Full download ebook at ebookgate.

com

Theories of the Policy Process 5th Edition

Christopher M. Weible

https://ebookgate.com/product/theories-of-the-
policy-process-5th-edition-christopher-m-weible/

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Theories of the policy process Second Edition Sabatier

https://ebookgate.com/product/theories-of-the-policy-process-
second-edition-sabatier/

Dual Process Theories of the Social Mind 1st Edition

Jeffrey W. Sherman

https://ebookgate.com/product/dual-process-theories-of-the-
social-mind-1st-edition-jeffrey-w-sherman/

Understanding the policy process analysing welfare

policy and practice Second Edition. Edition Hudson

https://ebookgate.com/product/understanding-the-policy-process-
analysing-welfare-policy-and-practice-second-edition-edition-
hudson/

The Policy Making Process and Social Learning in Russia

The Case of Housing Policy 1st Edition Marina
Khmelnitskaya (Auth.)

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-policy-making-process-and-
social-learning-in-russia-the-case-of-housing-policy-1st-edition-
marina-khmelnitskaya-auth/
Transport Policy 1st Edition Christopher D. Thomsen

https://ebookgate.com/product/transport-policy-1st-edition-
christopher-d-thomsen/

Health Promotion and the Policy Process 1st Edition

Carole Clavier

https://ebookgate.com/product/health-promotion-and-the-policy-
process-1st-edition-carole-clavier/

The Mediation Process Practical Strategies for

Resolving Conflict Christopher W. Moore

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-mediation-process-practical-
strategies-for-resolving-conflict-christopher-w-moore/

The Behavioral Neurology of White Matter 1st Edition

Christopher M. Filley

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-behavioral-neurology-of-white-
matter-1st-edition-christopher-m-filley/

Carotid Endarterectomy Christopher M. Loftus

https://ebookgate.com/product/carotid-endarterectomy-christopher-
m-loftus/
i

“Theories of the Policy Process, Fifth Edition continues to define public policy
scholarship more than two decades after the first edition was published. The
authors, under the editorial guidance of Chris Weible, deliver theoretically
innovative material through the circumspect curation of updated chapters,
a feat not insignificant for the fifth edition of an edited volume. Moreover,
Theories of the Policy Process is most empirically relevant in substance
and form: the expanding geographical scope of the theories’ practical
applications renders the material spatially aware whereas the author teams
are diverse, producing polyphonic scholarship. Theories of the Policy Process
charted my own career path almost two decades ago – the fifth edition is a
compass every student and researcher must possess in order to navigate the
complex public policy questions of our time.”
Evangelia Petridou, Mid Sweden University, Sweden and
NTNU Social Research, Norway

“Theories of the Policy Process, Fifth Edition provides the most comprehensive
set of theoretical lenses, including comparative lens, to observe complex
policy processes. Each lens offered within this book is clear, unique and up
to date. It is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the policy
process quickly and conduct policy process research better.”
Fang Chen, School of Public Affairs, Xiamen University, China

“The study of public policy processes is fundamental to our understanding

of how governments, organizations and individuals interact over time.
In this fifth edition of the famous Theories of the Policy Process book,
Christopher Weible manages to give readers a new and improved set of
theories and concepts of the policy process. From Punctuated Equilibrium
Theory to Narrative Policy Framework to Institutional Analysis and
Development, chapter authors (all of them experienced policy process
scholars) offer excellent and accessible theoretical insight into how public
policy works as well as diverse frameworks and theories to understand it.
Keeping Paul Sabatier’s legacy alive, Christopher Weible’s Theories of the
Policy Process book is, and will remain, an indispensable source for policy
scholars, practitioners and government officials worldwide.”
Raul Pacheco-Vega, Facultad Latinoamericana de
Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) Sede México, Mexico
iii

Theories of the Policy Process

Theories of the Policy Process provides a forum for the experts in policy process
research to present the basic propositions, empirical evidence, latest updates,
and the promising future research opportunities of each policy process theory.
In this thoroughly revised fifth edition, each chapter has been updated
to reflect recent empirical work, innovative theorizing, and a world facing
challenges of historic proportions with climate change, social and political
inequities, and pandemics, among recent events. Updated and revised chapters
include Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, Multiple Streams Framework,
Policy Feedback Theory, Advocacy Coalition Framework, Narrative Policy
Framework, Institutional and Analysis and Development Framework, and
Diffusion and Innovation.This fifth edition includes an entirely new chapter
on the Ecology of Games Framework. New authors have been added to
most chapters to diversify perspectives and make this latest edition the most
internationalized yet. Across the chapters, revisions have clarified concepts
and theoretical arguments, expanded and extended the theories’ scope,
summarized lessons learned and knowledge gained, and addressed the rele-
vancy of policy process theories.
Theories of the Policy Process has been, and remains, the quintessential
gateway to the field of policy process research for students, scholars, and
practitioners. It’s ideal for those enrolled in policy process courses at the
undergraduate and graduate levels, and those conducting research or under-
taking practice in the subject.

Christopher M. Weible is a Professor in the School of Public Affairs at

the University of Colorado Denver. His research focuses on policy process
theories, contentious politics, and environmental policy. He is the Editor of
Theories of the Policy Process (Routledge, 2023), Co-Editor of Methods of the
Policy Process (with Samuel Workman, Routledge, 2022), Co-Editor of Policy
& Politics, and Co-Director of the Center for Policy and Democracy.
v

Theories of the Policy

Process

FIFTH EDITION

Edited by
Christopher M. Weible
vi

Designed cover image: © Getty Images

Fifth edition published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Christopher M. Weible;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Christopher M. Weible to be identified as the author of
the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Westview Press 1999
Fourth edition published by Routledge 2018
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Weible, Christopher M., editor.
Title: Theories of the policy process / edited by Christopher M. Weible.
Description: Fifth Edition. | New York, NY: Routledge, 2023. |
Revised edition of Theories of the policy process, 2017. |
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2022061222 (print) | LCCN 2022061223 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781032311296 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032311241 (paper back) |
ISBN 9781003308201 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Policy sciences. | Political planning.
Classification: LCC H97 .T475 2023 (print) |
LCC H97 (ebook)| DDC 320.6—dc23/eng/20230302
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022061222
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022061223
ISBN: 978-1-032-31129-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-31124-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-30820-1 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003308201
Typeset in Bembo
by codeMantra

Access the Support Material: www.routledge.com/9781032311241

vi

To doctoral students who never stop making policy process

theories better
ix

Contents

List of Figures xi
List of Tables xii
About the Contributors xiii
Preface and Acknowledgements to the Fifth Edition xx

Introduction: The Scope and Focus of Policy Process

Research and Theories 1
C H RI STO P H ER M. WE I B LE

PART I
Theoretical Approaches to Policy Process Research 27

1 The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations,

Refinements, and Empirical Applications 29
N I C O LE H E RWE G, NI KO LAO S ZAHARI AD I S, AND
RE I M U T Z O H LNHÖ FE R

2 Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability

and Change in Public Policymaking 65
F RAN K R . BAUMGARTNE R, B RYAN D. JO NE S, AN D
P E T E R B. M ORTE NSE N

3 Policy Feedback Theory 100

SU ZAN N E M ETTLE R AND MALLO RY E . SO RE LL E

4 The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Progress and

Emerging Areas 130
DA N I E L N O H RSTE D T, K ARI N I NGO LD, CHRI S TOP HER M . WEIBL E,
E LI ZAB E T H A . KO E B E LE , K RI STI N L. O LO FSSON, KEIICH I SATOH ,
AN D H A N K C. JE NK I NS- SMI TH
x

x Contents
xi

Figures

1.1 A Modified MSF 42

1.2 Testing the Hypothesis for the Framework as a Whole 52
2.1 Annual Percentage Change in Ten Budget Categories in
Twenty-Four OECD Countries, 1996–2011 82
2.2 Punctuated Equilibrium Articles over Time 86
3.1 Streams of Policy Feedback Inquiry 104
3.2 Mechanisms of Policy Feedback for Mass Politics 113
4.1 ACF Flowchart 135
5.1 NPF’s Policy Narrative: Form and Content 164
5.2 Narrative Mechanisms of Policy Change 168
5.3 NPF’s Meso-Level Model 174
6.1 A Framework for Institutional Analysis 199
6.2 Levels of Analysis and Outcomes 203
6.3 Rules as Exogenous Variables Directly Affecting the
Elements of an Action Situation 207
6.4 Bundles of Rights Associated with Positions 211
6.5 Stylized Representation of NAS for Governmental Welfare
Service Provision 213
7.1 Different Conceptions of How Policy Innovations Spread 231
8.1 An Illustration of Key EGF Components 264
8.2 The Evolution of the SF Bay Sea-Level Rise Governance
Network, 1991–2016 (a) Early Network: Forums Created
between 1991 and 2007 (b) Later Network: Forums
Created between 1991 and 2016 270
8.3 Delta Science Enterprise Network 272
xi

Tables

1.1 MSF Hypotheses on Agenda Setting 40

1.2 MSF Hypotheses on Decision-Making 44
2.1 Journals in Which Punctuated Equilibrium Articles Have
Been Published 87
4.1 Overview of ACF Assumptions 159
4.2 Overview of ACF Hypotheses 160
5.1 Summary of TotPP Five Major Changes to the NPF 195
6.1 The Second-Tier Objects of the SES Framework 216
7.1 Research Traditions Summary 240
7.2 Organizing Principles behind Policy Diffusion Processes 251
8.1 Core EGF Hypotheses and Associated Publications 286
9.1 What Elements of a Theoretical Approach Are Included? 296
9.2 How Active and Coherent Are the Research Programs? 303
9.3 Explains or Emphasizes What Elements of the Policy Process? 307
xi

About the Contributors

Frank R. Baumgartner is Richard J. Richardson Distinguished Professor

of Political Science at UNC–Chapel Hill. His work has focused on
agenda – setting, lobbying, and issue framing in the context of US politics
as well as in a comparative perspective.With Bryan Jones, Dr. Baumgartner
created the Policy Agendas Project, and with many collaborators he has
worked to create a comparative network of agendas scholars. Among his
books related to the Policy Agendas Project are The Politics of Information
(2015), The Politics of Attention (2005), Agendas and Instability in American
Politics, all with Bryan D. Jones, and The Dynamics of Public Opinion (2021),
with Mary L. Atkinson, Elizabeth Coggins, and James Stimson. He is also
the author of numerous books and articles relating to the death pen-
alty and racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Dr. Baumgartner
has received numerous awards and recognitions, including a lifetime
achievement award from the Political Organizations and Parties section
of the American Political Science Association.
Paul Cairney is Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the University
of Stirling, UK. His research interests are in comparative public policy,
including policy theories (Understanding Public Policy, 2020), methods
(Handbook of Complexity and Public Policy, 2015, co-edited with Robert
Geyer), the use of evidence (The Politics of Evidence-Based Policymaking,
2016), policy outcomes in different countries (Global Tobacco Control,
2012, with Donley Studlar and Hadii Mamudu), and UK and devolved
politics (Why Isn’t Government More Preventive?, 2020 with Emily St.
Denny). He has been funded by UK and EU agencies to research multi-
level policymaking processes, focusing on areas such as inequalities and
preventive policymaking (e.g., Public Policy to Reduce Inequalities, with
Michael Keating, Sean Kippin, Emily St. Denny).
Tanya Heikkila is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Colorado
Denver’s School of Public Affairs, where she also co-directs the Center
for Policy and Democracy. Her research and teaching focus on policy
processes and environmental governance. She is particularly interested in
how conflict and collaboration arise in policy processes, and what types
of institutions support collaboration, learning, and conflict resolution.
xvi

xiv About the Contributors

Some of her research has explored these issues in the context of inter-
state watersheds, large-scale ecosystem restoration programs, and energy
development. Since 2020, she has also served as a member of the Delta
Independent Science Board for the State of California.
Nicole Herweg is Research Fellow at the Department of Political Science
in the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Dr. Herweg’s research interests
are in comparative public policy. Her research focuses in particular on
policy processes, energy policy, and European Union politics. She is the
author of European Union Policy-Making. The Regulatory Shift in Natural Gas
Market Policy (2017) and has published in academic journals, including the
European Journal of Political Research, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis,
Policy Sciences, and Policy Studies Journal.
Karin Ingold is Professor at the Institute of Political Science as well as the
Oeschger Center of Climate Change Research at the University of Bern.
She heads the research group entitled “Policy Analysis and Environmental
Governance” that is also affiliated to the Environmental Social Science
Department at Eawag, the Water Research Institute of the ETH Domain
in Zurich. She is interested in studying complex environmental problems
and the production of policy solutions. She therefore mainly applies
different policy process theories and methods of social network analysis.
Hank C. Jenkins-Smith is George Lynn Cross Research Professor in
the Department of Political Science at the University of Oklahoma and
serves as Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis
(IPPRA). Professor Jenkins-Smith has published books and articles on
public policy, national security, natural disasters, and energy and environ-
mental policy. He has served on National Research Council committees,
as an elected member of the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurement, and as a member of the Governing Council of the
American Political Science Association. His current research focuses on
theories of the public policy change, with particular emphasis on the
management (and mismanagement) of controversial issues involving
high-risk perceptions on the part of the public.

