Anticipating policy instrument preferences can be an important step in policy design to address pressing sustainability problems. But studying preferences for policy instruments is a difficult task because sustainability problems involve a non-negligible degree of trade-offs and uncertainty. We therefore study the role of actors’ underlying ideologies (policy core beliefs) and risk attitudes in forming their preferences for different instruments. Combining the advocacy coalition framework with multi-attribute utility theory, both ideologies and attitudes toward uncertain policy consequences can influence instrument preferences. So far, policy studies literature has paid little attention to trade-offs between policy core beliefs or risk attitudes. Using Bayesian regression models on data from actors in Swiss pesticide risk reduction policy, we found that attitudes toward trade-offs and risk are indeed relevant to explain preferences for different regulatory and market-based instruments addressing agricultural pesticide use. Therefore, when designing policies for sustainability problems, considering the relative importance of policy core beliefs for different actors can help to find effective and broadly supported solutions. In addition, risk attitudes should be considered when policy design involves more coercive and stimulative policy instruments.

Comparative social policy research frequently deals, implicitly or explicitly, with time and timing in the development of welfare states. We identify three types of such temporal theorizations – i.e. stage models, timed orders, and periodizations – and analyze their relevance for global social policy development. We do so by employing sequence and cluster analysis to a new comprehensive dataset of social policy adoption in 164 countries over 140 years (1880–2019). While our analysis reveals certain common stages of social policy consolidation – from education mandates and health care systems over work-related protections to care services – we also find varying trajectories which challenge conventional regional clustering narratives. Moreover, our analysis highlights two periods which have so far not featured prominently in comparative welfare state research: The interwar years (1919–1929) and the period of decolonization (1949–1969).