Kuhika Gupta

University of Oklahoma
Political Science

201 Stephenson Parkway,
Suite 2300
Norman, OK

Search Google Scholar
Search for Google Scholar Profile

Kuhika's current research interests include the study of comparative institutions, and contentious political processes such as siting of nuclear power plants and waste repositories. Current research projects include the study of public acceptance of nuclear energy, as well as public and elite narratives surrounding nuclear energy and nuclear waste management on social (Twitter) and news media (Google News) outlets. Her recent work has been published in the Policy Studies Journal and Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis.

Gupta, Kuhika. 2014. “A Comparative Policy Analysis of Coalition Strategies: Case Studies of Nuclear Energy and Forest Management in India.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 16 (4):356–72.
Abstract: The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has long argued that the choice of coalition strategies in pursuit of additional allies and resources to influence policy change is a crucial part of the policy process. However, scholars are only beginning to understand the underlying forces that impact on coalition behavior. Using case studies of nuclear energy and forest management subsystems in India, this article explores how coalition opportunity structures (COS) at the subsystem level impact on coalition strategies. It analyzes how coalitions function within different institutional and policy contexts and why they choose one strategy over another. Findings indicate that centralized policy subsystems with restricted access to decision-making venues lead coalitions to adopt confrontational strategies designed to disrupt the subsystem status quo, whereas decentralized policy subsystems with increased access to decision-making lead coalitions to adopt assimilative strategies designed to work within the subsystem status quo.
URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13876988.2014.886812#.VEVW84cYEyE
Gupta, Kuhika. 2012. “Comparative Public Policy: Using the Comparative Method to Advance Our Understanding of the Policy Process.” Policy Studies Journal 40:11–26.
Abstract: Public policy scholars have stressed the importance and need for “comparing” since the 1970s—including comparing different policies, inputs, outputs, and outcomes across institutional settings. Broken down into three categories, this research note highlights recent work in comparative public policy. The first type of research is characterized by its use of the comparative method to answer two primary research questions: How do policies differ across countries, and why do they diverge? To do this, scholars in this category borrow from a myriad of literatures including economics, risk analysis, and cultural theory. The second and third categories of research add to this long-existing stream of scholarly work by using the comparative method to advance our understanding of the policy process. To achieve this, research focusing on the theories of the policy process includes two emerging trends: comparing theories across institutional configurations (how differing institutional arrangements affect policies), and comparing theories to one another (how different theories of the policy process help explain certain issues). By highlighting these recent publications, the goal of this essay is to encourage scholars from all three categories to collaborate and provide a further impetus to the subfield of comparative public policy.
URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00443.x/full

Substantive Focus:
Energy and Natural Resource Policy SECONDARY
Environmental Policy
Defense and Security
International Relations
Science and Technology Policy
Comparative Public Policy PRIMARY

Theoretical Focus:
Policy Process Theory PRIMARY
Agenda-Setting, Adoption, and Implementation SECONDARY
Public Opinion