The knowledge behind Brexit. A bibliographic analysis of ex-ante policy appraisals on Brexit in the United Kingdom and the European Union

References

• Adelle, C., Jordan, A. J., & Turnpenny, J. (2012). Proceeding in parallel or drifting apart? A systematic review of policy appraisal research and practices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1068/c11104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexandrova, P., Carammia, M., Princen, S., & Timmermans, A. (2015). European Union policy agendas project codebook. Version 3.3 – April 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 26(1), 75–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004267491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ban, C., & Patenaude, B. (2019). The professional politics of the austerity debate: A comparative field analysis of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Public Administration, 97(3), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beland, D. (2005). Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective. Social Policy and Administration, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2005.00421.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergin, L. (2001). The role of truth when communicating knowledge across epistemic difference. Social Epistemology, 15(4), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720110093351
   Google Scholar
• Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashmore, M. (2004). The role of science in environmental impact assessment: Process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2003.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, J. (2018). Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice. Policy Sciences, 51(3), 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9316-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Ancona, M. (2017). Post-truth: The new war on truth and how to fight back. Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Desmarais, B. A., & Hird, J. A. (2014). Public policy's bibliography: The use of research in US regulatory impact analyses. Regulation and Governance, 8(4), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doberstein, C. (2017). Whom do bureaucrats believe? A randomized controlled experiment testing perceptions of credibility of policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 45(2), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlop, C. A. (2012). Epistemic communities. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 247–261). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dunlop, C. A. (2014). The possible experts: How epistemic communities negotiate barriers to knowledge use in ecosystems services policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(2), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1068/c13192j
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2016). Handbook of regulatory impact assessment. Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (2018). Brexit Impact Studies. European Parliament Liason Office in the United Kingdom. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/brexitpublic/brexitstudies.html
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament Research Service (EPRS). (2019). European Parliament Work in the field of impact assessment and European added value. Activity report 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Fallis, D. (2007). Collective epistemic goals. Social Epistemology, 21(3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720701674106
   Google Scholar
• Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press. (Translated from the 1935 edition in German).
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fossum, J. E. (2019). Can Brexit improve our understanding of “wicked problems”? reflections on policy and political order. European Policy Analysis, 5(1) 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1065
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, G. P. (1985). National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), 467–496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00003287
   Google Scholar
• Freiberg, A., & Carson, W. G. (2010). The limits to evidence-based policy: Evidence, emotion and criminal justice. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00674.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritsch, O., Radaelli, C. M., Schrefler, L., & Renda, A. (2013). Comparing the content of regulatory impact assessments in the UK and the EU. Public Money & Management, 33(6), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2013.836007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller, S. (2002). Social epistemology. Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public service. In B. G. Peters & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). McGill-Queens’ University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hertin, J., Pesch, U., & Jacob, C. (2008). The production and use of knowledge in Regulatory Impact Assessment – An empirical analysis. In M. Böcher, L. Giessen, & D. Kleinschmidt (Eds.), Envirnomental and Forest Governance. The role of discourses and expertise (pp. 117–122). Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
   Google Scholar
• Holzner, B., & Marx, J. H. (1979). Knowledge application: The knowledge system in society. Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Library. (2018). Exiting the EU: Sectoral assessments. Retreived August 10, 2018 from https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8128.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Newman, J. (2010). Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multi-level governance systems. Policy and Society, 29(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. M. (2011). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy revisited: The nature of professional policy work in contemporary government. Politics & Policy, 39(4), 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00306.x
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, W., & Bevan, S. (2010). UK policy agendas codebook. last updated February 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings Jr, E. T., & Hall, J. L. (2012). Evidence-based practice and the use of information in state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge, 1(4), 537–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100404
   Google Scholar
• Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30(2), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00081-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving ( Vol. 21). Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198909)40:5<342::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making. The drawing board. An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 143–163.
   Google Scholar
• McConnell, A., & Tormey, S. (2020). Explanations for the Brexit policy fiasco: Near-impossible challenge, leadership failure or Westminster pathology? Journal of European Public Policy, 27(5), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1657485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, J., Cherney, A., & Head, B. (2017). Policy capacity and evidence-based policy in the public service. Public Management Review, 19(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1148191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, C. H. (1997). Issues for the new thinking of knowledge utilization: Introductory remarks. Knowledge and Policy, 10(3), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02912503
   Google Scholar
• Oh, C. H., & Rich, R. (1996). Explaining use of information in public policymaking. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832231
   Google Scholar
• Owens, S., Rayner, T., & Bina, O. (2004). New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 36(11), 1943–1959. https://doi.org/10.1068/a36281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (1997). The politics of corporate taxation in the EU: Knowledge and international policy agendas. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M., & De Francesco, F. (2010). Regulatory impact assessment. In M. Cave, R. Baldwin, & M. Lodge (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of regulation (pp. 279–301). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, S. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780533
   Google Scholar
• Rich, R. F. (1991). Knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization. Knowledge, 12(3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709101200308
   Google Scholar
• Sjoberg, L. (2007). Emotions and risk perception. Risk Management, 9(4), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250038
   Google Scholar
• Stockmann, R., Meyer, W., & Taube, L. (2020). Evaluation globe; Europe. Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.
   Google Scholar
• Vähämaa, M. (2013). Groups as epistemic communities: Social forces and affect as antecedents to knowledge. Social Epistemology, 27(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2012.760660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilkins, S., & Grant, W. J. (2017). Types of evidence cited in Australian Government publications. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1681–1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2544-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, G. (2010). Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: The implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge, 1(3), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100303
   Google Scholar