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.

Do biographies of policy elites make a difference for the policy process and output? Leading theories of the policy process focus on other explanations that mostly have been derived from peculiarities of American politics. This article transfers a French approach to the study of policy processes in German health policy. It emphasizes how this French perspective presents an added value in the form of the programmatic action framework. At its core, the programmatic action framework proposes that programmatic elites in policy sectors form on the basis of shared biographical intersections and connect to a joint program. Applying the programmatic action framework to the German case of a programmatic elite in health policy that dominated the last quarter-century of major reforms, the analysis reveals the explanatory power of the programmatic action framework in other political contexts. A transfer of the programmatic action framework to other countries and policy issues, however, must respect the specificities of the political system and policy subsystem. In Germany, the specific role of self-governance enhances the analytical categories of the programmatic action framework, moving beyond the traditional conflict between custodians and austerians of state.

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.

This article introduces the Programmatic Action Framework (PAF) as a supplementary perspective in policy process research. It focuses on professional biographies of programmatic actors, policy programs, and programmatic identities as driving factors for policies. Programmatic actors are individuals in direct interaction with the state apparatus. Civil servants, politicians, and similar individuals under certain predictable circumstances form stable alliances called programmatic groups. These programmatic groups are bound by commitment to the creation and promotion of a specific policy program, a definable set of instruments intended to attain an explicit policy objective. This policy program, rather than more diffuse beliefs or preferences, provides the defining element of the social group and corresponding social identity for such programmatic groups. Programmatic groups compete with each other for legitimate authority within and across policy sectors by seeking to impose their preferred instruments. Homogenous career trajectories, continuous linkages, and a coherent and strong joint program are essential determinants for the formation and success of programmatic groups.