PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 9, 2026Quarterly Journal of Political Science0 citations

Policy decay and political competition

View Full Paper
SCSteven CallanderGMGregory J. Martin

Key Points

  • The study aims to explore how policy decay and political competition affect legislative processes and outcomes.
  • Utilized a classic agenda-setter model to analyze legislative behavior.
  • Investigated the dynamics of policy proposals between majority and minority parties.
  • Examined conditions under which policies change or gridlock occurs.
  • Policy changes occur more frequently than expected, even under moderate conditions.
  • Legislation aimed at removing decay is often not passed, to the detriment of all parties involved.
  • Agreements that are achieved tend to favor minority parties, challenging traditional agenda-setting assumptions.

Abstract

Modern political systems exist not in a vacuum but in a world of continuous technological, social and economic change. This change means policies designed for today’s world will fit only imperfectly tomorrow, a phenomenon they refer to as policy decay. In principle, policymakers could legislate to remove decay and restore the status quo. In practice, however, the need for “something to be done” creates opportunities for the majority party to leverage their proposal power and for the minority party to obstruct to gain an electoral advantage. We consider a classic agenda-setter model and show how the combination of decay and political competition alters the underlying logic of policymaking. Policy changes frequently in this setting, even when moderate, contrary to the notion of legislative gridlock. Yet legislation to remove decay is not always struck, leaving all policymakers worse off. Moreover, the agreements that are struck are often to the benefit of the minority party, reversing the classic logic of agenda-setting power.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Callander et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fed021b9154b0b82877173https://doi.org/10.1108/qjps-02-2026-123
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper