Well-resourced and well-connected individuals, or "policy entrepreneurs," often play an important role in advocating and securing the adoption of policies. There is a striking lack of inquiry into the ways that social networks shape the ability of these actors to achieve their aims, including the ways in which network ties may channel policy conflict. To address these gaps, we analyze data from an original survey and an original database of policies to assess the success of policy entrepreneurs (PEs) active in a highly contentious arena: municipal policymaking concerning high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) in New York. We use text-mining to collect social network data from local newspaper archives, then use those data to construct municipal HVHF policy networks. Municipal anti-HVHF PEs appear more successful when they operate in less cohesive networks, act as bridges to relative newcomers to the governance network, and have a larger number of network connections. Pro-HVHF PEs appear more successful when they can forge high-value connections to key decision makers. Policy entrepreneurs on both sides of the issue are more successful when they have a greater number of sympathetic coalition partners.

Relatively little is known about when, why, and how some jurisdictions “double down” on policy priorities, rapidly adopting multiple measures tackling the same issue. Rapid policy expansion can emerge in fast‐evolving, uncertain, and contested policy arenas in which pressures for policy making are not satisfied, and even may be strengthened, by initial policy innovation. This article analyzes local government policy making on high‐volume hydraulic fracturing by New York State municipalities from 2008 to 2012. Policy path dependence, peer influence, and policy design appear to play a critical role in determining whether public officials respond to these pressures with policy expansion. Initial policy innovations can open windows for policy participants to secure additional measures that strengthen or enlarge the scope of action. Public officials and stakeholders seeking particular policy outcomes should take a long view of the policy process while simultaneously remaining alert for opportunities afforded by pressurized policy dilemmas.

The movement to develop indicators that provide a more nuanced view of quality of life (QoL) continues to gain momentum and support in both scientific and policy-making circles. However, measuring QoL still faces a number of challenges. While a range of indicator sets has been developed, it is unclear whether any of them is able to adequately capture the broad range of conditions it encompasses. In addition, it has yet to be determined whether different dimensions of QoL can be meaningfully integrated in one indicator or if separate indicators need to be employed alongside each other for clear and reliable scientific results and policy advice. In this article, we aim to contribute to answering these open questions. To that end, we offer a framework, grounded in the literatures on well-being and sustainable development, for unpacking the QoL concept, and categorize and evaluate different existing indicator sets in terms of their ability to measure this concept of QoL. Moreover, we identify the challenges involved in integrating two very distinct aspects of QoL in one indicator.

We investigate how grassroots stakeholder engagement in municipal meetings shapes the decision making of local elected officials (LEOs) by examining the choices LEOs in New York State made on how to regulate high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) or fracking. We analyzed the content of 216 meeting minutes and 18 policy documents for 13 municipalities in New York. Our observations suggest that government responsiveness to local activism is shaped by the level of contestation between grassroots stakeholders. They reveal that contestation among grassroots stakeholders encourages LEOs to try to deflect responsibility for regulating fracking. When this contestation is high, LEOs tend to pursue actions which may limit but not prohibit HVHF within their jurisdiction. In contrast, when there is no contestation, LEOs more actively pursue substantive policy actions that prohibit HVHF. Generally, we find that that the level of contestation among grassroots stakeholders about HVHF impacts the political actions LEOs take.