The policy process and governance of technological innovation

As we are entering the last year of the first quarter of the 21st century, we look back on two and a half decades of intensive technological innovation and its immense influence on policy process research and governance all over the world. This includes, among others, increased attention to big data (El-Taliawi et al., 2021; König, 2022), the role of social media in political and administrative communication (Stier et al., 2018; Wanckel, 2024), online participation and e-governance (Gerl et al., 2018; Schröder & Bandelow, 2024; van den Berg et al., 2024), data-based policy labs (Kim et al., 2023), digitalization of the public sector (Bodó & Janssen, 2022; Wihlborg & Iacobaeus, 2023), platform governance (Nooren et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2023), and the boom of artificial intelligence (AI) in the policy process (Af Malmborg & Trondal, 2023; Lemke et al., 2024; Schiff & Schiff, 2023; Ulnicane & Erkkilä, 2023). The first RPR issue of this year addresses several of these key topics with studies on public trust, discourse coalitions, policy integration, decentralization, and bureaucratic discretion in the context of technological innovations. In the first paper of this issue, Robles and Mallinson (2025) emphasize the necessity of increasingly considering public trust in AI governance since it has so far been a “blind spot” among policy makers (Veen et al., 2011). Building on a review of relevant literature and a survey of US American citizens' attitudes toward AI (Zhang & Dafoe, 2020), the paper discusses current frameworks, governance effectiveness, and public perceptions of AI. The survey results show general support for AI development but reveal that a majority of respondents have little to no confidence in AI, with significant concerns regarding privacy, civil rights, transparency, and algorithmic bias. Especially respondents with higher education levels indicated concern about privacy, while non-white respondent expressed more concern about AI's harmful consequences. Political ideology and gender are also shown to affect views on AI safety and trustworthiness. To counteract mistrust and improve communication about AI, the authors identify transparency, accountability, and equity as key factors. The paper ends with a call to strengthen the consideration of public trust and diverse perspectives in future development of AI governance frameworks to ensure broad acceptance and responsible, ethical AI adoption. Further elaborating on the importance of public trust, the contribution by Buchman et al. (2025) investigates the level of citizens' trust in US federal agencies and its influence on their preferences for related policies. More specifically, the authors use a nationally representative survey of US adults to investigate public trust in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its impact on support for six policies on gene drive technology in agriculture. The results show that higher trust in all three regulatory authorities is positively associated with support for policies promoting gene drive research, with the EPA demonstrating the strongest effect. The public further expressed a preference for the USDA to lead gene drive policy development, aligning with its role in agricultural oversight. The study concludes that public trust in regulatory agencies is critical for fostering support for emergent technologies, especially since citizens rely more strongly on external information about risks and benefits in such complex issues (Gupta et al., 2020). The third contribution of this issue by Rojas-Padilla et al. (2025) continues the study of genome editing technologies by zooming in on online debates surrounding CRISPR-Cas technology and how the use of visualizations shapes network formation and related decision-making processes. The authors employ social network and multimodal discourse analyses to examine the interplay between visual and textual framings of CRISPR-Cas in Twitter/X debates in 2018. The findings reveal the emergence of Multimodal Online Discourse Coalitions (MODCs) characterized by distinct linguistic and thematic orientations. In English and Spanish debates, MODCs on CRISPR-Cas were dominated by technocratic framings which were reflected in the regulatory decisions of the United States and Mercosur. By contrast, in Europe, the French MODC adopted a normative framing, emphasizing the societal and moral implications of CRISPR-Cas. Visuals, such as images of embryos and genetic diagrams, played a pivotal role in shaping public discourse, particularly in the French MODC, where they elicited emotional responses and reinforced ethical narratives. In line with previous studies, this provides insights on how visuals not only encode the values of discourse coalitions but also interact with textual framings to influence public opinion and policy preferences (Clancy & Clancy, 2016; Gommeh et al., 2021; Krause & Bucy, 2018). Taking Brazil's first biofuels policy “RenovaBio” as a case study, Velloso Breviglieri and Yamahaki (2025) investigate the policy process behind eco-technological policy innovation and how climate concerns can be integrated in sectoral policies. The study builds on the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF, Herweg et al., 2023) and focuses on the role of policy actors, problems, and politics in positioning climate issues on the RenovaBio agenda to raise its approval. For this, the authors adopt a multi-method qualitative approach that combines media analysis and semi-structured interviews with experts from the government, civil society, and the biofuels sector. The findings highlight that linking RenovaBio to Brazil's climate commitments as part of the problem stream dominated the public discourse, reduced opposition, and facilitated rapid legislative approval. Simultaneously, however, the policy's diffusive multiple objectives to address climate change, market challenges, and energy security created a lack of coherence which increased criticism (Howlett & Rayner, 2018). In line with other research, this shows how the power of framing, policy integration, and policy entrepreneurs can drive policy change (Arnold et al., 2024; Biesbroek & Candel, 2020; Cejudo & Trein, 2023; Domorenok & Graziano, 2023). The paper by Kassen (2025) provides an important and up-to-date contribution to the policy process perspective on innovative participatory approaches (Bogo & Falanga, 2024; Royo et al., 2024; Ruffing & Brendler, 2024). The paper examines the potential of blockchain technology to transform e-government by enhancing citizen participation and promoting decentralized decision-making processes. The contribution analyzes various real-life and hypothetical examples of blockchain applications in public policy, emphasizing their ability to democratize legislative processes and improve transparency in governance. The research contributes to policy process literature by framing blockchain as a tool that can shift the understanding of e-participation from a mere public service to a collaborative political process, thereby fostering digital democracy. Ultimately, the paper sets an agenda for further exploration of blockchain's implications for public sector reforms and the enhancement of civic engagement in policy-making. A central part of digital governance takes part in public administrations. Digital tools are increasingly used to make decisions regarding the distribution of social benefits (Considine et al., 2022). In research on street-level bureaucracy, scholars have studied the effect of digitalization and automation on discretion (de Boer & Raaphorst, 2023). To synthesize knowledge in this area, Johansson (2025) provides a systematic review of the effects of the digital transformation on street-level bureaucrats, both regarding the governance within the administration and in the interaction with clients. Concerning the former, digital tools can enhance rational decision-making and transparency within the organization, including efficiency gains. As regards the latter, accountability, legal certainty, and equality in treatment are aspects of responsiveness that are put in context with digitalization, but ethical and moral dilemmas in the gray zone between objective data-driven decision-making and case-by-case decisions profiting from street-level discretion persist. Thereby, this review article highlights both the opportunities and the challenges of digitalization in street-level bureaucracy.