Morality policy processes in advanced industrial democracies

References

• Albæk, E. 2003. “Political Ethics and Public Policy: Homosexuals Between Moral Dilemmas and Political Considerations in Danish Parliamentary Debates.” Scandinavian Political Studies 26 (2): 245–267. doi: 10.1111/1467-9477.00087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banchoff, T. 2011. Embryo Politics: Ethics and Policy in Atlantic Democracies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., and B. D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blank, R. H., and J. C. Merrick. 2001. End-of-Life Decision Making: A Cross-National Study. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bleiklie, I., M. L. Goggin, and C. Rothmayr, eds. 2004. Comparative Biomedical Policy: Governing Assisted Reproductive Technologies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Borz, G. 2009. “Determinants of Party Unity in Europe: A Comparative Study of Parliamentary Parties in 23 Countries.” PhD diss., Central European University.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, D., and A. Ranney, eds. 1994. Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Washington: AEI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cagossi, A. 2013. “Morality Policies, Italian Style: Reluctant Secularization in a Religious World, or Un-secular Politics in a Secularizing Society?” Paper presented at American Political Science Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Castles, F. G., ed. 1993. Families of Nations. Dartmouth, NH: Aldershot.
   Google Scholar
• Chaqués Bonafont, L., and A. M. Palau Roqué. 2012. “From Prohibition to Permisssiveness: A Two-Wave Change on Morality Issues in Spain.” In Morality Politics in Western Europe: Parties, Agendas and Policy Choices, edited by I. Engeli, 62–87. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Christoph, J. B. 1962. Capital Punishment in British Politics: The British Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty 1945-57. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohan, A. S. 1986. “Abortion as a Marginal Issue: The Use of Peripheral Mechanisms in Britain and the United States.” In The New Politics of Abortion, edited by J. Lovenduski and J. Outshoorn, 27–48. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. 1999. The Death Penalty Abolition in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cowley, P., ed. 1998. Conscience and Parliament. London: Frank Cass.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, T., D. L. Smith, T. Osborn, and C. Z. Mooney. 2015. State and Local Politics: Institutions and Reform. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Duval, R. D., and L. Groeneveld. 1987. “Hidden Policies and Hypothesis Tests: The Implications of Type II Errors for Environmental Regulation.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (2): 423–447. doi: 10.2307/2111083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeli, I. 2009. “The Challenges of Abortion and Assisted Reproductive Technologies Policies in Europe.” Comparative European Politics 7 (1): 56–74. doi: 10.1057/cep.2008.36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeli, I., C. Green-Pedersen, and L. Larsen, eds. 2012. Morality Politics in Western Europe: Parties, Agendas and Policy Choices. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Engeli, I., C. Green-Pedersen, and L. T. Larsen. (2013). “The Puzzle of Permissiveness: Understanding Policy Processes Concerning Morality Issues.” Journal of European Public Policy, 20 (3): 335–352. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.761500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeli, I and Rothmayr Allison, C (2013). Diverging Against All Odds? Regulatory Paths in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Across Western Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 20 (3): 407–424. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.761509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink, S. 2008. “Politics as Usual or Bringing Religion Back In? The Influence of Parties, Institutions, Economic Interests, and Religion on Embryo Research Laws.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (6): 1631–1656. doi: 10.1177/0010414007309203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, M., M. Laver, and P. Mair. 2011. Representative Government in Modern Europe. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, C. 2007. “The Conflict of Conflicts in Comparative Perspective: Euthanasia as a Political Issue in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands.” Comparative Politics 39 (3): 273–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halfmann, D. 2011. Doctors and Demonstrators: How Political Institutions Shape Abortion Law in the United States, Britain and Canada. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hildebrandt, A. 2016. “Who’s in Favour? Same-sex Union Laws in Parliament.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 22 (3): 404–423. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2016.1202649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, R., and C. Hoyle. 2008. The Death Penalty: Worldwide Perspective. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L., G. Marks, and A. H. Schakel. 2010. The Rise of Regional Authority: A Comparative Study of 42 Democracies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network. 2009. Abortion Legislation in Europe (Updated January 2009). Brussels: IPPF European Network.
   Google Scholar
• Isasi, R. M., and B. M. Knoppers. 2006. “Mind the Gap: Policy Approaches to Embryonic Stem Cell and Cloning Research in 50 Countries.” European Journal of Health Law 13 (1): 9–25. doi: 10.1163/157180906777036328
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knill, C. 2013. “The Study of Morality Policy: Analytical Implications from a Public Policy Perspective.” Journal of European Public Policy 20 (3): 309–317. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.761494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knill, C., C. Adam, and S. Hurka, eds. 2015. On the Road to Permissiveness? Change and Convergence of Morality Regulation in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kollman, K. 2013. The Same-Sex Unions Revolution in Western Democracies: International Norms and Domestic Policy Change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laver, M., and K. A. Shepsle. 1994. “Cabinet Government in Theoretical Perspective.” In Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Government, edited by M. Laver and K. A. Shepsle, 285–310. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsey, D. 2010. Conscience Voting in New Zealand. University of Auckland: unpublished paper.
   Google Scholar
• Lipset, S. M. 1990. Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. J. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory.” World Politics 16 (4): 677–715. doi: 10.2307/2009452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, D., and M. Read. 1988. Private Members’ Bills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGann, A., and W. Sandholtz. 2012. “Patterns of Death Penalty Abolition, 1960–2005: Domestic and International Factors.” International Studies Quarterly 56 (2): 275–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00716.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minkenberg, M. 2002. “Religion and Public Policy: Institutional, Cultural, and Political Impact on the Shaping of Abortion Policies in Western Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 35 (2): 221–247. doi: 10.1177/0010414002035002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitsumori, Y., and P. Rogers. 2004. Human Embryo and Stem Cell Research in Japan-an Update, September. Tokyo: British Embassy.
   Google Scholar
• Montpetit, E., C. Rothmayr, and F. Varone, eds. 2007. The Politics of Biotechnology in North America and Europe: Policy Networks, Institutions, and Internationalization. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Mooney, C. Z. 2000. “The Decline of Federalism and the Rise of Morality-Policy Conflict in the United States.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 30 (1): 171–188. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a030059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooney, C. Z., ed. 2001. The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy. New York: Chatham House.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, P., and R. Inglehart. 2011. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oldmixon, E. 2005. Uncompromising Positions: God, Sex and the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Outshoorn, J. 1996. “The Stability of Compromise: Abortion Politics in Western Europe.” In Abortion Politics: Public Policy in Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by M. Githens and D. Stetson, 145–164. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pennings, P. 2010. “Exploring Morality Politics Across Space and Time: Does the ‘Issue Saliency Theory’ (Still) Hold?” Paper presented at European Consortium for Political Research, Muenster, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Rayside, D., and C. Wilcox, eds. 2011. Faith, Politics and Sexual Diversity in Canada and the United States. Vancouver: UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, P. G. 1970. Parliament and Conscience. London: George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, R. 1991. “Is American Public Policy Exceptional?” In Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism, edited by B. Shafer, 187–229. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, M. A., and R. Tatalovich. 2009. “Cultural and Institutional Factors Affecting Political Contention Over Moral Issues.” Comparative Sociology 8: 76–104. doi: 10.1163/156913308X375559
   Google Scholar
• Sieberer, U. 2006. “Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (2): 150–178. doi: 10.1080/13572330600739413
   Google Scholar
• Singh, S., D. Wulf, R. Hussain, A. Bankole, and G. Sedgh. 2009. Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress. New York: Guttmacher Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Skjæveland, A. 2001. “Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 35–56. doi: 10.1080/714003872
   Google Scholar
• Smith, T. A. 1969. “Toward a Comparative Theory of the Policy Process.” Comparative Politics 1 (4): 498–515. doi: 10.2307/421492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, T. A. 1975. The Comparative Policy Process. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. C. 2008. Political Institutions and Lesbian and Gay Rights in the United States and Canada. Toronto: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, T. A., and R. Tatalovich. 2003. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stepan, A., and J. J. Linz. 2011. “Comparative Perspectives on Inequality and the Quality of Democracy in the United States.” Perspectives on Politics 9: 841–856. doi: 10.1017/S1537592711003756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stetson, D. M., ed. 2001. Abortion Politics, Women’s Movements, and the Democratic State: A Comparative Study of State Feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Studlar, D. T. 2001. “What Constitutes Morality Policy? A Cross-National Analysis.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, edited by C. Z. Mooney, 37–51. New York: Chatham House.
   Google Scholar
• Studlar, D. T. 2012. “Comparing Morality Politics in Europe and the United States.” In Morality Politics in Western Europe: Parties, Agendas, and Policy Choices, edited by I. Engeli, C. Green-Pedersen, and L. T. Larsen, 161–184. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Studlar, D. T., A. Cagossi, and B. Duval. 2013. “Is Morality Policy Different? Institutional Explanations for Postwar Western Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy 20 (3): 353–371. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.761503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatalovich, R. 1997. Abortion Politics in the United States and Canada. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Tatalovich, R., and B. Daynes, eds. 1988. Social Regulatory Policy: Moral Controversies in American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Tatalovich, R., and B. Daynes, eds. 2011. Moral Controversies in American Politics. 4th ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Tate, C. N., and T. Vallinder. 1995. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Timmermans, A. 2001. “Arenas as Institutional Sites for Policymaking: Patterns and Effects in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 3 (3): 311–337.
   Google Scholar
• Van Kersbergen, K. 2008. “The Christian Democratic Phoenix and Modern Unsecular Politics.” Party Politics 14 (2): 259–279. doi: 10.1177/1354068807088446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, H., S. Altink, and H. Amesberger. 2013. Final Report of the International Comparative Study of Prostitution Policy: Austria and the Netherlands. Den Haag, Netherlands: Platform 31, July.
   Google Scholar