Explore the vast range of titles available.

Having identified the need to conduct research on the intersection between entrepreneurship education (EE) and public policies, we carried out a systematic literature review on decision-making processes regarding the implementation of education for entrepreneurship programs in schools and the introduction of this topic in the policy-making process. This SLR followed every process inherent to its well-established protocol. The research undertaken confirmed that the understanding of decision processes associated with the implementation of EE programs is not only a “missing link” in the discussions about the way in which countries manage situations related to EE, but also a gap in academic knowledge. Indeed, the SLR process included only nine articles in the final review (obtained through a methodology based on an algorithm)—which is a clear sign that further scientific research around this specific topic is needed. The articles included in the final review suggest that: (i) entrepreneurship is fundamental to the progress and evolution of countries and their regions, (ii) there is evidence that EE is central to a more entrepreneurial youth, and (iii) the successful implementation of recommendations from regulatory institutions is based on political commitment and implementation capacities.

The study of policy design has been of long-standing interest to policy scholars. Recent surveys of policy design scholarship acknowledge two main pathways along which it has developed; one in which the process of policy designing is emphasised and one in which the output of this policy designing process – for example, policy content – is emphasised. As part of a survey of extant research, this article discusses how scholars guided by different orientations to studying policy design are addressing and measuring common policy design concepts and themes, and offers future research opportunities. The article also provides a platform for considering how insights stemming from different orientations of policy design research can be integrated and mapped within the broader public policy process. Finally, the article raises the question of whether a framework that links different conceptualisations of policy design within the policy process might help to advance the field.

International relations scholars have struggled to adequately link domestic and international levels in theoretical models and causal analyses of foreign policy, despite widespread acknowledgment of the need to do so. This study elaborates on this challenge by assessing the utility of several policy process frameworks that have so far been underutilized in foreign policy analysis. The assumptions of one particularly fruitful method, the Two-Level Game, will be compared with those of three policy process frameworks: the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. When analyzing three specific concepts (the question of rationality, the dynamics of agenda setting, and the strategic action of relevant actors), it is apparent that the assumptions of the policy process frameworks largely clash with those of the Two-Level Game, raising the potential for their augmentation of the field of foreign policy analysis despite their relative underuse. Los académicos de las relaciones internacionales han luchado por vincular adecuadamente los niveles doméstico e internacional en modelos teóricos de análisis causales de políticas exteriores a pesar del reconocimiento general de lo necesario que es. Este estudio profundizará en este desafío al evaluar la utilidad de varios marcos de procesos de políticas que hasta el momento han sido subutilizados en el análisis de la política exterior. Los supuestos de un método particularmente exitoso, el Juego de dos niveles, se compararán con los de tres marcos de procesos de políticas: el Marco de coalición de defensa, el Marco de flujos múltiples y la Teoría del equilibrio puntuado. Al analizar tres conceptos específicos (la cuestión de la racionalidad, la dinámica del establecimiento de la agenda y la acción estratégica de los actores relevantes), es evidente que los supuestos de los marcos de los procesos de las políticas coinciden en gran medida con los del Juego de dos niveles, lo que plantea potencial para su aumento del campo de análisis de política exterior a pesar de su infrautilización relativa. 国际关系学者已努力将理论模型中的国内和国际层面与外交政策因果分析进行充分连接，尽管这一需求受到广泛肯定。本文将通过评估几个在外交政策分析中尚未进行完全利用的政策过程框架的用处，进而阐述这一挑战。双层博弈是一项特别富有成效的方法，其提出的假设将和其他三个政策过程框架假设进行比较：倡议联盟框架、多源流框架和间断平衡理论。当分析三个特定概念时（理性之疑、议程设定动态、和相关行为者的战略行动），显而易见的是，这些政策过程框架提出的假设在很大程度上与双层博弈理论假设相悖，这提高了前者关于外交政策分析领域的论点潜力，尽管其具备相对的未完全利用性。

In this conceptual paper, we bring forward a new theoretical proposition in the form of an Integrated Policy-Making Process Framework. This tool arose from the discussion and hypothesis that the main models used to analyse public policies have practical and theoretical limitations and/or are due for an update, especially when it comes to the study of phenomena with many actors involved, vast legislation, large timeframes, and high degrees of complexity. Our original model encompasses the three fundamental stages of the public policy cycle (agenda; decision making; implementation). Our approach can have a wide spectrum of applications and contribute to the field of knowledge of political sciences. Our proposal of using three frameworks in an integrated way enables researchers and users to gain a holistic vision concerning policy processes, and it offers the possibility to compare and rank categories. The Integrated Policy-Making Process Framework is thus proposed as a new tool to tackle research and studies on decision making in public policies and the policy-making cycle.

Theoretical models impose a framework for viewing the policy process. Some emphasize institutional rules. Others focus on beliefs and values. This research, using a case study of substance abuse policy development within a local community context, examines three frameworks: the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), bureaucratic politics framework, and institutional analysis and development framework (IADF). The frameworks examine an early stage of policy development emphasizing group membership and participation. The results show that membership and participation were best explained using the ACF and the IADF. Strengths and challenges in using each framework are discussed, as well as implications for local policy making.

