Occupy the semantic space! Opening up the language of better regulation

References

• Annala, M., Leppänen, J., Mertsola, S., & Sabel, C. F. (2020). Humble Government: How to Realize Ambitious Reforms Prudently. Government analysis, assessment and research activities. Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Ayto, J. (2014). Why departments need to be regulatory stewards. Policy Quarterly, 10(4), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v10i4.4506
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, R., Cave, M., & Lodge, M. (2012). Understanding regulation. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Béland, D. (2009). Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760902983382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2016). Ideas as coalition magnets: Coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (1992). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the subversion of ‘‘postmodernism’’. In J. Butler, & J. W. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (pp. 3–21). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Charlton, V., & Weale, A. (2021). Exorcising the positivist ghost in the priority-setting machine: Nice and the demise of the ‘social value judgement’. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 16(4), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133121000049
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cino Pagliarello, M. (2022). Unpacking ambiguity in ideational change: The polysemy of the ‘Europe of knowledge’. West European Politics, 45(4), 884–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1918429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coglianese, C., Sarin, N., & Shapiro, S. (2021). The deregulation deception. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2229 June 2021. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3231&context=faculty_scholarship.
   Google Scholar
• Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1997.0009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Francesco, F. (2012). Diffusion of regulatory impact analysis in OECD and EU member states. Comparative Political Studies, 45(10), 1277–1305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011434297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Francesco, F. (2016). Transfer agents, knowledge authority, and indices of regulatory quality: A comparative analysis of the world bank and the organisation for economic Co-operation and development. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 18(4), 350–365. http://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.882648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Francesco, F., & Radaelli, C. M. (2023). Regulation. In F. De Francesco, & C. M. Radaelli (Eds.), The elgar companion to the OECD. Elgar (page details at proofs stage).
   Google Scholar
• De Francesco, F., Radaelli, C. M., & Tröger, V. (2012). Implementing regulatory innovations in Europe: The case of impact assessment. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(4), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.607342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolowitz, D., Magdaléna, H., & Normand, R. (Eds.). (2020). Shaping policy agendas. The micro-politics of international economic organizations. Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2014). Governments for the future: Building the strategic and Agile State. Helsinki, Sitra Studies 80.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and political theory: A conceptual approach. Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garben, S. (2018). An ‘impact assessment’ of EU better regulation. In S. Garben & I. Govaere (Eds.), The EU better regulation agenda: A critical assessment (pp. 217–242). Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Garben, S., & Govaere, I. (2018). The EU better regulation agenda: A critical assessment. Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gounari, P. (2006). Contesting the cynicism of neoliberal discourse: Moving towards a language of possibility. Studies in Language and Capitalism, 77–96.
   Google Scholar
• Grindle, M. S. (2007). Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review, 25(5), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00385.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah, A., & Baekkeskov, E. (2020). The promises and pitfalls of polysemic ideas: ‘One health’ and antimicrobial resistance policy in Australia and the UK. Policy Sciences, 53(3), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09390-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, H. L. A. (1994/1961). The concept of Law (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). Administrative burdens: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberal keywords and the contradictions of an ideology. In D. Block, J. A. Gray, & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 33–55). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Holborow, M. (2016). Neoliberal keywords, political economy and the relevance of ideology. Key Words: A Journal of Cultural Materialism, (14), 38–53.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, G., & Halpin, D. (2006). The political costs of policy coherence: Constructing a rural policy for Scotland. Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X06000456
   Google Scholar
• Kamkhaji, J. C., & Radaelli, C. M. (2017). Crisis, learning and policy change in the European union. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(5), 714–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1164744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamkhaji, J. C., & Radaelli, C. M. (2022). Don’t think it’s a good idea! Four building sites of the ‘ideas school’. West European Politics, 45(4), 841–862. http://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1959751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kysar, D. A. (2009). Fish tales. In W. Harrington, L. Heizerling, & R. D. Morgenstern (Eds.), Reforming regulatory impact analysis (pp. 190–214). Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Kysar, D. A. (2010). Regulating from nowhere: Environmental Law and the search for objectivity. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration, 39(6), 517–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Listorti, G., Ferrari, E. B., Acs, S., Munda, G., Rosenbaum, E., Paruolo, P., & Smits, P. (2019). The Debate on the EU Better Regulation Agenda: A Literature Review. JRC Science for Policy Report. Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Livermore, M. A., & Revesz, R. L. (2020). Reviving rationality: Saving cost-benefit analysis for the sake of the environment and our health. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luna, A. J. H. d. O., Marinho, M. L. M., & de Moura, H. P. (2020). Agile governance theory: Operationalization. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, 16(1), 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-019-00345-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynggaard, K. (2019). Discourse analysis and European union politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (2001). Non-majoritarian institutions and the limits of democratic governance: A political transaction-cost approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 157(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1628/0932456012974747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation. (2001). Final Report. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Michalec, A., Hayes, E., & Longhurst, J. (2019). Building smart cities, the just way. A critical review of “smart” and “just” initiatives in Bristol, UK. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47(May), 101510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101510.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, B. (2003). Social citizenship in the shadow of competition: The bureaucratic politics of regulatory justification. Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Muller, P. (1995). Les politiques publiques comme construction d'un rapport au monde. In A. Faure, G. Pollet, & P. Warin (Eds.), La Construction du Sens dans les Politiques Publiques. Débats autour de la Notion de Référentiel (pp. 153–179). L'Harmattan.
   Google Scholar
• Muller, P. (2005). Esquisse d’une théorie du changement dans l’action publique: Structures, acteurs et cadres cognitifs. Revue Française de Science Politique, 55(1), 155–187. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.551.0155
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M. (2021). CEPA Strategy Guidance Note on Promotion of Coherent Policymaking, UN-DESA, New York.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (1995). Recommendation of the council on improving the quality of government regulation, OECD/LEGAL/0278.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (1997a). Regulatory impact analysis. Best practices in OECD countries.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (1997b). Report on regulatory reform - thematic studies.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2012). Recommendation of the council on regulatory policy and governance, OECD/LEGAL/0390.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the council on policy coherence for sustainable development, oecd/legal/0381.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2021a). Regulatory policy outlook.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2021b). Recommendation of the council for agile regulatory governance to harness innovation, OECD/LEGAL/0464.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, J. J., Peterson, H. L., Jones, M. D., Garrard, S. P., & Vu, T. (2017). There and back again: A tale of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 45(S1), S13–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (2005). Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 924–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (2020). Regulatory indicators in the European Union and the organization for economic cooperation and development: Performance assessment, organizational processes, and learning. Public Policy and Administration, 35(3), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718758369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (2021). Strategy guidance note on regulatory impact assessment, Un-DESA, New York. https://publicadministration.un.org/Portals/1/Strategy%20note%20regulatory%20impact%20assessment%20Feb%202021.pdf Accessed on 10 February 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M., Allio, L., O’Connor, K., Alcorn, R., & Trnka, D. (2022). Regulatory Policy 2.0: Viewpoints and beliefs about better regulation. A report from the “Q Exercise”. OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policy-2-0_ab640ae8-en Accessed on 10 February 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M., & De Francesco, F. (2007). Regulatory quality in Europe: Concepts, measures, and policy processes. Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M., & Meuwese, A. C. M. (2009). Better regulation in Europe: Between public management and regulatory reform. Public Administration, 87(3), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01771.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1999/1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501768880000051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning. An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schömann, I. (2015). EU Refit Machinery 'Cutting Red Tape' at the Cost of the Acquis Communautaire. Brussels. https://www.etui.org/publications/policy-briefs/european-economic-employment-and-social-policy/eu-refit-machinery-cutting-red-tape-at-the-cost-of-the-acquis-communautaire.
   Google Scholar
• Taffoni, G. (2020). Regulating for innovation? Insights from the Finnish presidency of the council of the European union. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 11(1), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tõnurist, P., & Hanson, A. (2020). Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 44, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Trnka, D., & Thuerer, Y. (2019). One-in, X-Out: Regulatory Offsetting in Selected OECD Countries. Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 11, OECD Publishing, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Abeele, E. (2014). The EU's Refit Strategy: A New Bureaucracy in the Service of Competitiveness? Brussels. https://www.etui.org/publications/working-papers/the-eu-s-refit-strategy-a-new-bureaucracy-in-the-service-of-competitiveness.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Abeele, E. (2015). 'Better Regulation': A Bureaucratic Simplification with a Political Agenda. Brussels: ETUI https://www.etui.org/Publications2/Working-Papers/Better-regulation-a-bureaucratic-simplification-with-a-political-agenda.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Heijden, J. (2021). Regulatory stewardship: The challenge of honing a virtue and a mechanism. Policy Quarterly, 17(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v17i1.6731
   Google Scholar
• Weible, C., & Ingold, K. (2018). Why advocacy coalitions matter and practical insights about them. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230061739399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books. Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar