Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article is a first attempt to examine the effectiveness of EU water policies in a comparative perspective. It provides a systematic analysis of the relationship between EU water policies and the quality of national water resources for 17 EU member states over a period of 23 years (1990–2012). The analysis reveals that EU policies have contributed to the water quality in the member states. Moreover, it finds that decentralized implementation processes enhance the effectiveness of top-down policy instruments while not making a significant difference for bottom-up policy instruments. Administrative capacities and (neo-)corporatist arrangement seem to play some, yet only minor, role in determining the effectiveness of EU water policies. This way, the article speaks to the literature on EU compliance and implementation and the broader public policy literature.

Several countries have introduced dedicated national climate ministries in the last two decades. However, we know little about the consequences of these ministries. We demonstrate that the introduction of climate ministries helps to reduce carbon emissions. A difference-in-differences analysis of a global sample of countries reveals robust and statistically significant evidence that introducing a dedicated climate ministry lowers carbon emissions substantially. At the same time, establishing such climate ministries does not significantly influence the introduction of new climate policies. This indicates that climate ministries primarily amplify climate action by improving the effectiveness of the governmental measures taken rather than by increasing the number of climate policies themselves.

Various databases have been developed to track national climate policy efforts. These datasets facilitate comparisons across countries regarding policy activity, instrument choice, and policy effectiveness. This article evaluates these datasets to see whether they converge in their observations about climate policy development. Our findings reveal that all datasets agree at the aggregate level in that they show that ever-more climate policies are being adopted. However, they diverge significantly when scrutinizing more nuanced elements like policy instrument types and their stringency. The main contributions of our review are to highlight what research endeavors are already possible with existing datasets and to identify the gaps that still remain. We also provide concrete suggestions on how to enhance the existing datasets, making them more useful for social science research on climate policy. The article provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date source for scholars and practitioners interested in the comparative analysis of governmental climate policy efforts.

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory posits that policy-making is generally characterized by long periods of stability that are interrupted by short periods of fundamental policy change. The literature converged on the measure of kurtosis and L-kurtosis to assess these change patterns. In this letter, we critically discuss these measures and propose the Gini coefficient as a (1) comparable, but (2) more intuitive, and (3) more precise measure of “punctuated” change patterns.

The societal and policy transformations associated with the coronavirus disease pandemic are currently subject of intense academic debate. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by adopting a systemic perspective on policy change, shedding light on the hidden and indirect crisis effects. Based on a comprehensive analysis of policy agenda developments in Germany, we find that the pandemic led to profound shifts in political attention across policy areas. We demonstrate that these agenda gains and losses per policy area vary by the extent to which the respective areas can be presented as relevant in managing the coronavirus disease crisis and its repercussions. Moreover, relying on the analysis of past four economic crises, we also find that there is limited potential for catching up dynamics after the crisis is over. Policy areas that lost agenda share during crisis are unlikely to make up for these losses by strong attention gains once the crisis is over. Crises have hence substantial, long-term and so far, neglected effects on policymaking in modern democracies.

Democratic governments produce more policies than they can effectively implement. Yet, this gap between the number of policies requiring implementation and the administrative capacities available to do so is not the same in all democracies but varies across countries and sectors. We argue that this variation depends on the coupling of the sectoral bureaucracies in charge of policy formulation and those in charge of policy implementation. We consider these patterns of vertical policy-process integration an important feature of bureaucratic quality. The more the policymaking level is involved in policy implementation (top-down integration) and the easier the policy-implementing level finds it to feed its concerns into policymaking (bottom-up integration), the smaller the so-called “burden-capacity gap.” We demonstrate this effect through an empirical analysis in 21 OECD countries over a period of more than 40 years in the areas of social and environmental policies.

This article is a first attempt to systematically examine policy design and its influence on policy effectiveness in a comparative perspective. We begin by providing a novel concept and measure of policy design. Our Average Instrument Diversity (AID) index captures whether governments tend to reuse the same policy instruments and instrument combinations or produce policy solutions that are carefully tailored to the policy problem at hand. Second, we demonstrate that our AID index is a valid and reliable measure of policy design quality with a strong explanatory power for the outcome variables tested. Analyzing the composition of environmental policy portfolios in 21 OECD countries, we show that higher levels of AID are positively associated with a country’s policy effectiveness in environmental matters. Based on this finding, we analyze, in a third step, the factors that lead countries to adopt more or less diverse policy portfolios. We find that the policy design quality is significantly improved when policy makers are not bound by high institutional constraints and, more importantly, are backed by well-equipped bureaucracies.

Claims for evidence-based policy-making are motivated by the assumption that if practitioners and scholars want to learn about effective policy design, they also can. This paper argues that this is becoming more and more challenging with the conventional approaches due to the accumulation of national policy portfolios, characterized by (a) a growing number of different policy targets and instruments, that (b) are often interdependent and (c) reformed in an uncontrolled way. These factors undermine our ability to accurately relate outcome changes to individual components within the respective policy mix. Therefore, policy accumulation becomes an additional source of the well-known ‘attribution problem’ in evaluation research. We argue that policy accumulation poses fundamental challenges to existing approaches of evidence-based policy-making. Moreover, these challenges are very likely to create a trade-off between the need for increasing methodological sophistication on one side, and the decreasing political impact of more fine-grained and conditional findings of evaluation results on the other.

The tendency of vote-seeking politicians to produce ever-more policies in response to the citizens’ demands has been identified as a central driver of the process of “policy accumulation.” If we accept this premise, policy accumulation should be a central feature of modern democracies but overall be less pronounced in autocracies. Due to its highly ambivalent nature, policy accumulation and its implications may thus constitute an important but so far neglected facets of the new system competition between democracies and autocracies. In this article, we test this argument in the context of the authoritarian regime of Singapore. Singapore is one of the very few autocracies that display elements of political competition and has a level of socio-economic development that is comparable to advanced democracies. Singapore thus constitutes a least-likely case for low levels of policy accumulation. By studying changes in Singapore’s environmental policy over a period of more than four decades (1976 to 2020) and by contrasting the patterns observed with the policy developments in 21 OECD democracies, we find that autocratic regimes do indeed tend to accumulate less than democratic regimes. More precisely, we find that Singapore (1) has only produced about one-fourth of the environmental policy measures of an “average” democracy and (2) is constantly the country with the lowest level of policy accumulation in our sample. These findings hold even when controlling for alternative explanations, such as the effectiveness of the administration and the government’s ability to opt for stricter and more hierarchical forms of intervention.