The relevance of policy process theories in Europe

About a quarter century ago, Paul Sabatier brought together what he considered the most promising and useful theoretical approaches to studying policy processes in the inaugural edition of the Theories of the Policy Process (Sabatier, 1999). This seminar work featured contributions exclusively from U.S.-based scholars and reflected the U.S. political setting—characterized by majoritarianism, pluralism, federalism, and a strong emphasis on individualism. A year later, the European Journal of Public Policy published a symposium critically examining the relevance of these policy process theories in the European context (Dudley et al., 2000). The symposium questioned the volume's content, its scientific orientations, and the suitability of its theories for understanding the distinctive context of European countries and the European Union. Fast-forward to today, the fifth edition of the Theories of the Policy Process has been published (Weible, 2023). While the roster of theories has evolved—with some added and others removed—the foundations of the collection remain rooted in U.S. policy processes. That said, the scope and perspectives have broadened significantly. All but two chapters now feature European co-authors, and the text engages questions of the growing applicability of the theories across diverse policy domains and governing settings, from authoritarian regimes to democracies (e.g., Tosun & Workman, 2023). This special in European Policy Analysis revisits the themes in Dudley et al. (2000) about the relevance of policy process theories for studies in European countries and the European Union. The contributing authors present a comprehensive exploration of policy process theories—past, present, and future—with a particular focus on European applications and their broader impacts. It begins with Claudio Radaelli, a coauthor of Dudley et al. (2000), who reflects on the evolution of policy process theories over the decades, drawing from his career in the field. In contrast, Paul Cairney et al. (2025) provide a contemporary snapshot that includes a survey of scholars recently applying these theories in Europe. Related to theoretical impacts, Evangelia Petridou et al. (2025) delve into a cross-cutting concept—policy entrepreneurs—conducting a systematic review to highlight insights from European applications. The subsequent contributions tackle the challenges and gaps in integrating context into policy process theories. Zohlnhöfer and Herweg (2025) address three underexplored concepts in European applications—political parties, macro-level institutions, and Europeanization—calling for their greater inclusion. Similarly, Giliberto Capano (2025) shifts the discussion to policy implementation and instruments, advocating for more robust research in these areas to support European research. Karin Ingold et al. (2025) examine the challenges of contextuality, focusing on decentralization, consensualism, and corporatism as pivotal factors in applying these theories in Western Europe. This special issue concludes with Sandra Plümer et al. (2025), who offer a forward-looking perspective through the lens of European early career scholars. They showcase how emerging researchers are approaching and innovating with policy process theories in Europe. Together, these contributions provide a needed discussion on the evolution, application, and future direction of policy process theories in the European context. This introductory essay highlights key themes central to understanding the challenges surrounding the relevance of policy process theories in Europe. Chief among them is the concept of contextuality: How can we effectively integrate context into policy process theorizing to account for the multi-level nature of governing and political systems, the micro-foundations of individual agency, and the immediate contextual influences on specific behaviors? Each article addresses contextuality from distinct perspectives, such as by identifying limitations and underexplored areas in applying policy process theories in Europe, recommending strategies for advancing the field, analyzing data to illustrate improved approaches, and more. This special issue's contributions are nontrivial by offering a foundation for understanding the current state of the field and identifying pathways for advancement. Although the primary focus is on Europe—and predominately Western Europe—the insights extend well beyond due to the enduring relevance of the issues addressed. These issues extend beyond contextuality in Europe, involving challenges that policy scholars grapple with across the globe. In doing so, the special issue raises critical questions about what it studies, why and how it studies these phenomena, and who is conducting the study. The discussions in this special issue also resonate with earlier seminal works, such as those by Dudley et al. (2000), and align with debates that have shaped the field from its inception—starting, for the sake of argument, with Lasswell (1951) and continuing through key contributions by Ranney (1968), Simeon (1976), Sabatier (1991), and others. Moreover, some of the themes in this special issue intersect with contemporary discourse about policy process theories, including their portability (Bandelow et al., 2022), normativity (Heikkila & Jones, 2022), and impacts (Berglund et al., 2022). This introductory article provides a thematic overview of this special issue. It begins by discussing the challenges associated with incorporating context in policy process theories that fall in the midrange of theorizing. It then synthesizes some of the ideas from the articles in this special issue. A concluding section offers reflections on the key dimensional challenges of contextuality. It suggests areas of focus to ensure that scholarship continues to advance the study of policy processes forward and upward, both in Europe and beyond. This special issue reaffirms the enduring relevance of policy process theories in Europe. From the survey conducted by Cairney et al. (2025) to the early career scholars' perspective provided by Plümer et al. (2025), these theories continue to demonstrate their utility and value. The relevance stems from several key factors, including their clear conceptualizations, well-defined hypothetical relationships, extensive global community of researchers and resources, and available methods of data collection and analysis. Moreover, their portability and adaptability allow researchers to address a wide range of questions across diverse policy process settings. However, the point of this special issue is not merely to commend the theories. While acknowledging their strengths is important—if only to ensure we build upon them going forward—the primary goal is critically examining policy process theories to identify limitations and outline future research agendas that can advance the field. In reflecting on the application of policy process theories in Europe, I have never been particularly concerned about the question of “relevance” in terms of portability and applicability. These theories have been applied globally almost since their creation, often more frequently outside than inside the U.S. Instead, my concern with “relevance” lies more in the usefulness and impacts of the research—do these theories genuinely enhance our understanding of policy processes without introducing significant omissions or distortions? For instance, a typical application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in Switzerland often reveals similar patterns to those observed in the U.S. While both countries share federal governmental structures and operate within near polyarchies, Switzerland's consensualism and corporatism should, in theory, produce distinct observable patterns of the policy process compared to the majoritarianism and pluralism characteristics of the U.S. (see discussion in Ingold et al., 2025). In other words, we know there are differences between the two countries, but our research often does not adequately capture them. Something critical is being unnoticed, omitted, or distorted—nuances that should distinguish these contexts are somehow being flattened. This issue mirrors similar issues observed globally and across various theories, albeit not universally. It also helps to step back and take a broader perspective of our situation by recognizing that policy process theories are fundamentally midrange (Little, 2016; Merton, 1968). These midrange theories occupy an intermediary level of abstraction, focusing on specific aspects of governance or politics rather than attempting to explain broad societal changes. They link empirical observations with theoretical insights, necessitating a narrower scope and more targeted explanatory focus than grand theories. For instance, a midrange theory in policy processes might seek to explain patterns of agenda setting, policy change, or actor behavior within decision-making venues. In contrast, grand theory aims for broad, overarching explanations of societal transformations, as exemplified by Marx's approach. Positioned in the midrange, policy process theories possess a conceptual concreteness needed to analyze, describe, and explain policy phenomena across diverse contexts. This concreteness contributes to their recognized portability and accessibility. Moreover, the emphasis on conceptual and methodological transparency has fostered a culture of error-seeking and iterative learning. This emphasis allows the accumulation of insights and supports the ongoing evolution of these theories, which has enhanced their effectiveness over time. However, these same midrange qualities often push broader contextual factors to the margins of research agendas, posing significant challenges in integrating context more centrally into our work. Even for the most skilled scholars, research practices frequently result in a loss of contextual nuance. For example, a study of policy change might focus on the characteristics of the decision-making venue without much consideration given to the broader societal forces that made the policy change situation possible in the first place. While scholars often account for these broader, temporal, and situational factors (Hofferbert, 1974; Mettler & SoRelle, 2023; Skocpol, 1998), many still overlook or underestimate the role of individual agency and the localized context driving these changes. These challenges are also not unique to policy process theories but resonate with longstanding debates about linking agency to structure and vice versa (see, e.g., Archer, 1995; Coleman, 1990; Little, 2016). Ensuring the relevance of policy process theories for Europe and beyond entails methodological and theoretical challenges. Central to this effort is the need to better incorporate context into research to improve analytical quality and avoid the bluntness or blindness that can sometimes characterize such work. This work requires theoretical refinements for navigating within and across governance levels while accounting for the micro-foundations of individual and collective agents. Addressing this challenge demands refining our methodologies to account for the complexity and nuance of varied political and institutional settings. Fundamentally, these challenges are the challenges that this special issue seeks to address. While the contributors to this special issue were given a general direction for their papers, as briefly outlined in the introductory section of this article, they each identified common thematic threads in the literature, limitations of policy process theories in European contexts, and recommendations for adapting and adjusting theories for Europe. Radaelli's (2025) reflective article on policy process theories in Europe from the 1990s