Introduction

Policy scholars have taken a great interest in the patterns and causes of policy change. For example, policy change constitutes the central empirical phenomenon that policy process theories such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET), or the Multiple Streams Framework strive to explain (Weible and Sabatier, 2017). In terms of the patterns of change, policy scholars have acknowledged the occurrence of both transformative and incremental policy change, as well as the existence of incremental change that can become transformative over time (Hall, 1993; Streeck and Thelen 2005; Baumgartner and Jones, 2009; Mahoney and Thelen 2010; Rahman and Thelen 2019). In terms of causes, the literature has identified various factors affecting policy change such as learning, emulation, crises and other windows of opportunity (Nohrstedt and Weible, 2010; Béland et al, 2021). Simultaneously, pertinent research has emphasised the importance of powerful actors such as political parties and governmental coalitions (Walgrave et al, 2006), and other, seemingly less powerful actors, such as social movements and, more generally, outsiders (Giugni, 2004; 2007; Della Porta, 2013).

Of all the potential causes of policy change, forms of direct democracy have received the scantest attention. And among the studies on the relationship between direct democracy and policy change, most have predominantly conceived of direct democratic instruments as sources of veto points which some actors can use to prevent policy change (on veto points and policy stability and change see Immergut 1992; Béland and Powell, 2016).