Experiential knowledge, grounded in lived experience, is increasingly recognized as an important source of evidence in policy making and legislative drafting. Yet questions remain about how knowledge derived from consultations with affected individuals can legitimately inform broader lawmaking. This article examines how experiential knowledge from targeted consultations with incarcerated individuals is transformed into context-specific legislative knowledge through the interplay of propositional system knowledge, procedural knowledge of navigating the prison system, and implicit analogical reasoning. Drawing on consultation memoranda and a draft Bill produced during the reform of the Finnish Imprisonment Act, we analyse consultations concerning incarcerated individuals’ use of communication technologies to manage essential practical matters beyond prison under conditions of administrative burden. We first construct a narrative from the consultees’ propositional and procedural experiential knowledge and then examine how this knowledge was incorporated into legislative arguments alongside official expert knowledge. Our analysis shows that the draft Bill employed implicit analogical reasoning to transform procedural knowledge of navigating the prison system into propositional claims applicable to broader prison populations sharing similar contexts, institutional routines, and practical needs. By demonstrating how analogical reasoning links propositional and procedural knowledge to generate context-specific generalizations, the article offers a novel conceptual framework for understanding how experiential knowledge can become legitimate evidence in lawmaking. We suggest that this approach is applicable to other institutional settings characterized by standardized living conditions, shared procedures, and common systems of navigation.
This article examines how political position shapes policy agency in local policy making. Specifically, it asks: what patterns of policy agency functions do municipal councillors ( regidores ) exhibit in the local policy process? Drawing on the Functional Theory of Agency framework and a sequential mixed-methods design combining a national survey of Mexican municipal councillors with follow-up semi-structured interviews, we analyse how councillors exercise four modes of policy agency: steering, innovation, intermediation, and intelligence. Our findings reveal systematic differences between majoritarian and opposition councillors. Majoritarian councillors dominate commissions, align with mayoral priorities, and primarily act as steerers and brokers of executive policy. By contrast, opposition councillors, who are often excluded from formal decision-making arenas, engage in disruptive innovation, cultivate vertical alliances beyond the municipality, and invest more heavily in knowledge production as a counter-power strategy. These distinct patterns suggest that political position shapes the policy agency functions available to local legislators and influences how they seek to affect policy outcomes. The article contributes to the consolidation of a Functional Theory of Agency by demonstrating how unequal access to formal policy-making authority structures actors’ behavioural repertoires within policy-making processes. It also advances comparative research on legislative actors by showing how local representatives adapt their policy agency strategies under conditions of unequal access to formal policy-making authority.
Like most collective decision-making processes, the formulation, adaptation, and implementation of public policies are not immune to conflict. Recently, various authors have lamented the lack of explicit attention to conflict in the policy process and called for more research into how policy conflicts unfold and what consequences they produce. This article contributes to that scholarship in two ways: first, through a systematic discussion of empirical studies on the consequences of policy conflict since 2000; and second, by bringing into conversation insights that are currently dispersed across fragmented research traditions. The systematic literature review focuses on three aspects: how and where policy conflicts have been studied; whether and how they have been conceptualised; and what their consequences are. In doing so, the article highlights the often overlooked productive potential of policy conflicts. Policy conflicts are studied primarily in relation to issues of the (built) environment, where contestation has been shown to produce detrimental effects such as trust erosion, frustration, and disengagement. Supporting an agonistic understanding of conflict, however, they have also been shown to drive productive outcomes such as policy change, stakeholder engagement, policy learning, and innovation. This study contributes to bridging policy conflict scholarship across theoretical perspectives, advancing empirical understanding of policy-conflict consequences, and raising awareness of their productive character in both theory and practice.
Collaborative governance (CG) models show promise for addressing complex governance challenges, yet they also face obstacles and difficulties that necessitate rigorous research in this field, particularly in relation to understanding and managing conflicts and disagreements among diverse stakeholders. The research addresses three primary questions: the scales, stages and domains in which conflicts arise; the strategies utilised by CG to handle minor disagreements and fundamental conflicts; and the outputs and effects of addressing deeper-seated conflicts and disagreements. Through a systematic literature review using the PRISMA-S framework, the study reveals how conflicts in CG frequently arise in environmental and ecological management, primarily at local scales, and mainly during the initial stages of decision making. The research identifies three primary levels for addressing conflicts in CG – motives, dynamics and resolution – categorising CG strategies into six distinct types to provide a comprehensive approach for practitioners. The findings indicate that while CG can effectively manage minor disagreements through negotiation and consensus building, it struggles with fundamental conflicts rooted in differing world views. This study examines the manifestations of addressing conflicts and disagreements resolution mechanisms within CG across three distinct dimensions: output, outcome and impact. It underscores the importance of leadership and innovative dialogue frameworks in constructively managing conflicts, transforming disagreements into opportunities for creative and collective problem-solving, thereby enhancing the sustainability and effectiveness of CG.
This article examines how and why Scotland became the first UK nation to introduce comprehensive smokefree public places legislation through prominent theories of policy change. To do so, it draws on a witness seminar involving former ministers, senior officials, advocates, researchers, and environmental health experts, triangulated with documentary sources. The findings broadly support accounts based on Multiple Streams Framework and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: a policy window opened as evidence accumulated, political support aligned, and devolution created a new institutional venue. However, the witness seminar also highlights forms of policy work that these frameworks do not fully capture. Participants described how policy makers actively shaped consultation processes, curated and mobilised evidence, deployed strategic framing, coordinated political leadership, and designed implementation to maximise compliance. The article argues that, while existing theories explain agenda-setting and timing, they under-specify the practical ‘statecraft’ through which governments construct conditions for policy adoption and delivery. Building on the evolutionary roots of Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, the article introduces Niche Construction Theory to explain how policy makers reshaped institutional, informational, and political environments to influence policy trajectories. This extension highlights the blurring of political and technocratic work and emphasises the value of qualitative analysis for understanding processes of policy change.