to the present brings several themes into focus. To begin, it is worth emphasizing how rare it is for a journal to feature personal reflections from someone whose career has so closely paralleled the evolution of the field. While some people have had the privilege of hearing Radaelli share his experiences firsthand about the field's development, milestones, and trajectory—many have not. Articles like this are invaluable, not just as historical records but as part of our collective memory that helps us remember our shared intellectual journey, which helps us not only know how we got here but also how we might plan for the future. Among the insights from Radaelli's article is the central role of relationships within the field—the personal connections within a community that drive the spread of ideas, including policy process theories. At the same time, Radaelli also gives reasons to reflect on the potential crowding out of certain European-based scholarships, such as the Référentiel (Muller, 2000) and actor-centered institutionalism (Scharpf, 1997). Radaelli's article helps remind us of the dual nature of scholarly trends. While some trends spark innovation and interest, they can also overshadow valuable contributions that, for whatever reasons, might not attract and sustain the same amount of attention. This neglect can lead to unnecessary divisions, forgotten lessons, and the cyclical rediscoveries of ideas already established Radaelli concludes his essay with three promising for future better of policy process theories with the of the policy this field with the and literature, and questions of Cairney et al. (2025) provide a comprehensive of policy process theories in Europe through a an study their and in the and and a survey of European policy process scholars. While emphasizing that there is in applying these theories, they still identify some the and of policy theories are on an across Europe, with a in a of Western European of and the highlights the of research which can enhance or the of theories. of the key from their survey is that policy process theories are not Instead, they to align with the and the research and data collection and approach. Cairney et al. (2025) also highlight several limitations and including the need for greater conceptual or more to the and At the same time, they the role of the policy process research which as the of the field's ongoing and Petridou et al. (2025) policy studies in Europe from through it as a cross-cutting concept that within a theory but is often by theories. The of cross-cutting concepts is to and they can theories, and learning. However, and in their and both within and between theories, can lead to and of the from Petridou et al. is that, while the concept of policy across theories, the share within the with in such as the Policy and and focus on the and emphasizing what I aspects of while researchers incorporate the in which policy Petridou et al. that more research is needed to their and relationships with other other policy and within and across multi-level governance including such as the European they identify a need to the effectiveness and impacts of policy in their Petridou et al. that the European political contexts policy and of which a more research focus. Cairney et al. (2025) that policy process theories are not for Zohlnhöfer and Herweg (2025) take this by identifying three key concepts that adapting these theories to a European multi-level political parties, and Zohlnhöfer et al. on the and While they that these three theories address these concepts to they differences in how well they For example, the authors that political while in the and have been Similarly, they on the of theorizing in the on incorporating the of European While Zohlnhöfer et observations align with earlier about applications of policy theories in Europe to better contextual this article a step by offering for to other articles in this special Capano (2025) a review of of the key policy process the the Policy Framework and in is to identify the in concepts for understanding policy processes in Europe. Capano that the U.S. in these theories is not only in what they in their hypothetical and empirical the politics surrounding also in what they to implementation and policy as to societal impacts. to understanding policy processes in Europe requires more to both policy implementation and policy instruments, as these concepts are central to the unique between European and that current policy theories fall in doing so, the field to these gaps and better theories that account for these key aspects of the policy the articles in this special issue have the or concepts and recommendations to policy process theories for a European context. However, Ingold et al. (2025) a step by their ideas into from an and of they identify three key contextual decentralization, consensualism, and They then about these factors and their ideas and are others in this special they the of the European which is across countries to the U.S. context. their empirical also patterns that and corporatism the of and between Ingold et work a significant step forward for the field, both in terms of their theoretical and in terms of incorporating empirical to some of their Plümer et al. (2025) share their experiences as early career scholars to the field of policy particularly while with theories. reflections highlight of contextuality: their research to have impacts, integrating and and their research in and to Radaelli (2025), Plümer et al. the of However, their emphasis on scholars is just as in their their research and in their research context and (e.g., incorporating institutional structures into and concepts to a (e.g., focusing on political in research in the diverse and global community of and scholars (e.g., early career Ensuring societal impacts of policy process theories (e.g., the between and and normativity into the and our in conducting research (e.g., my perspectives and experiences into the Each article in this special issue addresses of these challenges of contextuality, often with useful and However, this special issue also has considered might the focus of future research. the authors in this special issue the theories in not in an or comprehensive The the the most while such as the Policy of and the Analysis and were Among these the of the Framework is particularly given its across Europe (see Cairney et al., 2025). The of the Framework is also given its strong to link across levels of agency, and and provide insights outside the it in discussions about the applicability of policy process theories in Europe & 2023). promising for future research examining the Framework and its research to to other policy process theories. challenge of contextuality that this special issue does not address to From for need for better to the of and special issues about policy process theories, from Cairney to and we to to theoretical and to methodological This is not a to methods the of from without theories and theories without methods The key is (see & Workman, 2022). our field has into theories, methods as a This special issue reflects this same the of Ingold et al. (2025), the focus is more on theoretical issues than the methods to them. While special issue can it there were a to this I for methods out of the and into the of without better of the ideas in this special issue the of and rather than that the field. similar many areas of scholarship fall outside the scope of this special issue and These a of scholarship not such as emerging approaches like theory et al., established but areas of scholarship like et al., and areas of scholarship that extend beyond policy process theories, such as and et al., and and critical policy studies & is that many of the challenges in this special issue are shared across these other with For example, some policy more incorporate both and contextual in their work. this special issue future discussions these the themes of this special issue on an of contextuality. contextuality is more than just incorporating context into our also such as how research can for both researchers and common of research is that the field is not or does not to societal While such some it is to that much of the work by theories in and discussions of also greater particularly in understanding how our work contributes outside and what it to normativity into our work (see & how our work might by career and how our diverse community with some as issue and others more as work often frequently with often through and that These applied data are and to the theoretical relevance is and the impacts are This reflects broader in their studies with insights that theoretical or methodological contributions over impacts. it is to research to a specific there have been impacts without a broader of its which is through theoretical or methodological is more work in the field than is This work and shared within the field. are significant to share to enhance our and The is we are to the and aspects of our we seek to and improve this of our field and In this special issue is a collection of scholars' reflections about their perspectives, and the relevance of policy process theories in Europe in the early These reflections an for the field, some while still being in a early of as it with the of its global This special issue also two of with the of and and global many of the challenges in the have since the including of established and emerging ideas, with other and and better theories and methods for levels of while navigating the of its Moreover, this special issue a of global change to growing to political the relevance and of and policy scholars to question their role and sometimes in that might more to a better future policy scholars this current as of or this special issue a about the potential to advance policy process scholarship in Europe and both and et al., Tosun & Workman, Paul Evangelia et al., & Jones, et al., discussion in Ingold et al., 1974; Skocpol, Mettler & SoRelle, e.g., Coleman, 1990; Archer, 1995; Little, Cairney et al., & & Workman, et al., et al., et al., & & Theories of the Policy Process (Sabatier, Dudley et al. (2000) Theories of the Policy Process (Weible, European Policy Analysis a particular a of for Policy and in the of Public of of and European Policy Analysis ideas a a a a ideas a Paul Sabatier inaugural Theories of the Policy Process (Sabatier, 1999). European Journal of Public Policy (Dudley et al., 2000). Theories of the Policy Process (Weible, 2023). Tosun & Workman, 2023). European Policy Analysis Dudley et al. (2000) particular Claudio Radaelli, Dudley et al. (2000), a Paul Cairney et al. (2025) Evangelia Petridou et al. (2025) Zohlnhöfer and Herweg (2025) Giliberto Capano (2025) Karin Ingold et al. (2025) Sandra Plümer et al. (2025), a individual ideas a debates Dudley et al. (2000), debates Lasswell (1951) Ranney (1968), Simeon (1976), Sabatier (Bandelow et al., 2022), (Heikkila & Jones, (Berglund et al., 2022). general ideas Cairney et al. (2025) Plümer et al. (2025), global a agendas a a a Ingold et al., 2025). a a Little, 2016). a conceptual a conceptual a a agendas central a a (Hofferbert, 1974; Skocpol, Mettler & SoRelle, individual debates data Coleman, 1990; Archer, 1995; Little, 2016). central a a a general Radaelli (2025) a Radaelli a a ideas Radaelli central ideas, Radaelli Référentiel (Muller, 2000) actor (Scharpf, 1997). Radaelli a dual a ideas Radaelli Cairney et al. (2025) a a Cairney et al. (2025) conceptual a Petridou et al. (2025) a a a a Petridou et al. Petridou et al. Cairney et al. (2025) Zohlnhöfer and Herweg (2025) a Zohlnhöfer et al. Zohlnhöfer et al. Capano (2025) Capano a a a a a a a Ingold et al. (2025) ideas ideas a Ingold et al. Plümer et al. (2025) a particular similar a Radaelli (2025), Plümer et al. a a a