Background The challenges of implementing evidence-based innovations (EBIs) are widely recognized among practitioners and researchers. Context, broadly defined as everything outside the EBI, includes the dynamic and diverse array of forces working for or against implementation efforts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is one of the most widely used frameworks to guide assessment of contextual determinants of implementation. The original 2009 article invited critique in recognition for the need for the framework to evolve. As implementation science has matured, gaps in the CFIR have been identified and updates are needed. Our team is developing the CFIR 2.0 based on a literature review and follow-up survey with authors. We propose an Outcomes Addendum to the CFIR to address recommendations from these sources to include outcomes in the framework. Main text We conducted a literature review and surveyed corresponding authors of included articles to identify recommendations for the CFIR. There were recommendations to add both implementation and innovation outcomes from these sources. Based on these recommendations, we make conceptual distinctions between (1) anticipated implementation outcomes and actual implementation outcomes, (2) implementation outcomes and innovation outcomes, and (3) CFIR-based implementation determinants and innovation determinants. Conclusion An Outcomes Addendum to the CFIR is proposed. Our goal is to offer clear conceptual distinctions between types of outcomes for use with the CFIR, and perhaps other determinant implementation frameworks as well. These distinctions can help bring clarity as researchers consider which outcomes are most appropriate to evaluate in their research. We hope that sharing this in advance will generate feedback and debate about the merits of our proposed addendum.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has influenced a generation of policy scholars with its emphasis on causal drivers, testable hypotheses, and falsification. Until recently, the role of policy narratives has been largely neglected in ACF literature partially because much of that work has operated outside of traditional social science principles, such as falsification. Yet emerging literature under the rubric of Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) demonstrates how the role of policy narratives in policy processes is studied using the same rigorous social science standards initially set forth by Paul A. Sabatier. The NPF identifies theories specifying narrative elements and strategies that are likely useful to ACF researchers as classes of variables that have yet to be integrated. Examining this proposition, we provide seven hypotheses related to critical ACF concepts including advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs, policy learning, public opinion, and strategy. Our goal is to stay within the scientific, theoretical, and methodological tradition of the ACF and show how NPF's empirical, hypotheses, and causal driven work on policy narratives identifies theories applicable to ACF research while also offering an independent framework capable of explaining the policy process through the power of policy narratives. In doing so, we believe both ACF and NPF scholarship can contribute to the advancement of our understanding of the policy process.

Policy innovation is considered important for addressing major challenges such as climate change and the sustainable energy transition. Although policy learning is likely to play a key role in enabling policy innovation, the link between them remains unclear despite much research on both topics. To address this gap, we move beyond a binary treatment of policy innovation and differentiate policy problem innovation from policy instrument innovation and policy process innovation. Subsequently, we synthesise the literature on policy learning with the research on the multiple streams framework (MSF), a well-known lens for explaining policy innovation. Like earlier policy learning studies, we distinguish several types of learning by posing the key questions of learning, but in the context of each stream of the MSF: who learns (actors), what (beliefs), how (modes), and to what effect (ripening). This new conceptualisation clarifies the relationship of each type of policy learning to the varieties of policy innovation. Further, it indicates that policy learning is likely to result in policy innovation if and only if it influences the coupling among the three streams during a window of opportunity – through policy entrepreneurship – and not otherwise. We conclude with the implications of this study for future research on policy innovation, policy learning, and the MSF.

Numerous published efforts have compared and contrasted policy process theories. Few assessments, however, have examined the extent to which they are inclusive or diverse. Here we summarise lessons from previous assessments, paying attention to how Paul Sabatier’s science-based criteria have shaped the contours of the field. In looking at these contours, we explore evidence of diversity and inclusivity of policy process approaches in terms of methods, concepts, topics, geography and authors. We conclude with strategies to address challenges revealed by our examination: creating space for conversations among scholars of differing perspectives and approaches; building sustained and meaningful efforts to recruit and train researchers with diverse backgrounds; establishing research coordination networks that focus on policy problems; and creating better metrics to assess our diversity and inclusivity.

Theories of the policy process understand the dynamics of policymaking as the result of the interaction of structural and agency variables. While these theories tend to conceptualize structural variables in a careful manner, agency (i.e. the actions of individual agents, like policy entrepreneurs, policy leaders, policy brokers, and policy experts) is left as a residual piece in the puzzle of the causality of change and stability. This treatment of agency leaves room for conceptual overlaps, analytical confusion and empirical shortcomings that can complicate the life of the empirical researcher and, most importantly, hinder the ability of theories of the policy process to fully address the drivers of variation in policy dynamics. Drawing on Merton’s concept of function, this article presents a novel theorization of agency in the policy process. We start from the assumption that agency functions are a necessary component through which policy dynamics evolve. We then theorise that agency can fulfil four main functions – steering, innovation, intermediation and intelligence – that need to be performed, by individual agents, in any policy process through four patterns of action – leadership, entrepreneurship, brokerage and knowledge accumulation – and we provide a roadmap for operationalising and measuring these concepts. We then demonstrate what can be achieved in terms of analytical clarity and potential theoretical leverage by applying this novel conceptualisation to two major policy process theories: the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF).