The politics of policy inquiry commissions: Denmark and Norway, 1971-2017

References

• Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar (1994). ‘Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 58:3, 335–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armingeon, Klaus, et al. (2018). Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2017, Berne: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne. Dataset accessible from http://www.cpds-data.org/
   Google Scholar
• Arter, David (2008). Scandinavian Politics Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balla, Steven, and John Wright (2001). ‘Interest Groups, Advisory Committees, and Congressional Control of the Bureaucracy’, American Journal of Political Science, 45:4, 799–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones (2005). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, Nathaniel, and Jonathan Katz (1995). ‘What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data’, American Political Science Review, 89:3, 634–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, Anne Skorkjaer, Peter Munk Christiansen, and Helene Helboe Pedersen (2015). ‘Interest Group Access to the Bureaucracy, Parliament and the Media’, Governance, 28:1, 95–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boswell, Christina (2008). ‘The Political Functions of Expert Knowledge: Knowledge and Legitimation in European Union Immigration Policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15:4, 471–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulmer, Martin (1981). ‘Applied Social Research? The Use and Non-Use of Empirical Social Inquiry by British and American Governmental Commissions’, Journal of Public Policy, 1:3, 353–80.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, John, and Ove Kaj Pedersen (2014). The National Origins of Policy Ideas: Knowledge Regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castles, Francis, and Robert McKinlay (1979). ‘Does Politics Matter: An Analysis of the Public Welfare Commitment in Advanced Democratic States’, European Journal of Political Research, 7:2, 169–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, Johan (2017). The Power of Economists within the State. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, Johan, and Stine Hesstvedt (2019). ‘Expertisation or Greater Representation? Evidence from Norwegian Advisory Commissions’, European Politics and Society, 20:1, 83–100.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, Johan, and Cathrine Holst (2017). ‘Advisory Commissions, Academic Expertise and Democratic Legitimacy: The Case of Norway’, Science and Public Policy, 44:6, 821–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, Peter Munk, and Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard (2003). Faste forhold – flygtige forbindelser. Stat og interesseorganisationer i Danmark i det 20. århundrede. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen, Peter Munk, and Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard (2009). ‘Kommissioner i dansk politik efter 1980’, in Jørgen Grønnegård, Poul Erik Mouritzen, and Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, eds. De store kommissioner. Vise maend, smagsdommere eller nyttige idioter. Odense: University Press Southern Denmark, 31–54.
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen, Peter Munk, Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, Hilmar Rommetvedt, Torsten Svensson, Gunnar Thesen, and PerOla Öberg (2010). ‘Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making’, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21:1, 22–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlström, Carl, and Victor Lapuente (2017). Organizing Leviathan: How the Relationship between Politicians and Bureaucrats Shapes Good Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurentz (2016). ‘The Politicization of Regulatory Agencies: Between Partisan Influence and Formal Independence’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26:3, 507–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falcó-Gimeno, Albert (2014). ‘The Use of Control Mechanisms in Coalition Governments: The Role of Preference Tangentiality and Repeated Interactions’, Party Politics, 20:3, 341–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garritzmann, Julian L., and Kilian Seng (2016). ‘Party Politics and Education Spending: Challenging Some Common Wisdom’, Journal of European Public Policy, 23:4, 510–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greasley, Stephen, and Chris Hanretty (2016). ‘Credibility and Agency Termination under Parliamentarism’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26:1, 159–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Peter B. Mortensen (2010). ‘Who Sets the Agenda and Who Responds to It in the Danish Parliament? A New Model of Issue Competition and Agenda-Setting’, European Journal of Political Research, 49:2, 257–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Peter Bjerre Mortensen (2015). ‘Institutional Effects of Changes in Political Attention: Explaining Organizational Changes in the Top Bureaucracy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25:1, 165–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, Peter A., and David W. Soskice (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartman, Erin, and F. Daniel Hidalgo (2018). ‘An Equivalence Approach to Balance and Placebo Tests’, American Journal of Political Science, 62:4, 1000–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausman, Jerry Allen (1978). ‘Specification Tests in Econometrics’, Econometrica, 46:6, 1251–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, Alistair, and Christina Boswell (2015). ‘Comparing the Political Functions of Independent Commissions: The Case of UK Migrant Integration Policy’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17:1, 10–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inwood, Gregory, and C. M. Carolyn Johns, eds. (2014). Commissions of Inquiry and Policy Change. A Comparative Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, Carsten, and Henrik Bech Seeberg (2015). ‘The Power of Talk and the Welfare State: Evidence from 23 Countries on an Asymmetric Opposition-Government Response Mechanism’, Socio-Economic Review, 13:2, 215–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen, Lars N., and Ole P. Kristensen (1982). ‘Corporatist Traits in Denmark, 1946–1976’, in Gerhard Lehmbruch and Philippe C. Schmitter (eds.), Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making. London: Sage, 189–218.
