the socially constructed world that requires tangible solutions. Since qualitative approach may not be able to engage hypothesis testing to allow for replication and falsification (Jones and McBeth 2010 : 339), they should complement or be complemented by quantitative data.

Qualitative and quantitative methods have their own separate strengths. As noted above, qualitative research is about depth and qualitative is about breadth. This means, if a study requires both, then mixing the methods is important. Mixing methods therefore means a research problem requires both qualitative and quantitative data. Morse ( 1991 ) argued that triangulation of methods not only maximizes the strengths and minimizes those weaknesses of each approach, but also strengthens research results and contributes to theory and knowledge development.

Mixing research methods does not just imply mixing methods of data collection. A researcher must intentionally clarify which research methods (as discussed above) are applicable in their research to speak to qualitative and quantitative aspects, and by extension what methods of data collection will be used. Note that one research method may have many methods and tools data collection. If one is using ethnography, then participant observation, oral in-depth interviews, observations and focus group discussions are examples of applicable data collection methods. The various methods of data collection have their instruments/tools.

Mixing of methods entirely depends on the purpose for which the methods are mixed. This is determined by the research problem. Mixed research methods books provide a wide range of typologies of designing mixed-method research (see, for instance, Greene et al. 1989 ; Creswell and Clark 2011 ; Schoonenboom and Johnson 2017 ). Below is a simple illustration of the continuum for mixing methods (Fig. 4.2 ). A researcher can move from a purely quantitative or qualitative research method (A and E), towards integrating either quantitative (B) or qualitative (D) methods to the dominant method. A researcher can also design a fully mixed-method research (C). This is a simplified way of understanding how mixing can happen; there are other more complex typologies.

The mixed-method continuum. (Source: Teddlie and Yu 2007 : 84)

In public policy research, the mixing is important for various reasons. One might require results for complementary purpose, explanations to the statistical results, expansion of results from one domain (qualitative or quantitative) or confirmation of results. The dictates of mixing are found within the research problem and by extension research questions/objectives.

There is subtle blame game between bureaucrats and policy makers, on the one hand, and researchers, on the other hand, in Africa. While the latter accuse the former of not using the research they conduct, the former responds by claiming that many of the research do not speak to policy or societal issues and are thus not usable. They add that many of them are rendered in a language that is not accessible to non-academic actors. As a result, not a few policy decisions are based on political and other judgements rather than on sound research.

Our discussion so far suggests that the bureaucrats and policy makers may not be totally right in their accusation, but they are not totally wrong either. The preponderance of policy-appended research, and of solo-method research which offers little as a basis for policy, seems to justify their accusation. It is, therefore, important that public policy researchers weave their research around societal issues that are not only significant but also contemporary and topical, craft their design with the aim of policy engagement and stakeholder involvement, and adopt mixed methods as and when necessary, to provide findings and conclusion that command and compel policy actors’ attention.

Babbie, E. 2004. The Practice of Social Research . 10th ed. Belmont: Wandsworth.

Google Scholar  

Bachman, R. 2007. Causation and Research Design. In The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice , ed. R. Bachman and R. Schutt, 3rd ed., 141–169. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brewer, J. 2000. Ethnography . Buckingham: Philadelphia. Open University Press.

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research . 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

Edwards, M. 2004. Social Science Research and Public Policy: Narrowing the Divide. Occasional Paper 2/2004. Policy Paper #2. Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Canberra. ASSA.

Elçi, A., and Devran, B.C. (2014). A Narrative Research Approach: The Experiences of Social Media Support in Higher Education, in P. Zaphiris (Eds.): Human-Computer Interaction, Part I, HCII 2014, LNCS 8523, pp. 36–42.

Fischer, F. 1998. Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Postpositivist Perspective. Policy Studies Journal 26 (1): 129–146.

Article   Google Scholar  

Friedman, M., K. Powell, L. Hutwagner, L. Graham, and W. Teague. 2001. Impact of Changes in Transportation and Commuting Behaviours During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma. JAMA. 285 (7): 897–905.

Gerring, J. 2007. Case Study Research Principles and Practices . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greene, J.C., V.J. Caracelli, and W.F. Graham. 1989. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11: 255–274.

Howlett, M. 2012. The Lessons of Failure: Learning and Blame Avoidance in Public Policymaking. International Political Science Review 33 (5): 539–555.

Huang, B.H. 2010. What Is Good Action Research? Why the Resurgent Interest? Action Research 8 (1): 93–109.

Johnson, Burke, and Larry B. Christensen. 2014. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Jones, M., and M. McBeth. 2010. A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong. The Policy Studies Journal 38 (2): 329–353.

Kothari, C. 2004. Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques . New Delhi: Wishwa Prakashan.

Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A Step by Step Guide for Beginners. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Third Edition.

Lemke, A., and J. Harris-Wai. 2015. Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Human Genomics. Genetics in Medicine 17 (12): 949–957.

Mead, L. 2005. Policy Research: The Field Dimension. Policy Studies Journal 33 (4): 535–557.

———. 2013. Teaching Public Policy: Linking Policy and Politics. JPAE 19 (3): 389–403.

Morse, M. 1991. Approaches to Qualitative and Quantitative Methodological: Triangulation. Qualitative Research 40 ( 1 ): 120–123.

Muijs, D. 2004. Doing Quantitative Research in Education . London: Sage Publications.

Book   Google Scholar  

———. 2011. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS . 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Ojebode, A., Ojebuyi, B. R., Onyechi, N. J., Oladapo, O., Oyedele, O., and Fadipe, I. 2016. Explaining the Effectiveness of Community-Based Crime Prevention Practices in Nigeria. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/explaining-the-effectiveness-of-community-based-crime-prevention-practices-in-ibadan-nigeria .

Osifo, C. 2015. Public Management Research and a Three Qualitative Research Strategy. Review of Pub. Administration and Management 3 (1): 149–156.

Oxman, A., S. Lewin, J. Lavis, and A. Fretheim. 2009. Support Tools for Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking (STP) 15: Engaging the Public in Evidence-Informed. Health Research Policy and Systems 7 (1): S15 Policymaking.

Oyedele, O., M. Atela, A. Ojebode. 2017. Two lessons for early involvement of stakeholders in research. https://i2insights.org/2017/11/14/early-stakeholder-involvement/

Posner, D. 2004. The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi. The American Political Science Review 98 (4): 529–545.

Roche, M. 2016. Historical Research and Archival Sources. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography , ed. Iain Hay, 4th ed., 225–245. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saetren, H. 2005. Facts and Myths About Research on Public Policy Implementation: Out-of-Fashion, Allegedly Dead, But Still Alive and Relevant. Policy Studies Journal 33 (4): 559–582–559–582.

Schoonenboom, J., and B. Johnson. 2017. How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design. Köln Z Soziol 69 (Suppl 2): 107–131.

Stone, D. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, Revised Edition . 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1994. Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In Handbook of Qualitative Research , ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 273–285. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Teddlie, C., and F. Yu. 2007. Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology with Examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 1 (1): 77.

Tierney, W.G., and R.F. Clemens. 2011. Qualitative Research and Public Policy: The Challenges of Relevance and Trustworthiness. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , ed. J. Smart and M. Paulsen, vol. 26, 57–83. Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

UK Cabinet Office. 2009. Professional Policy Making for the 21st Century. Report by Strategic Policy Making Team. September, 7(1).

Young, J. 2005. Research, Policy and Practice: Why Developing Countries Are Different. Journal of International Development 17: 727–734.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Religious Studies, Maseno University, Maseno, Kenya

Susan Mbula Kilonzo

Department of Communication and Language Arts, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Ayobami Ojebode

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Mbula Kilonzo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

E. Remi Aiyede

PASGR, Nairobi, Kenya

Beatrice Muganda

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Kilonzo, S.M., Ojebode, A. (2023). Research Methods for Public Policy. In: Aiyede, E.R., Muganda, B. (eds) Public Policy and Research in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99724-3_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99724-3_4

Published : 19 October 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-99723-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-99724-3

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Climate policy conflict in the U.S. states: a critical review and way forward

Joshua a. basseches.

1 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA

Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo

2 Christopher Newport University, Newport News, USA

Maxwell T. Boykoff

3 University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

Trevor Culhane

4 Brown University, Providence, USA

5 Salem State University, Salem, USA

David J. Hess

6 Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA

Rachel M. Krause

8 University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

Harland Prechel

9 Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

J. Timmons Roberts

Jennie c. stephens.

10 Northeastern University, Boston, USA

Many U.S. states have taken significant action on climate change in recent years, demonstrating their commitment despite federal policy gridlock and rollbacks. Yet, there is still much we do not know about the agents, discourses, and strategies of those seeking to delay or obstruct state-level climate action. We first ask,  what are the obstacles to strong and effective climate policy within U.S. states? We review the political structures and interest groups that slow action, and we examine emerging tensions between climate justice and the technocratic and/or market-oriented approaches traditionally taken by many mainstream environmental groups. Second, what are potential solutions for overcoming these obstacles? We suggest strategies for overcoming opposition to climate action that may advance more effective and inclusive state policy, focusing on political strategies, media framing, collaboration, and leveraging the efforts of ambitious local governments.

Introduction

Powerful interests have rebuffed climate policy efforts in the U.S., leading to decades of federal government inaction and heightened attention at the state level, where there has been comparative progress (Rabe 2007 ; Bromley-Trujillo et al. 2016 ). A great deal has been written about this shift to the states, and a robust literature on U.S. climate federalism has emerged (e.g., Karapin 2016 ; Rabe 2011 ; Thomson 2014 ; Woods 2021 ), including the significant climate policy action undertaken by states in the context of federal gridlock and policy rollbacks (Bromley-Trujillo and Holman 2020 ). For example, after President Trump announced U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, cities and states formed coalitions with major companies and institutions to proclaim, “We Are Still In” (We are still in 2021 ). Twenty-five governors joined the United States Climate Alliance (USCA), committing their states to the goals of the Paris Agreement (USCA 2019 ).

Although many states have adopted climate policies, there remain significant obstacles to passing strong and effective state-level climate policies rather than merely symbolic policies that set goals without mandates or that do not include penalties for noncompliance (Stokes 2020 ). Even in liberal states without significant fossil fuel production, policy efforts often fail to meet their emission reduction targets (Basseches 2019 ; Culhane et al. 2021 ). While there has been a proliferation of research on state-level climate and energy policy since the mid-2000s, scholarship using politics as an organizing, theoretical frame has only exploded in the last few years, making a synthesis geared toward this question of political obstacles quite timely (Woods 2021 ). This review thus focuses on two core questions:

First, what are the obstacles to adopting robust climate policy within U.S. states? We review the political structures and interest groups that slow or dilute action, and we also examine emerging tensions between climate justice and the more market-oriented approaches traditionally taken by many mainstream environmental groups. Furthermore, we explore the ways that conservative countermovements have shaped public opinion and elite decision-making on climate policy.

Second, what are potential solutions for overcoming these obstacles? Rather than ending with a mere summation and call for more research, we distill some strategies for overcoming opposition to climate action that may advance more effective and inclusive state policy. We suggest strategies to advance ambitious solutions, with a focus on political strategies, media framing, collaboration, and leveraging the efforts of ambitious local governments.

This review is structured in three main sections: (1) an overview of state climate policy efforts, (2) obstacles to robust state-level climate mitigation policy, and (3) solutions to maximize state-level climate policy effectiveness. Although our focus is entirely on the U.S., many of the obstacles and strategies for overcoming them are not unique to the U.S., and this review is likely to be relevant for researchers, policymakers, and advocates in other countries and at other levels of government. We begin with a brief overview of state climate policy efforts before moving to our discussion of obstacles and solutions.

An overview of state climate efforts

The focus of this paper is on climate mitigation policy, which can take many forms including broad-based climate policies, transportation policies, and electricity sector policies that have climate change implications (Grant et al. 2014 ; Bromley-Trujillo and Holman 2020 ). In the U.S., states have led in this area since the early 2000s as detailed in scholarly work (e.g., Rabe 2004 ; Matisoff and Edwards 2014 ; Bromley-Trujillo and Holman 2020 ).

These studies demonstrate a wide range of policy activity that centers on broad-based climate change efforts such as climate action plans, carbon cap-and-trade, and GHG reduction targets, transportation sector policies including low carbon and alternative fuel standards, and electricity sector policies such as renewable portfolio standards, net metering, and decoupling.

While it would be impossible to discuss in detail every policy states have adopted here, we begin by presenting an overview of key policy instruments states have used with an emphasis on the more frequently adopted policies across the aforementioned categories (broad-based climate efforts, transportation sector and electricity sector policies). Table ​ Table1 1 gives a description of state climate policy instruments, as identified by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, which emphasize some of the more comprehensive state climate policies to date.

State climate policy innovations

Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Figure  1 shows the frequency of these policy adoptions by 2021, demonstrating considerable variance in total adoptions.

Key climate policy enactments across states by 2021

These policies are not the only efforts states engage in. For example, when it comes to the electricity sector and energy efficiency, 20 states have enacted a green building standard requiring public buildings to meet LEED or related standards (DSIRE 2021 ; May and Koski 2007 ). Another 15 states have adopted an appliance efficiency standard that goes beyond federal requirements. With regard to transportation, 45 states have adopted some form of incentive for hybrid/electric vehicles to date (Hartman and Shields 2021 ).

Across state legislatures in 2020, policy has centered on environmental justice and equity bills, development of electric vehicle infrastructure, and electrification of the transportation sector through tax incentives (Andersen et al. 2021 ). Despite these significant advances, it is clear that state policy actions are highly variable and currently insufficient to meet U.S. climate mitigation goals. Variability is evident when looking at RPS policies, which have been adopted by 37 states with considerable differences in stringency. For instance, South Carolina has a modest requirement of 2% generation capacity from renewable energy by 2021, compared to California, which requires 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2045. Moreover, several states have engaged in policy retrenchment in recent years by making reductions to their state RPS targets (e.g., Ohio) or adjusting their net metering programs through phase outs, or the introduction of fees (e.g., Kentucky, Indiana) (Bromley-Trujillo and Holman 2020 ). Absent more consistent and stringent state policy coverage, the U.S. cannot meet climate mitigation objectives, necessitating efforts to reduce obstacles to more robust state climate policy activity.

Obstacles to subnational climate policy

In this section, we discuss the obstacles to more robust and widespread state-level climate policy. We examine four obstacle categories: (1) governance and institutions, (2) media and public opinion, (3) industry and interest group opposition, and (4) divided pro-climate coalitions.

Governance and institutions

Political party governance and institutional arrangements in state government are important obstacles to climate policy action, particularly as environmental issues have become more politically polarized over time (Daniels et al. 2012 ). Democratic control of state governments facilitates climate policy adoption while Republican leadership acts as a veto point for climate legislation, often necessitating a Democrat trifecta to achieve bill passage (Bromley-Trujillo et al. 2016 ; Coley & Hess 2012 ; Trachtman 2020 ). There is also evidence to suggest a “counter-partisan response” at the state level (Miras and Rouse 2021 ); that is, when one party controls the federal government, the opposing party may become emboldened to act at the state-level (Bromley-Trujillo and Holman 2020 ).

State institutional configurations such as legislative professionalism and administrative capacity also play an important role. Legislative professionalism, which refers to variation in time in session, salary, and staff in state legislatures (Squire 2007 ), can play a meaningful role in the quality and quantity of policy adopted by state governments. For climate change, it is particularly important because this issue is technical and complex. Professionalized legislatures tend to be more adept at crafting innovative legislation around complex issues, while refuting anti-climate “model legislation” from groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative-business alliance known for providing anti-climate legislation for state legislators to formally introduce (Hertel-Fernandez 2014 ; Jansa et al. 2019 ).

Research also shows that the organization of the executive branch has an important effect on policy outcomes (Karapin 2016 ; Raymond 2016 ). To illustrate, Carlson ( 2017 ) demonstrates that administrative/regulatory capacity has been key to California’s climate policy innovation. Meckling and Nahm ( 2018 ) argue that when state legislatures delegate significant policymaking authority to executive branch agencies, the latter tend to be relatively depoliticized and less susceptible to powerful interest groups. However, the success of administrative delegation is contingent on administrative capacity (Meckling and Nahm 2018 ).

Another important institutional consideration is the formal powers afforded to majority party leaders and committee chairs in legislative bodies (e.g., Anzia and Jackman 2013 ; Anderson et al. 2016 ). Formal powers are in part a product of other institutional arrangements, such as the presence or absence of term limits (Carey et al. 2006 ; Mooney 2012 ; Shay 2020 ). Basseches ( 2019 ) shows that the concentration of institutional power in the hands of majority party leadership, even when the majority party is Democratic, facilitates access and influence for business actors while limiting it for environmental groups.

Media and public opinion

Media coverage and public opinion around climate change also present obstacles to robust climate policy in the case where public concern is low (Bromley-Trujillo and Poe 2020 ; Bromley-Trujillo et al. 2019 ) and when media coverage frequency and content fail to raise the issues’ salience (Boykoff et al. 2021 ).

Media representations are powerful conduits of climate science and policy (mis)information. Moreover, media coverage of climate change, which is heavily driven by elite cues, is likely to shape public attitudes (Carmichael and Brulle 2016 ). Research on media portrayals of science-based issues shows that quantity and content of media coverage influences state-level agenda-setting (Bromley-Trujillo and Karch 2019 ). As such, when coverage presents climate science as uncertain, or fails to engage the views of different subgroups (Howarth and Black 2015 ), that coverage can shift climate change off of public and governmental agendas (Boykoff et al. 2021 ).

Public opinion also emerges as a barrier to climate action through influence on state legislative agendas (Bromley-Trujillo et al. 2019 ) and broader public discourse. Despite the scientific consensus on climate change (IPCC 2014 ), public attitudes are highly polarized (Guber 2013 ; McCright and Dunlap 2011 ). Variation in climate attitudes tends to fall in four primary areas: public understanding and awareness, the existence of climate change, issue salience, and public policy (Egan and Mullin 2017 ). On understanding and awareness, a 2020 Yale survey showed that only a slight majority (55%) of the public believes that “most scientists think global warming is happening,” which does not reflect the current scientific consensus (Leiserowitz et al. 2020 ; Egan and Mullin 2017 ). Furthermore, while a large majority of the public (72%) say climate change is happening, only a smaller majority (57%) indicate that it is human-caused (Marlon et al. 2020 ).

With respect to issue salience (i.e., the level of importance placed on climate change), U.S. residents have historically seen climate change as a low governmental priority (McCarthy 2016 ), especially compared to the populaces of other countries (Egan and Mullin 2017 ). Attitudes toward specific climate policies are mixed, and sensitive to question wording. Support tends to be high for renewable energy investment and broad climate policy pronouncements (Bowman et al. 2016 ; Stoutenborough et al. 2014 ), but lower for more complex policies and for those imposing costs (Stokes and Warshaw 2017 ).

Partisan differences are also significant barriers to climate policy action. Republicans are more likely to believe that climate change does not exist, is the result of natural processes, or is too costly to address (Hornsey et al. 2016 ). Additionally, factors shown to influence climate attitudes (e.g., extreme weather experience and scientific knowledge) are moderated by partisanship (Shao et al. 2017 ). Direct experience with extreme weather is perceived differently by Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, with Republicans typically understating the seriousness of their experiences, and Independents most sharply swinging with recent weather (Hamilton 2011 ; Hamilton and Stampone 2013 ; Shao et al. 2017 ; Myers et al. 2012 ).

Industry and interest group opposition

A third source of climate policy obstacles are interest groups, including fossil fuel and business lobbies, electric utilities, and a broad conservative countermovement.

Fossil fuel lobbying, corporate political activity, and corporate-state relations

U.S. federalism delegates immense authority to states when it comes to climate and energy policy, and state efforts have expanded in the face of federal inaction (Karapin 2020 ; Thomson 2014 ; Rabe 2011 ). This creates new opportunities for corporations and their lobbyists to influence climate policy. Initially, the increased authority of states prompted researchers to anticipate a “race to the top” with some states setting higher environmental standards (Fiorino 2006 ). However, subsequent research showed that the political economy of the environment often generates a “race to the bottom,” with some states competing for fossil fuel companies to develop their energy resources (Rabe 2007 , 2013 ; Davis 2012 ; Cook 2017 ). Furthermore, after states become dependent on employment and tax revenues from the fossil fuel companies, they tend to make concessions to them. Wingfield and Marcus ( 2007 ) show that many of the states most dependent on fossil fuel industries have among the weakest environmental policies (e.g., Wyoming, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana).

The political alignment of subnational states and the fossil fuel sector is also motivated by economic co-dependence between state governments and the fossil fuel sector, resulting in states’ protecting business interests in order to advance the states’ economic growth and development agendas. However, this strategy can create conflict with neighboring states where air quality is adversely affected by high-polluting states. To mediate this conflict between states, the Obama Administration enacted the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to limit the drift of airborne pollution across state borders. This policy quickly became a contested terrain between states and the federal government over jurisdiction, and it was resolved by the federal government making concessions to high-polluting states (Prechel 2012 ). Economic co-dependence also results in other actions by states that benefit the fossil fuel industry. To illustrate, several Republican lawmakers in Texas recently proposed legislation that threatened to divest the state’s more than $100 billion in retirement funds from banks and asset managers that boycott the fossil fuel sector (Douglas 2021 ).

Further, relaxed antitrust enforcement at the federal level has permitted the emergence of giant fossil fuel corporations (e.g., ExxonMobil, Koch Industries), which have virtually unlimited capital to spend on lobbying, political contributions, and media campaigns to oppose climate legislation. To illustrate, the Koch Brothers spent some of their $80 billion in wealth on an extensive media campaign to discredit scientific research on environmental pollution (Mayer 2017 ). Furthermore, during the 2019–2020 federal election cycle, the Koch Brothers’ Super PAC, Americans for Prosperity Action, spent more than $47.7 million on federal elections in disclosed contributions compared to less than $41.5 million for all contributions by the largest 20 environmental organizations (Open Secrets 2020a , 2020b ). Moreover, historically, Americans for Prosperity Action has spent much more on undisclosed contributions (i.e., dark money), which reached $407 million during the 2012 federal election (Fang 2014 ).

Some of the most active anti-climate policy trade groups include state chapters of the American Petroleum Institute, the Oil Heat Institute, and associations of manufacturers and state Chambers of Commerce. Trade organizations are often dominated by a few of the largest firms, which have key positions on boards of directors, experts to serve on policy-drafting committees, and influence over hiring in state governments. Interviews with Chamber of Commerce representatives and observations of testimony show substantial variation in major industry group positions, though they generally resist new taxes or regulations (Culhane et al. 2021 ).

Despite their massive resources, fossil fuel corporations and trade groups do not have the expertise to address every environmental issue. Thus, many are members of the neoliberal policy organization, ALEC, which is committed to small government and unregulated markets. ALEC is dominated by the largest corporations because it charges high membership dues in exchange for model legislation that it distributes to state lawmakers. ALEC also operates as a networking mechanism that facilitates connections between corporations with shared interests (Prechel 2021a ). For example, Koch Industries created a political coalition with the former Enron Corp. and succeeded in enacting model legislation in twenty-four U.S. states (Hertel-Fernandez 2019 ).

Given that electricity accounts for more than a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (U.S. EPA 2018 ), electric utilities are critical actors in state-level climate policymaking (Prechel 2012 ; Basseches 2020 ; Isser 2015 ; Stokes 2020 ). The U.S. electric sector is complex, with variation across states in the degree to which utilities are private corporations (known as “investor-owned utilities”) or customer-owned utilities, which can either be government-owned or electricity cooperatives (Greenberg & McKendry 2021 ). However, most U.S. residents receive electricity from investor-owned utilities (IOUs) rather than from public or cooperative organizations (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2017 ). States vary in the degree to which they undertook efforts to break up vertically integrated utilities and introduce retail competition beginning in the late 1990s (Borenstein and Bushnell 2015 ), and this variation led to differences in how these actors came to view climate policy proposals (Basseches 2020 ).

The technical complexities of utilities’ operations and regulations make the policy area less accessible to many observers, but the scholarship that attends to IOUs' political activities shows them to be among the most politically powerful actors in state-level climate policymaking (e.g., Basseches 2020 ; Culhane et al. 2021 ; Stokes 2020 ). The sources of their influence include monopoly control of electricity distribution, unparalleled technical expertise, their lobbying force, and flexible corporate organization (Basseches 2020 ). The latter has facilitated mergers and acquisitions that have allowed utility parent companies to operate across state lines, despite being mainly regulated at the state level (Hempling 2020 ; Prechel 2021a , b ).

Despite their political power, the degree to which utilities undermine climate policy is unclear. The primary concern of IOUs is to maximize shareholder profits, but because of the manner in which they are regulated, state-level climate and renewable electricity laws do not necessarily contradict this goal (Basseches 2020 ). In fact, Basseches ( 2020 ) finds IOUs have been instrumental actors in supporting ambitious RPS policies in states such as California, Massachusetts, and Oregon. However, other utilities have historically obstructed or slowed climate policy progress, often mobilizing quietly to achieve these objectives. Whether they serve as proponents or obstructionists depends on their fuel mix, the individual state-level policy regime and the particular policy at hand; for example, utilities tend to uniformly oppose solar net metering policies because they threaten their monopoly control of the electric grid (Stokes 2020 ). As Romankiewicz et al. ( 2021 ) find, the largest utilities set renewable portfolio goals but then fail to make the investment decisions necessary to achieve them. They also find that the preexisting portfolios of utilities (prior to the adoption of climate policy) is typically the strongest predictor of future investment decisions.

An important debate has emerged about whether IOUs versus public- or customer-owned utilities are preferable for advancing climate policy (Brown & Hess 2016 ; Homsy 2020 ; Heiman & Soloman 2004 ). From the standpoint of “energy democracy” (Greenberg & McKendry 2021 ), public power is clearly preferable. However, when it comes to renewable portfolios, public power’s track record is less clear (Romankiewicz et al. 2021 ). Although more research is needed to further specify conditions for utilities’ support of effective climate policies, it is clear that utilities are a powerful source of obstruction in many cases. For example, at the enforcement and implementation stages, utilities often dominate public utility/service commission rulings (e.g., Stokes 2020 ).

Conservative countermovement

Many of the aforementioned industry groups have also been central players in a broad countermovement that opposes the scientific community and the climate movement’s push for action (Brulle 2020 ; Dunlap and McCright 2010 ; 2015 ). This countermovement has been a significant contributor to climate policy obstruction (McCright and Dunlap 2003 ). Climate change narratives have frequently been coopted by the fossil fuel sector, conservative politicians and think tanks, media, and interest groups. All of these actors comprise a climate denial movement that, at times, coordinates their efforts.

The beginnings of the climate denial movement emerged in response to the environmental movement’s success in passing major legislation such as the Clean Air Act in the 1960s-1970s. Soon after, the Reagan administration took direct aim at environmental regulations under a neoliberal mantra of free markets. These actions in turn prompted a swift backlash from the environmental movement (Brulle 2020 ). Those opposed to environmental regulations learned an important lesson from this backlash; rather than directly attacking environmental programs, efforts should instead focus on undermining the science that supports such policies (Jacques et al. 2008 ; Michaels 2008 ). The conservative countermovement has constructed three primary narratives about climate change: (1) that it does not exist, (2) that if it does exist, it is not anthropogenic, and is possibly even desirable, and (3) that any efforts to mitigate climate change would harm the economy (Dunlap and McCright 2010 ).

The climate denial movement is financially supported by the fossil fuel industry and other conservative businesses and foundations (McCright and Dunlap 2003 ). These funds flow to conservative think tanks that elevate contrarian scientists casting doubt on the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. Parts of the movement organize campaigns to create uncertainty around climate modeling, methodology, and the integrity of scientists themselves (Hess 2014 ). One of the first such climate denial think tanks was the George C. Marshall Institute (Oreskes and Conway 2008 ). Others include the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Heartland Institute. Conservative think tanks and foundations brand themselves as an alternative universe of scientists outside of academia. They publish policy briefs, books, and analyses that question the credibility of climate science (McCright and Dunlap 2015 ).

Although the scientists associated with these think tanks often lack relevant credentials, their findings are amplified by Republican politicians (Dunlap and Jacques 2013 ). Contrarian scientists are disproportionately vocal and present at congressional hearings. Republican politicians typically refer to climate change as a hoax and have invoked cold weather and “Climategate” to signal that the science is corrupt (Jacques et al. 2008 ).

Think tank reports are also amplified by conservative media including radio hosts (Wolcott 2007 ), the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and columnists such as George Will (Boykoff 2013 ; McCright et al. 2016 ). Media coverage on climate change, in turn, likely influences elected officials (Bromley-Trujillo and Karch 2019 ) and also polarizes public and elite attitudes (Leiserowitz et al. 2020 ; Tesler 2018 ).

Although scholarship often focuses on the climate denial movement’s influence on national politics, the movement is closely linked to efforts to sway state-level politics. The climate denial movement aligns with the State Policy Network, Americans for Prosperity, and ALEC, which often work in concert to stall state-level policy (Hertel-Fernandez 2014 , 2019 ). Conservative foundations (Brulle 2014 ; Farrell 2019 ) as well as personnel links (Farrell 2016 ) connect these organizations in a centralized network.

Divided pro-climate policy coalitions

One obstacle to subnational climate policy that is perhaps less well recognized is the fragmentation of pro-climate policy coalitions. One source of fragmentation is divisions among the different alternative or renewable energy industries, which must operate in a political arena dominated by powerful fossil fuel incumbents (Kelsey and Meckling 2018 ). For example, a study of lobbying and testimony in Massachusetts found that more concentrated renewable energy industries were better able to engage in paid lobbying than dispersed ones (Culhane et al. 2021 ). Relatedly, Si and Stephens ( 2021 ) find disparate participation among solar developers and installers surrounding efforts to target solar installation among low-income households in Massachusetts. The solar industry is more fragmented in small installation firms, whereas the wind industry has higher capital barriers to entry and is consequently concentrated in a few, large firms. Solar firms are further divided between rooftop residential developers and those installing utility-scale projects, and between in-state and out-of-state firms (Stokes 2020 ).

In addition to divisions based on concentration, size, and capacity to influence politics/policy, the renewable energy industries also tend to restrict their participation to issues that affect them most directly. For example, studies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island revealed that solar, wind, and other renewable firms did not show up to testify for legislation (e.g., carbon pricing) that did not target benefits to their economic sector. By contrast, environmentalists testified in large numbers in favor of the full range of climate bills. The picture that emerges is a fragmented renewables sector, with firms only lobbying and testifying for their own, narrow issues and sometimes battling each other over carve-outs for particular technologies in state-level RPS policies (Culhane et al. 2021 ).

Another source of division in pro-climate coalitions is between those who advocate for market-based, technocratic approaches to climate mitigation versus those who advocate for more holistic, climate justice approaches involving large public investments in jobs, infrastructure, equity, and health (Boyle et al. 2021 ). The more holistic approach acknowledges the power of the polluting elite, who have strategically invested for decades in undermining public trust in government and minimizing protections and support for marginalized communities, communities of color, and economically disadvantaged groups who are being disproportionately impacted by climate change and pollution (Stephens 2020 ). To further concentrate their wealth and power, big business has also reduced worker rights and protections, and it has shifted corporate culture to prioritize shareholders instead of workers (Stephens 2020 ). This approach tends to be aligned with progressive-left political coalitions, whereas the technocratic approach has a more moderate political position and tends not to emphasize issues of structural inequality. The structural vulnerabilities and under-investment that has been revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic have strengthened the political appeal of the holistic investment-based climate justice approaches (Boyle et al. 2021 ).

Most adopted and proposed state-level climate policies are based on a narrow, technocratic, carbon-centric model, which misses opportunities to invest in marginalized communities (Galvin and Healy 2020 ). To date, climate policy has been largely designed within the context of “climate isolationism,” which refers to the common framing of climate change as a narrow, isolated, discrete, scientific problem that requires a technological solution (Stephens 2020 ). Decision-makers working through a climate isolationism lens often focus in a technocratic way on achieving carbon reductions while inadvertently dismissing the social justice implications and human dimensions of these measures (Stephens Forthcoming 2021 ). Controversy surrounding California’s cap-and-trade program illustrates the conflict between climate justice and mainstream, technocratic policies (Basseches et al. 2021 ).

Until the Green New Deal framework gained traction on the national stage in 2018 (Galvin and Healy 2020 ), climate policies were often limited to market-based approaches. With more diverse leadership, including women, people of color and Indigenous people, a new approach is emerging that links climate/energy policy with jobs and economic justice, health, food, housing, and transportation. Several states and cities have proposed ambitious Green New Deal policies, such as New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Boyle et al. 2021 ). This approach focuses on justice-oriented policies and direct investments in under-invested in households and communities. For example, climate justice proponents are now pushing for more equitable housing and community development, equitable access to clean and affordable energy, and more inclusive public engagement around climate policy development (Clifton and Kelly 2020 ). An expansion of the “just transition” concept includes worker protections and recognition of fossil-dependent communities and consumers (Healy and Barry 2017 ).

A related division in pro-climate policy coalitions is between actors who advocate for energy-transition policies (including those with a justice orientation) and actors who focus more on opposition to unwanted energy infrastructure and fossil fuel reliance. A review of many different types of state-level climate policies revealed that there are many more policies to advance renewables than there are to end fossil fuel reliance (Burke and Stephens 2017 ). Climate justice activists have thus engaged in multi-year protests targeting fossil fuel infrastructure, advocating for supply-side climate policies such as fracking bans, fossil fuel moratoria, state pension divestment campaigns, and litigation for climate harms (Piggot 2018 ; Healy & Barry 2017 ). Controversy about whether or not institutions and investment portfolios should “divest” from fossil fuels demonstrates this division in pro-climate policy coalitions (Trinks et al 2018 ); many colleges and universities have resisted the urge to divest and have pledged instead to “invest” in renewables (Mikkelson et al., 2021 , Stephens et al 2018 ).

Another important division in pro-climate coalitions is between the labor and environmental wings of progressive coalitions. Since the 1990s, “green jobs” and economic development frames have emerged along with some partnerships between unions and environmentalists (e.g., the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club in the BlueGreen Alliance, (Hess 2012 ). These partnerships have reduced the longstanding image of environmental policy as a threat to working-class jobs; however, not all unions support the “green jobs” approach, and mistrust and opposition remain. For example, in some states, utilities have worked closely with their own workers and unions to mobilize opposition to energy-transition policies and fossil-fuel opposition (e.g., anti-pipeline mobilizations) by arguing that the opposition policies will harm local economies, taking away jobs. In states with a strong extractive fossil-fuel sector, anti-green labor alliances can also extend beyond utility unions to unions and other workers in the mining, drilling, and processing industries.

Solutions to advancing robust climate policy

Despite the challenges just discussed, there are promising strategies for moving robust state-level climate policies forward that we cover below.

A significant barrier to climate action centers on governance around a highly polarized policy issue. As such, the first set of solutions concerns electoral strategies and working with local governments to move climate mitigation policy forward in the states.

To begin, elections matter, and the need to elect political leaders motivated to address climate mitigation is essential. The impacts of the Sunrise Movement and other progressive groups on U.S. federal and state elections in 2018 and 2020 showed that pro-climate positions and policies can quickly become influential, at least in the Democratic Party (Stuart et al. 2020 ). However, it will take large majorities of climate policy advocates to influence or replace legislative leadership in state governments. Furthermore, Basseches ( 2019 )’s findings suggest that even in states with overwhelming Democratic majorities, strong climate policy can be elusive; elected climate champions must be elevated to positions of institutional power within the majority party caucus (e.g., Speaker of the House, Senate President, etc.).

An improved political strategy is needed, including climate advocates’ engagement in primary (as well as general) elections. Unfortunately, most non-profits working in this area are 501(c)3 organizations, which are constrained from lobbying and endorsing political candidates by U.S. tax laws (IRS 2021 ). Philanthropic foundations and the NGOs they fund tend to be extremely cautious about political action, and this makes many of them less effective (Berry 2003 ). Despite this, these groups fill a special need because they can undertake efforts like distributing questionnaires to candidates, interviewing them for endorsements, electioneering, and forming political action committees.

In the many states where electing climate advocates proves to be difficult, there are also ways to encourage a path to renewable energy as a source of economic development and growth (Carley and Lawrence 2014 ). Policy instruments like clean energy and renewable portfolio standards can be discussed in terms of economic development, which may encourage conservative state governments to act (Carley and Lawrence 2014 ). For instance, Texas was an early adopter of a modest RPS (compared to today’s standards) that yielded significant early gains in wind energy development that also facilitated economic growth (Slattery et al. 2011 ).

Moreover, innovative local governments still have opportunities to act when state leadership chooses not to. Local governments can reduce GHG emissions by adopting policies that promote/require clean and efficient energy use. They can also influence state governments via formal lobbying efforts or, indirectly, by demonstrating innovative approaches that can be scaled-up. In the U.S. and globally, trans-municipal climate and sustainability networks—including C40 Cities, ICLEI, and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network—advance these avenues and have been credited with shaping the landscape around local governments’ climate policy engagement (Acuto 2016 ; Nguyen Long and Krause 2020 ).

Many local governments in the U.S. go beyond federal and state climate change policy (Hughes 2019 ; Krause and Hawkins 2021 ). After then-President Trump announced the U.S.’ withdrawal, over 290 municipalities committed to honor the Paris Climate Agreement (We Are Still In 2021 ), and by 2021, over 150 pledged a transition to 100% renewable energy (Sierra Club 2021 ). Local governments can shape energy use practices within their own operations and often have authority over building codes, public transportation, waste management, and a variety of land use and infrastructure decisions impacting GHG emissions. The aggregate impact of local efforts is potentially large; however, debate persists around the magnitude of their impact, and sustained progress by local governments has been highly uneven (Gurney et al. 2021 ; van der Heijden et al. 2019 ).

Municipalities frequently lobby higher-level governments to pass policies that yield local benefit (Goldstein and You 2017 ). Regarding climate change, three strands of local lobbying efforts are evident. First, municipal lobbying is most often aimed at acquiring money and resources—as illustrated by the coordinated efforts advocating the inclusion of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) in the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (US Conference of Mayors 2014 ). Second, local governments may lobby their state governments for the expanded authority necessary to enact specific portions of their climate action plans (Hughes 2019 ). Finally, local governments and trans-municipal networks can seek to persuade higher levels of government to enact their own climate policies (Lee and Jung 2018 ; Curtis and Acuto 2018 ). For example, cities may ask their states to develop comprehensive energy plans, and organize efforts to sway international bodies to adopt stricter mitigation commitments.

“Leading from below” is a final way that local governments are impacting broader climate policy. Often credited for their innovative climate programming, these efforts are experiments that can be up-scaled and adopted by state governments (Kern 2019 ). However, such innovation can be risky when it occurs in conservative states hostile to climate objectives. In these venues, local-state conflict often plays out via state preemption laws, which revoke local authority to act on certain issues or in certain manners (e.g., fracking restrictions and electricity provider choice) that results in stifling local policy innovation (Riverstone-Newell 2017 ).

Second, media and public attitudes critically shape individual and collective engagement around contemporary climate challenges (Boykoff 2011 ). As such, solutions to climate policy inaction should pursue efforts to influence the media and public opinion landscape.

As indicated previously, media coverage presents an obstacle and an opportunity to motivate climate action. In order to keep climate policy on state-level agendas, there is a need to maintain high levels of climate change media coverage, even as other crises grab headlines. In addition, the content of that coverage is important. Although the frequency of climate change coverage has increased globally, challenges associated with quantity and quality of representations of climate change topics remain (Boykoff et al. 2021 ).

Analyses of media representations demonstrate how media portrayals (quantity and quality) play into climate governance at multiple scales in the U.S. (Brulle et al. 2012 ; Fisher 2013 ). For example, climate change garnered coverage through stories intersecting political , economic , scientific , cultural as well as ecological and meteorological themes, which ultimately influence public and political discourse on the subject (Boykoff et al. 2021 ). Media framing of climate change can also affect attitude change and scholars have considered how climate change communication must be tailored to different audiences to be persuasive. Most prominently among audience segmentation work resides the ‘Global Warming’s Six Americas’ project on climate communication (Leiserowitz et al. 2011 ). Howarth and Black ( 2015 ) note that “the communication of climate change historically has been generic, untailored and untargeted” (p. 506). As such, more effort is needed to carefully frame communications and dialogue that values different perspectives on climate change in order to increase concern and engagement across each of the 50 US states.

In addition to legacy media portrayals, social media platforms play an important role in the public arena (Tandoc and Eng 2017 ; Fownes et al 2018 ). Given the potential for social media to drive mainstream media coverage, savvy climate policy advocates can use social media to generate coverage of climate change and craft a message that can move varying subgroups (Anderson 2017 ).

While media coverage can influence public attitudes, research suggests that attitudes can shift through the following strategies: (1) depoliticizing climate change through alternative issue framing and discussions of policy co-benefits, (2) amplifying current support for climate policies, and (3) raising the salience of climate change through connections with visible climate change impacts.

Although some U.S. residents remain doubtful or dismissive of climate change, research shows that linking the issue to economic development and public health can increase policy support, even among Republicans (Rabe 2004 ; Stokes and Warshaw 2017 ). Moreover, “climate policy bundles” that bring together broader issues, like economic inequality and environmental justice, may increase climate policy support (Bergquist et al. 2020 ).

Though climate policy attitudes vary, several policy options receive considerable public support, including investment in renewable energy, tax rebates, subsidies, and renewable portfolio standards (Stokes and Warshaw 2017 ; Stoutenborough et al. 2014 ). Nevertheless, bipartisan public support for addressing climate change has not always translated into action by elected officials. Politicians (particularly Republicans) and their staff tend to drastically underestimate their constituencies’ support for climate policy (Hertel-Fernandez et al. 2019 ). Consequently, efforts to educate policymakers about existing public support and raise the salience of climate change have the potential to promote policy change.

Despite these opportunities, because climate impacts are presented to the public as complex and abstract, they are perceived to be far away and uncertain, which makes it difficult to raise public awareness (Lubell et al. 2007 ; Boykoff 2019 ). However, as climate impacts become more frequent, it may become easier to raise their salience. Some scholars find that temperature anomalies and extreme weather increase climate concern, though effects are temporal (Borick and Rabe 2014 ; Egan and Mullin 2012 ; Konisky et al. 2016 ); others find no link between the two (Brulle et al. 2012 ; Mildenberger and Leiserowitz 2017 ). Still, as climate impacts become more prevalent, there may be more opportunities for political actors, the media, and interest groups to educate the public on climate risks and to encourage policy action (Howe et al. 2015 ).

Third, as a number of powerful industries and other interest groups have moved to obstruct climate policy, there is a need to either leverage or reduce the power that these groups wield over climate mitigation policy.

To begin, IOUs have enormous political power that can be leveraged to promote ambitious state-level climate policies. In addition, there are pathways available to reduce their power, if they cannot be won over. Basseches ( 2020 ) finds that in states like California and Massachusetts, with restructured electricity sectors in which IOUs no longer own fossil fuel generation, a suite of policies rewarding IOUs financially for promoting energy efficiency can neutralize opposition to economy-wide GHG reduction policies. IOUs have supported ambitious RPS policies in other states, like Oregon, as well (Basseches 2020 ). States where IOUs support climate policy are likely to be “blue states” (Adua and Clark 2021 ), consistent with the literature on the role of partisanship in climate policymaking (e.g., Coley and Hess 2012 ; Fowler and Breen 2013 ; Vasseur 2014 ). Unfortunately, this strategy of leveraging IOUs’ political power does not work for net metering policies, which IOUs oppose, even in the blue states (Hess 2016 ). Still, Smith et al. ( 2021 ) suggest that IOUs’ opposition to net metering can be mitigated by policy designs that give utilities credit toward their RPS requirements when their customers install solar panels.

However, some IOUs continue to obstruct state-level climate policy (Stokes 2020 ). One pathway toward motivating IOUs to change is the use of local-level and private-sector resolutions in support of 100% renewable or clean energy (Greenberg and McKendry 2021 ; Hess and Gentry 2019 ). Another pathway is the growth of community-choice aggregation (CCA) in states where it is authorized (Hess and Lee 2020 ). CCA is easier to achieve than municipalization, which has numerous hurdles (e.g., strong utility resistance, capital cost, and the lack of local expertise). CCA organizations can also opt for high renewable or clean energy mixes that put pressure on utilities to shift their energy mix and long-term goals. Both of these pathways can help to motivate utilities to adopt stronger long-term energy-transition plans. A third pathway is to shift legislative reform to public utilities commissions; when they are not captured by utilities, the commissions can provide a mechanism for stating broad goals and insulating legislators from utility pressure (Brown and Hess 2016 ). Municipal (publicly owned) utilities and CCAs offer an alternative method of aligning utilities with climate policy through local governments and elected officials. Cities are often more aggressive than states, in turn leading to more aggressive action by municipally-owned utilities and CCAs on climate policy.

Another pathway to weakening obstructionist IOUs’ power is to increase coalition-formation among non-IOU interest groups, as Brown and Hess ( 2016 ) found was the key to success in cases in which pro-climate coalitions included not only environmentalists and the renewable energy industry, but also real estate, insurance, or HVAC companies. Finally, given that IOUs are private corporations selling a public service, it may be advantageous—to the degree it’s constitutional—to reduce their access to private politics by, for example, limiting their campaign spending (Brown 2016 ).

Reducing divisions in pro-climate policy coalitions

Reducing divisions in pro-climate policy coalitions requires attention to the different types of divisions that were outlined in Sect. 3.4. One way to reduce intra-industry divisions within the clean or renewable-energy sector is to encourage the development of broader industry associations that link together the disparate, reform-oriented actors (e.g., the solar and wind industries, energy efficiency advocates, and those advocating for Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) (Raymond 2016 ). Although the specific trade associations may continue to pick their battles based on narrower, industry-specific benefits, if they also support broader associations (e.g., green or sustainable business councils in different states), then some of their political resources can be more easily channeled toward broader coalition activity.

A deeper division is between the more technocratic approaches to climate policy and the justice-oriented approaches, which in the U.S. are reflected in tensions between the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic Party. Moderates in the party, especially in conservative states, might opt to resist the linkage to justice because they are concerned that the justice framing will reduce the likelihood of gaining crucial conservative support in state legislatures. There is a need to think carefully about framing and coalitions that are attuned to the level of government, the issue, and the relative power of different political constituencies. Research on the “red states, green laws” phenomenon (where “red” refers to Republican states) has started to show the types of pro-climate change policies that can gain traction in more conservative locations (Hess et al 2016 ). Pro-business, pro-energy choice, pro-health (clean air), and pro-economic development frames can work well in this context, but the laws can also have justice implications even if they are not highlighted for political purposes. But even in these conservative states, the more justice-oriented frames may be successful in the more progressive and diverse cities (the blue islands in the red seas). Likewise, anti-pipeline and other anti-infrastructure mobilizations have great potential to utilize co-existing frames that can bridge political divisions (e.g., property rights for rural landowners and sovereignty for Indigenous people, health and safety concerns for communities, and ecological preservation for environmentalists and local recreation industries).

There is more research on the approaches to overcoming the labor-environmental divisions in pro-climate coalitions, and a strong working partnership between labor and climate policy advocates is integral to a rapid transformation of the U.S. to a low-carbon economy (Basseches et al. 2021 ; Healy and Barry 2017 ). State-level just transition policies can play a role in broader “build back better” programs in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One example of successful green-jobs legislation at the state level was the 2009 Green Jobs, Green New York law, which directed revenues from the regional cap-and-trade initiative toward job training and energy-efficiency programs for residential and commercial buildings (Lennon 2017 ; Hess 2018 ). These initiatives were part of broader calls for “energy democracy” that included unionized, green jobs (Stephens 2019 ), and they were also the basis for subsequent reform initiatives introduced under the banner of the “Green New Deal” (GND) (Galvin and Healy 2020 ).

The New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act was passed in 2019 after years of grassroots advocacy by NY Renews—a statewide coalition that included labor unions, economic justice advocates, environmental organizations and other progressive groups (Boyle et al. 2021 ). This law set a new benchmark for climate ambition, which includes groundbreaking equity provisions (Senate Assembly 2019 ). State-level GND proposals are emerging as new vehicles for garnering union support for climate policies (Boyle et al. 2021 ).

For example, GND proposals in California and Massachusetts are forging new coalitions among unions, environmentalists, and social and racial justice advocates (Boyle et al. 2021 ).

To maximize the yield of this strategy, the GND movement could engage with electricity unions, one of the most unionized industries in the economy and often a sector of unionized labor that opposes energy-transition policies (Huber 2021 ). Labor, environmental justice, tribal, and community groups need greater involvement in climate-labor policy decision-making, such as the process that led to Colorado’s Office of Just Transition and Washington State’s Initiative 1631. Creating and expanding government rapid response teams in every state will mitigate job displacement and mass layoffs (e.g., the Rapid Response Team in Massachusetts) (Cha et al. 2021 ). Bridge funding will also be necessary for regions where the public sector is affected by the withdrawal of fossil fuel tax revenues (Cha et al. 2021 ).

State-level climate policy has shown great promise in the context of federal obstruction or inaction. Nevertheless, significant obstacles to robust state-level climate policy remain and this review provides a novel synthesis of the literature detailing these barriers. As we note, scholars describe obstacles associated with governance and political institutions, public opinion and media coverage, industry and interest groups, and fragmentation within pro-climate coalitions. What remains less clear from this scholarship is how we can harness this knowledge to formulate solutions to policy obstacles; our primary contribution lies here.

Based on the broad, interdisciplinary literature discussed here, we suggest a series of strategies to move climate change policy forward. The politicization of climate change necessitates bringing other groups into the fold of climate policy support. In addition, there is a need for enhanced coordination among climate policy advocates and potential coalition partners and to support electoral gains for climate policy advocates. To achieve these goals, we suggest the following strategies.

First, climate policy advocates should become more skilled in the game of politics, by employing campaign finance strategies, electoral mobilization, and support for existing elected officials who are sympathetic to climate policy as they seek to gain institutional influence (i.e., ascending to leadership positions, etc.). Climate policy opponents have had a great deal more practice and experience doing this, but there is no reason that proponents cannot learn from them and deploy strategic political operations of their own. A related strategy includes “bottom-up” pressure from local governments and municipalities. Second, climate policy proponents should seek to improve the quality and quantity of media coverage, including by tailoring messages to particular audiences and constituencies and continuously linking climate action to co-benefits.

Third, the political power of IOUs can be leveraged in support of strong climate policy if the right conditions and incentives are put in place so that utilities see opportunities for financial growth as a result of these policies. However, in cases where this is not feasible, efforts should be made to reduce their political power, by empowering municipal utilities and CCAs, by building broad coalitions of non-utility business interests, and, when strategic, by shifting the venue of policymaking between the legislative and executive branches. Finally, divisions within the pro-climate coalition should be reduced. This can be achieved through more inclusive policy design that attends to environmental justice issues as well as by encouraging better coordination among “green business” actors, such as renewable energy firms, energy efficiency consultants, green capital, etc.

Although this review moves the research field toward integrated discussion of climate-policy obstacles and solutions, it also has several limitations that could be the basis for future research. One limitation is that both the problems and solutions have a U.S. focus. Although many countries have undertaken restructuring of their electricity systems, each system is unique, and many still have a larger role for public power than in the U.S. Moreover, the polarized political culture characterized by a climate denial machine and heavy influence by wealthy donors and corporations on political outcomes does not necessarily translate well to other countries. Thus, there is a need for additional comparative research on climate policy obstacles and solutions, which will likely reveal topics that are much more salient in other countries.

Moreover, further work is needed in tailoring these solutions to particular states, considering their distinct partisan tendencies, energy economies, media landscapes and government contexts. Nevertheless, the strategies outlined above should be broadly valuable in reducing state-level climate policy obstacles and ensuring comprehensive progress at the state level despite continued uncertainty regarding federal climate policy. In addition, we have suggested ways of tailoring climate messaging by the media and others to make climate policy action more palatable to Republicans. In the context of energy and climate federalism, the states will likely remain key players in the years to come.

Author contribution

J.B. and R.B. designed the study and oversaw collaboration. All authors contributed to the drafting of this manuscript. J.B. contributed sections on partisan governance/institutions, utilities, and IOUs. R.B. contributed sections on public opinion, conservative countermovements, and the conclusion. H.P. wrote the section on fossil fuel lobbying. M.B. wrote the media section. T.C. and G.H. contributed to the renewable energy cohesion section. G.H. contributed to conservative countermovements. D.Hess contributed to aligning IOUs and green jobs. D.Hsu contributed to the aligning utilities section. J.S and N.H. wrote sections on climate justice and renewable energy fragmentation. R.K. wrote on municipal governments. T.R. contributed to the introduction, renewable energy sector cohesion and political leadership.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Joshua A. Basseches, Email: ude.hcimu@hcessabj .

Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo, Email: [email protected] .

Maxwell T. Boykoff, Email: ude.odaroloc@ffokyob .

Trevor Culhane, Email: ude.nworb@enahluc_rovert .

Galen Hall, Email: ude.nworb@llah_nelag .

Noel Healy, Email: ude.etatsmelas@ylaehn .

David J. Hess, Email: [email protected] .

David Hsu, Email: ude.tim@hdy .

Rachel M. Krause, Email: ude.uk@esuarkmr .

Harland Prechel, Email: ude.umat@lehcerph .

J. Timmons Roberts, Email: ude.nworb@strebor_snommit_j .

Jennie C. Stephens, Email: [email protected] .

• Acuto M. Give cities a seat at the top table. Nature. 2016; 537 :611–613. doi: 10.1038/537611a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adua L, Clark B. Politics and corporate-sector environmentally significant actions: the effects of political partisanship on U.S. utilities energy efficiency policies” Rev Policy Res. 2021; 38 :31–48. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12409. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andersen, G, Hartman, K, Shea D, Shields L. (2021) 2020-2021 Legislative Energy Trends. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/energy/2020-2021_Legislative_Energy_Trends_v04_35914.pdf . Accessed 7 Oct 2021
• Anderson AA. Effects of social media use on climate change opinion. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. 2017; 2 :486–500. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson SE, Butler DM, Harbridge L. Legislative institutions as a source of party leaders’ influence. Legis Stud Q. 2016; 41 :605–631. doi: 10.1111/lsq.12124. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anzia SF, Jackman MC. Legislative organization and the second face of power: evidence from U.S. state legislatures. Journal of Politics. 2013; 75 :210–224. doi: 10.1017/S0022381612000977. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailey I, Compston H (2012) Feeling the heat: the politics of climate policy in rapidly industrializing countries. Palgrave MacMillan, London
• Banks J, Stephens JC (2020) "Advancing racial justice means ending fossil fuel reliance." DAME
• Basseches JA, Rubinstein K, Kulaga SM (2021) Coalitions that clash: California’s climate leadership and the perpetuation of environmental inequality. The Politics of Inequality. D. Pettinicchio, Emerald Publishing Limited. 28:23–44
• Basseches JA (2019). ‘It happened behind closed doors:’ Legislative buffering as an informal mechanism of political mediation. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 24:265–388
• Basseches JA (2020). Private power in the U.S. states: business interests and the design of state-level climate and renewable energy policies.” PhD Diss., Northwestern University
• Bergquist P, Mildenberger M, Stokes LC. Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ Res Lett. 2020; 15 (5):054019. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab81c1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry JM (2003) A voice for nonprofits. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
• Borenstein S, Bushnell J. The US Electricity Industry After 20 Years of Restructuring. Ann Rev Econom. 2015; 7 (1):437–463. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115630. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borick CP, Rabe BG. ‘Weather or not:’ examining the impact of meteorological conditions on public opinion regarding global warming. Weather, Climate, and Society. 2014; 6 :413–424. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00042.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowman K, O’Neil E, Sims H. 2016. Polls on the environment, energy, global warming and nuclear power . AEI Public Opin. Stud., Apr 21. Washington, DC: Am. Enterp. Inst.
• Boykoff MT. Public enemy no. 1? Understanding media representations of outlier views on climate change. Am Behav Sci. 2013; 57 :796–817. doi: 10.1177/0002764213476846. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boykoff M, Church P, Katzung J, Nacu-Schmidt A, Pearman O (2021) A review of media coverage of climate change and global warming in 2020 , Media and Climate Change Observatory, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado
• Boykoff MT (2011) ‘Who speaks for climate?’ Making sense of mass media reporting on climate change, Cambridge University Press, New York
• Boykoff MT (2019) ‘Creative (Climate) Communications: productive pathways for science, policy and society’ Cambridge University Press . pp 302
• Boyle AD, Leggat G, Morikawa L, Pappas Y, Stephens JC (2021) (2021). Green new deal proposals: comparing emerging transformational climate policies at multiple scales. Energy Res Soc Sci 81:102259
• Bromley-Trujillo R, Poe J. The importance of salience: public opinion and state policy action on climate change. J Publ Policy. 2020; 40 :280–304. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X18000375. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bromley-Trujillo R, Butler JS, Poe J, Davis W. The spreading of innovation: state adoptions of energy and climate change policy” Rev Policy Res. 2016; 33 :544–565. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12189. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bromley-Trujillo R, Holman M, Sandoval A. Hot districts, cool legislation: evaluating agenda setting in climate change bill sponsorship in U.S. states. State Polit Policy Q. 2019; 19 :375–395. doi: 10.1177/1532440019842175. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bromley-Trujillo R, Holman MR (2020). “Climate change policymaking in the states: a view at 2020.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 50:446–472
• Bromley‐Trujillo R, Karch A (2019). Salience, scientific uncertainty, and the agenda‐setting power of science. Policy Studies Journal
• Brown KP, Hess DJ. Pathways to policy: partisanship and bipartisanship in renewable energy policy” Env Polit. 2016; 26 :971–990. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2016.1203523. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown KP (2016). In the pocket: Energy regulation, industry capture, and campaign spending. Sustain: Sci Pract Policy 12:1–15
• Brulle RJ. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Clim Change. 2014; 122 :681–694. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkins JC. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US, 2002–2010. Clim Change. 2012; 114 :169–188. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brulle RJ (2020). Denialism: organized opposition to climate change action in the United States. In Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy. Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
• Burke MJ, Stephens JC. Energy democracy: goals and policy instruments for sociotechnical transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2017; 33 :35–48. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey JM, Niemi RG, Powell LW, Moncrief GF. The effects of term limits on state legislatures. Legis Stud Q. 2006; 31 :105–134. doi: 10.3162/036298006X201742. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carley, S, Lawrence S (2014) Energy-based economic development: how clean energy can drive development and stimulate economic growth. Germany: Springer London
• Carlson AE. Regulatory capacity and state environmental leadership: California’s climate policy. Fordham Envtl L Rev. 2017; 24 :62–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmichael, Jason T. And Robert J. Brulle (2016) Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013. Env Polit. 10.1080/09644016.2016.1263433
• Cha JM, Price V, Stevis D, Vachon TE, Brescia-Weiler M (2021) Workers and communities in transition: Report of the Just Transition Listening Project. https://www.labor4sustainability.org/files/JTLP_report2021.pd . Accessed 18 Jun 2021
• Clifton R, Kelly C (2020) Building a just climate future for North Carolina. September 9 th . Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2020/09/09/490114/building-just-climate-future-north-carolina/ . Accessed 20 April 2021
• Coley JS, Hess DJ. Green energy laws and Republican legislators in the United States. Energy Policy. 2012; 48 :576–583. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.062. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook J. Who’s regulating who? Analyzing fracking policy in Colorado, Wyoming, and Louisiana. Environ Pract. 2017; 16 :102–112. doi: 10.1017/S1466046614000027. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Culhane T, Hall G, Roberts JT (2021) Who delays climate action? Interest groups and coalitions in state legislative struggles in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science . Forthcoming
• Curtis S, Acuto M. The foreign policy of cities. The RUSI Journal. 2018; 163 :8–17. doi: 10.1080/03071847.2018.1562014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniels DP, Krosnick  JA, Tichy MP, Tompson  T (2012) Public opinion on environmental policy in the United States. In Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy, edited by M. Kraft and S. Kamieniecki (pgs. 461-486). New York: Oxford University Press
• Davis C. The politics of fracking: regulating natural gas drilling practices in Colorado and Texas. Rev Policy Res. 2012; 29 :177–191. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00547.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas, Erin (2021). In oil-rich Texas, GOP lawmakers push bill to punish Wall Street for fossil fuel disinvestments. The Texas Tribune, 11 March, 2021. < https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/11/texas-oil-gas-legislature-wall-street/ >
• Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2010) Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society
• Dunlap RE, McCright AA (2015) ‘Challenging climate change: the denial countermovement’, in Riley E. Dunlap and Robert J. (eds), Climate Change and Society New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 300–332
• Dunlap RE, Jacques PJ. Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection. Am Behav Sci. 2013; 57 :699–731. doi: 10.1177/0002764213477096. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DSIRE (2021) Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. http://www.dsireusa.org . Accessed 7 Oct 2021
• Egan PJ, Mullin M. Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. J Polit. 2012; 74 :796–809. doi: 10.1017/S0022381612000448. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egan PH, Mullin E. Climate change: US public opinion. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2017; 20 :209–227. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022857. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Energy Marketers Association of Rhode Island. 2021. U.S. fuel distributors, farmers launch joint climate initiative: project carbon freedom seeks to advance equitable, common-sense clean energy. https://warmth4ri.com/project-carbon-freedom/ . Accessed 10 Jun 2021
• Erickson P, Lazarus M, Piggot G. Limiting fossil fuel production as the next big step in climate policy. Nat Clim Chang. 2018; 8 :1037–1043. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0337-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fang L (2014) “Koch spends more than double top ten unions combined.” Republic Report, March 7
• Farrell J. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016; 113 :92–97. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1509433112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrell J (2019) The growth of climate change misinformation in US philanthropy: evidence from natural language processing. Environmental Research Letters, 14
• Fiorino D (2006) The New Environmental Regulation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
• Fischlein M, Peterson TR, Stephens JC, Wilson EJ. Which way does the wind blow? Analyzing the sub-national context for renewable energy deployment in the United States. Environmental Governance. 2014; 24 :169–187. doi: 10.1002/eet.1636. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher D. Understanding the relationship between subnational and national climate change politics in the United States: toward a theory of boomerang federalism. Eviron Plann C Gov Policy. 2013; 31 :769–784. doi: 10.1068/c11186. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fowler L, Breen J. The impact of political factors on states’ adoption of renewable portfolio standards. Electr J. 2013; 26 :79–94. doi: 10.1016/j.tej.2013.01.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fownes JR, Yu C, Margolin, DB (2018) Twitter and climate change. Sociology Compass, 12(6)
• Galvin R, Healy N. The Green New Deal in the United States: what it is and how to pay for it. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2020; 67 :101529. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101529. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein R, You HY. Cities as lobbyists. Am J Pol Sci. 2017; 61 :864–876. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12306. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant D, Bergsrand K, Running K. Effectiveness of US state policies in reducing CO 2 emissions from power plants. Nat Climate Change. 2014; 4 :977–982. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2385. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenberg E, McKendry C (2021) Contested power: energy democracy and the repoliticization of electricity in the Western U.S. Energ Res Soc Sci
• Guber DL. A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. Am Behav Sci. 2013; 57 :93–115. doi: 10.1177/0002764212463361. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurney KR, Liang J, Roest G, Song Y, Mueller K, Lauvaux T. Under-reporting of greenhouse gas emissions in US cities. Nat Commun. 2021; 12 :1–7. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20871-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamilton LC. Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim Change. 2011; 104 (2):231–242. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9957-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamilton LC, Stampone MD (2013) Blowin’in the wind: short-term weather and belief in anthropogenic climate change. Weather, Climate, and Society 5.2:112–119
• Hartman, K, Shields L (2021) State policies promoting hybrid and electric vehicles. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-electricvehicle-incentives-state-chart.aspx . Accessed 7 Oct 2021
• Healy N, Barry J. Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a “just transition” Energy Policy. 2017; 108 :451–459. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heiman MK, Soloman BD. Power to the people: electric utility restructuring and the commitment to renewable energy” Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2004; 94 :94–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09401006.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hempling S (2020). Regulating mergers and acquisitions of U.S. electric utilities: industry concentration and corporate complication. Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA
• Hertel-Fernandez A. Who passes business’s ‘model bills?’ policy capacity and corporate influence in U.S. state politics. Perspect Polit. 2014; 12 :582–602. doi: 10.1017/S1537592714001601. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertel-Fernandez A, Mildenberger M, Stokes LC. Legislative staff and representation in Congress. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2019; 113 :1–18. doi: 10.1017/S0003055418000606. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertel-Fernandez A (2019) State capture: how conservative activists, big businesses, and wealthy donors reshaped the American states – and the nation. Oxford University Press, New York
• Hess DJ. The politics of niche-regime conflicts: distributed solar energy in the United States. Environ Innov Soc Trans. 2016; 19 :42–50. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2015.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hess DJ. Energy democracy and social movements: a multicoalition perspective on the politics of energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2018; 40 :177–189. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hess DJ, Lee D. Energy decentralization in California and New York: conflicts in the politics of shared solar and community choice. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2020; 121 :109716. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109716. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hess DJ, Mai QD, Brown KP. Red states, green laws: ideology and renewable energy legislation in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2016; 11 :19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hess DJ, Gentry H (2019) 100% renewable energy policies in U.S. cities: strategies, recommendations, and implementation challenges. Sustain: Sci Pract Policy 15:45–61
• Hess DJ (2012) Good green jobs in a global economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
• Hess DJ (2014) When green became blue: Epistemic rift and the corralling of climate science. In Fields of knowledge: science, politics and publics in the neoliberal age. Emerald Group Publishing
• Hirsh RF (1999). Power loss: The origins of deregulation and restructuring in the American electric utility system . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
• Homsy GC. Capacity, sustainability, and the community benefits of municipal utility ownership in the United States. J Econ Policy Reform. 2020; 23 :120–137. doi: 10.1080/17487870.2018.1515014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Climate Change. 2016; 6 :622–626. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2943. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howe PD, Mildenberger M, Marlon JR, Leiserowitz A. Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nat Climate Change. 2015; 5 :596–603. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2583. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howarth C, Black R. Local science and media engagement on climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2015; 5 (6):506–508. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2629. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber MT (2021) Still no shortcuts for climate change. Catalyst . 4
• Hughes S (2019) Repowering cities: Governing climate change mitigation in New York City, Los Angeles, and Toronto. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
• IPCC 2014 Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ed R K Pachauri and L A Meyer (Geneva: IPCC)
• IRS (2021). Measuring lobbying activity: expenditure test. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/measuring-lobbying-activity-expenditure-test Accessed 4 May 2021
• Isser S (2015) Electricity restructuring in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York
• Jacques PJ, Dunlap RE, Freeman M. The organisation of denial: conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Env Polit. 2008; 17 :349–385. doi: 10.1080/09644010802055576. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karapin R. Federalism as a double-edged sword: the slow energy transition in the United States. J Environ Dev. 2020; 29 :26–50. doi: 10.1177/1070496519886001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karapin R (2016) Political opportunities for climate policy: California, New York, and the federal government. Cambridge University Press, New York
• Jansa JM, Hansen ER, Gray VH. Copy and paste lawmaking: legislative professionalism and policy reinvention in the states.". Am Pol Res. 2019; 47 (4):739–767. doi: 10.1177/1532673X18776628. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kern K. Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: embedded upscaling of local experiments in Europe. Environmental Politics. 2019; 28 :125–145. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2019.1521979. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelsey N, Meckling J (2018) Who wins in renewable energy? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 37:65–73
• Konisky DM, Hughes L, Kaylor CH. Extreme weather events and climate change concern. Clim Change. 2016; 134 :533–547. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1555-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Konisky DM, Woods ND (2018) Environmental federalism and the Trump presidency: a preliminary assessment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 48:345–371
• Krause RM, Hawkins C (2021) Implementing city sustainability: overcoming administrative silos to achieve functional collective action. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA
• Lee T, Jung HY. Mapping city-to-city networks for climate change action: geographic bases, link modalities, functions, and activity. J Clean Prod. 2018; 182 :96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Legislative Energy Trends. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/energy/2020-2021_Legislative_Energy_Trends_v04_35914.pdf . Accessed 7 Oct 2021
• Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N (2011) Global warming’s six Americas, May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University
• Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Rosenthal S, Kotcher J, Ballew MT, Bergquist P, Gustafson A, Goldberg M, Wang X (2020) Politics and global warming, April 2020
• Lennon M. Decolonizing energy: Black Lives Matter and technoscientific expertise amid solar transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2017; 30 :18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubell M, Zahran S, Vedlitz A. Collective action and citizen responses to global warming. Polit Behav. 2007; 29 :391–413. doi: 10.1007/s11109-006-9025-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marlon J, Howe P, Mildenberger M, Leiserowitz A, Wang X. Yale climate opinion maps 2020. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/ . Accessed 1 May 2021
• May PJ, Koski C (2007) State environmental policies: analyzing green building mandates. Rev Policy Res 24(1):49–65
• Mayer J (2017) Dark money: the hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right. Anchor Books
• Matisoff DC, Edwards J. Kindred spirits or intergovernmental competition? The innovation and diffusion of energy policies in the American states (1990–2008) Environ Polit. 2014; 23 :795–817. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2014.923639. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarthy J (2016) A Worry about terror attacks in U.S. high, but not top concern. Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190253/worry-terror-attacks-high-not-top-concern.aspx . Accessed 15 Jun 2021
• McCright AM, Dunlap RE. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Soc Probl. 2003; 50 :348–373. doi: 10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCright AM, Dunlap RE. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q. 2011; 52 :155–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Marquart-Pyatt ST. Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics. 2016; 25 :338–358. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2015.1090371. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2015) Challenging climate change. In Climate change and society: sociological perspectives 300–332
• Meckling J, Nahm J. The power of process: state capacity and climate policy. Governance. 2018; 31 :741–757. doi: 10.1111/gove.12338. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michaels D (2008). Doubt is their product: how industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University Press, New York
• Mikkelson GM, Avidan M, Conevska A, Etzion D (2021) Mutual reinforcement of academic reputation and fossil fuel divestment. Global Sustainability 4:e20
• Mildenberger M, Leiserowitz A (2017) Public opinion on climate change: is there an economy-environment tradeoff? Environ Politics 26:801–24
• Mildenberger M (2020) Carbon captured: how business and labor control climate politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
• Miras NS, Rouse SM (2021) Partisan misalignment and the counter-partisan response: how national politics conditions majority party policy making in the American states. Br J Polit Sci 1–20
• Mooney CZ. Explaining legislative leadership influence: simple collective action or conditional explanations? Polit Res Q. 2012; 66 :559–571. doi: 10.1177/1065912912458369. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers T, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim Change. 2012; 113 :1105–1112. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen Long LA, Krause RM (2020) Managing policy-making in the local climate governance landscape: the role of network administrative organizations and member cities. Public Admin. 1–17. 10.1111/padm.12684
• Open Secrets (2020a) Americans for Prosperity Action. https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cycle=2020a&cmte=C00687103 . Retrieved 6 Sept 2021
• Open Secrets (2020b) Americans for Prosperity Action. https://www.opensecrets.org/search/?q=Environmental+Organizations&cx=010677907462955562473 . Retrieved 6 Sept 2021
• Oreskes N, Conway EM (2008) Challenging knowledge: how climate science became a victim of the Cold War. In: Proctor, R.N., Schiebinger, L. (Eds.), Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press pp. 55–89
• Piggot G. The influence of social movements on policies that constrain fossil fuel supply. Climate Policy. 2018; 18 :942–954. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2017.1394255. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prechel H. Corporate power and U.S. economic and environmental policy, 1978–2008. Camb J Reg Econ Soc. 2012; 5 :357–375. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rss002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prechel H. Neoliberal Organizational and Political-Legal Arrangements and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. Electrical Energy Sector. Sociol Q. 2021; 62 :209–233. doi: 10.1080/00380253.2020.1733450. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prechel H (2021a) Normalized financial wrongdoing. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
• Rabe BG (2004) Statehouse and greenhouse: the emerging politics of American climate change policy. Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C
• Rabe BG (2007) Beyond Kyoto: climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance: Int J Policy Admin Inst 20:423–444
• Rabe BG (2011) Contested Federalism and American Climate Policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 41:494–521
• Rabe BG (2013). Racing to the top, the bottom, or the middle of the pack? The evolving state government role in environmental protection. In N. Vig & M, Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy: New directions for the 21 st century (pp,30–53). CQ Press, Washington, D.C.
• Raymond L (2016). Reclaiming the atmospheric commons: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and a new model of emissions trading. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
• Riverstone-Newell L (2017) The rise of state preemption laws in response to local policy innovation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 47:403–425
• Romankiewicz J, Bottorff C, Stokes LC (2021) The dirty truth about utility climate pledges. Sierra Club. https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/Final%20Greenwashing%20Report%20%281.22.2021%29.pdf >. Accessed 6 Apr 2021
• Schattschneider E (1960) The Semi sovereign people. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
• Senate Assembly (2019) Relates to the New York state climate leadership and community protection act, Senate Bill S6599 A8429, 2019–2020 Legislative Session
• Shao W, Xian S, Keim BD, Goidel K, Lin N. Understanding perceptions of changing hurricane strength along the US Gulf Coast. Int J Climatol. 2017; 37 :1716–1727. doi: 10.1002/joc.4805. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shay LP (2020) Do term limits ‘limit’ the Speaker? Examining the effects of legislative term limits on state Speaker power. State Polit Policy Q 21(2):139–164
• Si Y, Stephens JC (2021) "Energy justice through solar: constructing and engaging low-income households." Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 3(20)
• Sierra Club. 2021. https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100 . Accessed 25 May 2021
• Slattery MC, Lantz E, Johnson BL. State and local economic impacts from wind energy projects: Texas case study. Energy Policy. 2011; 39 (12):7930–7940. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith KM, Koski C, Siddiki S (2021). Regulating net metering in the United States: a landscape overview of states’ net metering policies and outcomes.” The Electricity Journal 34(2)
• Stephens JC (forthcoming 2021). "Beyond climate isolationism: a necessary shift for climate justice." Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
• Stephens JC (2019). Energy democracy: redistributing power to the people through renewable transformation. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 61:4–13
• Stephens JC (2020) Diversifying power: why we need antiracist, feminist leadership on climate and energy. Island Press, Washington D.C.
• Stephens J, et al. (2018) "The role of college and university faculty in the fossil fuel divestment movement." Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 6(1):41
• Stokes L, Warshaw C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat Energy. 2017; 2 :1–6. doi: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.107. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stokes LC (2020). Short circuiting policy. Oxford University Press, New York
• Stoutenborough JW, Bromley-Trujillo R, Vedlitz A. Public support for climate change policy: consistency in the influence of values and attitudes over time and across specific policy alternatives. Rev Policy Res. 2014; 31 :555–583. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stuart D, Gunderson R, Petersen B. The climate crisis as a catalyst for emancipatory transformation: an examination of the possible. Int Sociol. 2020; 35 :433–456. doi: 10.1177/0268580920915067. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Squire P (2007) Measuring state legislative professionalism: The Squire Index revisited. State Polit Policy Q 7:211–227
• Tandoc EC Jr, Eng N (2017) Climate change communication on Facebook, Twitter and Sina Weibo. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, 1, pp. 603-615
• Tesler M. Elite domination of public doubts about climate change (not evolution) Polit Commun. 2018; 35 :306–326. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1380092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomson V (2014) Sophisticated interdependence in climate policy: federalism in the United States, Brazil and Germany. Anthem Press, New York
• Trachtman S (2020) What drives climate policy adoption in the U.S. states? Energy Policy 138
• Trinks A, et al. Fossil fuel divestment and portfolio performance. Ecol Econ. 2018; 146 :740–748. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.036. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017) Investor-owned utilities served 72% of U.S. electricity customers in 2017. Today in Energy .  < https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40913 >. Accessed 6 Apr 2021
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions . Accessed 24 May 2021
• United States Climate Alliance (2019) U.S. Climate Alliance Governors Oppose Administration’s Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. https://www.usclimatealliance.org/publications/pariswithdrawal . Accessed 25 May 2021
• United States Climate Alliance (2021) Further, faster, together fact sheet. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4cfbfe18b27d4da21c9361/t/61b391a282d69906666f40fc/1639158179664/USCA_2021+Fact+Sheet+211208.pdf . Accessed 20 June 2021
• US Conference of Mayors (2014) “Successful city initiatives with energy efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Funding. (February 2014) http://www.usmayors.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0227-report-eecbgsurvey.pdf . Accessed 25 May 2021
• van der Heijden J, Patterson J, Juhola S, Wolfram M. Special section: advancing the role of cities in climate governance–promise, limits, politics. J Environ Planning Manage. 2019; 6 :365–373. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vasseur M. Convergence and divergence in renewable energy policy among U.S. states from 1998 to 2011. Soc Forces. 2014; 92 :1637–1657. doi: 10.1093/sf/sou011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• We are still in (2021) “Who’s in” https://www.wearestillin.com/signatories . Accessed 20 May 2021
• Wingfield B, Marcus M (2007) “America’s Greenest States.” http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/16/environment-energy-vermont-biz-beltway-cx_bw_mm_1017greenstates.html . Retrieved 25 Aug 2016
• Wolcott J (2007) “Rush to judgment” Vanity Fair. May 2007
• Woods ND. The state of state environmental policy research: a thirty-year progress report. Rev Policy Res. 2021; 38 :347–369. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12426. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 01 October 2018

Research in government and academia: the case of health policy

• Sherry Glied   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9432-1662 1 ,
• Raphael Wittenberg 2 , 3 &
• Avi Israeli 4  

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research volume  7 , Article number:  35 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

6929 Accesses

10 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Commentary to this article was published on 03 October 2018

A Commentary to this article was published on 02 October 2018

Making effective health policy requires expert knowledge of an ever-changing technological, epidemiological, social, and economic context. One important vehicle for integrating expert research into the policy process is through linkages and exchanges between researchers and government officials [ 1 ]. Many governments respond to this need for expert knowledge by using advisory boards that include academics. Many also integrate academic health policy researchers more fully into policymaking by making them short-term or long-term employees. Each of us (Sherry Glied, Raphael Wittenberg and Avi Israeli) has spent some time as an academic and as a regular member of a governmental policy-making body, in the US, England, and Israel, respectively. In this paper, we reflect on the lessons learned from our dual perspectives.

There is growing international interest in improving the ability of policymakers to make use of health policy research [ 2 , 3 , 4 ] Prior research has examined the effectiveness of varying strategies for knowledge transfer and exchange. These strategies range from dissemination approaches, such as producing succinct summaries of research findings accessible to policy-makers; to training efforts, such as conducting workshops involving researchers and decision-makers; to the use of outside consultants. A considerable literature has examined the structures, processes, and purposes under which research findings are used—or not used-- by policymakers. Across many contexts, countries, and time periods, this literature consistently identifies collaborative relationships as critical to the process [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Policy intermediaries, with strong ties to both research and policymaking, are important actors in these collaborative relationships [ 11 , 12 ]. A comprehensive review concluded that “having personal contacts and building trust through quality relationships over time” are key factors in successful knowledge transfer [ 13 ]. Most efforts at building such relationships have involved bringing policymakers into the academy. But an alternative approach is to embed academics in policymaking institutions. This article describes how that approach has worked in practice in three contexts.

Role of health policy academics in government

Although the government structures and health systems of the US, UK, and Israel are quite different, all three make some use of health policy academics in government. In all three countries, academics serve on ad hoc taskforces, standing committees, and other consultative bodies. To varying extents, in all three countries, some senior members of the permanent civil service, particularly in the scientific and statistical agencies, come from academia and, in some cases (often in Israel), may maintain their academic roles while serving in government. For example, the last four Chief Statisticians in Israel have been academics, and two recent Chief Analysts at the Department of Health and Social Care for England (DHSC) had previously been academics. For reasons that we discuss below, this flow is usually one way – from academia into government – though there are occasional exceptions. Academics who move into the permanent civil service often acquire a professional identity as government officials and rarely return to academia.

In all three countries, academics are often invited to act, on a short-term, temporary basis, as advisers or members of specialist government committees. In England, parliamentary Committees, such as the House of Commons Health Committee, also appoint academics as advisors on specific enquiries. In the US, scientific advisory boards that make critical policy decisions, such as the United States Preventive Services Taskforce, are often staffed largely by academics. In Israel, academics often form part of the committees that update the medical basket. In these situations, the inclusion of academics is a tactic that may serve to remove a decision that depends on evidence from the partisan political process [ 14 ]. Academics serving on taskforces rarely migrate into government – they retain their professional identities as academics.

Finally, in all three countries, there are situations where policy researchers hold full-time (though often temporary) positions within the bureaucracy and retain a connection to academia, for example, by taking leave from a position to which they intend to return. The specific parameters of these situations vary among countries.

In England, academics may be seconded for a limited period to government departments. Some academics, often clinician experts, work for the Government, with contracts for a specified time period, before returning to academia. This pattern is most common among specialists such as analysts, research managers and clinicians at senior and mid-level. Conversely civil servants may be seconded to university research units. Wittenberg was for many years seconded part-time from the Department of Health and Social Care to the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) before he became a member of LSE and University of Oxford staff; and a few of his LSE colleagues have been seconded for periods to the Department of Health and Social Care or other government departments. In some circumstances, academics in England simultaneously serve in government and maintain their positions in academia.

In the United States, academics typically hold temporary full-time positions in government. Many universities limit the length of time that an academic may spend on leave in such a position (a practice known as the Kissinger rule) [ 15 ]. While some academics in government may continue to teach as adjunct or part-time faculty, it is unusual for someone to hold both a full-time academic position and a position within government (other than as a part-time member of an advisory board or review committee) at the same time.

In Israel, health policy academics frequently serve as members of government-appointed committees, or as advisors to senior government officials. It is rare to see a person who has a full-time position in academia move to a full position in the Ministry of Health, either permanently or temporarily. However, in Israel it is possible for professionals to combine academic and civil service pursuits without having to sacrifice one for the other. The most common arrangement is for a senior medical professional to hold a long-term, full-time position in government along with a part-time connection with a university. Physical proximity and the tight knit networks linking professionals in the two settings encourage such arrangements. In some cases, the part-time connections with a university involve an opportunity to move up the academic ladder (including up to full professorial rank), based on research and publications and other academic achievements. The academic affiliation, worn with a sense of prestige, reflects the interest and involvement of government officials in academic work, and the value they assign to it.

Avi Israeli has served full-time as Director General of the Ministry of Health (2003–2009), currently serves part-time as Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Health, and has served as Chair of the Public Committee to Update the Basket of Health Services in a voluntary capacity. He served in all three of these governmental roles while also serving as Head of the Department of Health Policy and Management of the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health. The intensity of his academic involvement varied according to the intensity of his governmental role.

In the US, health policy academics are typically recruited into the executive branch of government to work full-time for a few years (often coinciding with a Presidential term), with the expectation that after term of service they will return to academia. Academics fill a significant share of the politically-appointed positions in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as did Glied, who took a leave from a tenured position on the faculty of Columbia University to serve as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation from 2010 to 2012.

In this one foot in each camp situation, researchers maintain professional identities as both government officials and academics. This can be complicated. Health policy questions often turn on issues of values with respect to both ends (what is the appropriate distribution of resources?) and ends (how should considerations of collective responsibility and individual liberty be reconciled?). Academics in government inevitably bring their own values to a table crowded with the values of their fellow policymakers. As discussed below, this poses a challenge of balancing academic freedom and commitment to evidence with policy relevance and the political context -- not always a straightforward matter.

Roles of government in health policy research and analysis

Governments in all three countries play substantial roles in health services and policy research. Governments often conduct major surveys and data collection efforts. Government research funding agencies, including the National Institute for Health Research in the UK, the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in the US, and the National Institute for Health Policy Research and Center for Disease Control in Israel, fund both investigator-initiated research and research in response to specific programs or calls. Where the government is directly involved in the delivery of health care services, it may also fund a program of health services research aimed at improving the quality of delivery in government-operated facilities. For example, in the US, the Veterans’ Administration funds a very extensive intramural and external program of health services research, though this is not generally focused on broad federal health policy ( https://www.research.va.gov/services/hsrd.cfm ). Academics may serve on review panels for such research. Academics who have migrated to the permanent civil service may play important roles in developing specific programs or calls.

In the US, Congress has often shied away from using this type of research funding to support policy-oriented research. The AHRQ is an eloquent symbol of that reluctance – it had originally been called the Agency for Health Care Policy Research, but was renamed in 1999 to take the word Policy out of its title [ 16 , 17 ]. The Department of Health and Social Care for England, by contrast, has a Policy Research Program (PRP) which commissions high quality research based evidence, some of it at a number of PRP research units that undertake substantial long-term programs of research agreed with DHSC. In these cases, governments sponsor academic research, which is undertaken by academics within universities. The resulting reports and publications are usually circulated publicly and may be quoted in Government Green and White Papers. In Israel, the Ministry of Health and the National Institute for Health Policy Research, a mechanism created by the National Health Insurance Law to fund evaluation of the health system, make grants specifically to support policy development.

In addition to promoting academic research, governments also undertake, in house and via contract, non-academic analyses that inform policy or practice in health and social care, and address very specific policy issues. These analyses rarely involve sustained detailed investigation of a specific research question or hypothesis and rarely involve systematic reviews, interviews or other primary data collection, extensive secondary analyses of existing data, or preparation of articles for academic journals. The Department of Health and Social Care in England conducts in-house a wide range of statistical, economic, operational research and other forms of analyses and modelling (as does the Department for Work and Pensions) [ 18 ]. These frequently draw on academic research, as well as official data, surveys and other sources of evidence, including research commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care. In the US, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and other policy units conduct similar in-house analyses and commission studies through detailed contracts that specify both the question and the nature of the work product. In the US, almost all of this research is conducted by contract research firms (examples include the RAND Corporation, Mathematica Policy Research, MDRC, and RTI). In Israel, the Ministry of Health commissions outside studies. on specific topics and also utilizes independent research organizations such as Myers Joint Brookdale Institute and the Gertner Institute for Health Services Research.

Such government-commissioned research can pose political risks for the commissioning agencies. The research studies sometimes provide results that are not clear cut, are counter-intuitive, do not support the preferred policies of decision makers who posed the questions, or raise new issues, despite being aimed at very specific problems. Academics in government may be particularly useful in seizing opportunities that the results of such commissioned research studies offer, whether by defining follow-up research questions, encouraging redirection of existing policy, or translating research findings into specific policy actions. For example, in 2013, ASPE commissioned research to assess whether the requirements of the 2018 Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act were being met [ 19 ]. The report generally found that substantial gains had been made in the areas of quantitative treatment limits that were the focus of the study. This surprised advocates, who reported instances where parity requirements were not met. The presence of an academic mental health policy expert, Richard Frank, enabled ASPE to commission a new research study focused on the discrepancy [ 20 ]. The later study helped shape the Department’s subsequent enforcement activities.

Structure of research in government and in academia

Successful academic health policy researchers have specialized expertise and work hard – traits that are prized in both academia and government. But while these high level characteristics translate easily, many aspects of the institutional structure of policy research in government and academia are quite different (and these, in turn, differ across countries). Both the kinds of research that are demanded and the ways that work is conducted vary across these two contexts.

The overarching goal of research in academia is to better understand the world. The most prized work provides a new perspective or insight into existing phenomena. Novel, creative work will identify a previously unrecognized problem, propose a new set of methodological tools, or offer a distinctive theoretical structure that ties together ideas or events that had been seen as unrelated [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. This kind of work spawns a flood of follow-on research, normal science, filling in the details of a model. The corresponding metric of success in academia is articles in high quality academic journals and citation counts – measures of how many other researchers found that this work gave them a new and useful way of engaging with problems.

The merit of scholarly work depends critically on its creativity, novelty, and insight. Rigor and accuracy do also matter, but are not sufficient. Most of the onus for ensuring the accuracy of papers lies with the researcher. The external peer review system, in its design, can provide only a top-level review of the researcher’s approach, such as the design of the study, and pose a few questions. Reviewers rarely examine underlying data and often have inadequate time or training to assess the validity of findings [ 24 ]. While researchers regularly call for replications and re-analyses, publications and promotions go to those who break new ground. The conventions of the academy also define what a high quality paper should cover. The data, methods, and results sections of a paper must adhere to certain discipline-specific standards, but authors have nearly free reign in choosing their questions and in discussing the implications of their results.

The growth of research funding for the social sciences, and of the field of public policy as an academic pursuit, have narrowed the gap between the goals of researchers in the academy (at least in this field) and those in government somewhat. Government funders of social science research expect investigators to address questions of policy significance and to make an effort to translate their findings into actionable suggestions (this is particularly true in England). Schools of public policy likewise encourage their faculty to study issues that policymakers will find relevant. Nonetheless, this gap remains an enduring concern, as evidenced by a steady flow of books, articles, and conferences and renewed attention to “knowledge transfer” between academia and policymakers [ 1 ].

While academic policy researchers do conduct research that may be useful to policymakers, the principal goal of research in government remains quite different from that of the academy-- to give policymakers information that will help them to solve a specific, pre-defined policy problem in real time. In contrast to the broad range of questions an academic might choose, most of the time a researcher in government is given a specific assignment to complete within a specific, often challenging, deadline. While a research team in academia generally conducts research itself, sometimes in collaboration with other research teams, in government most research (except rapid turnaround requests) is not conducted in-house but commissioned under contracts with external researchers . For example, at the Department of Health and Human Services, ASPE was asked to assist the Secretary in developing the benefit package that would be the standard for coverage under the Affordable Care Act. The agency conducted analyses in-house (comparing benefits offered in various markets, for example [ 25 ]) and used commissioned research (assessing actuarial values of various benefit designs) that would help answer that very concrete, policy relevant question [ 26 ].

For most questions, the permanent civil service staff is more likely to understand how much effort a question deserves, what the realistic bounds of the policy debate are likely to be, and how formally it needs to be answered. On more than a few occasions, the “old hands” in government make clear to time-limited academic appointees that internal bureaucratic politics, data limitations, or the likely uncertainty of any answer argue against devoting a lot of time or budget to what seemed to be an interesting and important policy question. But the academic’s training and socialization to seek creative solutions to new and difficult questions can be valuable when a novel policy problem is far from the questions that “old hands” have dealt with in the past.

The questions that flow to academics in government are usually very tough, out-of-the-box challenges that can best be answered by bringing together the worlds of institutional knowledge within government and of creative research in academia. Collaborations between governments and academics, often with academic researchers in government serving in a bridging role, can take the form of extended programs of policy-oriented research.

Such programs have generated useful results that altered the shape of policy. For example, the analysis prepared for Ministers in successive UK governments and expert enquiries on reforming the system for financing long-term care involved close collaboration between researchers at the Personal Social Services Research Unit at the London School of Economics and analysts in the social care analytical unit at the DH [ 27 , 28 ]. (Wittenberg was for many years a member of both). The development and implementation of the Prospective Payment System (DRGs) in the US involved a decades-long collaboration between the Office of Research and Development in the Health Care Financing Administration and academics at several Universities [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. In Israel, a group of Israeli academics began to study the issue of evaluating, measuring and reporting on the quality of community based health care. With time, these researchers established connections with health plans, in which they discussed the literature on quality measurement, compared different measures used in the different plans, and committed themselves to deploy agreed measures to improve quality of care, while committing not to reveal measures of quality in the different health plans. In 2004, Israeli, as The Director General of the Ministry of Health, an academic serving in government, and aware of this research, offered to place the program under the aegis of the MOH, along with full funding through the National Institute for Health Policy, leading to this academic-initiated activity transforming into the National Program for Quality Measurement in Community Care. It combines research and comparisons with other countries, a framework for health plans and providers to continually improve quality of care, and reporting of quality measures to the public.

As these examples suggest, while the primary intention of government-commissioned research is to address specific policy issues, not to generate academic publications of generalizable value, sometimes the two are quite compatible. In the field of health policy research, the most notable example of such a happy symbiosis is the RAND Health Insurance Experiment. In 1971, the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which was then considering options for universal health insurance, funded the RAND Corporation (a US contract research firm) to was commissioned to produce estimates of the effects of alternative health insurance packages on service utilization. The results of the study remain of direct policy significance; the study also generated hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles which have spurred further academic research [ 32 , 33 ].

While the academic perspective may be useful in identifying a path to an answer for a challenging question, the academic’s usual approach is unlikely to be helpful in government. In contrast to the academy’s preference for novelty, research in government is most useful when it is straightforward; uses well-accepted, conventional methods; and can be replicated easily. Meta-analyses and reviews of existing literature are preferred over original research. In government, rigor and accuracy trump imagination and cleverness every time. In contrast to the academic model under which a small number (2–4) of voluntary peer reviewers assess the validity and interest of a completed work and pose a few questions, a major piece of governmental policy research, one that will be released publicly, may go through extensive internal review. Junior researchers within government may check the math; outside peer reviewers may be enlisted – and paid – to ensure that methods have been used appropriately; and legal staff, political staff, even public relations staff will review the product from their various perspectives. The framing of the question and the discussion section will garner at least as much scrutiny as the methods. The difference in processes means that at least according to formal requirements, a policy research report released by a government is often more likely to contain results that are accurate, verifiable, nuanced and replicable than a paper published in the most esteemed peer-reviewed journal (see https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/hhs-guidelines-ensuring-and-maximizing-quality-objectivity-utility-and-integrity-information-disseminated-public ). Research on the quality of government-commissioned research in England finds that it is likely to be more accurate than other commissioned research, though it may not be published in a timely fashion [ 34 , 35 ]. It is also likely to be less broadly interesting, provocative, and creative than academic research. It can be tremendously valuable if it is used by policymakers in shaping policy – or in rejecting a contemplated policy direction -- even if it is never ever cited again.

These differences in the nature of publication help explain why excellent policy analysts in the permanent civil service rarely migrate back into academia. Their commitment to doing the kind of research needed by government, and to publishing through the government process, often means giving up the chance to pursue their own research interests and to publish extensively in academic journals. Even the most well-established and effective policy researcher in government is very unlikely to have a resume of novel academic publications that would satisfy a university hiring committee. Moreover, if the researcher has become identified with specific policy directions (whether or not based on his or her research), and those policy directions are contested, return to academia may be more unlikely. While efforts are underway to facilitate movement back into academia, for example by encouraging tenure review committees to consider a broader range of publications (see, for example, http://wtgrantfoundation.org/grants/institutional-challenge-grant ; http://www.cahs-acss.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ROI_FullReport.pdf ), this difference in the nature and number of work products and tasks explains why it is so often challenging to move from full-time government service into academia.

Consuming policy research in government

The interplay between research and policy is strongly molded by politics [ 36 , 37 ]. Within this political context, policymakers make use of research evidence in many ways, from informing a policy decision to justifying or legitimating one to compensating for the lack of policy action [ 14 , 38 ]. This multiplicity of uses makes the connections between research and policymaking are often indirect and obscure [ 6 , 14 , 39 ]. This is particularly true in health policy, where policymakers must often balance considerations of efficiency with their own and their constituents’ values about the appropriate distribution of resources. A growing consensus, however, suggests that research, broadly defined, affects policymaking across many dimensions. Whether the use of research evidence actually improves the quality of government services, and whether it enhances democratic decisionmaking, remain contested questions [ 37 , 40 , 41 ].

Academics in government are useful because they can conduct research – but they are also useful in other ways. Full-time policy researchers in government do not routinely read academic research. There are several reasons for this lack of attention. First, the timescale of academic research is often not appropriate to government [ 1 ]. Most academic research is focused on understanding the world as it is now – but most policy researchers in government need answers to specific questions to inform decisions about particular future policy choices. Academic research happens at its own pace (unless commissioned by government agencies), but governments make decisions when they must or can, often on a very short time horizon. Second, academic research products are not necessarily organized to be useful to policymakers. A journal issue, with its assortment of articles, may contain nothing of interest to a policymaker whose needs are very specific. Even a single article likely contains considerable spurious information (from the policymaker’s perspective) but lacks some specific detail (how would this intervention affect a particular population?). Academics in government can connect the findings of academic researchers and the needs of policymakers: this can be a crucial part of their role, in view of their expertise in both research and in policy analysis.

Academic researchers make this connection in a variety of ways. Their knowledge of the academic research literature allows them to identify opportunities to insert existing research into policy discussions. This insider knowledge allows them, where appropriate, to provide research evidence to political champions willing to support evidence-based policies, or to help politicians develop evidence-based agendas in support of policy goals. Academic researchers can also strengthen the value of government commissioned research, by situating it in the context of the broader literature. The success of academic researchers in achieving these ends will depend on their legitimacy within the research community and their institutional positions within the policymaking body [ 42 ] Academics are also more likely to be successful if they understand the constraints and demands of both the scientific and policymaking communities [ 43 ].

In playing these roles, academic researchers in government come to appreciate that research results are only one of many factors that influence policy design. In government, the academic finds that no research result stands on its own – as it would in the context of academic peer review. Instead, research enters the process through a complex network of politicians, decision makers, policy agendas, media coverage and pressures from interest groups (sometimes citing academic research) and the general public. Effective academics in government can put their creativity and knowledge to use here as well. They can help put research in context, compare conflicting findings, connect research to ongoing agendas, link research to powerful allies, and provide rationales for policy support. While research may not always carry the day, academics in government are well placed to inject research findings into debates where they have not found a place before. At the same time, the enlistment of researchers to support certain positions preferred by policy makers must be taken into account: creation of mechanisms, such as symposia of government based scientists, can balance competing positions supported by research.

Conclusions

The interplay between academia and government, which exists in all three countries, has strengthened the quality of health policy. It has also improved the quality of academic research in this area. Health policy is ultimately bound by institutional, political, and financial constraints and health policy research is both most valuable and also most interesting when it recognizes and responds to those constraints. This need not mean that academics must give up their freedom to choose topics and pursue creative ideas. On the contrary – the ability to go beyond the specific problem at hand is where the academic setting is most valuable. But academic research is itself more robust, and more useful, when it recognizes the institutional constraints of legislation and implementation.

Academic research will translate more directly into policy when it makes sense within a specific policy context. It will also have more impact if it is readily brought to the attention of policymakers. Academics can help make that happen by collaborating in the production of Briefs and Research Summaries, often by working with think tanks (particularly those that are less ideological) and similar bridging organizations. These products are far more likely to be read, and so have a greater chance of entering the policy process, than academic papers. Even more important, academics can bring their research to policy attention by seeking out opportunities to talk to and collaborate with policymakers. That requires time, and is sometimes a distraction from the task of publishing peer-reviewed journal articles, but such collaborations offer not only policy impact, but often promising areas of research, access to useful data, and wise advice from experts in the field. Finally, academics can profit from spending time in government, where they can both learn about this alternative culture and build lasting relationships that will help translate their future research into policy [ 44 , 45 ].

Making research meaningful to policymakers is increasingly key to professional success. In the UK, the Research Excellence Framework, the official system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions, takes account of the impact of research as well as its scientific quality. Government-initiated and researcher-initiated health policy research both need to have policy relevance and impact as well as high scientific quality. While the US has no parallel mechanism, research funders, including both public funders and private foundations, increasingly insist that researchers document the impact of their research on policy and well-being. In Israel, research funders often emphasize the importance of policy relevance and dedicated journals, such as the IJHPR, help to raise the academic profile of policy related research.

Playing a role in the policy process is not only professionally valuable, it is also immensely personally rewarding (As each of us can attest). Academics often become health policy researchers because they care deeply about their nations’ health systems, and it is very satisfying to make meaningful contributions to their success. As scholars, service in government offers an unparalleled opportunity to discover a new set of problems and audiences. As individuals, working in government allows scholars to encounter a new set of colleagues and friends, with different perspectives and interests. Weaving research, often based on access to unparalled sources of data stored by government (and not readily available to university based academics), into policy discussions and thus experiencing its actual impact on policy outcomes for the country’s population is hugely satisfying to the academic functioning in government.

Ellen M, Horowitz E, Vaknin S, Lavis JN. Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel. Israel J Health Policy Res. 2016;5:24.

World Health Organization. The world health report 2000: health systems: improving performance. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42281 .

Graham ID, Tetroe J. CIHR research: how to translate health research knowledge into effective healthcare action. Healthcare Quarterly. 2007;10(3):20–2.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Guindon GE, Lavis JN, Becerra-Posada F, et al. Bridging the gaps between research, policy and practice in low-and middle-income countries: a survey of health care providers. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(9):E362–72.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ellen M, Brown A. Transferring research from researchers to knowledge users: the importance of relationships and getting them right. Journal of health services research & policy. 2016;21(2):134–6.

Kogan M, Henkel M, Hanney S. Government and research: thirty years of evolution. Vol. 11. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.

Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HT. Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Bristol: Policy Press; 2007.

Book   Google Scholar  

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S. Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(3):297–304.

Lomas J, Brown AD. Research and advice giving: a functional view of evidence-informed policy advice in a Canadian Ministry of Health. Milbank Q. 2009;87(4):903–26.

Coburn AF. The role of health services research in developing state health policy. Health Aff. 1998;17(1):139–51.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lomas J. Using'linkage and exchange'to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff. 2000;19(3):236–40.

Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly. 2007;85(4):729–68.

Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev. 1979;39(5):426–31.

Shapiro P. Government Dept. Terminates Kissinger's Extended Leave. The Harvard Crimson. 1973;6:1973.

Google Scholar  

Gray BH, Gusmano MK, Collins SR. AHCPR and the changing politics of health services research. Health Affairs-Millwood VA Then Bethesda MA. 2003;22(3; SUPP):W3–283.

Gray BH, Gusmano MK, Collins SR. AHCPR and the changing politics of health services research. Health Aff. 2003;Suppl Web Exclusives:W3-283-307.

Smee C. Speaking truth to power: two decades of analysis in the Department of Health. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2005.

Goplerud EN. Consistency of Large Employer and Group Health Plan Benefits with Requirements of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act of 2008. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy; 2013.

Ridgely MS, Pacula RL, Burnam MA. Short-term analysis to support mental health and substance use disorder parity implementation. Washington, DC : HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services) Office of the Assistance Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; 2012.

Veugelers R, Wang J. Novel science for industry? Available at SSRN 2710569 . 2015.

Wang J, Veugelers R, Stephan P. Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. 2015.

Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions: Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.

Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000016.

Skopec L, Henderson A, Todd S, Yong PL. Essential Health Benefits: Comparing Benefits in Small Group Products and State and Federal Employee Plans. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; 2011.

Skopee L. Essential health benefits: comparing benefits in small group products and state and Federal Employee Plans. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; 2011.

Wittenberg R, Hu B, Hancock R, et al. Projections of demand for and costs of social care for older people in England, 2010 to 2030, under current and alternative funding systems. 2011.

Forder J, Fernández J-L. Analysing the costs and benefits of social care funding arrangements in England: technical report. Report to the Department of Health, PSSRU Discussion Paper; 2009. p. 2644.

Mayes R. The origins, development, and passage of Medicare’s revolutionary prospective payment system. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2007;62(1):21–55.

Fetter RB, Shin Y, Freeman JL, Averill RF, Thompson JD. Case mix definition by diagnosis-related groups. Med Care. 1980;18(2):i–53.

Dowling WL. Prospective reimbursement of hospitals. Inquiry. 1974;11(3):163–80.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Newhouse JP, Group RCIE. Free for all?: lessons from the RAND health insurance experiment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1993.

Manning WG, Newhouse JP, Duan N, Keeler EB, Leibowitz A. Health insurance and the demand for medical care: evidence from a randomized experiment. Am Econ Rev. 1987;77(3):251–77.

Vaganay A. Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? The effect of policy commitment on government-sponsored evaluation in Britain (1997-2010), London School of Economics and Political Science; 2014.

Sedley S. Missing evidence: an inquiry into the delayed publication of government-commissioned research. Sense about Science; 2016. Available from: http://apo.org.au/node/64609 .

Peterson MA. In the shadow of politics: the pathways of research evidence to health policy making. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2018;43(3):341–76.

Hawkins B, Parkhurst J. The'good governance'of evidence in health policy. Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice. 2016;12(4):575–92.

Brunsson N. The organization of hypocrisy: talk, decisions and actions in organizations. Chichester: Wiley; 1989.

Boswell C, Smith K. Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy relations. Palgrave Communications. 2017;3(1):44.

Parkhurst J. The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. New York: Routledge; 2017.

Sense About Science. Transparency of evidence: an assessment of government policy proposals May 2015 to May 2016. 2016. http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/transparency-evidence/ .

Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, DENIS JL, Tremblay É. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly. 2010;88(4):444–83.

Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health research policy and systems. 2017;15(1):35.

Glied S. Policy analysis in government and academia: two cultures. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2018;43(3):537–42.

Glennerster R. Policy versus Academic Jobs in Economics. Running Randomized Evaluations. 2014. runningres.com/blog/?offset=1408479986132 . Accessed 4 May 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank David Chinitz and Bruce Rosen for useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

About the authors

Sherry Glied is Dean of the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University. From 2010 to 2012, she served as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the US Department of Health and Human Services. In 1992–1993, she served as a senior economist on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Raphael Wittenberg is an Associate Professorial Research Fellow at the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and Deputy Director of the Centre for Health Service Economics and Organisation (CHSEO) at the University of Oxford. He was for many years a Senior Economist at the Department of Health and Social Care (the health ministry for England). His specialist interest is the financing of long-term care.

Avi Israeli is the Dr. Julien Rozan Professor of Family Medicine and Health Care at the Hebrew University - Hadassah Faculty of Medicine; Director of the Department of Health Policy, Health Care Management and Health Economics, Hebrew University – Hadassah Braun School of Public Health & Community Medicine; Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Health; and co-editor of IJHPR.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, New York, USA

Sherry Glied

Centre for Health Service Economics and Organisation, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England

Raphael Wittenberg

Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics, London, England

Ministry of Health, Hebrew University – Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

Avi Israeli

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SG framed the piece and all authors contributed equally to describing processes and examples from their own countries. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the organizations in which the authors work or worked. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sherry Glied .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable – only authors information directly used.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Glied, S., Wittenberg, R. & Israeli, A. Research in government and academia: the case of health policy. Isr J Health Policy Res 7 , 35 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-018-0230-3

Download citation

Received : 23 March 2018

Accepted : 13 June 2018

Published : 01 October 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-018-0230-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Knowledge transfer and exchange
• Policymakers
• Evidence informed policymaking

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

ISSN: 2045-4015

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Economic policy working and research papers.

Office of Economic Policy working and research papers offer the Office’s staff an opportunity to present original research. They are intended to generate discussion and critical comment while informing and improving the quality of the analysis conducted by the Office. Papers are works in progress and subject to revision. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official Treasury positions or policy.

WP 2024-01: Mapping the American Rescue Plan

WP 2021-01: Extracting Information from Different Expectations WP 2021-02: The Expectations Gap

WP 2020-01: The Job Preservation Effects of Paycheck Protection Program Loans

Databases: Public Policy: Public Policy Databases

• Public Policy Databases
• All Databases by Subject Area

Core Resources

• PAIS Index This link opens in a new window Covers journal articles, books, conference proceedings, and other literature on the full range of political, social, and public policy issues. Also included is information about websites, publications and organizations.
• Policy File Index This link opens in a new window Policy File Index includes full-text report, paper, document and other sources on U.S. public policy research including over 75 public policy topics (both foreign and domestic) from over 350 public policy think tanks, nongovernmental organizations, research institutes, university centers, advocacy groups, and other entities.

Additional Resources

• Academic Search Complete This link opens in a new window This academic multi-disciplinary database provides than 8,500 full-text periodicals, including more than 7,300 peer-reviewed journals. In addition, it offers indexing and abstracts for more than 12,500 journals and a total of more than 13,200 publications including monographs, reports, conference proceedings, etc. Coverage spans virtually every area of academic study and offers information dating as far back as 1887.
• Congressional Research Reports This link opens in a new window Provides access to research reports on a wide variety of public policy issues prepared by the Congressional Research Service for members of Congress. more... less... Open access version available here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/
• CQ Federal This link opens in a new window Formerly called CQ.com on Congress, this database provides extensive coverage of the activities of both Houses of Congress, including Committees. Includes daily articles and reports analyzing Congressional activity, as well as member profiles, the text of bills, schedules and agendas, committee reports and testimony, and more. Simultaneous users: 10 + IP access
• CQ Historic Documents This link opens in a new window Presently contains 32 annual volumes of primary sources, each volume with approximately 100 documents covering the most significant events of the year. Documents range from presidential speeches, international agreements, and Supreme Court decisions, to U.S. governmental reports, scientific findings, and cultural discussions.
• CQ Political Moneyline This link opens in a new window Formerly CQ MoneyLine, CQ Political MoneyLine contains data from the past 25 years on money in politics. Users can: * Track contributions from PACs, individual donors and politicians to elected officials, candidates and party committees. * Find out which industry sectors raise and distribute the most, and where the dollars are going. * Follow the flow of soft money through 527 groups. * Retrieve information on thousands of lobbyists, indexed by client and issue. Simultaneous Users: 10 + IP access
• CQ Press Library This link opens in a new window Provides information on historical and current issues in American politics and government, including: Political Handbook of the World; Washington Information Directory; Guides to Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Presidency, U.S. Elections and Political Campaigns; Historic Documents (1972-2017); Vital Statistics on American Politics; and Supreme Court Yearbook.
• CQ Researcher This link opens in a new window CQ Researcher Online features original, comprehensive reporting and balanced analysis on issues of major political importance. CQ Researcher is a particularly good source of bibliographies on current topics.
• CQ Vital Statistics on American Politics This link opens in a new window Covers a wide range of topics in American politics, such as elections, Congress, the presidency, the judiciary, the media, campaign finances, policy, and a variety of issues related to state and local government. Includes rankings of public officials' reputations, content analyses of media coverage, and public opinion data about policy issues. Sources of material include reference volumes, government publications, political science journals, monographs, and press releases.
• CQ Voting and Elections This link opens in a new window CQ Voting and Elections Collection integrates data, analyses, concise explanations, and historical material to provide research material on the American voter, major and minor political parties, campaigns and elections, and historical and modern races for Congress, the presidency, and governorships.
• Factiva This link opens in a new window Source for global news, and business, financial, and company information, providing access to thousands of newspapers and other publications. Stock quotes are also available. Simultaneous users: 6
• FBIS: Foreign Broadcast Information Service Daily Reports (1941-1996) This link opens in a new window The Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) was a United States government operation which translated the text of daily broadcasts, government statements, and select news stories from non-English sources. Succeeded by World News Connection after 1996; scope of coverage may be significantly different.
• Gallup Analytics This link opens in a new window Contains two sets of polling information: the Gallup Poll Social Series, public opinion surveys on social, economic, and political topics accessible to all users, and the U.S. Tracker and World Poll providing, respectively, U.S. public opinion datasets at the country, state and U.S. city respondent levels, and international public opinion datasets. Note: Dataset access is restricted to GW students, faculty, and staff. Interested users should contact [email protected].
• Global Think Tanks (Policy Commons) This link opens in a new window Global Think Tanks is a growing digital repository providing access to more than 3 million reports, working papers, policy briefs, and data sources drawn from over 21,000 IGOs, NGOs, internationally-based think tanks and research organizations, along with document histories of 450 defunct organizations. Content is harvested (and indexed) on trending research topics across a wide range of disciplines and includes hard-to-find local and regional collections and at-risk content.
• govinfo This link opens in a new window govinfo (formerly FdSys) GPO's official system of record for online Government information. Replaces GPO Access.
• Health Policy Reference Center This link opens in a new window Health Policy Reference Center (HPRC) offers articles from hundreds of full-text publications, including industry-leading academic journals, monographs, magazines, trade publications and other valuable resources. In addition, it provides hundreds of thousands of records with subject headings from an extensive thesaurus.
• Homeland Security Digital Library (HSDL) This link opens in a new window The Homeland Digital Security Library compiles documents relevant to homeland security policy and related national strategy. Information in the HDSL comes from federal, state and local agencies, research institutions, universities, and think tanks. Includes documents created since 2002, plus some earlier documents relevant to current initiatives. Sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Grants & Training and the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense & Security.
• ICPSR: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research This link opens in a new window This resource includes both publicly available and non-publicly available datasets on public policy and social science research. Users must create an account and log in to access data.
• International Political Science Abstracts This link opens in a new window Current indexing and abstracting of the world's leading journals in political science. Simultaneous users: 8
• LexisNexis Academic: please use Nexis Uni This link opens in a new window This database has been replaced by Nexis Uni.
• Military & Government Collection This link opens in a new window Providing current news pertaining to all branches of the military, this database covers about 400 titles, with the full text of nearly 300 journals and periodicals and 245 pamphlets. Includes CountryWatch's Country Review.
• National Journal Central This link opens in a new window A collection of resources on US politics and policy, including The National Journal, The Hotline, The National Journal Daily (formerly CongressDaily), The Almanac of American Politics, Daybook and more.
• NBER Working Papers This link opens in a new window Provides full text of all working papers from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works.
• Nexis Uni This link opens in a new window Formerly LexisNexis Academic. Access to major newspapers from around the world, as well as: industry and market news; company financial information; general medical topics; accounting, auditing, and tax information; legal news, law reviews, and case law; and the U.S. and state codes. Please use Google Chrome or IE browsers with this database.
• Political Science Database This link opens in a new window Full text access to over 450 political science and international relations journals as well as dissertations, country reports, and policy papers.
• ProQuest Congressional This link opens in a new window (Formerly LexisNexis Congressional.) A comprehensive source of Congressional information including bills, hearings, testimonies, and legislative histories.
• ProQuest Research Library Plus This link opens in a new window Covers a wide range of subject matter in both popular and scholarly periodicals. Also includes Proquest's Computing, Education, Religion, Science, Social Science and Telecommunication Journal modules.
• Qualitative Data Repository This link opens in a new window The Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) is a dedicated archive for storing and sharing digital data (and accompanying documentation) generated or collected through qualitative and multi-method research in the social sciences and related disciplines.
• Roper Center Public Opinion Archives (with iPOLL) This link opens in a new window Provided by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell University, Roper iPoll is the largest collection of public opinion poll data with results from 1935 to the present. Roper iPoll contains nearly 800,000 questions and over 23,000 datasets from both U.S. and international polling firms. Surveys cover any number of topics including, social issues, politics, pop culture, international affairs, science, the environment, and much more. When available, results charts, demographic crosstabs and full datasets are provided for immediate download.
• SAGE Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window Comprehensive online resource providing material to guide users through every step of the research process, including datasets, cases, books, articles and videos. For more information, see Sage Research Methods Libguide
• voxgov This link opens in a new window Provides access to real-time documents, publications, press releases, and social media posts from all branches, offices, agencies, and elected officials of the U.S. Federal Government. Extensive search and filtering options; most content is from 2000-present.
• World News Connection (1995-2013) This link opens in a new window Offers translated and English language news and information compiled from non-United States media sources. Coverage includes political, environmental, scientific, technical, and socioeconomic issues and events. Coverage: 1995-2013. Continued "Foreign Broadcast Information Service Daily Reports," published in print from approx. 1944-1996.
• Worldwide Political Science Abstracts This link opens in a new window Provides citations to the international periodical literature in political science and its complementary fields.

Related Research Guides

Ask a librarian.

• Next: All Databases by Subject Area >>
• Last Updated: Jan 26, 2024 10:01 AM
• URL: https://libguides.gwu.edu/pubpolicydatabases

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 26 August 2022
• Correction 30 August 2022

US government reveals big changes to open-access policy

• Jeff Tollefson &
• Richard Van Noorden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

US research agencies should make the results of federally funded research free to read as soon as they are published, the administration of President Joe Biden has announced. This is a momentous shift from current policies that permit a delay of up to a year before papers must be posted outside paywalls.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 609 , 234-235 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02351-1

Updates & Corrections

Correction 30 August 2022 : An earlier version of this story implied that the administration of Barack Obama asked some 20 federal agencies in 2015 to require grant recipients to deposit their studies in a public repository within a year of publication. This happened in 2013.

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

The EU’s ominous emphasis on ‘open strategic autonomy’ in research

Editorial 03 APR 24

Cuts to postgraduate funding threaten Brazilian science — again

Correspondence 26 MAR 24

Don’t underestimate the rising threat of groundwater to coastal cities

Will the Gates Foundation’s preprint-centric policy help open access?

News 04 APR 24

The corpse of an exploded star and more — March’s best science images

News 28 MAR 24

How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews

Postdoctoral Fellow in Human Immunology (wet lab)

Join Atomic Lab in Boston as a postdoc in human immunology for universal flu vaccine project. Expertise in cytometry, cell sorting, scRNAseq.

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Boston University Atomic Lab

Global Scientist Interdisciplinary Forum & Recruitment

Southern University of Science and Technology, School of Medicine

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Research Associate - Neuroscience and Respiratory Physiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Histology Laboratory Manager

Postdoctoral scholar - research-pediatrics.

Memphis, Tennessee

The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Law and Public Policy

Getting started, books & articles, legislation & government reports, reports & working papers, news & current awareness, agencies, think tanks & advocacy groups, data sources, getting help, ready..set...go prepare for summer success.

This guide was originally prepared for the Law and Policy Research Sessio the  Ready... Set... Go! Prepare for Summer Success event.

Reference Works

Don't forget print sources! These reference works can give quick background and cross-references when you are starting your research.

• Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, 2d ed., edited by Evan M. Berman ; Jack Rabin, founding editor. (print) Widener WID-LC JK9 .E525 2008x
• Encyclopedia of American Public Policy/ Byron Jackson (print) Kennedy School Ref JK468.P64 J33 1999 Widener RR 3631.7
• The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy / edited by Michael Moran, Martin Rein and Robert E. Goodin (print) Kennedy School Reserve Lamont REFERENCE JA71 .O945 2006x Widener Harvard Depository H97 .O88 2006

Public Policy Research Guides

These research guides may also include useful resources.  Guides from other schools may link to protected databases or local copies of print items. Check HOLLIS to see if we have access to a particular database.

• Harvard Kennedy School Library & Knowledge Services: Public Policy
• Georgetown Law Library: Public Policy Research
• University of Massachusetts: Public Policy and Administration Research
• University at Albany: Public Administration and Policy

Subject Specific Research Guides

Public policy research often overlaps with other disciplines.  The following guides can provide a useful starting point for specific areas of research. If your subject isn't represented below, try googling your subject and the phrase (in quotes!) "research guide."

• Bankruptcy by Lisa Lilliott Rydin Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 185 views this year
• Consumer Finance (Course Page) by Lisa Lilliott Rydin Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 24 views this year
• Disability Law by AJ Blechner Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 99 views this year
• Regulation of Financial Institutions by Lisa Lilliott Rydin Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 961 views this year
• Tax Law by Lisa Lilliott Rydin Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 762 views this year
• Canadian Official Publications by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 217 views this year
• Energy: Government Agencies, Units, Plans, Stats, and Jobs by George Clark Last Updated Sep 18, 2023 156 views this year
• Environmental Justice and Space, Place, & Identity by George Clark Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 348 views this year
• Federal & State Legislative History by Mindy Kent Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 283 views this year
• Government: A Guide to Research Resources by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Feb 26, 2024 146 views this year
• Great Britain: Guide to the Documents by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 217 views this year
• Guide to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Documents by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 132 views this year
• HUFPI Research Guide by Susan Gilroy Last Updated Feb 29, 2024 186 views this year
• Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS) by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 201 views this year
• Law and Public Policy by Mindy Kent Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 284 views this year
• Law and Society by Harvard Law School Library Research Services Last Updated Jul 13, 2023 530 views this year
• League of Nations Documents by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 97 views this year
• Palestine in Government Documents by George Clark Last Updated Apr 1, 2024 226 views this year
• President's Commission on the Status of Women by Jennifer Fauxsmith Last Updated Jan 19, 2024 560 views this year
• Research Guide for CES Visiting Scholars by Fred Burchsted Last Updated Apr 3, 2024 309 views this year
• Research Guide for Weatherhead Center Program Affiliates by Susan Gilroy Last Updated Aug 3, 2023 76 views this year
• Soviet / Russian ephemera collection (late 1980s-1990s) by Anna Rakityanskaya Last Updated Nov 14, 2023 218 views this year
• The Theodore Roosevelt Collection: A Guide for Researchers by Kate Donovan Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 190 views this year
• U. S. Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) Daily Reports by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 188 views this year
• U.S. Congressional Publications by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 310 views this year
• U.S. Department of State Documents by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 651 views this year
• U.S. Presidential Documents by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 175 views this year
• UNESCO Documents by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 98 views this year
• Uniform Laws and Model Acts by Deanna Barmakian Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 326 views this year
• United Nations Documents by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Feb 23, 2023 231 views this year
• United States Declassified Documents by Hugh Truslow Last Updated Jan 20, 2023 213 views this year

Search HOLLIS Classic

Search HOLLIS+ for books and articles

Useful subject terms include:

• Social Policy
• Public Policy (Law)
• Political Planning

Not at Harvard? Try searching WorldCat

• WorldCat.org (OCLC) more... less... WorldCat is the largest library network in the world. WorldCat libraries are dedicated to providing access to their free resources on the Web, where most people start their search for information. ##WorldCat's coverage is both deep and wide. You can search for popular books, music CDs and videos—all of the physical items you're used to getting from libraries. You can also link to many new kinds of digital content, such as downloadable audiobooks you can listen to on many portable MP3 players. You may additionally find authoritative research materials, such as documents and photos of local or historic significance; abstracts and full-text articles; and digital versions of rare items that aren't available to the public.

