This paper introduces social identity theory and self-categorization theory to policy process research. Drawing from the prominent and widely acknowledged psychological social identity approach, it develops the theoretical concept of social identities in the policy process (SIPP) and advances the understanding of policy actors’ behavior. Compared to psychological foundations of existing theories of the policy process, the social identity approach emphasizes the importance of social group membership for forming common views on policy content and shaping policy actors’ behavior as beneficial to the in-group. Policy actors thus act in accordance with their salient social identity. This salience is dependent on the strength of a social identity, determined by the feeling of belonging, positive evaluation, and emotional bond to a group. Additionally, social identities are moderated by internal and external factors. SIPP distinguish three levels of analysis, ranging from the psychological microlevel concerned with individual behavior and preferences, over the socio-psychological mesolevel of intra- and intergroup dynamics toward a macroperspective of general types of social identities. In policy subsystems, five such types appear relevant: organizational identities, local identities, sectoral identities, demographic identities, and informal identities. By integrating SIPP into the analytical categories of theories of the policy process, this paper calls for a future research agenda establishing a further theoretical lens for a better understanding of policy processes.

Following the financial crisis, Bismarckian health systems underwent some major reforms. This article analyzes under which conditions major reforms occurred. To do so, it theoretically combines conditions from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to emphasize the added value of merging them to explain major policy change. By combining these two approaches, it is possible to present a more comprehensive picture of the reform processes, relying on the significance of both policy learning within actor coalitions (as particularly important in the ACF) and the role of ambiguity and timing (as particularly important in the MSF). Empirically, the article focuses on the health care reform packages from 2009 to 2013 in the four traditional European Bismarckian countries, Austria, Belgium, France and Germany. The analysis reveals learning as a necessary condition for major policy change. Consequently, a major reform only happens as a result of learning processes, either combined with a negotiated agreement, which presents a pure ACF-related configuration, or combined with a window of opportunity opening in the problem stream. The latter configuration thus confirms the need for integrating a condition from the MSF into the ACF to explain major policy change.

The intensification of livestock production and the focus on economic gains of agricultural policy have resulted in animal welfare related challenges. In many countries the societal concern for the welfare of farmed animals is increasing. Whereas policymakers on the European Union’s level and in EU member states have passed specific farm animal protection laws, the existing policies do not always guarantee the welfare of farmed animals. At the same time, the engagement of market actors in the field is increasing. This article explores the development of public and private policies in two countries with very different levels of regulation. By conducting a comparative analysis of public and private policies in Germany and France, the findings illustrate that, although they have different starting points, retailers in both countries are getting increasingly involved in farm animal welfare. In addition, there is evidence that governmental policies are shifting from regulatory to voluntary approaches in cooperation with the private sector. Given that in both countries these dynamics are a very recent development, it remains to be seen whether governmental actors will (re-)assume the lead in the field, whether they will engage in cooperation with private actors, or whether they will leave the task of agricultural restructuring to the market.

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) highlights the role of arguments and emotions included in stories to influence the policy process. Most applications refer to highly politicized issues. How are narratives used in less politicized debates? This paper applies the NPF to two debates within the European Parliament (EP) which generally gain less public media attention than national debates. By conducting a discourse network analysis of two policy debates on agri‐food technologies in the EP, we show that both debates do not rely as much on emotions as compared to public debates, but are to a greater degree based on argumentative and scientifically grounded reasoning. The use of the NPF characters of victims, villains, and heroes are fairly limited. Instead, the recently introduced character of the beneficiary is used frequently to highlight the advantages and benefits of the preferred policies.