   Google Scholar
• Keeler, John (1993). ‘Opening the Windows for Reform’, Comparative Political Studies, 25:4, 433–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopecký, Petr, Jan-Hinrik Meyer Sahling, Francisco Panizza, Gerardo Scherlis, Christian Schuster, and Maria Spirova (2016). ‘Party Patronage in Contemporary Democracies: Results from an Expert Survey in 22 Countries from Five Regions’, European Journal of Political Research, 55:2, 416–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krick, Eva (2015). ‘Negotiated Expertise in Policy-Making: How Governments Use Hybrid Advisory Committees’, Science and Public Policy, 42:4, 487–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laver, Michael, and Ian Budge, eds. (1992). Party Policy and Government Coalitions. Houndmills: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Marier, Patrick (2009). ‘The Power of Institutionalized Learning: The Uses and Practices of Commissions to Generate Policy Change’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16:8, 1204–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz, Julia (2013). ‘Expert Groups in the European Union: A Sui Generis Phenomenon?’, Policy and Society, 32:3, 267–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation (2019). ‘Utvalgsarbeid i staten. En veileder for ledere, medlemmer og sekretaerer i statlige utredningsutvalg’, Official Guidelines Manual for Norwegian Public Inquiry Commissions. Accessible from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/utvalgsarbeid-i-staten/id2629750/
   Google Scholar
• Nordhaus, William (1975). ‘The Political Business Cycle’, The Review of Economic Studies, 42:2, 169–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre (2004). The Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective: A Quest for Control. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Petersson, Olof, ed. (2015). Rational Politics: Commissions of Inquiry and the Referral System in Sweden. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petrocik, John R. (1996). ‘Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study’, American Journal of Political Science, 40:3, 825–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasser, Scott, and Helen Tracey, eds. (2014). Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries – Practice and Potential. Ballarat: Connor Court Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, Mike, and Laura McAllister (2006). ‘The Roles of Commissions of Inquiry in the Policy Process’, Public Policy and Administration, 21:4, 99–115.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, Manfred G. (1996). ‘When Parties Matter: A Review of the Possibilities and Limits of Partisan Influence on Public Policy’, European Journal of Political Research, 30:2, 155–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siaroff, Alan (1999). ‘Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement’, European Journal of Political Research, 36:2, 175–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, Kaare (2000). ‘Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 37:3, 261–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, Kaare, Wolfgang Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman (2008). Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democractic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Ranaan (2010). ‘Reflection in the Shadow of Blame: When Do Politicians Appoint Commissions of Inquiry?’, British Journal of Political Science, 40:3, 613–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volkens, Andrea (2018). ‘The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project’, Manifesto Corpus, Version 2018-b, Berlin: WZB Berlin Social Science Center. Data accessible from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, R. Kent (1986). ‘The Politics of Blame Avoidance’, Journal of Public Policy, 6:4, 371–98.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, René, and Lucy Popova (2012). ‘Testing Equivalence in Communication Research: Theory and Application’, Communication Methods and Measures, 6:3, 190–213.
   Google Scholar