Other Article Sources

• Academic Search Premier (Harvard Login) more... less... Academic Search Premier (ASP) is a multi-disciplinary database that includes citations and abstracts from over 4,700 scholarly publications (journals, magazines and newspapers). Full text is available for more than 3,600 of the publications and is searchable.
• Business Source Complete (Harvard Login) A database of citations to, summaries and full text of articles from academic journals, magazines, and trade publications. Citations, indexing and abstracts for the most important scholarly business journals back to 1886 are included as well as current company, industry and region reports. more... less... The EBSCOhost Interface is optimized for searching articles. The Business Searching Interface facilitates searching other types of documents as well as articles. Business Source Complete is a database of citations to, summaries and full text of articles from academic journals, magazines, and trade publications. Citations, indexing and abstracts for the most important scholarly business journals back to 1886 are included as well as current company, industry and region reports.
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) ERIC is an online digital library of education research and information sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.
• JSTOR Full-text of more than 200 cross-disciplinary academic journals. Coverage begins with the first volume, but usually does not include the most recent 1 to 5 years more... less... Includes all titles in the JSTOR collection, excluding recent issues. JSTOR (www.jstor.org) is a not-for-profit organization with a dual mission to create and maintain a trusted archive of important scholarly journals, and to provide access to these journals as widely as possible. Content in JSTOR spans many disciplines, primarily in the humanities and social sciences. For complete lists of titles and collections, please refer to http://www.jstor.org/about/collection.list.html.
• HeinOnline Searchable full-text access to law reviews Coverage varies by title but generally starts with the first year of publication May not include current year more... less... http://heinonline.org.ezp1.harvard.edu/HOL/Help?topic=lucenesyntax
• HOLLIS Library Catalog HOLLIS is the catalog to all library materials at Harvard and thus a great central place to start your search. Use HOLLIS to find books, articles, databases, print and online journals, finding aids for archival materials, visual materials, and more.
• PubMed with full text more... less... Find it at Harvard
• HOLLIS Databases

Find Public Policy Articles

• PAIS International (Harvard Login) PAIS International indexes the public and social policy literature of public administration, political science, economics, finance, international relations, law, and health care, International in scope. Current:1972-present Archive: 1937-1976 more... less... PAIS International indexes the public and social policy literature of public administration, political science, economics, finance, international relations, law, and health care, International in scope, PAIS indexes publications in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. The database is comprised of abstracts of thousands of journal articles, books, directories, conference proceedings, government documents and statistical yearbooks.
• PolicyFile (Harvard Login) Description: PolicyFile provides abstracts (more than half of the abstracts link to the full text documents) of domestic and international public policy issues. The public policy reports and studies are published by think tanks, university research programs, research organizations which include the OECD, IMF, World Bank, the Rand Corporation, and a number of federal agencies. more... less... PolicyFile provides abstracts (more than half of the abstracts link to the full text documents) of domestic and international public policy issues. The public policy reports and studies are published by think tanks, university research programs, research organizations which include the OECD, IMF, World Bank, the Rand Corporation, and a number of federal agencies. The database search engine allows users to search by title, author, subject, organization and keyword.

• Proquest Government Periodicals Index (Harvard Login) Government Periodicals Index covers the publications of federal departments and agencies responsible for fundamental societal concerns: business, agriculture, national security, the environment and natural resources, health and safety, food and nutrition, transportation, and more. more... less... ProQuest Government Periodicals Index provides indexing and links to full text articles from over 300 periodicals published by agencies and departments of the United States Federal government. The index provides detailed access by subject and author. ####Updated quarterly (March, June, Sept, and December), Government Periodicals Universe covers the publications of scores of federal departments and agencies responsible for fundamental societal concerns: business, agriculture, national security, the environment and natural resources, health and safety, food and nutrition, transportation, and more. With each update, the service adds approximately 2,500 articles that reflect the enormous diversity of federal interests.
• Policy Commons Database for public policy, with more than 3 million reports, working papers, policy briefs, data sources, and media drawn from a directory of more than 21,000 IGOs, NGOs, think tanks, and research centers.

Public Policy Journals

• Harvard Law & Policy Review
• Stanford Law & Policy Review
• Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy
• Hein Online Law Journal Library: Advanced Search In the subject field, select Public Law and Policy to narrow your search to relevant journals. Note by selecting Public Law and Policy, you will be able to view a long list of policy-focused law journals.
• JSTOR Public Policy & Administration Collection of full-text journals relating to public policy. Coverage varies by title. more... less... JSTOR (www.jstor.org) is a not-for-profit organization with a dual mission to create and maintain a trusted archive of important scholarly journals, and to provide access to these journals as widely as possible. Content in JSTOR spans many disciplines, primarily in the humanities and social sciences. For complete lists of titles and collections, please refer to http://www.jstor.org/about/collection.list.html.
• Search HOLLIS for U.S. law & public policy journals

Law and Legislation

• THOMAS A resource created by the Library of Congress, THOMAS provides access to a wide range of legislative materials including public laws, pending bills, committee reports and hearings. It also provides access to the full text of legislation from 1989 (101st Congress) to the present. This is a good resource for compiling legislative history materials.
• House and Senate Hearings, Congressional Record Permanent Digital Collection, and Digital US Bills and Resolutions A major source of information about the members of Congress and their legislative activities and a primary resource for accessing the many publications of the U.S. Congress from 1789 to present
• LexisNexis State Capital Extensive access to state legislation, administrative law, and commentary more... less... LexisNexis State Capital provides access to the legislation and administrative law of all 50 states. Consult this resource to retrieve: the full text of bills, current state statutory codes and constitutions, adopted regulations as available in current state administrative codes or as initially published in state registers and proposed regulations as also located in recent state registers. Tracking reports of the status of current bills and proposed regulations are provided as well. Coverage of current legislative issues and developments by state newspapers of record and other publications is also offered by State Capital. In addition, current state legislative directory information and the Martindale-Hubbell Law Digest are included in this resource.
• Federal Legislative History (HLSL Research Guide) For more detailed links for finding legislative history, please consult our Federal Legislative History Research Guide

Congressional Research Reports

The Congressional Research Service provides background research for members of Congress.  CRS Reports are not automatically made public, so there is no single source for finding CRS Reports. Try these resources to locate CRS Reports on your issue.

• Every CRS Report Open access to selected public research reports produced by the Congressional Research Service
• Harvard Kennedy School: Research Guide to Congressional Research Service Reports

Government Research Reports and Analysis

• Proquest Government Periodicals Index (Harvard Login) more... less... ProQuest Government Periodicals Index provides indexing and links to full text articles from over 300 periodicals published by agencies and departments of the United States Federal government. The index provides detailed access by subject and author. ####Updated quarterly (March, June, Sept, and December), Government Periodicals Universe covers the publications of scores of federal departments and agencies responsible for fundamental societal concerns: business, agriculture, national security, the environment and natural resources, health and safety, food and nutrition, transportation, and more. With each update, the service adds approximately 2,500 articles that reflect the enormous diversity of federal interests.
• National Journal Group's Policy Central (Harvard Login) more... less... National Journal’s Policy Central is a collection of resources on U.S. politics and policy, including the National Journal with archives dating back to 1977; the Hotline, a daily briefing on U.S. politics; CongressDaily, a twice daily update on activity in the U.S. Congress; Technology Daily; Poll Track; Markup Reports; Ad Spotlight; and the Almanac of American Politics.
• CQ Press Electronic Library (Harvard Login) A comprehensive reference resource for research in U.S. politics, elections, government, and public policy. Includes CQ Weekly, the Washington Information Directory, Congressional, Federal, Judicial Staff Directories, CQ Researcher, the Congress Collection, Voting and Elections Collection, and more. more... less... A comprehensive reference resource for research in U.S. politics, elections, government, and public policy. Includes CQ Weekly, the Washington Information Directory, Congressional, Federal, Judicial Staff Directories, CQ Researcher, the Congress Collection, Voting and Elections Collection, and more.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) The GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. Non-classified GAO reports are available online or via the GAO's iPhone app.

Working Papers

If you're looking for works in progress or articles that have been accepted, but not yet published, here are some places to search.

• SSRN: Social Science Research Network SSRN contains both full text and abstracts of forthcoming and scholarly working papers--as well as published articles--in a full range of social science disciplines: law, economics, management, negotiation, politics, etc.
• BePress BePress is another academic repository that contains both published and working papers.
• World Bank Policy Research Working Papers A collection of policy research working papers, policy research reports, and world development reports in the World Bank's Archives.
• Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Working Paper Series Index to HKS working papers on research in a number of areas related to public policy.

Grey Literature

"Grey Literature" refers to documents produced by entities that are not primarily publishers. It can include reports, memos, working papers and internal documents. These research guides give some good sources and tips for locating these types of materials. 

• Grey Literature Research Guide (University of Michigan)
• Grey Literature Research Guide (NYU)

Looking for a report written by a think tank, non-profit, or other NGO? The links below include tools that can help you search across think tank sites, find organizations by topic, and more.

If you know which organization you're looking for, you can of course go directly to an organization's website. If you have trouble finding something you think should exist on a specific site, remember it's easy to create a custom search engine with Google. For example, if you are looking for the recent Rand report Planning for an Aging Nation, you would type the following into the search box:

"Planning for an Aging Nation" site:rand.org

This will limit your search to just Rand's website. You can limit your search further to just results in PDF by running the following search:

"Planning for an Aging Nation" site:rand.org filetype:pdf

• UNC Think Tank Google Search This custom Google search engine allows you to search across 300 of the most important US and international think tanks.
• HKS Think Tanks Directory The Kennedy School Library's directory of think tanks covers US and International organizations.
• Think Tank Rankings (International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania) Global directory of top think tanks by region, subject, and special achievement, i.e. most innovative proposals, best new think tank.
• NIRA - National Institute for Research Advancement (Japan, 2005) Directory A worldwide directory of think tanks that provides descriptions of the organizations' work, operating budgets, and officers.
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers (National Science Foundation)

News Sources

• Nexis Uni (Harvard Key) Nexis Uni contains major newspapers and magazines with coverage for about the last 30 years.
• Proquest Historical Newspapers If you're looking for older news stories, Proquest may have it. Its coverage includes the New York Times, Washington Post, and WSJ, as well as several other major regional US and African American newspapers dating from the 19th-late 20th centuries.
• Widener Collection of Newspapers on Microfilm If you're in the Boston area, remember that Widener Library has a large collection of newspapers on microfilm including regional and local titles.
• Factiva Factiva is a database of over 8,000 business and news publications, most in full text. Sources are in 22 languages, date back as far as 1969, and include trade journals, newswires (Dow Jones, Reuters, and others), media programs, and company and stock reports more... less... Factiva is a database of over 8,000 business and news publications, most in full text. Sources are in 22 languages, date back as far as 1969, and include trade journals, newswires (Dow Jones, Reuters, and others), media programs, and company and stock reports. Find information on over 22,000 public and private companies including description, history, current stock quote, financial data, competitors, and the latest news on business activities. Search publications by title, industry, geographic locations, type, and language.
• National Journal Group's Policy Central (Harvard Login) National Journal’s Policy Central is a collection of resources on U.S. politics and policy, including the National Journal with archives dating back to 1977; the Hotline, a daily briefing on U.S. politics; CongressDaily, a twice daily update on activity in the U.S. Congress; Technology Daily; Poll Track; Markup Reports; Ad Spotlight; and the Almanac of American Politics. more... less... National Journal’s Policy Central is a collection of resources on U.S. politics and policy, including the National Journal with archives dating back to 1977; the Hotline, a daily briefing on U.S. politics; CongressDaily, a twice daily update on activity in the U.S. Congress; Technology Daily; Poll Track; Markup Reports; Ad Spotlight; and the Almanac of American Politics.

Current Awareness

If you're following an issue, there are a number of ways to keep up on developments. Lexis and Westlaw both have alerting services that will send you an email when there are new results for a search you've run. Some general academic databases listed in this guide also have alerting services. 

• Lexis alerts Set up a Lexis alert to be notified when new results are available for a search. You can set alerts in most database types and for new Shepard's results.
• Justia's BlawgSearch Find legal blogs in your research areas to follow, or search across the legal blogosphere. Either way you can subscribe to results with your favorite RSS reader.
• Google News Search news sites with Google and subscribe to the results.
• ABA Blawg Directory Browse by region to find local law blogs

U.S. Government Agencies

• Federal Agency Directory (Louisiana State University Library Online directory created as partnership between LSU and the Federal Library Depository Project
• Leadership Connect (Harvard Login) Leadership Directories, also known as Yellow Books, contain current contact information for the leaders of major U.S. government, business, professional and nonprofit organizations. more... less... Leadership Directories researches contact and biographical data for hundreds of thousands of thought leaders in America - with emails, phone numbers, addresses, and background information. It provides web-based directories with in-depth organization profiles and verified contact information from companies, government agencies, Congressional offices, law firms, news media outlets, healthcare organizations, and nonprofits.
• State and Local Government on the Web Links by state and subject.

International Agencies

• List on IGOs (Northwestern University) Comprehensive guide to Intergovernmental Organizations compiled by librarians at Northwestern Univerisity
• Duke Searchable NGO Database This is a selected searchable database of NGOs.
• International Organizations (United States Institute for Peace) Alphabetical list of international organizations.
• Yearbook of International Organizations Online Searchable database of approximately 63,000 international organizations. more... less... The Yearbook of International Organizations Online is a searchable database of approximately 63,000 international organizations. The information for each organization includes name, address, biographical information for company officers, history and aims, personnel and finances. All types of organizations are included such as formal structures, informal networks, professional bodies and recreational clubs.
• Worldwide NGO Directory

Think Tanks

Interest groups and associations.

• CQ Guide to Interest Groups and Lobbying in the U.S. Overview and analysis of interest groups and lobbying in American politics from the 18th century to the present.
• OpenSecrets Open Secrets tracks money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy, and includes federal campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis available
• Political Advocacy Groups: A Directory of United States Lobbyists Online directory of lobbying groups organized by subject.
• data.census.gov The U.S. Census Bureau’s online tool for accessing population, economic, geographic and housing information.
• Court Statistics Project The CSP collects and analyzes data relating to the work and caseloads of US courts.
• Statistical Abstract of the United States An authoritative and comprehensive summary of historical statistics on the social, political, and economic organization of the United States. Use the Abstract as a convenient volume for statistical reference, and as a guide to sources of more information both in print and on the Web. Sources of data include the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and many other Federal agencies and private organizations, covering the years 1889-2011. Historical supplements include statistics from the colonial era through 1970.
• ICPSR The ICPSR, Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, maintains and provides access to a vast archive of social science data for research and instruction. All ICPSR datasets at Harvard University are maintained by the IQSS Dataverse Network. (Harvard University ID and PIN required).
• The Supreme Court Database A the definitive source for researchers, students, journalists, and citizens interested in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Database contains over two hundred pieces of information about each case decided by the Court between the 1953 and 2008 terms. Examples include the identity of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed, the parties to the suit, the legal provisions considered in the case, and the votes of the Justices.
• Proquest Statistical Insight (Harvard Login) indexes and abstracts of the statistical content of selected publications of U.S. federal and state agencies, non-governmental associations, commercial publishers, universities, and international, research and business organizations. more... less... Proquest Statistical Insight is a bibliographic database that indexes and abstracts the statistical content of selected United States government publications, state government publications, business and association publications, and intergovernmental publications. The abstracts may also contain a link to the full text of the table and/or a link to the agency's web site where the full text of the publication may be viewed and downloaded.
• Statistics Sources This resource indexes statistical resources alphabetically, topically and geographically, including international sources. It is available in print in the reference room at HA1 .S7.
• WDI Online (World Development Indicators) WDI (World Development Indicators) Online contains statistical data from the World Bank for almost 600 development indicators and time series data from 1960 for over 200 countries and 18 country groups. Data includes social, economic, financial, natural resources, and environmental indicators. more... less... WDI (World Development Indicators) Online contains statistical data from the World Bank for almost 600 development indicators and time series data from 1960 for over 200 countries and 18 country groups. Data includes social, economic, financial, natural resources, and environmental indicators. Results can be scaled, indexed against a particular year, viewed by percentage change, and charted. Data can be exported in Excel.

Public Opinion

• American National Election Studies ANES contains downloadable data sets for U.S. elections and public opinion from 1948 to the present.
• Gallup Analytics (Harvard Login) The Gallup Brain is a searchable record of more than 70 years of public opinion and includes answers to hundreds of thousands of questions, and responses from millions of people interviewed by The Gallup Poll since 1935. more... less... Fully searchable records of Daily U.S. Data - economic, well-being, and political data collected daily since 2008 of 1,000+ interviews; World Poll Data - economic, social, and well-being data collected annually since 2005 in 160+ countries, 1.5 million+ interviews worldwide; and Gallup Brain - historical Gallup trends on thousands of topics from the U.S. and world dating back to the 1930s.
• General Social Survey The GSS contains a standard 'core' of demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal questions, plus topics of special interest. Many of the core questions have remained unchanged since 1972 to facilitate time-trend studies as well as replication of earlier findings. The GSS takes the pulse of America, and is a unique and valuable resource. It has tracked the opinions of Americans over the last four decades.
• The Roper Center Public Opinion Archives The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research is a leading archive of social science data, specializing in data from surveys of public opinion. The data held range from the 1930s, when survey research was in its infancy, to the present. Most of the data are from the United States, but over 50 nations are represented.
• Pew Research Center for People and the Press The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization that studies attitudes toward politics, the press and public policy issues.

Additional Data & Public Opinion Sources

• Databases for Statistical Research (Harvard Law School Library
• Harvard Library Data Research Guides
• Public Opinion Data Sources (Harvard Library)

Contact Us!

  Ask Us!  Submit a question or search our knowledge base.

Chat with us!  Chat   with a librarian (HLS only)

Email: [email protected]

 Contact Historical & Special Collections at [email protected]

  Meet with Us   Schedule an online consult with a Librarian

Hours  Library Hours

Classes  View  Training Calendar  or  Request an Insta-Class

 Text  Ask a Librarian, 617-702-2728

 Call  Reference & Research Services, 617-495-4516

• Last Updated: Sep 12, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/publicpolicy

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

When it comes to global economic governance, less can be more if you want increased cooperation, stability, and equitable growth

HKS Professor Dani Rodrik says his new paper shows that a “light model” of international trade governance can reduce U.S.-China tensions and lead to more equitable prosperity worldwide.

In an era of great power rivalry and escalating tensions between the United States and China, how should global economic policymakers approach governance to foster greater cooperation, reduce conflict, and promote equity and shared prosperity? Tread lightly, says Harvard Kennedy School Professor Dani Rodrik . In a new paper in the Journal of Government and Economics titled " How to smooth U.S.-China economic relations for the benefit of the global economy: A light model of global economic governance ," Rodrik argues for a less-is-more approach that emphasizes transparency and restricts trade rules to those that are truly necessary. Recent history, he writes, has shown that heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all global economic governance has disadvantaged developing countries and empowered nativist, populist politicians in regions that suffered job losses due to globalization. Rodrik is the Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy and co-director of the Reimagining the Economy project at HKS 

Q: In your paper, you argue for a “light” model of global economic governance to smooth U.S.-China economic relations and benefit the global economy. What measures does a light economic governance model include and what does it exclude? 

The basic distinction is between addressing the most egregious policy barriers at the border—especially beggar-thy-neighbor policies—versus a more ambitious agenda of trying to remove all obstacles to the flow of trade and finance even if these encompass domestic regulations. My colleague Robert Lawrence has called this the difference between “shallow integration” and “deep integration.” So countries might negotiate over import tariffs or export restrictions, but industrial policies or financial regulations, for example, would remain largely outside the remit of global rules or trade agreements.

Q: What evidence is there that more intensive global governance and trade rules—a “heavy” or “deep integration” model—have been unnecessary or counter-productive? 

The deep integration model had two undesirable side effects. First, it made it harder for developing countries to engage in industrial policies or other structural policies to diversify and upgrade their economies and to shelter themselves from the destabilizing effects of short-term capital flows, because of real (or self-imposed) constraints on their policy autonomy. It was countries such as China who disregarded such constraints and made full use of industrial policies and capital controls that performed the best. Others who followed the deep integration model and relied on trade agreements and openness to foreign capital as their sole growth strategy, such as Mexico, did quite poorly. 

Second, it prevented policy makers in advanced economies from taking seriously and addressing the adverse labor market effects of growing imports from China and elsewhere. During the 1970s and 1980s, before globalization got supercharged, it was common for countries to put up informal trade barriers—typically “voluntary” export restrictions administered by exporting countries—which limited the shock. These were safety valves for the trade system, and even though economists complained about “protectionism,” such measures did the job of regime maintenance (in the words of our late colleague John Ruggie). After the 1990s, policymakers’ response to these dislocations was to shrug their shoulders and tell the losers this is how globalization worked and there was nothing to be done. This was one of the key failings of mainstream politicians, which in turn empowered the populists. We have plenty of evidence now that regions that lost jobs to imports from China or Mexico became the breeding grounds for the nativist populists.

“The future of the global economic order depends first and foremost on how the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and China will evolve.”