Bryan D. Jones is J.J. “Jake” Pickle Regent’s Chair in Congressional

Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, and Director of the US
Policy Agendas Project. His research centers on American public policy
processes, including agenda setting and decision-making. He is the author
or co-author of fifteen books, and has authored or co-authored articles
in The American Political Science Review, The American Journal of Political
Science, The Journal of Politics, The Policy Studies Journal, The Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, and others. Jones is Fellow in
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy
of Public Administration. He holds an honorary doctorate from Aarhus
University.
xv

About the Contributors xv

Michael D. Jones is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University
of Tennessee. He is currently editor-in-chief of the Policy Studies Journal
and has published in a wide range of disparate disciplinary venues such as
Political Psychology, Social Science Quarterly, Policy and Politics, and Critical
Policy Studies, among others. His primary research interest is policy theory,
where he has devoted most of his attention to developing the Narrative
Policy Framework, a framework focused on understanding the role of
stories in shaping policy processes and outcomes.
Andrew Karch is Arleen C. Carlson Professor of Political Science at the
University of Minnesota. His research centers on the political determinants
of public policy choices in the contemporary United States, with a special
focus on federalism and state politics. His most recent book, co-authored
with Shanna Rose of Claremont McKenna College, is Responsive States:
Federalism and American Public Policy (2019). His previous book, Early Start:
Preschool Politics in the United States, was named a Choice Outstanding
Academic Title for 2013. He is also the author of Democratic Laboratories:
Policy Diffusion among the American States (2007).
Elizabeth A. Koebele is Associate Professor of Political Science at the
University of Nevada, Reno, where she is also affiliated faculty in the
Graduate Program of Hydrologic Sciences. Her research focuses on col-
laborative governance, water policy and management, and policy process
theory. She is Co-Editor of Policy & Politics.
Mark Lubell is Professor in the Department of Environmental Science
and Policy at University of California, Davis. He studies cooperation
problems in the context of environmental policy and governance. He is
one of the developers of the Ecology of Games Framework, with empir-
ical applications in the context of water governance and climate change
adaptation.
Mark K. McBeth is a Professor in the Department of Political Science
at Idaho State University. His research focuses on using the Narrative
Policy Framework to better understand the role of narrative in public
policy. Substantively, his research focuses on a wide range of environ-
mental issues, including wildlife policy, energy and the environment, and
climate change.
Suzanne Mettler is John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions
in the Department of Government at Cornell University. Her research
and teaching interests include public policy, American political develop-
ment, inequality, political behavior, and democracy. Mettler has written
six books, most recently Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American
Democracy (2020), co-authored with Robert C. Lieberman. Her earlier
books include The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies
Undermine Democracy (2011) and Soldiers to Citizens: The GI Bill and the
Making of the Greatest Generation (2005), winner of the Kammerer Award
xvi

xvi About the Contributors

of the American Political Science Association (APSA) for the best book
on US national policy and the J. David Greenstone Award of the APSA
Politics and History section. Her short essays and op-eds have been
featured in popular outlets including the New York Times and Los Angeles
Times. Mettler has been elected to the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences and been the recipient of Guggenheim and Radcliffe Fellowship.
Jack Mewhirter is Associate Professor in the School of Public and
International Affairs at the University of Cincinnati. His research examines
the origins, evolution, and resolution of collective action problems within
complex governance systems. Much of his work is done within the con-
text of regional water governance and policing.
Peter B. Mortensen is Professor of Political Science at Aarhus University.
His research interests include policy agenda setting, party competition,
and public administration. He is the co-leader of the Danish Agenda
Setting Project and leader of The Aarhus Research Group on Local Policy
Agendas. His recent co-authored book is Explaining Local Policy Agendas.
Institutions, Problems, Elections and Actors (2022). He has published articles in
The American Journal of Political Science, The British Journal of Political Science,
European Journal of Political Research, Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, Public Administration Review, and many others.
Daniel Nohrstedt is Professor in political science in the Department of
Government at Uppsala University, Sweden, where he is also a research
coordinator in the Centre of Natural Hazards and Disaster Science
(CNDS). He specializes in the policy process, particularly the advocacy
coalition framework, spanning empirical applications in environmental
policy and governance issues.
Kristin L. Olofsson is Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Administration
and Affiliated Faculty in Environmental Sciences Graduate Program at
Oklahoma State University. She focuses on environmental policy and
natural resource management through interdisciplinary approaches. Her
work is multi-method, drawing on qualitative content analysis, surveys,
interviews, and participatory model building.
Osmany Porto de Oliveira is Assistant Professor in the Department
of International Relations at the Federal University of São Paulo
(Unifesp). He holds a PhD in Political Science from the University
of Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris III (2015) and the University of São
Paulo (2013). His research centers on policy diffusion and development
cooperation. He received the Early Career Award of the International
Public Policy Association – IPPA (Montreal, Canada, 2019) and the
Young Researcher Award of the European Council for Social Research
on Latin America – CEISAL (Porto, Portugal, 2013). His main books
are Handbook of Policy Transfer, Diffusion and Circulation (2021); Latin
America and Policy Diffusion (Routledge, 2020), with C. Osorio,
xvi

About the Contributors xvii

S. Montero, and C. Leite; and International Policy Diffusion and Participatory
Budgeting (2017). He is also an Associate Editor of Policy Sciences and a
member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Policy and Politics.
Matthew Robbins is Lecturer in the Bren School at the University of
California, Santa Barbara. He teaches courses in environmental data science,
including machines learning and text analysis. He has conducted research
on collaborative networks involved in natural resource management.
Giulia C. Romano is Postdoctoral Researcher in the Institute of East Asian
Studies (IN-EAST) at the University of Duisburg-Essen, and assistant
to the Chair of Political Science with a special focus in East Asia. Her
research centers on policy transfer/diffusion, with an emphasis on urban
policies and urban governance and a special focus on China. Her most
recent book, co-edited with Osmany Porto de Oliveira, is Brazil and China
in Knowledge and Policy Transfer (2022). In 2020, she published Changing
Urban Renewal Policies in China – Policy Transfer and Policy Learning under
Multiple Hierarchies.
Keiichi Satoh is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the Hitotsubashi
University, Japan. He is interested in social network analysis and applies it
to various fields, including policy process theories, social movements, and
social capital.
Edella Schlager is Professor in the School of Government and Public
Policy at the University of Arizona. Her research focuses on comparative
institutional analysis using the IAD framework and its associated tools.
Substantively, her research program centers on multi-level and multi-scale
governance of transboundary watersheds in the western US and New
York State.
Elizabeth A. Shanahan is Professor in the Department of Political Science
and Associate Vice President for Research at Montana State University.
Her research centers on theoretical advancement paired with practical
applications of the Narrative Policy Framework in the context of risk.
Aaron Smith-Walter is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political
Science at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. His research focuses
on the narrative policy framework, cultural theory, and images of public
administration in apocalyptic fiction. He also serves as Vice-President
of the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Society for Public
Administration, the Associate and Managing Editor of the Policy Studies
Journal, and the administrator of the Narrative Policy Framework Online
Community.
Mallory E. SoRelle is Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford
School of Public Policy at Duke University. Her research investigates how
public policies influence socioeconomic and political inequality in the
United States. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics
xvii

xviii About the Contributors

of Consumer Financial Protection and has published articles on the pol-
itics of public policy in journals, including Perspectives on Politics, Publius,
and Interest Groups & Advocacy. Her research was awarded the 2017 E.E.
Schattschneider prize for best dissertation in American government by
the American Political Science Association. She holds a PhD in American
Politics from Cornell University, a Master of Public Policy from Harvard
University’s Kennedy School of Government, and a BA with honors from
Smith College. Dr. SoRelle has worked in both legal advocacy and elect-
oral politics.
Jale Tosun is Professor of Political Science at Heidelberg University,
Germany. Her research concentrates on topics in comparative public
policy and public administration as well as international political economy
and European Integration. She is the editor-in-chief of Climate Action,
an associate editor of Policy Sciences, and an executive lead editor of the
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. She has co-authored the textbook
Public Policy: A New Introduction and published in outlets such as the Journal
of European Public Policy, Policy and Politics, and Public Administration.
Sergio Villamayor-Tomas is Ramon y Cajal researcher in the Institute
of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) at the Autonomous
University of Barcelona. His research focuses on community-based nat-
ural resource management and climate change adaptation in the water
and agricultural sectors, using the IAD framework as well as tools and
insights from Political Ecology. He has carried empirical work in Spain,
Mexico, Colombia, and Europe.
Craig Volden is Professor of Public Policy and Politics in the Frank Batten
School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia.
He is also Co-Director of the Center for Effective Lawmaking (www.
thelawmakers.org). His research focuses on the politics of public policy,
with an emphasis on legislative politics and on American federalism. His
most recent book, co-authored with Charles Shipan of the University
of Michigan, is Why Bad Policies Spread (And Good One Don’t) (2021).
His 2014 book, Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress: The
Lawmakers, co-authored with Alan Wiseman of Vanderbilt University, won
the Fenno Prize for the best book on legislative studies and the Gladys
M. Kammerer Award for the best book on US national policy. He has also
published numerous articles in journals such as American Political Science
Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics.
Christopher M. Weible is Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the
University of Colorado Denver. His research focuses on policy process
theories, contentious politics, and environmental policy. He is Editor of
the Theories of the Policy Process, Co-Editor of Methods of the Policy Process,
Co-Editor of Policy & Politics, and Co-Director of the Center for Policy
and Democracy.
xi

About the Contributors xix

Samuel Workman is Professor of Political Science and Director of the
Institute for Policy Research and Public Affairs in the John D. “Jay”
Rockefeller School of Policy and Politics at West Virginia University. His
work addresses public policy, agenda setting, bureaucracy, regulatory policy,
and research methodology. His research uses large data sets to answer fun-
damental questions about public policy. He is the Principal Investigator
of the Education Regulations Project (EdRegs), funded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and the author of The Dynamics of Bureaucracy
in the U.S. Government (Cambridge). His work has appeared in the Policy
Studies Journal, the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Policy
and Politics, Interest Groups & Advocacy, and Towards Data Science. He is a
founding Editor of 3Streams. His popular writing focuses on data science
and rural public policy, especially politics and public policy in Appalachia.
Nikolaos Zahariadis is Mertie Buckman Chair and Professor of inter-
national studies at Rhodes College, USA. He has published widely on
issues of comparative public policy and European political economy.
When not researching, he wishes the Coronavirus would just die so he
can resume taking long inspirational walks on the beach.
Reimut Zohlnhöfer is Professor of Political Science at the University of
Heidelberg, Germany. His research interests include political economy,
policy process theory, and West European politics. He is the author and
co-editor of several books, including Decision-Making under Ambiguity
and Time Constraints. Assessing the Multiple-Streams Framework, 2016
(co-edited with Friedbert W. Rüb). He has published in many leading
political science journals, including the British Journal of Political Science,
Comparative Political Studies, the European Journal of Political Research, the
Journal of European Public Policy, Party Politics, the Policy Studies Journal,
Socio-Economic Review, and West European Politics.
x

Preface and Acknowledgements to the

Fifth Edition

This fifth edition offers the latest revisions to the most established and
leading policy process theories. All theories have been revised since the
fourth edition to reflect recent empirical work, innovative theorizing, and
a world facing challenges of historic proportions. Seven chapters return,
including the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, Multiple Streams Framework,
Policy Feedback Theory, Advocacy Coalition Framework, Narrative Policy
Framework, Institutional and Analysis and Development Framework, and
Diffusion and Innovation. A new theory also joins this collection in the
Ecology of Games Framework. New authors are added to almost all chapters
who help diversify perspectives and make this latest edition the most
internationalized yet. Additionally, the Diffusion and Innovation chapter is
written by an entirely new author team. Across the chapters, revisions have
clarified concepts and theoretical arguments, expanded and extended the
theories’ scope, summarized lessons learned and knowledge gained, and, per-
haps most indicative of these turbulent times, increasingly addressed the rele-
vancy of policy process theories.
The theory chapters are bookended. This volume starts with a com-
pletely revised introduction that focuses on introducing the definition and
descriptions of policy processes. This volume ends with three chapters, all
updated from their earlier versions. They include Paul Cairney and Tanya
Heikkila’s chapter comparing policy process theories and Jale Tosun and Sam
Workman’s chapter on comparative research. The book concludes with a
rewritten final chapter that summarizes the changes in this volume and an
agenda for advancing policy process research and theory.
In completing this volume, I wish to thank the Routledge team who have
supported this volume and the companion Methods of the Policy Process (with
Sam Workman). I also appreciate the anonymous referees who commented
on the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal and helped improve this
fifth edition. Of course, the contributing authors deserve the lion’s share of
the credit. Their commitment to writing chapters with the highest quality
standards continues to make this the premier outlet for the most established
policy process theories.
xxi

Preface and Acknowledgements to the Fifth Edition xxi

I’m also grateful to the doctoral students at the School of Public Affairs
in the University of Colorado Denver who, through ongoing discussions,
help me understand this field in new ways. Among them, Anna Crawford,
Allegra Fullerton, Kayla Gabehart, and Aerang Nam offered helpful edits
and comments on the introductory and concluding chapters. These doctoral
students – and many others with whom I interact around the world – could
be described with an endless list of admirable traits that somehow make
them incredibly important for my professional development and advancing
this field. It might be their curiosity, never-ending questioning, personal
perspectives, work ethic, energy, sense of humor, or something else entirely. I
can’t fully describe what they do. All I know is that they make policy process
theories better, and so for that, I dedicate this volume to them.
To my family, I don’t think I could have achieved much of anything
without Jen’s constant support in giving me the time I needed to work and
sharing her time with me when I wasn’t working. Above all else, I will always
be thankful for her loving patience and understanding, especially when I
didn’t know how to stop my academic brain from churning or wasn’t even
conscious it was churning. In writing my chapters and compiling the others,
Theo, Ezra, and Oli have always been in my mind and heart. As I type,
they keep growing into their adult selves, and nothing is as joyful as those
moments when I take part in what they do.
Finally, I can never say enough about my appreciation to Paul Sabatier, the
editor of this volume’s first two editions. Paul put his nisus into creating a
field with scientific theories of the policy process with norms of being clear
enough to be proven wrong and with notions like clarity begets clarity and
mush begets mush. His legacy lives on with those who contribute to and
learn from this volume.
Introduction
The Scope and Focus of Policy Process
Research and Theories
Christopher M.Weible

Policy process research refers to the study of public policies and the com-
plex interactions involving people and organizations, events, contexts, and
outcomes over time. It involves various dynamics and manifestations of pol-
itics as people strive to influence the design and adoption of public pol-
icies that might ultimately change the course of societies. The research
can entangle stories and narratives, ideas and beliefs, norms and rules, and
information and learning. It is shaped by and gives shape to our governing
systems, including the formal and informal settings of collective action that
might inform, make, and implement public policies. It involves the plurality
of engaged people and organizations interacting in various networks, from
political parties to advocacy coalitions. Empirically, policy process research
is a significant phenomenon and an area of study with ongoing worldwide
appeal. It also raises questions about what it means to influence the policy
process, the implications for social and political equity, and how to assess and
understand the effects on the world. Policy process research is all of this and
much more.
Experienced scholars and new students find this area of study fascinating.
Some want to learn more about why governments do what they do and how
they can engage and influence governmental affairs. Others value the study
of policy processes because of its expansive and inclusive embrace of pol-
itics and government and its original insights in describing and explaining
all things related to public policy. Still, others find intriguing the debates and
challenges faced by the policy process research community, such as how to
make better theories and methods or how to bridge knowledge and action.
This volume provides an advanced understanding of policy process research
by compiling its leading and most established theories.1
This introduction uses the term “theory” in a general sense to represent
a coherent set of ideas embodied in an approach for conducting research to
describe, explain, and predict an aspect of the policy process. Theories serve
multiple purposes, including a pragmatic need to simplify policy process
complexity enabling the making sense of it and learning about it. Theories
simplify by suggesting what to look for and ignore and specifying questions or

DOI: 10.4324/9781003308201-1
2

2 Christopher M.Weible
objectives.2 Theories also identify and interrelate concepts through hypoth-
eses, principles, propositions, conjectures, and other theoretical arguments.3
Hypotheses depict the interactions in the policy processes, some of which
might apply to a particular context and others more generally across many
contexts. Theories also offer a common language that enables communi-
cation, from those engaging in discussions in classroom settings to those
collaborating on a research project comparatively across the globe (Tosun
and Workman, 2023). Finally, theories serve as reservoirs of knowledge by
encapsulating what is known and suggesting what is unknown.
The inevitable challenge for anyone learning about or contributing to
policy processes is that any theory gives a limited perspective and, thus, only
a partial understanding. Subsequently, the best way to learn about the policy
process and compensate for any theory’s limitations is to learn and use mul-
tiple theories. Each theory then becomes a complementary metaphorical
“lens” offering a distinct view of the policy process, but none provides a
complete view (Sabatier, 1999). We might take on and off different theoret-
ical lenses to construct a more comprehensive understanding of a particular
policy-process situation or develop generalizable knowledge across policy
processes.
This introduction begins with a description and definition of the policy
process. It then explores the meaning of the policy process in juxtapos-
ition to policy analysis, in the context of the policy sciences and its other
foundations, and in contrast to the policy cycle. Finally, it lays out the criteria
for including the theories in this volume, an overview of those theories, and
strategies for using this volume.

Describing and Defining the Policy Process

Any definition and description of the policy process must connote its
ambiguous, complex, multifaceted nature with numerous interacting parts
and elements that constantly evolve in an inherently political phenomenon
with public policies at its core. As mentioned in the previous section, no
single theory can capture the entirety of the policy process, but each can
offer a perspective, and piecing these perspectives together can advance
knowledge about it.
This introductory chapter began with a definition of policy process
research centered on public policies and including the complex interactions
over time among people and organizations (actors) where things happen
(events) in a setting (context) and result in outcomes. This definition is
intended to be general to allow different interpretations and encapsulate the
diversity of scholarship in this volume and beyond. This section unpacks the
concepts constituting this definition.4
Public policy refers to the decisions and non-decisions of government
or an equivalent authority toward specific objectives (Dye, 1972). Examples
of public policies include, but are not limited to, statutes, laws, regulations,
executive decisions, court decisions, and commonly understood rules in use
3

Introduction 3
that structure behavioral situations in policy processes, such as the sustained
practices of “street-level bureaucrats” in delivering public services (Lipsky,
1980; Schneider and Ingram, 1997; Ostrom, 2005).
Public policies can include both means and goals and range from pro-
cedural to substantive and from symbolic to instrumental. Alternatively,
public policies can be understood through their institutions (written rules)
that constitute their design and content.5 For instance, some public policies
might mainly consist of institutions allocating authority for a given position
and requiring information exchanges under certain conditions (Schlager and
Villamayor-Tomas, 2023). In studying policy processes, researchers might
focus on a single public policy (e.g., a particular welfare law) or many public
policies (e.g., the many types of public policies affecting the issue of welfare
in a locale).
Public policies innately connect to politics in translating and transforming
societal values.6 Doing so necessitates a complex and ongoing web of inter-
dependent interactions of activities and situations. These include defining
issues as problems and attracting attention to public and governmental agendas
(Cobb and Elder, 1971; Kingdon, 1984; Baumgartner et al., 2023; Herweg
et al., 2023).When formulating, adopting, and amending public policies, these
interactions involve bargaining, coercion, conflict, and cooperation (Mitchell
and Mitchell, 1969, 437; Nohrstedt et al., 2023; Porto de Oliveira et al., 2023;
Schlager and Villamayor-Tomas, 2023). They also consist in implementing
public policies, thereby regulating behaviors, distributing and redistrib-
uting resources, changing constructions and interpretations, and delivering
public services (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1983; Schneider and Ingram,
1993; Mettler and SoRelle, 2023). They involve assessing policy successes
and failures (McConnell, 2010) and assigning and avoiding blame (Weaver,
1986; Hinterleitner and Sager, 2015). Finally, these interactions entail acts of
argumentation, debates, storytelling, and persuasion about the policy issue in
the public discourse (Riker, 1986; Stone, 1989; Fischer and Forester, 1993;
Jones et al., 2023). Placing public policy at the fulcrum of policy processes
means studying these activities and situations (and more!).
Of course, these activities and situations entail people and collectives, such
as formal and informal groups and organizations.These people and collectives
are referred to as “actors” and incorporate various attributes and categories in
studying them. A short list of these attributes of actors found in this volume
includes identities, knowledge, values, beliefs, interests, attention, strategies,
and resources. As mentioned earlier, one common category of actors is the
people and collectives (or their formal and informal associations, groups,
and organizations). Another categorization distinguishes the general public
from those actively engaged and involved in the policy process, often termed
“policy actors.” Policy actors may be affiliated with government entities,
interest groups, nonprofit organizations, corporate and private businesses,
civic and community associations, think tanks, consulting firms, academia,
the news media, etc. The conceptual separation of the general public and
policy actors does not downplay the importance of the general public or
4

4 Christopher M.Weible
their potential to engage politically; instead, it recognizes that policy actors
from numerous government and non-government affiliations are regularly
engaged and can be influential in the course and cover of a policy issue
(Sabatier, 1991).
The theories in this volume assume actors act as the drivers or forces
for change and stability (i.e., they have agency). Accordingly, the theories
specify actors’ cognitive and motivational traits by espousing various micro-
level assumptions related to them being “boundedly rational” (Simon, 1996;
Jones, 2001). The concept of bounded rationality means that actors make
decisions based on their goals and objectives but with constraints from their
limited knowledge and abilities to process and make sense of available infor-
mation. They, therefore, are subject to incomplete information processing,
ambiguities in thinking, biased assimilation, complications in adaptation
and learning, interpretive effects on their constructions and identities, and
so on. The compilation of assumptions about actors for any given theory
furls into its “model of the individual,” wherein lie the micro-foundations
for describing, explaining, and predicting the policy process (Sabatier, 1999;
Jones, 2001). Any good theory that aims to generate knowledge about the
policy process must establish these micro-assumptions; otherwise, the under-
lying forces of change will never be posited or learned.
No theory in this volume assumes atomized actors who behave inde-
pendently from their “context,” the setting or environment of the policy
process. Instead, actors and context interdepend. The context embeds actors
and the policy process, thereby shaping their dynamics and being affected
by their dynamics. Contextual descriptions often fall into several categories,
including socioeconomic conditions, culture, infrastructure, biophysical
conditions, and institutions (mentioned here as the fundamental govern-
ment structures, as might be found in a constitution). Sometimes contexts
lie in the analytical foreground as the target of public policies, such as eco-
nomic stimulus programs to stimulate an economy. Other times contexts
lie in the analytical background, thereby indirectly shaping the behaviors of
actors and policy processes. Some contexts might also be more conducive to
some policy decisions than others.
In all contexts, things happen, which are called “events.” Events can
be anticipated and unanticipated incidents that can be chronic or acute.
Examples of events might include but are not limited to elections, scientific
discoveries, policy decisions, societal dilemmas, and crises. Sometimes actors
deliberately create or construct events to affect the policy process, as seen
in social movements or recent election fraud claims in the United States.
Other times, events are unintentional and beyond the control of actors, like
an earthquake. Because events can be directly or indirectly related to a given
public policy issue, they often provide opportunities for achieving policy
objectives. For example, a bureaucracy might release a shocking report that
brings attention to previously unnoticed successes or failures of a policy
program. This report, in turn, might shape future legislative agendas. Of
course, events do not necessarily lead to change. Events might help open
5

Introduction 5
windows or provide opportunities for change, but they must interact with
(or be exploited by) policy actors. Finally, while events might happen in the
world, their meanings are constructed by policy actors through storytelling
(Jones et al., 2023), analytical debates (Nohrstedt et al., 2023), or focusing
attention (Birkland, 1998; Baumgartner et al., 2023; Herweg et al., 2023);
that is, events happen, but their meanings and many of their impacts become
apparent in conjunction with actors.
The outcomes of policy processes are the short- or long-term consequences
or impacts of public policy on society. These outcomes continue to interact
with policy processes over time. Outcomes are changes (or stasis) in the
context and actors constituting policy processes. Policy processes distinguish
outcomes as a distinct category because of their importance in measuring
and assessing the effects of policy processes on society and the ultimate use
of this science. Whereas one of the goals of policy process research is the
generation of knowledge, using this knowledge must eventually help attain
societal values and realize a greater human dignity in observed outcomes.7
As defined and described above, policy process research tackles an
ambiguous, multifaceted, complex, and evolving phenomenon. It, per-
force, integrates traditional foci of political science, including legislatures,
executives, courts, bureaucracies, elections, public opinion, interest groups,
and more. This area of research also incorporates ideas from other fields and
disciplines, from social movements often found in political sociology or the
assumptions undergirding its model of the individual usually found in social
psychology.8 Finally, its definition and description convey its importance and
intrigue – indeed, outside of the spectacle of elections or the most attention-
grabbing issues that occupy news and social media and macro-politics, the
policy process is where governance and politics take place and wherein lies
much hope for the betterment of societies.9

Policy Processes and Policy Analysis

A valuable way to understand the scope and focus of policy process research
is to compare and contrast it with policy analysis. Policy analysis refers to
the study and practice of providing policy-related advice, as often done to
inform future decisions or to evaluate past decisions (Weimer and Vining,
2017; Bardach and Pataschnik, 2019). It usually, but not necessarily, includes
a client who might be within or outside a government. The conduct of
policy analysis is often described as a series of iterative steps: defining the
problem, establishing evaluation criteria, identifying alternatives, estimating
the impacts, assessing the tradeoffs, and making a decision (Bardach and
Pataschnik, 2019). Whereas policy process research boasts theories, policy
analysis boasts analytical tools; benefit-cost analysis is prominent among them
with its associated criterion of economic efficiency based on an assumption
of human rationality.10
One way to distinguish policy analysis from policy process research is
through an analogy of the game of chess (Durnová and Weible, 2020). A
6

6 Christopher M.Weible
policy analyst analyzing a chess game might zoom in on one move faced
by a player. The analyst might estimate the costs or tradeoffs of a player’s
choices and then make recommendations. The player then makes a choice.
Alternately, the policy analysis might assess the player’s move after the game,
evaluating the impacts.
Policy process research operates from a different orientation. For example,
a policy process researcher might zoom out to examine the chess game as
a phenomenon and study the moves and the players across multiple games,
locations, and over time. Given the game’s complexity, this researcher might
develop theories of the game that describe and explain how the game is
played, its patterns, the conditions that affect choices, and who wins or loses.
In contrast to the policy analyst, the policy process researcher might not
inform a player on a singular decision but would offer general advice on
playing the game.
Although far from perfect, the chess game analogy offers a helpful descrip-
tion of the conduct and use of policy process research compared to policy
analysis. Of course, anyone interested in public policy should know some-
thing about policy analysis and policy processes, as found in many master’s
and doctoral programs, and many scholars work at their nexus. Their con-
fluence in teaching and practice raises another point: there is no strict sep-
aration between policy analysis and policy process research. Some policy
process theories have been deliberately designed as a tool for policy analysis,
as found with the Institutional Analysis and Design Framework (Schlager
and Villamayor-Tomas, 2023) and Policy Feedback Theory (Mettler and
SoRelle, 2023). Some scholars apply policy theories as tools for policy ana-
lysis, as done with the Advocacy Coalition Framework in mapping political
landscapes or assessing political feasibility (Nohrstedt et al., 2023) or the
study of policy overreaction with the “policy bubble” concept in Punctuated
Equilibrium Theory (Jones et al., 2014). One ripe and needed area of research
is developing best practices in policy process theories as policy analysis tools,
which would offer the twofold benefit of improving theory and practice.
However, the distinction remains essential as the knowledge gained
through policy process theories typically provides less utility for informing a
particular decision and more utility for informing the overall setting of such
decisions.The two fields also diverge in their journals, scholarly networks, and
sometimes conferences. Scholars seeking to offer practical lessons from policy
theories have recognized this point. For example, Cairney et al. (2022, 15)
describe how policy theories do not provide a “step-by-step playbook” for
influencing policy processes. Similarly, Weible and Cairney (2021, 207) state,

Students and policy actors looking for that simple solution to influ-
ence or improve policy processes will be disappointed. Instead, policy
process theories offer a way of thinking about policymaking-related
phenomena. Policy theories also offer systematic ways to simplify the
complexity in policy processes, to move from uncertainty towards
theoretically-informed action.
7

Introduction 7
Policy Process Research, the Policy Sciences, and Other
Foundations
Most courses on policy processes will likely mention the “policy sciences,”
which provides part of the foundation for policy process research and offers
another way to understand the field today.
Championed by Harold D. Lasswell and associates, the policy sciences
emerged after World War II as an adaptation of John Dewey’s American prag-
matism (Dewey, 1927; Lasswell, 1951; deLeon, 1997; Dunn, 2019).11 In the
policy sciences, knowledge came in two interrelated forms (Lasswell, 1971).
The first, termed “knowledge of the policy process,” deals with understanding
the context of policy processes and resembles today’s policy process
research. The second, termed “knowledge in the policy process,” concentrates
on providing advice to decision-makers akin to today’s policy analysis. Given
the above-discussed distinctions (even if fuzzy) between the fields of policy
process research and policy analysis, Lasswell’s policy sciences rejected such
duality and asserted their unity in theory and application. Overall, Lasswell’s
policy sciences sought to become a new discipline and profession by linking
knowledge and action for a better democracy and greater human dignity.
However, the vision of Lasswell’s policy sciences (1956), as made in a
Presidential Address to the American Political Science Association, was
mostly ignored by political scientists and arguably remained unrealized to
this day (Garson, 1980; deLeon, 1994; Pielke, 2004; Farr et al., 2006). While
the literature is replete with commentaries expounding on the reasons,
two stand out: political scientists favored developing their science in the
Behaviorist’s vein over policy sciences’ normative appeals and the sheer dif-
ficulty of bridging knowledge and action.
Today, the “policy sciences,” when used, usually refer to “policy studies”
as a general field (inclusive of policy process research and policy analysis).
Many continue to invoke Lasswell and the policy sciences for the norma-
tive vision of democracy but forgo much of the overall “Policy Sciences
Framework” (Torgerson, 2019).12 Nevertheless, Lasswell’s normative vision
can still be a part of policy process research (Cairney and Weible, 2017), and
some theories incorporate normativity in their evaluation criteria akin to
Lasswell. As elaborated on in the concluding chapter of this volume, the
Policy Feedback Theory (Mettler and SoRelle, 2023) and the Institutional
Analysis and Development Framework (Schlager and Villamayor-Tomas,
2023) both explicitly address issues of democracy, either through citizen
empowerment or through self-governance. There are also indications that
other theories are following suit, especially given ongoing calls to do so
(Ingram et al., 2016).
Accepting the argument that political scientists mostly ignored Lasswell,
the question then becomes who provided the foundation for policy pro-
cess research as found in this volume.13 The answer lies among a suite of
under-recognized scholars, many of whom the chapters in this volume
cite or their source materials cite. A short list of scholars and themes add
8

8 Christopher M.Weible
another way to interpret policy process research as found in this volume;
they include – but are not limited to – the following:

• Political groups and other types of associations pressuring the govern-

ment (Truman, 1951; Freeman, 1955; Olson, 1965; Heclo, 1978)
• Agenda setting (Cobb and Elder, 1971; Downs, 1972)
• Policy change and decision-making (Lindblom, 1959; Dawson and
Robinson, 1963; Dye, 1965; Bauer and Gergen, 1968; Walker, 1969;
Burnham, 1970; Sharkansky, 1970; Cohen et al., 1972; Hofferbert, 1974)
• Policy design and instruments (Dahl and Lindblom, 1953)
• Implementation (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1973)
• System and subsystem theorizing (Easton, 1953, 1965; Freeman, 1955;
Lowi, 1969; Redford, 1969)
• Interdependencies of decision-making venues (Long, 1958; Ostrom
et al., 1961)
• Interdependencies between politics and policy (Schattschneider, 1935;
Lowi, 1964, 1972)
• Models of the individual (Simon, 1957)
• Politics and conflict (Schattschneider, 1957, 1960)
• Power (Dahl, 1961; Bachrach and Baratz, 1963)
• Learning (Deutsch, 1963; Heclo, 1974)
• General descriptions of the policy process (Shipman, 1959; Ranney,
1968a, 1968b; Lindblom, 1968; Heclo, 1972)

These themes mirror many of the before-mentioned descriptions of policy

process research and help convey its essence as an ambiguous, multifaceted,
complex, and evolving phenomenon. These foundational scholars also fall
mainly within the behavioral turn in political science in the United States in
the mid-twentieth century and represent those who did not heed Lasswell’s
call. Nonetheless, they continued to build a foundation for policy process
scholarship seen herein.14
In sum, policy process research traces its roots to the policy sciences and
Lasswell, who remains one of the founders. As the list above shows, the field’s
foundations also span beyond Lasswell, including political scientists who
took the Behaviorist turn and built many of the diverse themes still seen in
today’s scholarship.

Policy Processes and the Policy Cycle

Thus far, the definition and descriptions of the policy process have avoided
the phenomenon’s traditional or textbook portrayal in the “policy cycle”
(Nakamura, 1987). The policy cycle emerged in the early 1970s as a way
to define the scope and structure of policy process research. It simpli-
fies the policy process into decision-making stages through which ideas
must traverse from their manifestations into government policies to their
societal impacts. Often depicted in a circle, these stages typically include
9

Introduction 9
agenda setting, policy formulation and adoption, implementation, evalu-
ation, and termination. In a way, the policy cycle seeks to capture the
life cycle of a policy-related idea from its birth (agenda setting) to its death
(termination).
The policy cycle emerged from several sources, namely Lasswell (1951),
Easton (1965), and Simon (1966). Among these sources, Lasswell usually
receives credit for its origins from what he termed the “decision functions”
as part of the policy sciences described above (see also Lasswell, 1956). The
decision functions emerged as an alternative to the then-dominant views
and studies of government done through formal institutions (e.g., judicial,
executive, legislative) and as a means for conducting comparative analyses
(McDougal, 1952; Lasswell, 1956).
Lasswell’s decision functions consisted of different activities performed by
all governments, including intelligence (information generating/processes),
recommending (promoting policies), prescribing (enacting policies),
invoking (referencing rules to enforce policies), applying (implementing
policies), appraising (evaluating policies), and terminating (stopping policies)
(Lasswell, 1971; Dunn, 2019). While, on the surface, the decision functions
look like the policy cycle, they are distinct by operating not in a sequence
but simultaneously and interdependently across government and non-
governmental entities and levels of government with varied capacities and
impacts in a context and with sub-functions in each of them. Moreover,
Lasswell’s decision functions incorporate teleological reasoning with values
driving their creation and use toward achieving value-based ends. Today, we
see ideas similar to the decision functions in the concept of “polycentricity”
in Schlager and Villamayor-Tomas (2023) and Lubell et al. (2023).
Despite their differences, the decision functions became one of the
main inspirations for the policy cycle (Jones, 1970; Brewer, 1974; Brewer
and deLeon, 1983), and the policy cycle emerged as the principal organ-
izing scheme for defining the scope and structure of policy process studies.15
Textbooks began to organize themselves around the policy cycle starting
in the 1970s (Jones, 1970; Anderson, 1975; May and Wildavsky, 1978), and
researchers focused their efforts on the stages. Indeed, stage-focused research
was not for naught. As highlighted by deLeon (1999), the policy cycle
prompted scores of advances in the understanding of the policy process in
agenda setting (Cobb and Elder, 1971; Kingdon, 1984), policy formulation
and adoption (Hofferbert, 1974), implementation (Pressman and Wildavsky,
1973; Bardach, 1977; Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1983), evaluation (Titmuss,
1971), and termination (deLeon, 1978).
The policy cycle has also been roundly criticized (Lindblom, 1968; Sabatier
and Jenkins-Smith, 1993), with lasting reverberations. For example, Jenkin-
Smith and Sabatier’s (1993, 3–4) critiques include the policy cycle’s lack of
causal properties and basis for hypothesis testing, descriptive inaccuracy and
top-down biases, restricting unit of analysis, and failure to integrate the role
of information (e.g., policy analysis) and learning. In other words, the policy
cycle suffers from an inaccurate and overly simplistic depiction that, while
10

10 Christopher M.Weible
supporting research within the 1970s and 1980s, failed to provide a founda-
tion for more advanced policy process theories, as found in this volume.16
Despite its faults, the policy cycle need not be swept into the “dustbin
of abandoned paradigms” (deLeon, 1999, 29). Indeed, describing policy
processes as a policy cycle might be helpful in everyday conversations with
its easy-to-convey imagery. Of course, the stages in the policy cycle also
remain essential in the policy process. The policy cycle becomes a hin-
drance when new students and experienced scholars believe the critical
interactions in the policy process are restricted to the policy cycle, force
theories into its stages, and ignore essential questions that lie outside its
scope. Indeed, the problem with the policy cycle is less its simplistic and
inaccurate depiction of policy processes and more its overuse by scholars
as the sole definition and lens through which to describe and organize the
field.17
Instead, the best way to view the policy cycle is not as the definition
of policy processes but as one of its simple “frameworks.”18 As a frame-
work, the policy cycle identifies essential concepts, relates them generally,
and establishes a broad scope of policy process research. In this way, the
policy cycle provides a rudimentary and helpful lens to direct research and
learning about policy processes – but not the only lens. As described in
the next section, the theories in this volume offer so much more than the
policy cycle, including scientific theories, vibrant research communities, rich
and transparent comparative research, and sources for nontrivial advances in
knowledge.

The Criteria for Including Theories

The eight theories in this fifth edition meet, to various extents, the criteria
outlined below.

1 Developing a scientific theory of policy processes. Each of the theoretical

approaches in this volume represents efforts to advance a scientific
theory that focuses on interrelated concepts involving actors, events,
contexts, and outcomes surrounding public policies over time. As scien-
tific theories, the approaches in this volume specify sets of assumptions
and conditions under which they apply and posit interactions that come
in various hypotheses or other relational forms (expectations, propos-
itions, principals, theoretical arguments, and others). Underlying these
hypotheses are causal drivers – usually anchored at the individual level –
explaining why a connection could exist. These hypotheses enable fal-
sification, sense-making, and learning, facilitate explicit communication
of the relationships under investigation, and help summarize what we
know about a given phenomenon. Moreover, when the concepts are
defined abstractly, hypotheses promote comparative applications of the
theories to tease apart local versus generalizable understandings and
explanations.
1

Introduction 11
2 Mobilizing and maintaining an active research community. Science is a
“social enterprise” (King, Keohane, and Verba, 1994, 8). Therefore, a
recognizable community of scholars must support any theory included
in this volume. Such a community might be motivated by common
research questions or objectives. They usually share a vocabulary of
concepts and a balanced research portfolio that integrates theoret-
ical expositions and empirical applications. The composition of these
research programs varies, but most involve active and experienced lead-
ership, a regular influx of graduate students, and an expanding base of
interested scholars dedicated to advancing theory. These scholars often
participate in the same research projects, publish books, special issues,
and articles, and organize and participate in general conference panels
and sessions. Sometimes, these communities organize and participate in
small and specialized workshops, seminars, and conferences focused on
developing a theory.
3 Conducting comparative research. Comparative research paves the way for
advancing knowledge about policy processes. As Tosun and Workman
(2023) described in this volume, conducting comparative research is
not easy and can be organized in many ways. For example, comparative
research can be done implicitly, when groups of scholars use a theory
in different countries without coordinating their efforts. In this way, a
follow-up study might aggregate the results across the studies to glean
insights and lessons. It can be done explicitly, as when groups of scholars
coordinate their efforts to apply the same theory often with the same
methods across research designs; here, the underlying goal of the research
might be to test the effects of the contextual settings on an outcome as
posited by the theory. The comparative approach need not be restricted
to country comparisons but may involve comparisons of various actors,
contexts, events, outcomes, or times. Among the challenges in com-
parative research agendas, the most daunting might be developing and
executing the same methods that help build generalizable knowledge
without overlooking the localized particularities, a point addressed in the
companion volume Methods of the Policy Process (Weible and Workman,
2022).
4 Making the research as transparent as possible. The quality of policy pro-
cess research is only as good as the transparency of its procedures
for collecting and analyzing data. Sabatier (1999, 5) made famous the
phrase “be clear enough to be proven wrong.” This phrase’s spirit is
that obscure methods are immune to criticism and falsification. Of
course, there will always be some hidden decisions and steps in a
research project, and replication is usually impractical or impossible.
Given human fallibility, the best way to learn from mistakes is trans-
parency in science.
5 Continuing to advance knowledge about policy processes. Theories offer sev-
eral significant academic and practical contributions, from teaching to
conducting community-based research. Of all these contributions, advan-
cing the reservoir of localized and generalized knowledge is the most
important. As some theories have existed for decades, we must eventually
ask: what new insights have they produced since their creation? Our
12

12 Christopher M.Weible
understanding of the policy process is, and always will be, incomplete.
Yet, if our theories stagnate, so does progress in reaching higher levels of
knowledge.

All the theories in this volume are imperfect but meet these criteria in
various ways and extents. Of these criteria, the most important is an engaged
group of new and experienced scholars advancing the science under a given
approach. One of the main lessons from decades of developing theory is
that it takes teams of researchers working together over extended periods to
create shared methods, conduct their research comparatively, and aggregate
those results into lessons learned. Without these teams of researchers, such a
trajectory is impossible. The best short-term indicator of future progress is
the presence of a large and diverse group of scholars working together to
advance a theory.

Theories Included in This Volume

This volume offers eight different theories of policy process research. They
are the most established theories in the world with the most active research
programs.
The first chapter, coauthored by Nicole Herweg, Nikolaos Zahariadis,
and Reimut Zohlnhöfer (2023), covers the Multiple Streams Framework.
The Multiple Streams Framework depicts a process that emphasizes timing
in merging problem, political, and policy streams to create windows of
opportunity for agenda setting, decision-making, and implementation.
Among the strengths of the Multiple Streams Framework are its accessibility,
vibrant research community, and constant evolution. This chapter offers sev-
eral revisions, including better articulation of their core hypothesis.
Chapter 2, by Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones, and Peter B.
Mortensen (2023), is on the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. Under this
theory, scarce attention and disproportionate information processing drive
incremental and punctuated policy change patterns over time. Of all the the-
ories in this volume, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory offers perhaps the best
current example of a coordinated policy community leveraging a compara-
tive approach. Its updates include reporting on the greater generalizability of
its claims across more contexts, topics, and methods.
The third chapter on the Policy Feedback Theory, coauthored by Suzanne
Mettler and Mallory SoRelle (2023), draws on the notion that policies shape
politics. This approach seeks to understand what happens after a policy is
adopted, emphasizing resource and interpretive effects on the mass public.
Policy Feedback Theory represents another vibrant research community that
continues to develop this theory and incorporates one of the most robust
lenses on democracy and citizen empowerment. Among its updates is an
articulation of the moderating effects of policy feedback.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework is the fourth theory, coauthored
by Daniel Nohrstedt, Karin Ingold, Christopher M. Weible, Elizabeth A.
13

Introduction 13
Koebele, Kristin L. Olofsson, Keiichi Satoh, and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith
(2023). The Advocacy Coalition Framework deals with ongoing patterns of
conflict and concord as reflections of different beliefs, situations fostering
belief change and learning, and rationales for major and minor policy change.
The literature under the Advocacy Coalition Framework features a strong
comparative agenda with applications spanning the globe. The updates in
this chapter report on the latest confirmations of its theoretical arguments.
Michael D. Jones, Aaron Smith-Walter, Mark K. McBeth, and Elizabeth A.
Shanahan (2023) coauthored Chapter 5 on the Narrative Policy Framework.
This framework examines the politics of storytelling and its impacts on
policy processes. The Narrative Policy Framework is quickly evolving, with
an increasing number of applications, a common methodological approach
that spurs applications across contexts, and constant refinement of its
concepts and posited interactions. Its revisions include a new visual depic-
tion of the framework, expanding its scope, renaming concepts, and clari-
fying the arguments underlying its hypotheses.
The sixth chapter, coauthored by Edella Schlager and Sergio Villamayor-
Tomas (2023), summarizes the Institutional Analysis and Development
Framework and its offspring, the Social-Ecological Systems Framework.
Both frameworks are incredibly versatile, with a vast number of applications
in various contexts. It spouses ideas of self-governance and the con-
stant tinkering with institutional rules. This revised chapter reports on the
continued growth and insights learned under this approach across the globe.
Chapter 7 – composed by a new team of authors including Osmany Porto
de Oliveira, Giulia Romano, Craig Volden, and Andrew Karch – summarizes
Diffusion and Innovation scholarship.19 This approach essentially analyzes
policy change by looking at the reasons, speed, and patterns of adoption or
rejection of policy proposals across government units. This chapter provides
the latest summary of this long-standing research area in the study of policy
processes worldwide.This revised chapter builds a far broader foundation for
this field by incorporating the literature on policy transfer, circulation, and
mobilities.
Mark Lubell, Jack MeWhirter, and Matthew Robbins coauthored the
eighth and last theory chapter “Ecology of Games Framework.” The Ecology
of Games Framework is a new addition to this volume and represents an
increasingly emerging and vibrant research community focused on studying
polycentric governance and complex adaptive systems. Compared to its pre-
vious publications, this chapter provides further clarity in its ideas, including
a new visualized figure.

