IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/woraff/v185y2022i3p442-470.html

Aiming For Success

Author

Listed:
  • Noah S. Schwartz

Abstract

Despite the popularity of the Evidence‐Based Policy Making paradigm, scholarly evidence often fails to have an impact in emotional or value‐laden policy debates. Consequently, changes to Canada's gun control laws in recent years have often failed to incorporate scholarly research. This is problematic given that the forces of path dependence impose costs on policy makers who seek to reverse established policies, even if they are dysfunctional. This article lays the theoretical foundations for a Firearms Policy Evaluation Framework, which can be used by scholars, policy makers, advocates, and the public to conduct preliminary evaluations of proposed firearms policies before they become law. The utility of the framework is then demonstrated with an evaluation of the 2020 assault‐style weapons ban in Canada, which includes a systematic scoping review of the literature on the impact of assault‐weapons bans. A pesar de la popularidad del paradigma de elaboración de políticas basadas en la evidencia (EBPM), la evidencia académica a menudo no logra tener un impacto en los debates de políticas emocionales o cargados de valores. En consecuencia, los cambios en las leyes de control de armas de Canadá en los últimos años a menudo no han logrado incorporar la investigación académica. Esto es problemático dado que las fuerzas de la dependencia de la trayectoria imponen costos a los responsables políticos que buscan revertir las políticas establecidas, incluso si son disfuncionales. Este artículo sienta las bases teóricas para un Marco de Evaluación de Políticas de Armas de Fuego (FPEF, por sus siglas en inglés), que puede ser utilizado por académicos, formuladores de políticas, defensores y el público para realizar evaluaciones preliminares de las políticas de armas de fuego propuestas antes de que se conviertan en ley. Luego, se demuestra la utilidad del marco con una evaluación de la prohibición de armas de estilo de asalto de 2020 en Canadá, que incluye una revisión de alcance sistemática de la literatura sobre el impacto de las prohibiciones de armas de asalto. 尽管基于证据的政策制定 (EBPM) 范式很受欢迎，但学术证据往往无法对充满情感或价值的政策辩论产生影响。因此，近年来加拿大枪支管制法的变化往往未能纳入学术研究。这是有问题的，因为路径依赖的力量给寻求扭转既定政策的政策制定者带来了成本，即使他们功能失调。本文为枪支政策评估框架 (FPEF) 奠定了理论基础，可供学者、政策制定者、倡导者和公众在枪支政策成为法律之前对其进行初步评估。然后通过对加拿大 2020 年攻击型武器禁令的评估来证明该框架的效用，其中包括对有关攻击性武器禁令影响的文献进行系统范围界定。

Suggested Citation

  • Noah S. Schwartz, 2022. "Aiming For Success," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 185(3), pages 442-470, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:185:y:2022:i:3:p:442-470
    DOI: 10.1177/00438200221107412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/00438200221107412
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00438200221107412?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kleck, Gary & Gertz, Marc & Bratton, Jason, 2009. "Why do people support gun control?: Alternative explanations of support for handgun bans," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 496-504, September.
    2. Garrett Ward Richards, 2017. "How Research-Policy Partnerships Can Benefit Government: A Win-Win for Evidence-Based Policy-Making," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 43(2), pages 165-170, June.
    3. Anthony Fleming & Dylan S. McLean & Raymond Tatalovich, 2018. "Debating Gun Control in Canada and the United States: Divergent Policy Frames and Political Cultures," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 181(4), pages 348-371, December.
    4. Mark Gius, 2015. "The impact of state and federal assault weapons bans on public mass shootings," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 281-284, March.
    5. Dennis Vicencio Blanco, 2016. "The Gun Control Debate: Why Experience and Culture Matters," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(8), pages 620-634, July.
    6. Linda Botterill & Andrew Hindmoor, 2012. "Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an evidence-based age," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5), pages 367-379.
    7. Mark Gius, 2014. "An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 265-267, March.
    8. Robert Richards, 2017. "The Role of Interest Groups and Group Interests on Gun Legislation in the U.S. House," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 98(2), pages 471-484, June.
    9. Christopher S. Koper & Jeffrey A. Roth, 2001. "The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 33-74, March.
    10. Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
    11. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    12. Mark Gius, 2018. "The effects of state and Federal gun control laws on school shootings," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 317-320, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yongjin Choi & Ashley M. Fox, 2022. "Fact‐value framework for adjudicating public health policy debates," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 820-844, November.
    2. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    3. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    4. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    5. Cullen, Patricia & Clapham, Kathleen & Byrne, Jake & Hunter, Kate & Senserrick, Teresa & Keay, Lisa & Ivers, Rebecca, 2016. "The importance of context in logic model construction for a multi-site community-based Aboriginal driver licensing program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 8-15.
    6. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    7. Karsten Schweikert & Manuel Huth & Mark Gius, 2021. "Detecting a copycat effect in school shootings using spatio‐temporal panel count models," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(4), pages 719-736, October.
    8. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    9. Volden, Gro Holst, 2018. "Public project success as seen in a broad perspective," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 109-117.
    10. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    11. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    12. Levay, Adrienne V. & Chapman, Gwen E. & Seed, Barbara & Wittman, Hannah, 2018. "It’s just the right thing to do: Conceptualizing a theory of change for a school food and beverage sales environment interv ention and implications for implementation evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 73-82.
    13. Wippell, Jack G.R. & Haynie, Dana L. & Riedman, David, 2026. "Preventable tragedies: A longitudinal analysis of state firearm laws and K-12 school shootings in the United States (2000–2019)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 394(C).
    14. Patterson, Laurie B. & Backhouse, Susan H. & Duffy, Patrick J., 2016. "Anti-doping education for coaches: Qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 35-47.
    15. Hill, Janice R. & Thies, Jeanie, 2010. "Program theory and logic model to address the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 356-364, November.
    16. Yuan Chen & Xun Li & Lisi Shi & Rui Wang & Qikexin Yu, 2025. "Temporal and Spatial Effects of Mass Shootings on Gun Demand," International Studies of Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 162-176, June.
    17. Simplice A. Asongu & Joseph Nnanna, 2019. "Dynamic Determinants of Access to Weapons: Global Evidence," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 54(4), pages 334-354, November.
    18. Kiana Moore & Heather Allen, 2013. "Continuity of Business Plans for Animal Disease Outbreaks: Using a Logic Model Approach to Protect Animal Health, Public Health, and Our Food Supply," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    20. Emma R. Norman, 2022. "Note From The Editor," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 185(3), pages 436-441, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:185:y:2022:i:3:p:442-470. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.