Dani rodrik.

Q: One of the main building blocks of the light governance model is what you call a “transparency-enhancing process for policymaking.” What is that process and why is increased transparency important? 

In an interdependent global economy, it is inevitable that many policies that target national economic well-being as well as domestic social and environmental priorities will have some undesirable side effects on other nations. This is the case, for example, when nations engage in policies to fix important market failures or address national security concerns. Often such policies are needed and legitimate, and trade partners have to be permissive and understanding. Such policies have to be distinguished from those that are explicitly beggar-thy-neighbor—that is, policies that generate benefits at home because of the harms they produce for other nations.  

If we are going to live in a world where national policymakers have greater autonomy to address domestic priorities, as I think we have to, it will be important for them to communicate their motivations both to their domestic audiences and to other governments. This is to build trust and mutual understanding. For example, when the United States imposes export controls on “sensitive technologies” or imposes restrictions on Chinese investments on U.S. soil on the basis of national security, we need much better explanation on (a) what the national security objective really is, and (b) how the export or investment in question undermines the objective. Otherwise, national security can turn into a blanket justification for all kinds of policies that either do not really address national security or (as in the case of the U.S.) take too expansive view of it.

Q: How would a light governance model smooth U.S.-China relations? And how would it work in the context of the current slowdown in what had been China’s robust growth over the last three decades? 

It would be a good first step if each side were to give up on hypocrisy and recognize the similarity of their approaches. The United States continues to criticize China for allegedly pursuing mercantilist and protectionist policies and violating the norms of a “liberal” international order. For their part, Chinese policymakers accuse the United States of turning its back on globalization and waging economic warfare on China. Neither side seems to be aware of the irony that the United States has taken a page from the Chinese playbook, while U.S. departures from the “liberal order” are readily recognizable to Chinese policy makers from their own practices.   

Q: How would a light economic governance model achieve an overall global economic benefit? 

The future of the global economic order depends first and foremost on how the bilateral relationship between the United States and China will evolve. So anything that smooths this critical relationship would be very good news for the world economy. Second, as these two powers build a certain degree of trust and understanding, this would also contribute to an environment where they play a positive role in providing critical global public goods (such as decarbonizing the world economy and global public health).    

Photograph by STR/AFP/Getty Images

More from HKS

The great creep backward: policy responses to china’s slowing economy, harvard kennedy school faculty discuss the future of china: global relations, marx and confucius, and the role of universities, u.s. ambassador to china nicholas burns to deliver 2024 harvard kennedy school graduation address.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

How Political Transitions Affect Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies

Those interested in science, technology, and innovation policy (STIP) would be remiss to remove politics from the policy. With 49 percent of the world’s population heading to election polls this year, it is a real possibility that government transitions will upend countries’ current STIP trajectories. Interested stakeholders seeking metrics to track those priorities may want to read a recent article in Quantitative Science Studies , titled, “ The Policy is Dead, Long Live the Policy—Revealing Science Technology and Innovation Policy Priorities and Government Transitions via Network Analysis .” Colombian research partners Julián D. Cortés and María Catalina Ramírez Cajiao analyzed how frequent and enmeshed research topics were in public funding research calls (RC) in Colombia from 2007 to 2022. Since the funding for these RCs came from public sources, they could serve as one indicator of government priorities. The researchers found that, alongside a general increase in research field diversity and density, several research fields such as drug discovery and conservation, “Maintained their higher strategic relevance despite the government in office.” If generalized, methods such as network analysis may be helpful for analysts to track science, technology, and innovation priorities across different periods of government and identify which research sectors are politicized.

Based on a literature review of STIP evaluations in Europe, Cortés and Cajiao found that the most common methods for those evaluations included, “Descriptive statistics, context, documents, and case studies.” In addition to expanding methods of analysis, Cortés and Cajiao sought to expand the research geography to lower- and middle-income countries, which they considered to be an often-highlighted but rarely addressed research gap. Cortés and Cajiao reviewed public RC data oriented toward research in Colombia’s Ministry of STI open data portal and RC digital archive. Next, they coded research fields by manually reviewing each document for what fields each RC would support. They standardized research fields by utilizing the All Science Journal Classification Codes (ASJC) . For example, ASJC considers “Insect Science,” “Plant Science,” and “Soil Science,” as one overall topic, “Life Sciences.” Cortés and Cajiao did this analysis by year and matched RC priorities with periods of government (four years).

The authors also utilized co-word analysis first introduced by Callon et al. (1983) to visualize clusters of ASJC topics in trios. According to Cortés and Cajiao, “if a given RC has three ASJC, those ASJC (nodes) are collocated (linked) given that all of them are contained in the same RC.”

Figure 1: ASJC co-occurrence network ( Bastian, Heymann, and Jacomy, 2009 ; Callon et al., 1983 ; DNP, 2021 )

Research fields that were frequently part of ASJC co-word networks received high “Betweenness Centrality Scores,” which meant that they were research fields of interest. In contrast, research fields with lower scores may have more marginal or limited attention.

Results and Implications

From 2007 to 2022, the number of research fields in Colombia’s RCs increased. Despite changes in Colombia’s government, Physical Sciences retained its position as the top field with its high betweenness score compared the other top fields of Life, Health, and Social Sciences. Health Sciences topics are on an upward trend ever since an apparent dip in priority during the 2011–2014 government period, catching up to Life Sciences based on their betweenness scores. Despite these findings, Cortés and Cajiao caution that their research does “Not integrate the effects of STIP priority fluctuations and research/innovation outputs, nor the amount of funding by fields in the same framework.” They noted that although the Health Sciences sector’s betweenness score was not particularly impressive compared to other top fields, its research growth rate surpassed Physical, Life, and Social Sciences.

Figure 2: Number of fields Cortés and Cajiao identified in RCs with betweenness centrality score by area (left y-axis) and network density score (right y-axis) by period

Related Search Content

October 28, 2019

A Policymaker’s Guide to the “Techlash”—What It Is and Why It’s a Threat to Growth and Progress

April 30, 2019

A Policymaker’s Guide to Blockchain

October 5, 2020

The Impact of China’s Production Surge on Innovation in the Global Solar Photovoltaics Industry

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Policy Considerations to Prevent Drug Shortages and Mitigate Supply Chain Vulnerabilities in the United States

Key Highlights

Drug shortages impact patients, families, caregivers, pharmacists, hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and other individuals and entities across the health care system.

Drug shortages are a decades-old problem arising, in part, from market forces that touch stakeholders across the drug supply chain—providers and pharmacies, manufacturers, and the middlemen in the system. Key issues include a broad lack of transparency, concentration among middlemen, and prices for generic drugs that are driven to levels so low that they create insufficient incentives for redundancy or resilience-oriented manufacturing, distribution, and purchasing. These market failures lead to pharmaceutical supply chains that are brittle, disruption-prone, and too slow to recover from shortages.

Supply chain resilience involves fostering processes that are less likely to face disruptions, as well as establishing the ability to withstand and mitigate disruptions so their impact—when they occur—is limited. This resilience also comes from diversification of supply—both in redundancy of manufacturing capacity and a balance of domestic and diversified foreign sourcing—and the presence of reliable, efficient, and sustainable, robust manufacturing practices.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or Department) has made significant strides in shoring up the system’s ability to respond to shortages. Nevertheless, more impactful and enduring solutions require additional statutory authorities and funding to resolve underlying causes of shortages. All supply chain participants play a part in these solutions.

This paper describes policy concepts for consideration, including collaboration with the private sector to develop and implement a Manufacturer Resiliency Assessment Program (MRAP) and a Hospital Resilient Supply Program (HRSP). As described, the combination of these programs would bring transparency into the market, link purchasing and payment decisions to supply chain resilience practices, and incentivize investments in supply chain resilience and diversification in the supply chain—including domestic manufacturing—at a scale that would drive impactful change in the market. This paper focuses on generic sterile injectable medicines used in inpatient settings, given their importance to acute inpatient care, and their relative risk of supply disruptions—though HHS recognizes that these challenges affect other products, and therefore, the solutions described here may be applicable in other markets. 

*This content is in the process of Section 508 review. If you need immediate assistance accessing this content, please submit a request to Sharon Arnold, [email protected] . Content will be updated pending the outcome of the Section 508 review.

• Share full article

Advertisement

The Morning

America’s affordable housing crisis.

The housing crisis is likely to be solved in cities and states, not Washington.

By Conor Dougherty

President Biden worries about high housing costs. So do Republicans in Congress. The consensus reflects a major problem: Tens of millions of families, across red and blue states, struggle with rent and home prices. The reason is a longstanding housing shortage.

But action in Washington won’t make a huge difference. America’s affordable housing crisis is likely to be solved in cities and states. In today’s newsletter, I’ll explain how many are already doing so in bipartisan fashion.

Local laboratories

Home prices are up about 60 percent over the past decade, adjusted for inflation. About a quarter of renters — some 12 million households — spend more than half their income on housing, far in excess of the one-third level that is considered healthy. Homeless camps have expanded, and “ super commuters ” — who drive for 90 minutes or longer to work — have migrated well beyond the expensive coasts to smaller cities like Spokane , Wash., and fast-growing metropolitan areas like Dallas and Phoenix.

Generally, Republican-led states have been more affordable than Democratic-led ones. They tend to have fewer construction and environmental rules, which allows the housing supply to expand faster. But as rent and home prices climb beyond middle-income budgets in more places, states are racing to add housing.

The legislation in each state varies. But in general it removes permitting and design barriers so new construction can be approved faster. States are also trying to alter zoning rules to allow a greater diversity of units in more neighborhoods.

One way is to allow more backyard homes — known as granny flats. That way, homeowners can build a space for a renter or family member. Another is to shrink lot sizes so several smaller cottages can be built on parcels currently reserved for only one larger home. Cities and states are also altering zoning rules so duplexes and triplexes can be built in neighborhoods that are currently designated for single-family homes. All these methods aim to increase density within a city’s existing footprint.

Already, Democrats and Republicans in Montana and Arizona have united for housing legislation. A similar coalition has taken shape in other states, including Texas, Minnesota and North Carolina . Even in California and Oregon, whose governments are both dominated by Democrats, Republican votes have helped pass housing bills.

“Some issues become a horseshoe,” said Cody Vasut, a Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives who wants to drastically restrict abortion — but also liberalize land use laws. “We have different views of government, but sometimes we arrive at the same conclusion.”

These coalitions are not always successful. Last week, for instance, the Arizona governor, Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, vetoed a bill that would have allowed smaller homes and lot sizes. She called it “a step too far.”

Most of these laws are too new for us to know their ultimate outcomes. But there’s ample evidence that building more housing reduces prices. In Austin, Texas, for instance, a surge in rent and home prices during the pandemic led to a boom in construction. Now prices are falling, and landlords offer months of free rent to fill empty units.

New coalitions

Why can political parties cooperate on this issue but so little else? Housing politics are hyperlocal and don’t hew to neat ideological lines. Neither party has a hard position that members feel beholden too.

One thing most people agree on is that America has too few homes. According to Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giant, the nation is short about four million units . The deficit is particularly acute in both low-cost rentals and the entry-level starter homes favored by first-time buyers.

Economists say much of the blame falls on local governments. City councils hold most of the power over where and what types of housing get built, but they are beholden to homeowners who often pack meetings to complain that new developments would destroy nature and snarl traffic.

This is called NIMBYism, short for “Not in my backyard.” The remedy, in both red and blue states, has been to pass laws that strip cities’ power to say no.

State legislatures are close enough to voters to share their concerns about rising housing costs — but far enough that they don’t have to answer for every new local development. They are the Goldilocks level of government for housing reform.

Related: I want to hear from readers about their housing situations. You can submit stories here .

THE LATEST NEWS

Baltimore bridge collapse.

The cargo ship that collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore lost power shortly before the crash, officials said. See how the bridge collapsed .

After the ship put out a distress call, workers stopped cars from driving across the bridge. “These people are heroes,” Maryland’s governor, Wes Moore, said.

The Coast Guard is searching for the bodies of six of the eight construction workers who were on the bridge. Two were found alive; the others are presumed dead, an official said.

Biden said that the collision appeared to have been an accident and that he wanted the federal government to rebuild the bridge.

Several automakers said that they would reroute their shipments.

Supreme Court

Most of the Supreme Court justices sounded inclined to reject a bid to restrict nationwide access to an abortion pill , mifepristone, during arguments.

Several justices seemed skeptical that the plaintiffs, doctors who don’t prescribe abortion pills, had a right to challenge the F.D.A.’s approval of the drug. Read more takeaways .

The female justices had candid exchanges about women’s health, The Washington Post reports.

2024 Election

The Biden campaign joined TikTok to try to reach younger voters. The videos have prompted jokes and criticism.

Barack Obama regularly calls top Biden aides to strategize about Biden’s re-election campaign .

More on Politics

NBC News cut ties with Ronna McDaniel , the former Republican Party chairwoman, after hosts criticized the network for hiring her as a commentator. A Times review found that she had helped Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election .

Trump’s social media company surged on its first day of trading on the Nasdaq, adding billions to his wealth .

The judge overseeing Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial imposed a gag order prohibiting Trump from attacking witnesses or prosecutors.

Trump posted a video urging his supporters to buy the “God Bless the USA Bible,” priced at around $60. Trump gets royalties from sales .

A new law in Florida will prohibit children under 14 from having social media accounts, The A.P. reports. It is set to take effect next year.

Israel-Hamas War

An Israeli hostage said she had been sexually assaulted and tortured in Gaza. Read her story .

Hezbollah and Israel fired at each other across the border with Lebanon. At least one person died in Israel and seven were reported killed in Lebanon.

Top Israeli and U.S. defense officials met to discuss Israel’s plan to invade Rafah .

Israel is deploying facial recognition to conduct surveillance in Gaza, according to Israeli military and intelligence officials.

The authorities in Gaza said 12 people drowned while trying to retrieve airdropped aid that had fallen into the Mediterranean.

Other Big Stories

A British court ruled that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could not be extradited to the U.S. until the American authorities made more assurances about his treatment , including protection from the death penalty.

Russia extended the detention of Evan Gershkovich, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

China’s capable workers and cheap parts helped pull Tesla back from the brink of failure. This may give Beijing leverage over Elon Musk .

The terrorist attack at a Moscow concert hall shows ISIS is far from defeated , Bret Stephens writes.

Colleges’ optional standardized tests hurt the students they are supposed to help, Emi Nietfeld writes.

Here is a column by Ross Douthat on progressives’ new definition of sexual liberation .

MORNING READS

Holi: The Indian festival is becoming more popular worldwide. Read about the tradition .

Scams: A woman posed as a down-on-her-luck Irish heiress. The man she conned out of thousands started a podcast to track her down .

The Great Read: A legal pot pioneer was busted in Idaho. He has a plan .

Lives Lived: Lee Berry was one of the Panther 21, members of the Black Panther Party who were prosecuted in New York in 1970. His account of abuse in jail was a catalyst for Leonard Bernstein’s Park Avenue fund-raising party that Tom Wolfe satirized in a withering magazine takedown. Berry died at 78 .

N.F.L.: League owners approved significant changes to kickoff rules, which will go into effect this season.

College basketball: Iowa and West Virginia drew an average of 4.9 million viewers for their second-round women’s N.C.A.A. tournament game, a pre-Final Four record.

ARTS AND IDEAS

French identity: Aya Nakamura, one of France’s most popular singers, might perform at the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics. The choice has become a flashpoint in the nation’s culture wars. Nakamura was born in Mali and raised in a Parisian suburb, and her music mixes French lyrics with Arabic and West African dialects.

“In a country often ill at ease with its changing population,” Roger Cohen and Aurelien Breeden write , “she stands on a fault line.”

More on culture

Beyoncé’s coming album, “Cowboy Carter,” is an extension of the artist’s exploration of how Black creativity fuels all corners of popular music. Read Jon Caramanica’s essay .

Stephen King’s “Carrie” was published in 1974. Margaret Atwood explains its enduring appeal.

“Trump is mashing together the Bible and the Constitution like it’s a Pizza Hut-Taco Bell”: The late-night hosts discussed Trump’s latest business venture .

THE MORNING RECOMMENDS …

Stir together a one-pot crisp gnocchi with sausage and peas.

Prepare kids for puberty with these items .

Clean your oven .

Here is today’s Spelling Bee . Yesterday’s pangram was adjourn .

And here are today’s Mini Crossword , Wordle , Sudoku and Connections .

Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.

Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox . Reach our team at [email protected] .

Conor Dougherty covers housing and development, focusing on the rising costs of homeownership. He is based in Los Angeles. More about Conor Dougherty

• Liberty Online
• Residential
• Request More Information
• (434) 582-2000
• Academic Calendar
• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Master’s Degrees
• Postgraduate Degrees
• Doctoral Degrees
• Associate Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Degree Minors
• Registrar’s Office
• Degree Completion Plans (DCPs)
• Course Catalog
• Policy Directory
• Academic Support (CASAS)
• LU Bookstore
• Research at Liberty
• Eagle Scholars Program
• Honors Program
• Quiz Bowl Team
• Debate Team
• Student Travel
• Liberty University Online Academy (K-12)
• Tuition & Costs
• Net Price Calculator
• Student Financial Services
• Scholarships
• Undergraduate
• International
• Apply for LU Online
• Online Admissions
• Online Tuition & Fees
• Military Students
• School of Law
• Osteopathic Medicine
• Convocation
• Campus Community
• LU Serve Now
• Liberty Worship Collective
• Office of Spiritual Development
• Online Engagement
• LU Shepherd
• Doctrinal Statement
• Mission Statement
• Residence Life
• Student Government
• Student Clubs
• Conduct Code & Appeals
• Health & Wellness
• Student Affairs Offices
• Campus Recreation
• LaHaye Rec & Fit
• Intramural Sports
• Hydaway Outdoor Center
• Snowflex Centre
• Student Activities
• Club Sports
• LaHaye Ice Center
• ID & Campus Services
• Dining Services
• Parents & Families
• Commuter Students
• International Students
• Graduate Students
• Disability Support
• Equity & Inclusion
• NCAA Sports
• Flames Club
• Varsity Club
• Williams Stadium
• Vines Center
• Liberty Baseball Stadium
• Kamphuis Field
• Ticket Information
• Flames Merchandise
• LU Quick Facts
• News & Events
• Virtual Tour
• History of Liberty
• Contact Liberty
• Visit Liberty
• Give to Liberty

Liberty University names Morse Tan Senior Executive Director of Center for Law & Government

Search news archives, filter news articles.

Additional Navigation

April 2, 2024 : By Office of Communications & Public Engagement

The Center for Law & Government in Liberty University’s Helms School of Government was established as a training ground for tomorrow’s leaders to learn how to engage the culture and impact law and policy in America. The center has become an arena for thought and debate as it provides opportunities for faculty and students in research, analysis, and the formation of sound conservative policy at all levels of government.

Liberty has announced that Morse Tan, former Ambassador at Large for the U.S. State Department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice, has been named the center’s Senior Executive Director, beginning July 1. Tan previously served as co-chair of the center, alongside Joel Cox, interim dean of the Helms School of Government.

“The Center for Law and Government can represent and add value to Liberty in an array of ways,” Tan said, noting goals to enhance programs through public speaking, media appearances, and publishing efforts. “Through internal speaking and sharing, the center can elevate Christian thinking by edifying, equipping, and inspiring the Liberty community. Externally, this center can build strategic relationships with those in law and government, critically important areas of Christian engagement.”

Tan has been serving as dean of the School of Law since Jan. 1, 2022, and will be leaving that role to serve in the center. Tim Todd, Ph.D., will serve as interim dean.

Provost and Chief Academic Officer Dr. Scott Hicks shared, “We are grateful for the dedicated service and impact that Dean Tan and the entire School of Law team have made in positioning the school to garner some of the highest rankings in its history.” He added, “We are excited that Dean Tan will be able to expand on the positive impacts he has made beyond the law school to benefit the broader university.”

The Center for Law & Government launched in 2017 and offers hands-on political experience for students through speaker series, trips to our nation’s capital, and other events throughout the year. The center promotes public policy that is consistent with the fundamental principles of American freedom: self-government, free enterprise, and the rule of law. The center will strive to create practical solutions to challenges in education, health care, business and economics, government regulation, national security, and other areas affected by public policy as it trains the next generation of men and women in statesmanship and public service.

Related Posts

Civil engineering professor offers insight into Maryland bridge collapse to New York Times

Liberty students gain hands-on experience as part of CUSA basketball tournament broadcast team for ESPN+

Liberty School of Aeronautics Dean Rick Roof announces retirement