Strategies for Using This Volume

The chapters are organized to facilitate reading the volume from begin-
ning to end, though some instructors and readers will prefer a different
order of the theories. Part I encompasses the theory chapters, beginning
with the Multiple Streams Framework and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory,
14

14 Christopher M.Weible
given their traditional emphases on agenda setting and policy change. Policy
Feedback Theory comes next, focusing on the impacts of policy design
on society. The next three chapters deal with various political phenomena,
including the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Narrative Policy Framework,
and Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. The latter of these
three, combined with the final two in the Diffusion and Innovation and
Ecology of Games Framework, offer approaches that emphasize the inter-
dependence of our governing systems.
Part II of this volume includes three summary chapters.The first (Chapter 9),
by Paul Cairney and Tanya Heikkila (2023), provides a comparison and critique
of the theories in this anthology. Then, given the importance of the compara-
tive approach in advancing policy process theory, in Chapter 10, Jale Tosun and
Samuel Workman (2023) provide tips and strategies for using the theories to con-
duct comparative research. The final chapter, by Christopher M. Weible (2023),
summarizes and assesses the theoretical changes across the chapters and offers
strategies for supporting the policy process research community and for moving
forward and climbing upward.
Recently, a new companion volume was published titled Methods of the
Policy Process (Weible and Workman, 2022). Whereas this volume provides
the overviews of the most established policy process theories, Methods of the
Policy Process elaborates on how to apply them. The underlying rationale for
creating and reading both volumes is that advances in theories and methods
go hand in hand. Some might want to forgo the Methods book if the interest
lies more in understanding ideas in the theories without interest in applying
them.
Each theory chapter should be considered a thorough yet brief summary
of a theory, including minor and major updates since the fourth edition of
this volume. As discussed in the concluding chapter, these changes include
efforts to clarify concepts and better articulate the theoretical arguments,
confirm and strengthen the theoretical hypotheses and generalizations,
expand and extend the theoretical scope, and bridge knowledge and action.
Readers are encouraged to explore and assess these changes in learning about
the theories. It is also imperative to read chapters in this volume along with
some combination of the foundational pieces of a given theory, previous
theoretical depictions of the theory, and empirical applications. For example,
advanced graduate students exploring the Multiple Streams Framework
could read Cohen, March, and Olsen’s (1972), Kingdon’s (1984), Herweg
et al. (2023), the Multiple Streams Framework chapter in Methods of the Policy
Process (Zohlnhöfer et al., 2022), and one or two empirical applications.
Theories of the Policy Process is not intended to provide comprehensive
coverage of policy process research. Readers are encouraged to supplement
this volume with articles or books covering other topics or theories. Among
those deserving attention are the policy cycle (deLeon, 1999), policy success
and failure (McConnell, 2010), policy styles (Richardson, 1982), compara-
tive policy studies (Dodds, 2013), power (Bachrach and Baratz, 1963; Lukes,
1974), policy instruments and design (Howlett, 2011), policy entrepreneurs
15

Introduction 15
(Mintrom and Norman, 2009; Petridou and Mintrom, 2021), social cap-
ital (Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti, 1994), implementation (Pressman and
Wildavsky, 1973; Moulton and Sandfort, 2017), causal stories (Stone, 1989),
the interpretive and critical policy studies (Fischer and Forester, 1993; Fischer
et al., 2015), policy drift (Béland, 2007), learning (Dunlop and Radealli,
2013; Heikkila and Gerlak, 2013), gender and policy studies (Lombardo and
Meier, 2022), and the social construction framework (Schneider and Ingram,
1993; Schneider et al., 2014).
As mentioned earlier, readers should avoid forcing the theories into a
stage of the policy cycle – the result would be incomplete and quite possibly
an inaccurate portrayal of them. Although some theories may fit into one
or more of the stages, most incorporate the entire policy cycle in one way
or another or depict the policy process in an entirely different way. The best
strategy is to interpret how the different theories provide insight into policy
processes rather than impose an artificial categorization on them.
The goal of this volume is to provide in a single outlet the latest versions of
the major theories of the policy process, to compare and contrast these theories,
to offer strategies for strengthening the international community engaged in
comparative policy process research, and to help propel policy process research to
higher levels of excellence.Whether this volume serves as an introduction to the
field or as a sturdy reference guide, the hope is that readers will test and develop
policy process theories to understand better and explain policy processes.

Notes
1 Theories often invoke negative reactions among people, especially for a field with
some applied elements. As a master’s student at the University of Washington, I
took my first policy process theories course with Dr. Peter May. I remember a
fellow student said they didn’t want to take the course because they thought it
would lack practicality and said theory was a “four-letter” word, an expression
in English meaning something profane. Of course, I took Peter’s course and
never turned back. While some might think theories are detached from reality,
useless for practice, and a barrier to critical and original thinking, I find none
of it true. We can create, test, and refine theories through continuous empirical
applications described in this volume and Weible and Workman (2022), draw
practical lessons from policy theories (Weible and Cairney, 2021), and enhance
critical thinking through learning multiple theories (Weible, 2020). That said,
theories can be misused by shackling our imagination and are challenging to
apply, test, and refine. They can also be interpreted and instructed as something
too abstract and detached from day-to-day policy processes. We also have much
to learn in drawing practical lessons from them and effectively communicating
this field. I hope this volume helps avoid these misuses.
2 One concern raised against any policy process theory is its potential to blind
researchers to critical contextual conditions unmentioned by the theory.
However, theoretical simplification should never lead researchers to ignore
something just because it goes unmentioned by the theory – context matters,
and what we, as observers, bring to the research matters.Therefore, I recommend
that the students (and myself) never lose sight of their observations or what
16

16 Christopher M.Weible
emerges – despite what a theory says to pay attention to – from the studied con-
text (see discussion in Weible and Workman, 2022).
3 Some theories in this volume use hypotheses, and others don’t. I use the term
“hypothesis” as an umbrella term that includes the various conjectures, theoret-
ical arguments, and other relational forms.
4 An interesting point not addressed in current scholarship is the meaning of “pro-
cess” in policy process research (see a critical take with Harrison [1958]). Generally,
a process refers to the continuous points in time (e.g., perhaps in terms of actors’
decisions and actions, events, and outcomes) that constitute what we deem the
policy processes. I interpret this volume’s theories as offering different process types.
5 Two main uses of the term “institutions” refer to organizations and rules. This
introductory chapter, unless otherwise specified, uses the latter. I’m keen on
Kiser and Ostrom (1982, 193) distinguishing description of institutions,
We distinguish between institutional arrangements and organizations. … We
define organizations as composites of participants following rules governing
activities and transactions to realize particular outputs. These activities occur
within specific facilities. The rules, which are components of all organizations,
are the institutional arrangements.
6 Politics and public policy concepts have a complicated relationship (see Lasswell
[1951]). For the sake of argument, politics relates to issues of influence, the influ-
ential, the impacted, and “who gets what, when and how” (Lasswell, 1936). For a
commentary on the origins of the term “public policy,” see Lowi (2003).
7 Whether and how policy process research should serve society outside of aca-
demic conferences, journals, and books has been a point of discussion dating
back to its emergence as a field of study (see, for example, Lasswell [1951, 1956],
Ranney [1968a, 1968b], and Easton [1969]). Some have defended the need to do
science for science’s sake; others argue that all of our science should be in service
of humanity through various forms of engaged scholarship. I’m not sure what
the distribution of views among the policy process community on this topic is
other than people seem to accept the plurality of ways and purposes to conduct
the science. It has been a topic that Peter deLeon, a stalwart defender of democ-
racy and the policy process in his career, and I often debated and discussed; see
how we handled it in deLeon and Weible (2010). The topic of bridging know-
ledge and action is also addressed in the concluding chapter.
8 I mention social movements; although they can be found in policy process
research (Jones et al., 2019), they need to be studied more (Berglund et al., 2022).
9 I developed this definition and description of policy process research from early
scholarship in the 1950s and 1960s, when this field emerged as a conscious
area of study and before the policy cycle took hold as its textbook definition
and quotidian description. Here are three examples of scholars from that time
whom I found enlightening: (1) Shipman (1959, 545) states, “When the policy-
process approach is used, institutions and mechanisms of political organization,
legislative action, executive administration, adjudication, and the rest merge into
an intricately interconnected process for seeking satisfaction of societal values.”
(2) Ranney (1968a, b, 8) depicted the “policy process” as “the actions and
interactions that produce the authorities’ ultimate choice of a particular policy
content over its rivals.” (3) Lindblom (1968, 4) described the “policymaking pro-
cess” as an “extremely complex analytical and political process to which there is
no beginning or end, and the boundaries of which are most uncertain.”
17

Introduction 17
18

18 Christopher M.Weible
19

Introduction 19
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American
Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Baumgartner, Frank R., Bryan D. Jones, and Peter B. Mortensen. 2023. “Punctuated
Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking.”
In Theories of the Policy Process, 5th ed., edited by Christopher M. Weible, 65–99.
New York: Routledge.
Béland, Daniel. 2007.“Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security: Conversion,
Layering, and Policy Drift.” Social Science Quarterly 88 (1): 20–38.
Berglund, Oscar, Claire A. Dunlop, Elizabeth A. Koebele, and Christopher M.Weible.
2022. “Transformational Change through Public Policy.” Policy and Politics. Early
view.
Birkland, Thomas A. 1998. “Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting.”
Journal of Public Policy 18 (1): 53–74.
Brewer, Garry D. 1974. “The Policy Sciences Emerge: To Nurture and Structure a
Discipline.” Policy Sciences 5 (3): 239–244.
Brewer, Garry D., and Peter deLeon. 1983. The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Chicago,
IL: Dorsey Press.
Brunner, Ronald D. 1997. “Introduction to the Policy Sciences.” Policy Sciences 30
(4): 191–215.
Brunner, Ronald D. 2008. “The Policy Scientist of Democracy Revisited.” Policy
Sciences 41 (1): 3–19.
Burnham,Walter D. 1970. Critical elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New
York: Norton.
Cairney, Paul and Tanya Heikkila. 2023. “How Should We Compare Theories of the
Policy Process?” In Theories of the Policy Process, 5th ed., edited by Christopher M.
Weible, 291–321. New York: Routledge.
Cairney, Paul, Emily St Denny, Sean Kippin, and Heather Mitchell. 2022. “Lessons
from Policy Theories for the Pursuit of Equity in Health, Education and Gender
Policy.” Policy & Politics. Earlyview.
Cairney, Paul, and Christopher M. Weible. 2017. “The New Policy Sciences:
Combining the Cognitive Science of Choice, Multiple Theories of Context, and
Basic and Applied Analysis.” Policy Sciences 50 (4): 619–627.
Clark, Susan G. 2002. The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resources
Professionals. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Cobb, Roger W., and Charles D. Elder. 1971 “The Politics of Agenda-Building: An
Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory.” The Journal of Politics 33
(4): 892–915.
Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen. 1972. “A Garbage Can
Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25.
Dahl, Robert, A. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New
Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Dahl, Robert A., and Charles E. Lindblom. 1953. Politics, Economics and Welfare:
Planning and Politico-Economic Systems, Resolved into Basic Processes. New York:
Harper & Brothers.
Dawson, Richard E., and James A. Robinson. 1963. “Inter-Party Competition,
Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States.” The Journal of
Politics 25 (2): 265–289.
deLeon, Peter. 1978. “Public Policy Termination: An End and a Beginning.” Policy
Analysis 4 (3): 369–392.
deLeon, Peter. 1994. Reinventing the Policy Sciences:Three steps Back to the Future.
Policy Sciences 27 (1): 77–95.
20

20 Christopher M.Weible
deLeon, Peter. 1997. Democracy and the Policy Sciences. New York: SUNY Press.
deLeon, Peter. 1999. “The Stages Approach to the Policy Process:What Has It Done?
Where Is It Going?” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Paul A. Sabatier,
19–34. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
deleon, Peter, and Christopher M. Weible. 2010. “Policy Process Research for
Democracy.” International Journal of Policy Studies 1 (2): 23–34.
Deutsch, Karl. W. 1963. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication
and Control. New York: Free Press.
Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt.
Dodds, Anneliese. 2013. Comparative Public Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Downs, Anthony. 1972. “Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue-Attention Cycle.”
The Public 28: 38–50.
Dunlop, Claire A., and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2013. “Systematising Policy Learning:
From Monolith to Dimensions.” Political Studies 61 (3): 599–619.
Dunn, William N. 2019. Pragmatism and the Origins of the Policy Sciences: Rediscovering
Lasswell and the Chicago School. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Durnová, Anna P., and Christopher M. Weible. 2020. “Tempest in a Teapot? Toward
New Collaborations between Mainstream Policy Process Studies and Interpretive
Policy Studies.” Policy Sciences 53 (3): 571–588.
Dye, Thomas R. 1965. “Malapportionment and Public Policy in the States.” The
Journal of Politics 27 (3): 586–601.
Dye,Thomas R. 1972. Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Easton, David. 1953. The Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Easton, David. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Easton, David. 1969. “The New Revolution in Political Science.” American Political
Science Review 63 (4): 1051–1061.
Farr, James, Jacob S. Hacker, and Nicole Kazee. 2006. “The Policy Scientist of
Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell.” American Political Science
Review 100 (4): 579–587.
Fischer, Frank, and John Forester, eds. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy
Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Fischer, Frank, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnová, and Michael Orsini, eds. 2015.
Handbook of Critical Policy Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Freeman, J. Leiper. 1955. The Political Process: Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee
Relations. New York: Doubleday.
Garson, G. David. 1980. “From Policy Science to Policy Analysis: A Quarter Century
of Progress?” Policy Studies Journal 9 (4): 535–544.
Harrison, Wilfrid. 1958. “Political Processes.” Political Studies 6 (3): 234–252.
Heclo, Hugh. 1972. “Policy Analysis.” British Journal of Political Science 2 (1): 83–108.
Heclo, Hugh. 1974. Social Policy and Political Learning: Modern Social Politics in Britain and
Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In The New
American Political System, edited by Anthony King, 87–124. Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute.
Heikkila, Tanya, and Andrea K. Gerlak. 2013. “Building a Conceptual Approach to
Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars.” Policy Studies Journal 41
(3): 484–512.
Herweg, Nicole, Nikolaos Zahariadis, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. 2023. “The Multiple
Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements, and Empirical Applications.” In
21

Introduction 21
Theories of the Policy Process, 5th ed., edited by Christopher M. Weible, 29–64.
New York: Routledge.
Hinterleitner, Markus, and Fritz Sager. 2015. “Avoiding Blame—A Comprehensive
Framework and the Australian Home Insulation Program Fiasco.” Policy Studies
Journal 43 (1): 139–161.
Hofferbert, Richard I. 1974. The Study of Public Policy. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Howlett, Michael. 2011. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York:
Routledge.
Ingram, Helen, Peter deLeon, and Anne Schneider. 2016 “Conclusion: Public Policy
Theory and Democracy:The Elephant in the Corner.” In Contemporary Approaches
to Public Policy, edited by B. Guy Peters and Philippe Zittoun, 175–200. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. 1990. Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove:
Brooks/Cole.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., and Paul A. Sabatier. 1993. “The Study of Public Policy
Processes.” In Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, edited
by Paul A Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, 1–9. Boulder CO: Westview
Press.
Jones, Charles O. 1970. Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Belmont: Wadsworth
Pub. Co.
Jones, Bryan D. 2001. Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and
Governance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, Bryan D., Herschel F. Thomas III, and Michelle Wolfe. 2014. “Policy Bubbles.”
Policy Studies Journal 42 (1): 146–171.
Jones, Bryan D., Sean M. Theriault, and Michelle Whyman. 2019. The Great
Broadening: How the Vast Expansion of the Policymaking Agenda Transformed American
Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, Michael, D., Aaron Smith-Walter, Mark K. McBeth, and Elizabeth A. Shanahan.
2023. “The Narrative Policy Framework.” In Theories of the Policy Process, 5th ed.,
edited by Christopher M. Weible, 161–195. New York: Routledge.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Kiser, Larry and Elinor Ostrom. 1982. “The Three Worlds of Action.
A Metatheoretical Synthesis of Institutional Approaches in Strategies of Political
Inquiry.” In Strategies of Political Inquiry, edited by Elinor Ostrom, 179–222.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lasswell, Harold D. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. New York:
Whittlesey House.
Lasswell, Harold D. 1951. “The Policy Orientation.” In The Policy Sciences, edited
by Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell, chap. 1, 3–15. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Lasswell, Harold D. 1956. “The Political Science of Science: An Inquiry into the
Possible Reconciliation of Mastery and Freedom.” American Political Science
Review 50 (4): 961–979.
Lasswell, Harold. D. 1971. A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier
Publishing Company.
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959.“The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration
Review 19 (2): 79–88.
2

22 Christopher M.Weible
Lindblom, Charles E. 1968. The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy:The Dilemmas of the Individuals in Public
Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lombardo, Emanuela, and Petra Meier. 2022. “Challenging Boundaries to Expand
Frontiers in Gender and Policy Studies.” Policy & Politics 50 (1): 99–115.
Long, Norton E. 1958. “The Local Community as an Ecology of Games.” American
Journal of Sociology 64 (3): 251–261.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and
Political Theory.” World Politics 16 (4): 677–715.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1969. The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public
Administration Review 32 (4): 298–310.
Lowi, Theodore J. 2003. “Law vs. Public Policy: A Critical Exploration.” Cornell
Journal of Law and Public Policy 12 (3): 493–501.
Lubell, Mark, Mark Mewhirter, and Matthew Robbins. 2023. “The Ecology of
Games Framework: Complexity in Polycentric Governance.” In Theories of the
Policy Process, 5th ed., edited by Christopher M. Weible, 262–287. New York:
Routledge.
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
May, Judith V., and Aaron B. Wildavsky, eds. 1978. The Policy Cycle. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Paul A. Sabatier. 1983. Implementation and Public Policy.
Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
McConnell, Allan. 2010. Understanding Policy Success: Rethinking Public Policy. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McDougal, Myres S. 1952. “The Comparative Study of Law for Policy Purposes:
Value Clarification as an Instrument of Democratic World Order. Yale Law Journal
61: 915–946.
Mettler, Suzanne, and Mallory SoRelle. 2023. “Policy Feedback Theory.” In Theories
of the Policy Process, 5th ed., edited by Christopher M.Weible, 100–129. New York:
Routledge.
Mettler, Suzanne, and Joe Soss. 2004. “The Consequences of Public Policy for
Democratic Citizenship: Bridging Policy Studies and Mass Politics.” Perspectives
on Politics 2 (1): 55–73.
Mintrom, Michael, and Phillipa Norman. 2009. “Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy
Change.” Policy Studies Journal 37 (4): 649–667.
Mitchell, Joyce M., and William C. Mitchell. 1969. Political Analysis & Public Policy: An
Introduction to Political Science. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Moulton, Stephanie, and Jodi R. Sandfort. 2017.“The Strategic Action Field Framework
for Policy Implementation Research.” Policy Studies Journal 45 (1): 144–169.
Nakamura, Robert T. 1987. “The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation
Research.” Review of Policy Research 7 (1): 142–154.
Nohrstedt, Daniel, Karin Ingold, Christopher M. Weible, Elizabeth Koebele, Kristin
L. Olofsson, Keiichi Satoh, and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 2023. “The Advocacy
Coalition Framework: Progress and Emerging Areas.” In Theories of the Policy
Process, 5th ed., edited by Christopher M.Weible, 130–160. New York: Routledge.
Olson, Mancur. 1965 The Logic of Collection Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
23

Introduction 23
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons:The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Ostrom,Vincent, Charles M. Tiebout, and Robert Warren. 1961. “The Organization
of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.” American Political
Science Review 55 (4): 831–842.
Parson, Wayne. 1995. Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy
Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Petridou, Evangelia, and Michael Mintrom. 2021. “A Research Agenda for the Study
of Policy Entrepreneurs.” Policy Studies Journal 49 (4): 943–967.
Pielke, Roger A. 2004. “What Future for the Policy Sciences?” Policy Sciences 37 (3):
209–225.
Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political
Change.” World Politics 45 (4): 595–628.
Porto de Oliveira, Osmany Porto, Giulia Romano, Craig Volden, and Andrew Karch.
2023. “Policy Diffusion and Innovation.” In Theories of the Policy Process, 5th ed.,
edited by Christopher M. Weible, 230–261. New York: Routledge.
Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Putnam, Robert D., Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. 1994. Making
Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Ranney, Austin, ed. 1968a. “The Study of Policy Content: A Framework for
Choice.” In Political Science and Public Policy, edited by Austin Ranney, 3–21.
Chicago, IL: Markham Publishers.
Ranney, Austin. 1968b. Political Science and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: Markham
Publishers.
Redford, Emmette. S. 1969. Democracy in the Administrative State. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Richardson, Jeremy John, ed. 1982. Policy Styles in Western Europe. New York: George
Allen and Unwin.
Riker, William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Sabatier, Paul A. 1991. “Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process.” PS: Political
Science & Politics 24 (2): 147–156.
Sabatier, Paul A. 1998. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and
Relevance for Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy 5 (1): 98–130.
Sabatier, Paul A. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An
Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1935. Politics, Pressures and theTariff. NewYork: Prentice-Hall.
Schattschneider, Elmer. E. 1957. Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope. American
Political Science Review 51 (4): 933–942.
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Schlager, Edella, and Sergio Villamayor-Tomas. 2023. “The IAD Framework and Its
Tools for Policy and Institutional Analysis.” In Theories of the Policy Process, 5th ed.,
edited by Christopher M. Weible, 196–229. New York: Routledge.
24

24 Christopher M.Weible
Schneider, Anne L., and Helen Ingram. 1993. “Social Construction of Target
Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review
87 (2): 334–347.
Schneider, Anne L., and Helen Ingram. 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence,
KS: University Press of Kansas.
Schneider, Anne L., Helen Ingram, and Peter deLeon. 2014. “Democratic Policy
Design: Social Construction of Target Populations.” In Theories of the Policy Process,
4th ed., edited by Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, 105–149. New
York: Routledge.
Sharkansky, Ira, ed. 1970. Policy Analysis in Political Science. Chicago, IL: Markham
Publishing Company.
Shipman, George A. 1959. “The Policy Process: An Emerging Perspective.” Western
Political Quarterly 12 (2): 535–547.
Simon, Herbert. A. 1957. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Models of Man,
Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social
Setting. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Simon, Herbert. A. 1966. Political Research: the Decision-Making Framework. In Varieties
of Political Theory, edited by David Easton, 15–24. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Simon, Herbert A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers; The Political Origins of Social
Policy in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stone, Deborah A. 1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.”
Political Science Quarterly 104 (2): 281–300.
Titmuss, Richard M. 1971. The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy.
New York: Pantheon.
Torgerson, Douglas. 1985. “Contextual Orientation in Policy Analysis: The
Contribution of Harold D Lasswell. Policy Sciences 18 (3): 241–261.
Torgerson, Douglas. 2019. “Lasswell in the Looking Glass: A ‘Mirror’ for Critical
Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 13 (1): 122–130.
Tosun, Jale, and Samuel Workman. 2023. “Struggle and Triumph in Fusing Policy
Process and Comparative Research.” In Theories of the Policy Process, 5th ed., edited
by Christopher M. Weible, 322–354. New York: Routledge.
Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Walker, Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.”
American Political Science Review 63 (3): 880–899.
Weaver, R. Kent. 1986. “The Politics of Blame Avoidance.” Journal of Public Policy 6
(4): 371–398.
Weible, Christopher M. 2020. “Theories of Policy Processes: Ways to Think about
Them and Use Them.” https://medium.com/policy-process-matters/theories-
of-policy-processes-ways-to-think-about-them-and-use-them-9368792ecb50.
Accessed on June 15, 2022.
Weible, Christopher M. 2023. “Advancing Policy Process Research and Theories.” In
Theories of the Policy Process, 5th ed., edited by Christopher M. Weible, 355–372.
New York: Routledge.
Weible, Christopher M., and Paul Cairney, eds. 2021. Practical Lessons from Policy
Theories. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Weible, Christopher M., Paul Cairney, and Jill Yordy. 2022. “A Diamond in the
Rough: Digging Up and Polishing Harold D. Lasswell’s Decision Functions.”
Policy Sciences 55 (1): 209–222.
25

Introduction 25
Weible, Christopher M., and Samuel Workman, eds. 2022. Methods of the Policy Process.
New York: Routledge.
Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining. 2017. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
New York: Routledge.
Zohlnhöfer, Reimut, Nicole Herweg, and Nikolaos Zahariadis. 2022 “How to
Conduct a Multiple Streams Study.” In Methods of the Policy Process, edited by
Christopher M. Weible and Samuel Workman, 23–50. New York: Routledge.
Part I

Theoretical Approaches to
Policy Process Research

1 The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements,

and Empirical Applications 029
Nicole Herweg, Nikolaos Zahariadis, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer
2 Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and
Change in Public Policymaking 065
Frank R. Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones, and Peter B. Mortensen
3 Policy Feedback Theory 100
Suzanne Mettler and Mallory E. SoRelle
4 The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Progress and Emerging
Areas 130
Daniel Nohrstedt, Karin Ingold, Christopher M.Weible, Elizabeth
A. Koebele, Kristin L. Olofsson, Keiichi Satoh, and Hank C.
Jenkins-Smith
5 The Narrative Policy Framework 161
Michael D. Jones, Aaron Smith-Walter, Mark K. McBeth, and
Elizabeth A. Shanahan
6 The IAD Framework and Its Tools for Policy and Institutional
Analysis 196
Edella Schlager and Sergio Villamayor-Tomas
7 Policy Diffusion and Innovation 230
Osmany Porto de Oliveira, Giulia C. Romano, Craig Volden, and
Andrew Karch
8 The Ecology of Games Framework: Complexity in Polycentric
Governance 262
Mark Lubell, Jack Mewhirter, and Matthew Robbins
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Lakewood boys
on the Lazy S
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Lakewood boys on the Lazy S

Author: L. P. Wyman

Release date: July 23, 2024 [eBook #74045]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: A. L. Burth Company, 1925

Credits: Al Haines

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAKEWOOD

BOYS ON THE LAZY S ***
[Transcriber's note: Unusual spellings are as printed. A
Contents has been added for reader convenience.]
Then he turned as if on a pivot and with a suddenness
which all but unseated the boy. (Page 51)
("The Lakewood Boys on the Lazy S")
THE LAKEWOOD BOYS
ON THE LAZY S
By L. P. WYMAN, PH.D.
Dean of the Pennsylvania Military College

AUTHOR OF
"The Lakewood Boys in the Frozen North," "The
Lakewood Boys and the Lost Mine," "The Lakewood
Boys and the Polo Ponies," "The Lakewood
Boys in the South Sea Islands,"
"The Golden Boys Series," etc.

A. L. BURT COMPANY
Publishers New York
Printed in U. S. A.

The Lakewood Boys Series

 A SERIES OF STORIES FOR BOYS 12 TO 16
YEARS OF AGE

BY L. P. WYMAN, PH.D.
Dean of the Pennsylvania Military College

The Lakewood Boys in the Frozen North

The Lakewood Boys on the Lazy S
The Lakewood Boys and the Lost Mine
The Lakewood Boys and the Polo Ponies
The Lakewood Boys in the South Sea Islands
Copyright, 1925
By A. L. BURT COMPANY

THE LAKEWOOD BOYS ON THE LAZY S

Made in "U. S. A."

Contents

Chapter

I. The Rescue
II. Mr. Leeds Tells a Story
III. Slim and Slats
IV. Bob "Learns how to Ride"
V. A Sidewinder
VI. Bob Captured
VII. Bob Makes a Convert
VIII. The Raid
IX. Suspicions
X. On Watch
XI. Skeets Stages a Farce
XII. The "Tail" of the Mountain Lion
XIII. The Round Up
XIV. Conclusion

THE LAKEWOOD BOYS ON

THE LAZY S.

CHAPTER I.

THE RESCUE.

"That cloud over there's coming this way pretty fast, Bob."

"Does look rather squally for a fact, but I've just got to have it out with
that pickerel. The beggar's stole three frogs already and I simply can't let
him get away with a thing like that."

"Make it snappy, then. It's going to rain inside of ten minutes and, from
the looks, it'll be some rain."

With a long cast Bob Lakewood threw his fourth frog far over toward a
patch of lily pads and, for a moment, held his rod, a look of keen
expectancy on his face.
 "He's taken it again," he announced a moment later. "Now hurry up and
gobble it down then we'll see who's who."

"Bet you miss him again," his brother grinned.

Bob made no reply but gave a sudden sharp jerk to the pole. This time
there was a decided resistance at the other end of the line and he hurriedly
began to reel in. But before he had recovered more than a few yards the big
fish, evidently making up its mind that it had come far enough, made a
sudden rush for the lily pads and the reel hummed as the line cut through
the water.

"He's a big one, all right," Jack shouted.

Bob was pressing on the drag as hard as he dared, hoping to stop the fish
before it reached the pads, knowing that once among them it was as good as
lost. He succeeded just as he was about to give up hope and began reeling
in once more.

"Stand by with the net," he panted.

Jack obeyed but the fish had not yet given up the fight and, although the
greater part of the line had been regained, the rush which followed took it
nearly all out again. Four times this was repeated before the fish, tired out
with the struggle, lay gasping on the bottom of the boat.

"He's a beauty," Jack declared. "Six pounds if he's an ounce and that's
larger than any we've caught in this lake."

A low but distinct rumble turned their attention from the pickerel and
Jack sprang for the bow and began hurriedly to pull in the anchor.

"We've got to get a hustle on if we're going to beat it in," he declared as

he grasped the wheel while Bob turned a small switch. Instantly the boat
began to move, although there was no sound of an engine. A small but
powerful electric motor, run by a secret type of storage cell, took the place
of the usual gasoline engine. Rapidly the craft gained speed until, in less
than three minutes, she was cutting through the water at a rate of nearly
fifteen miles an hour.

"Better put up the top," Jack shouted a few minutes later as the first
drops of rain warned him that they had started too late.

It took Bob but a moment to pull the canvas top over the boat but it was
raining hard as he resumed his seat and moved the switch over another
notch. A sharp flash of lightning followed by a deafening peal of thunder
seemed a prelude to the sudden rush of wind which swept over the lake
kicking the water into white caps all about them.

"She's a hummer, all right," Jack shouted, but so loud was the howling of
the wind that Bob scarcely heard him. "You giving her all she's got?" he
yelled a moment later.

"She's on the last notch," Bob shouted back, but the crackling of the
thunder added to the roaring of the wind, made it doubtful if Jack heard
him.

By the time they were half-way to the wharf the lightning was almost
incessant and the rain was coming down in sheets, shutting out the shore
and Jack was steering wholly by instinct.

"Better slow her down," Jack shouted a little later. "I can't see more than
a few feet ahead but, unless we're off the course we must be pretty near in."

"Just what I was thinking," Bob shouted as he pushed back the lever
several notches.

The wind being dead against them the boat rapidly lost headway and
Bob soon had to advance the lever a couple of notches in order to maintain
headway. The rain was falling so rapidly now that the surface of the lake
was almost smooth, the waves being beaten down by the force of the water
before they could rise hardly above the surface.

"It must be a cloudburst," Jack yelled back.

 "And then some," Bob added, shouting at the top of his voice.

A few more minutes passed and suddenly Jack shouted:

"Reverse her, quick."

Bob obeyed the order and the propeller churned the water in the effort to
overcome the momentum of the boat.

"Just right."

The words came just as the boat struck something with the slightest of
shocks and, in another minute she was securely fastened under the lea of the
wharf.

"Talk about luck," Jack grinned as he shook the water from his arms
which had been soaked as he reached out beneath the canvas top in order to
make the boat fast.

"Don't see how you did it," Bob assured him.

"Just pure luck," Jack repeated. "My, but that water's wet."

Bob was about to say something when a shrill cry arrested his attention
and, glancing out through the tiny window in the side of the top, he saw a
woman struggling to make her way toward them.

"Now I wonder——" he began, but before he could get any further the
woman had reached the side of the boat and was making frantic gestures for
him to come out.

"It's Mrs. Leeds," he shouted to Jack as, without a moment's hesitation

he pushed aside a flap of the covering and crawled out onto the wharf.

He was drenched to the skin in an instant but, from the woman's

appearance he had judged that something serious was the matter. Nor was
he mistaken.

"Clara's out there in a canoe," she cried, wringing her hands.

 "Which way?" Bob shouted back.

"That way," she replied, pointing down the lake. "I saw her coming in
just before the storm struck and then the rain blotted her out and—and,
——" But she could say no more.

"We'll get her," Bob shouted, jumping back into the boat.

"Get the top down, quick, old man," he cried. "We'll need all the eyes
we've got. There's a girl out there somewhere and it's up to us to find her.
Make it snappy now."

The top was down and the boat untied by the time he had finished
speaking and in another minute was racing down the lake. The motor as
well as the cell was inclosed in a watertight casing so there was no fear of
the rain, which continued with unabated fury, interfering with the running
of the boat.

They were now running nearly with the wind and so great was the speed
that Bob soon shut off the motor entirely, and even then the boat sped
through the water at a rapid rate.

"She must be blown clear across the lake by this time unless she
capsized," Jack shouted after they had been gone from the wharf about five
minutes.

"God help her if she did," Bob cried straining his eyes to pierce the wall
of water which seemed to shut them in on all sides.

"Better give her a little juice," Jack advised. "We'll never catch a canoe
at this rate. It'll blow faster than we will."

"Right you are," and Bob threw over the lever a couple of notches.

The boat leaped forward like a thing alive and for an instant the wind
seemed to die down to a gentle breeze, but he knew that it was blowing as
hard as ever. Then, almost as quickly as it had come, the rain lessened. It
was, as Jack afterward declared, almost as though someone had turned off a
spigot.

"There's the canoe," Jack shouted a moment later pointing to the right
and, at the same time, swinging the boat about in a wide sweep.

Following his gesture Bob saw the canoe, bottom up, bobbing up and
down on the waves, which, now that the rain had nearly ceased, were
running high, and his heart sank within him as the certainty of the girl's fate
struck him. But a moment later he was electrified as Jack cried out that she
was clinging to the stern. And now, as they came nearer he could see that he
was right. A slim arm reached up out of the water and a hand was fastened
to a ring in the end of the canoe. But, even as he gazed, the fingers lost their
hold and were gone.

In an instant Bob had kicked off his shoes and thrown aside his coat.
Then, as the boat swept up close to the canoe, he disappeared over the side.
Down he swam, striving to pierce the water with his eyes. It must be pretty
deep here, he thought, kicking out more lustily as the pressure in his lungs
warned him that he must soon have air. He failed to reach the bottom before
he knew that he must give up and had just turned for the rise when his eye
caught sight of an object a few feet to his right. It was she and with a prayer
that he might be able to hold out, he plunged desperately for her. Grabbing
her by the hair he beat the water frantically with his free hand and slowly
rose toward the surface, although it seemed to him that they were stationary.

Would they ever reach the air? His lungs seemed on the point of
bursting, but the thought of dropping his burden never entered his mind.
Desperately he worked his legs in an effort to hurry their progress. Then,
just when it seemed that he could stand it no longer, his head broke through
the water and he breathed the life-giving air.

Raising himself as high as possible, so as to hold the girl's head above

water, he shook the water from his eyes and looked about. Jack was only a
few yards away and had already caught sight of him.

"Hold hard a minute," he shouted encouragingly.

 Bob was certain that the girl was unconscious and he feared that she
might be dead, although he hardly thought it likely, as she had been beneath
the water not more than two minutes at the most. He trod water with all his
strength and, although it seemed to him a long time, it was not more than a
minute from the time his head appeared above the water, when Jack reached
over the side of the boat and lifted the girl aboard. He quickly followed
saying as he climbed over the side:

"Full speed for home, old man, and I'll see what I can do for her."

He had long been an expert at "first aid" and, throwing a long cushion
onto the bottom of the boat, he placed her face down upon it. Then, placing
his hands beneath her, he gently raised her up and held her while the water
ran from her mouth. Then, turning her onto her back he began raising and
lowering her arms in an effort to start respiration. Soon he was rewarded by
a faint tinge of color which stole back to her face and a moment later she
gave a slight gasp and opened her eyes.

In spite of the wind, which still blew a gale, the boat was plowing
through the water at a good rate throwing the white spray high on either
side of the bow.

"How did I——?" she whispered, but Bob placed his fingers gently over
her lips.

"Don't try to talk now, please," he cautioned her. "You are safe and will
be all right in a short time but, just now, you need all your strength."

She obediently closed her eyes and, by the time they reached the wharf
some ten minutes later, she was breathing easily and regularly. Half a dozen
people, including the girl's mother, were on the wharf, and they broke into
shouts of joy as they saw that the girl was safe. Tears were streaming from
the mother's eyes as she took the girl from Bob's arms and clasped her to
her breast.

"My darling," she sobbed. "I thought that you were drowned, but, thank
God, you are safe."
 "You'll have to thank those two boys, too," the girl whispered.

But when Mrs. Leeds turned from her daughter to look for them they
were no where in sight. Hating to have a fuss made over them, Bob and
Jack, as soon as they were convinced that the girl was all right, had
hastened to their room in the hotel which stood just at the end of the wharf.

As their folks were all away for a few days, their own cottage, situated
near the head of the lake, was closed for the time being and they were
boarding at the hotel.

"Old Wesserunsette can pick up quite a fuss when she gets her dander
up," Jack laughed as he began stripping off his wet clothes.

"I'll say she can," Bob agreed, glancing out of the window. "Look at
those white caps out there. It's no wonder she tipped over."

"And now, I suppose the boy hero will have to marry the pretty girl he
saved from a watery grave and live happily ever after," Jack gibed and
dodged just in time to escape a wet shoe. "Oh, well, if you feel that way
about it, I'll keep still," he laughed.

"You better had," Bob growled, struggling to pull off a wet sock.

"What do you suppose became of that canoe?" Jack asked a few minutes
later. "I forgot all about it."

"Same here. But I guess it'll be all right. It can't sink and it's probably
been blown ashore by this time."

"If it doesn't pound to pieces on the rocks."

"Well, it can't be helped now. We'll have a look for it after supper if the
wind goes down."

"There goes the supper bell," Jack said a few minutes later. "I hate to go
down for fear they'll make a big fuss over us and I do hate that sort of
thing."
 "Same here, but we've got to face it sometime and I suppose we might as
well go down now and have it over with."

There were some twenty-five or more people in the dining-room as they

entered and their worst fears were realized. Everyone stood up as soon as
they appeared and a big man over in one corner shouted:

"Three cheers for the Lakewood boys!"

The cheers were given with a will and all they could do was to stand still
and blush.

"Speech," someone shouted.

The room suddenly became quiet and Bob, after a hasty glance around,
as though looking for a chance to escape, said:

"Thank you all but——"

"No buts about it," someone interrupted.

"All right," Bob said, "no buts goes, so we'll again say thanks and let it
go at that." And he hastened across the room to their table closely followed
by Jack.

A loud clapping of hands followed and then the folks, aware of the boy's
confusion, turned to their supper, much to the satisfaction of Bob and Jack.

"Thank goodness, that's over," Jack whispered, as he picked up his

napkin.

"But here comes Mrs. Leeds and Clara," Bob groaned.

The Leeds, mother and daughter, were from New York City and had
been at the lake only three or four days. The boys had noticed them several
times and had even remarked on the extreme beauty of the girl, who was
about seventeen, but they had not met them formally. The boys rose as they
approached their table.
 "I—I do not know how to thank you," Mrs. Leeds hesitated as she held
out her hand to Bob.

"Please do not try," Bob smiled as he grasped her hand. "We are very
glad that we were able to do what we did."

"Modesty is a sure sign of true bravery," Mrs. Leeds smiled as she shook
hands with Jack.

She then introduced Clara, who thanked them very prettily but, as Jack
declared afterward, "didn't gush a mite," for which they were truly grateful.

"We expect Mr. Leeds to-morrow night," Mrs. Leeds told them, "and I
know you will like him."

"Everyone loves daddy," Clara added.

"We're going to take a look for the canoe after supper," Bob said and
added with a blush, "perhaps you would like to go with us. The wind has
about died down and it will be pleasant on the lake."

"Oh, say we'll go," Clara looked imploringly at her mother.

"Why, I'm sure we'll be delighted if we won't be in the way," she assured
them.

Both Mrs. Leeds and Clara showed great interest in the motive power of
the Chum, as the boys called the boat, and Bob explained the motor and the
cell which operated it. To the great satisfaction of the boys neither of their
guests referred again to the rescue while they were on the water, evidently
sensing that it was their wish.

The run down the lake was quickly made and, after a short search along
the shore, they found the canoe washed up on the sand and entirely
uninjured. They made the return trip more slowly, as it was very pleasant on
the lake just as the sun was sinking behind the hills.

"I think I know how you feel," Mrs. Leeds said as they parted an hour
later, "but I must just say thank you once more."
 Although her words were so simple both boys knew, from the tears
which gathered in her eyes, that they came from her heart, and they felt that
they had made some new friends worth having.

CHAPTER II.

MR. LEEDS TELLS A STORY.

Mr. Leeds arrived the next day and, shortly before supper time, Clara
met the boys in the parlor of the hotel and insisted that they come over to
their cottage and meet him. They were somewhat surprised to find him a
man well past fifty, as they had thought of him as much younger. As he rose
to greet them they noticed that he was very lame in his right leg and he did
not look as though he was in good health.

"These are the boys who pulled me out of the drink," Clara introduced
them.

A most engaging smile lighted up the man's face as he held out both
hands toward them.

"I feel that I know you already," he said. "Clara has not talked of
anything else since I got here and her mother has run her a close second. I
—I hardly know where to begin in expressing my feelings to you. You see,
she is all we have and—and—"

In spite of himself his voice broke and Bob quickly filled in the gap.

"Please do not try, sir. We both know how you feel and really it was
nothing."

"Well, I like that," Clara declared.

 Bob's face turned the color of a ripe tomato, according to Jack's
statement made later, and he stammered:

"I—I didn't mean it that way, I—I——"

"I suppose you meant that it was nothing unusual for you to save a girl
from the briny deep," Clara interrupted.

"Only it wasn't briny," Mrs. Leeds laughed and her laughter, in which
they all joined, did much to relieve the situation.

"Maine is a great state, the greatest in the Union."

It was nearly half past eleven o'clock and the boys were sitting with Mr.
Leeds on the porch of the latter's cottage. Mrs. Leeds and Clara had retired
and the boys had started to take their departure, but Mr. Leeds had begged
them to keep him company a while longer and it was he who made the
above statement.

"You don't have to tell us that," Jack assured him.

"I suppose not. You see, I was born here, that is, in this state away up
north in a little place called Matagamon. There were only about twenty
people there then and I don't suppose there are many more now. I don't
imagine you ever heard of it."

"Oh, yes, we have, although we've never been there," Jack assured him.
"Isn't it on the East Branch of the Penobscot?"

"It sure is. It's been nearly thirty years since I have been there, but there
isn't much territory within a radius of fifty miles from the place that I didn't
know back in those days. It was pretty wild country then and, for that
matter, I guess it is now."

"I'll bet you had lots of adventures," Jack ventured.

"Well, yes, I suppose you would call them that. I owe this game leg to a
bear."
 "Oh, please tell us about it," Jack said as he paused.

"Well, if it isn't too late and you care to hear it——"

"It's never too late for us to hear a real bear story," Bob laughed, as he
hesitated.

"To begin at the beginning, then, I'll have to tell you of an old legend
which the old folks used to tell us children when I was very small. It seems
that nearly three hundred years ago a small tribe of Indians had their
dwelling place up near what is now called Big Machias Lake. By the way,
the only big thing about the lake is its name, as it isn't more than a mile
long. In fact, it is really nothing more than a widening of the Big Machias
River.

"They were called the Tutehonekut'qin Indians and, it was believed that
they had made their way overland from the Yukon River in Alaska, as there
used to be a tribe of that name there."

"I wonder if they were any relation to King Tut of Egypt," Jack
interrupted.

"Maybe," Mr. Leeds laughed. "At any rate, they were not poor relations
for, according to the legend, they were possessed of almost fabulous wealth,
gold and precious stones, being as common as are iron and glass with us."

"But where did they get them?" Bob asked.

"Well, if there was any truth in it, they must, of course, have brought
their wealth with them from far off Alaska. But gold and jewels they had in
abundance. But the pride of the tribe was Rippling Water, the daughter of
Mato-wopa-geya, chief of the tribe. She must have been a wonderful girl.
Straight and supple as a young sapling, with a wealth of raven black hair,
she could outrun and out-paddle any of the braves of the tribe, so the legend
ran.

"But one day trouble, unbeknown to them, appeared in the person of a

young brave from another tribe. He came, he saw and was conquered in so
far as the maid was concerned, but, alas, he did not conquer. Rippling
Water's heart had, for many moons, been in the keeping of Wawiekumig, a
young brave of her own tribe, and she turned a deaf ear to the wooing of the
stranger. Unfortunately, the strange brave, being the son of a mighty chief,
had always had his own way and, instead of accepting her refusal as a
gentleman, he went away vowing revenge. Nor was it long in coming.
Before another moon had passed a band of warriors, outnumbering the
Tutehonekut'qui many times, fell upon them and wiped them from the face
of the earth."

"Did they kill the girl?" Jack asked.

"The legend states that she was the only one left alive and she was
dragged away by the stranger. But it also states that she died soon after and
that often, on a moonlight night, her spirit has been seen and heard
bewailing the fate of her people."

"Did they get the gold and jewels?" Bob asked.

"According to the legend they did not."

"Then what became of it?"

"It was hidden in a cave and to find that cave was my mission when I
met the bear. You'll probably think I was very foolish to take any stock in an
old legend but, as a matter of fact, I had rather more than that to go on and I
was only seventeen. You see, about a year before I had gotten acquainted
with an old Indian, who lived all by himself on the shore of Chesuncook
Lake. His name was Aquqarenuts, meaning cross feathers, and it happened
in this way. I was up there on a hunting trip with my father, late in the fall,
and we came upon the old man's cabin purely by accident and found him
very sick with pneumonia. We stayed and nursed him and he lived. He was
very grateful and it was the following summer while I was staying a few
days with him that he told me the legend I have told you. Of course, I had
heard it before, but the old Indian declared that he knew it to be true and,
needless to say, his words made a deep impression on my mind, especially
when he assured me that he was a descendant of Wawiekumig, who, he
declared, had escaped the massacre. It was a few months later, during
another visit, that he told me of the hidden treasure. It seems that the
knowledge of the hiding place had been handed down from one generation
to another."

"Had he never looked for it?" Bob asked as he paused.

"He said he had not, explaining that gold would be of no use to him. But
he, insomuch as he was the last of his race, offered to take me to the place
and help me recover it. You can imagine how eagerly I accepted the offer. It
was, he said, in a cave on the shore of Big Machias Lake. There was but
one entrance to the cave and that was under water and one had to dive and
swim through to get in."

"No wonder it was never found," Jack declared.

"Big Machias Lake is about eighty miles to the north of Chesuncook

through the unbroken wilderness and we planned to be gone two weeks.
Twenty miles a day through those woods was a good day's work, and he
assured me that it would take several days to get the gold-and jewels out.

"For three days everything went well and, when we camped that night,
he assured me that we would reach the lake the next day. But when I awoke
the following morning, Aquqarenuts was gone. His blanket was there on the
ground beside me and, so far as I could see, he had taken nothing with him,
not even his rifle. At first I thought nothing of it, supposing that he had
merely gone a short distance for some purpose and would soon be back. But
when an hour had passed and he had not returned, I began to feel uneasy,
and at the end of another hour I started out to look for him. I didn't find him
and I never saw him again."

"But what happened?" Bob asked.

"That I never knew. All that day I searched and at night I was about the
most worried and tired boy you ever saw. No, I never knew what became of
him. Sometimes I have thought that he might have repented telling me
about the hidden treasure but, inasmuch as he had already described the
place so that I could hardly help finding if, I hardly think it likely. No, I
prefer to think that some wild beast killed him and dragged him off to his
lair, although I confess it hardly seems possible.

"Well, I debated with myself until long into the night, whether to go on
and try to find the place by myself or to give it up and go back. I was well
versed in forest lore and did not doubt my ability to find my way back. But
finally I determined that I would try to find the lake, seeing that I was so
near and there was always the hope that the Indian would come back. So I
started early in the morning and was making fairly good time in spite of
hard traveling, when, suddenly, after pushing through a dense clump of
bushes, I came face to face with an enormous black bear. I know they say
that a bear will run from a man, but this one must have been untrained in
the way a bear should act when meeting a man for, with a deep roar she
charged straight for me. Of course, she may have had a cub somewhere and
that would explain her action, but I didn't see any and don't believe there
was one. My rifle was strapped to my back and she was almost on me when
I got it pointed and pulled the trigger. But she didn't stop and before I had
time to fire again she had given me a cuff with her huge paw which sent me
flying end over end. But my shot had pierced her heart and the blow was
her last effort. As I picked myself up I was conscious of an intense pain in
my right hip where the bear had hit me and to my dismay I found that I was
unable to bear any weight on it. That it was broken I had little doubt.
Imagine my situation. To be sure I was much nearer home than the place
from which we had set out, but it was all of forty miles away and probably
nearer fifty, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was not a soul any
nearer. Fortunately I had food enough to last me for several days, so there
was no danger of starving for the present at least. But I had no water, as we
did not carry any, depending on brooks and springs for our supply.

"It was not a cheerful situation, but I did not lose heart. I found that the
only way in which I could move was to hitch along on my left side and
even so every movement caused me intense pain. But I remembered
crossing a small brook about a mile back and I was resolved to reach it, if
possible. I suppose I was an hour making a hundred yards. Remember, I had
to drag my pack along with me and it was by no means a light one.
 "That journey has always been a nightmare to me, but I am not going to
worry you with the details. It was nearly dark when finally I reached the
brook and never since have I tasted anything as good as that water. As you
can imagine, I was very tired and, in spite of the throbbing pain in my hip, I
fell asleep there by the side of the stream and it was broad daylight when I
awoke.

"I knew that I was in a serious position. To reach home in my condition

was plainly out of the question. It had taken me the better part of a day to
cover a mile and at that rate it would take a month or more to reach home,
and long before that my supply of food would run out. Now my only hope
seemed to be to remain where I was, by the side of the brook, and trust that
some hunter would find me while I was still alive. Fortunately I had a good
supply of ammunition for my rifle and I decided that I would fire a shot at
intervals of two hours.

"The pain in my hip had now subsided to a dull ache, although every
movement still gave me intense pain, so I kept as still as possible, moving
only when I was obliged to. Well, it must be getting late, so I'll have to cut
my story short. I was there a week before two hunters, from my own town,
found me. They were three days getting me home and it was another day
before we could get a doctor. He set my hip and, under the circumstances, I
guess he did as good a job as was possible, but I never walked straight
again."

"And you never went back to look for the cave?" Bob asked.

"No, it was a long time before I could walk at all, but I told another
fellow about it and he found it, the cave, I mean, but there was no gold
there."

"And did the Indian ever turn up?" Jack asked.

"No. It has always been a mystery what became of him."

Just then a clock in the cabin struck one and the boys started up with an
exclamation of surprise.
 "Gracious, I didn't know it was so late," Bob said. "Thanks for the story.
Come on, Jack, we must beat it."

"Just a minute," Mr. Leeds said, as they were about to start off. "When I
said that Maine was the greatest state in the Union, of course, I was not
referring to its size."

"I know there are other states larger," Bob acknowledged somewhat
grudgingly. "I suppose Texas is quite a lot bigger."

"Well, slightly," Mr. Leeds laughed. "In fact, few people this way have
any idea as to its size. Perhaps you will appreciate it when I tell you that
eight states of the size of Maine could be very comfortably placed in
Texas."

"Great guns, do you mean that?" Jack exploded.

"Figure it out for yourself," Mr. Leeds laughed. "Maine has 33,040
square miles of territory and Texas has 265,896."

"Some state," Jack gasped.

"Were you ever in the state?" Bob asked.

"Many times. In fact, I own a fairly large cattle ranch out there."

"What's its name?" Bob asked.

"We call it the Lazy S."

"That's rather a funny name," Jack suggested.

"Many ranches out that way have queer names," Mr. Leeds told them.

"This one takes its name from a small river which runs through it. You
see, it is curved in the shape of an S and the country is so flat there that
there is but a very slight current; in fact, it is only about a half a mile an
hour."
 "I'd sure like to see it, the ranch, I mean," Jack declared.

"I don't see why you can't," Mr. Leeds told him.

"Texas is a long way from here," Bob sighed as they again said good
night.

When, five minutes later, Bob snapped on the light in their room, he
looked at Jack and Jack looked at him.

"Well?"

"Of course," Jack replied.

"Of course what?"

"Of course we're going to Texas."

"Who said so?"

"You did."

"I never mentioned it."

"Not in words, perhaps, but you looked at me, didn't you?"

"I guess you're a mind reader, all right," Bob laughed. "To tell the truth, I
was wondering how you felt about it."

"Well, you know now, I reckon," Jack grinned.

"It would be wonderful," Bob mused. "I've always had a longing to see a
real sure enough ranch."

"Same here. Any reason why we shouldn't go?"

"I don't know of any, that is, unless father objects and I don't know why
he should."
 "Well, he'll be back to-morrow and we can ask him," Jack declared as he
turned out the light and tumbled in to bed.

CHAPTER III.

SLIM AND SLATS.

Mr. Robert Lakewood was a well-to-do manufacturer, and, having entire

confidence in his boys, both as to their moral character and their ability to
take care of themselves, he, shortly after his arrival the following day, made
no objection to the proposed trip.

"I have known Mr. Leeds by reputation for some years and have met him
once or twice," he said, "and if he is willing for you to go, I think it will be
a wonderful experience for you."

It turned out that, as soon as the owner of the ranch learned that they
really wished to go and that their father was willing, he was most
enthusiastic and declared that he would at once write to his foreman and tell
him that they were coming and that they were to have the full run of the
ranch.

"You'll like Jeb," he told them. "There's a real he-man for you and what
he don't know about the cattle business simply doesn't exist."

* * * * * * * *

"Some folks shore has all the luck."

"Meaning what, Slim?"

"Slim" Jones, a man who, in his high-heeled boots, stood all of five feet
three inches and weighed fully a hundred and eighty pounds, glanced
quickly up at his companion, a tall, lanky individual, who responded to the
name of Slats.

"Meaning jest what I said, that's what. Here I've got to hitch up and drive
all the way inter Cold Springs ter meet them eastern dudes an' all you gotter
do is ter stay here an' mend fence."

"Slats" Magee laughed as he drew himself up to his full six feet four.

"You poor child," he drawled. "You shore do seem ter have it rubbed in
ter ye fer a fact. But, as the preacher said, 'it's never so bad but it might be
worse,' so cheer up, ol' timer, an' put the best fut first."

"Easy 'nough ter give advise when ye're on the safe end," Slim growled
as he got up from the nail keg on which he had been sitting.

"Tell you what'll I'll do jest ter show there's no hard feelings. I'll flip a
coin ter see who goes and stays ter mend fence."

"Yer mean it?"

Slim looked slightly incredulous as he felt in his pocket.

"Shore thing, but no whining if yer lose."

Slim had pulled a half-dollar from his pocket and as he rested it on his
thumb-nail preparatory to snapping it into the air, he said:

"Never a whine. How yer want it?"

"Heads I stay, tails you go."

"Righto, here she goes," and he spun the coin high in the air. "Tails it is,"
he announced disgustedly an instant later. "Didn't I tell yer as how some
folks has all the luck. I hain't a whinin' now, I'm only makin' a statement o'
fact."

"It's shore too bad," Slats consoled him. "But you'll enjoy the trip if yer
only make up yer mind to it." And he started off toward the corral while the
mournful loser, with a deep sigh of disgust, turned toward the huge barn.

"Much obliged jest the same fer givin' me a chance," he called back over
his shoulder.

"Don't mention it, ol' timer," the other shouted back.

It was some two hours later when Slim Jones driving along the rough
and dusty road on the way to the town, suddenly drew rein and, as the
bronchos came to a willing stop, he muttered "heads I stay, tails you go."
Several times he repeated the phrase, each time a little louder until the last
time he was almost shouting.

"Why, if it hadda come heads I'd a had ter go jest the same," he declared.
"The onnery slab-sided, red-haired skunk. If he tells the boys I'll never hear
the last of it. I'll stretch his onery hide on ter the barn door fer that, I will,
sure's my name's Slim Jones." Then, after a moment's thought, he continued
his soliloquy. "If I warn't more'n half-way there I'd turn back and make him
go." For several moments he sat in deep thought and finally a slight grin
began to spread over his broad features and, picking up the rein, he
muttered:

"Well, if he don't tell no one mebby I'll only shoot him full o' holes."

The ultimate destiny of Slats Magee having been settled to his

satisfaction, Slim tightened the reins and clucked to the drowsing bronchos
whereupon they started off with a sudden jump which all but jerked him
over backward.

"Hey, thar," he shouted, "don't ye know enough ter start up without

yanking the bottom out o' all creation when I step on the gas?"

Evidently mistaking his question for a command the bronchos stopped

so suddenly that it was only by the merest chance that Slim saved himself
from pitching over the dashboard.

"What the Sam Hill's got infer yer onery hides?" he shouted as he drew
himself back onto the seat. "Seem's how ye think I got no right ter give