The politics of policy analysis: theoretical insights on real world problems

References

• Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alexiadou, N. (2019). Framing education policies and transitions of Roma students in Europe. Comparative Education, 55(3), 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2019.1619334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. Palgrave Pivot.
   Google Scholar
• Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. (2020). A practical guide for policy analysis (6th ed.) (international student edition). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bobrow, D., & Dryzek, J. (1987). Policy analysis by design. University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Botterill, L., & Hindmoor, A. (2012). Turtles all the way down: Bounded rationality in an evidence-based age. Policy Studies, 33(5), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2011.626315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brans, M., Geva-May, I., & Howlett, M. (2017). Policy analysis in comparative perspective: An introduction. In M. Brans, I. Geva-May, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Routledge handbook of comparative policy analysis (pp. 1–24). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence based policy making. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2021a). The politics of policy analysis. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2021b). The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: What does ‘guided by the science’ mean in practice? Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.624068
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2021c). The politics of policy design. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 9, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejdp.2021.100002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., Heikkila, T., & Wood, M. (2019). Making policy in a complex world. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., Keating, M., Kippin, S., & St. Denny, E. (2022b). Public policy to reduce inequalities across Europe. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., & Kippin, S. (2022). The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: A qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Open Research Europe, 1(78), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.13834.2
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., St. Denny, E., Kippin, S., & Mitchell, H. (2022a). Lessons from policy theories for the pursuit of equity in health, education, and gender policy. Policy and Politics, 50(3), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16487239616498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., Timonina, I., & Stephan, H. (2023). How can policy and policymaking foster climate justice? A qualitative systematic review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. Open Research Europe, 3, 51. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.15719.1
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., & Weible, C. (2017). The new policy sciences: Combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9304-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodge, J. (2015). Indication and inference: Reflections on the challenge of mixing paradigms in the narrative policy framework. Critical Policy Studies, 9(3), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1075735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. (1983). Don't toss coins in garbage cans: A prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3(4), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00007510
   Google Scholar
• Doucet, F. (2019). Centering the margins: (Re)defining useful research evidence through critical perspectives. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Dudley, G., Parsons, W., Radaelli, C., & Sabatier, P. (2000). Symposium: Theories of the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017600343304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn, W. (2017). Public policy analysis (6th ed.) Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Durnová, A., & Weible, C. (2020). Tempest in a teapot? Toward new collaborations between mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies. Policy Sciences, 53(3), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09387-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durose, C., Perry, B., & Richardson, L. (2022). Is co-production a ‘good’ concept? Three responses. Futures, 142, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enserink, B., Koppenjan, J., & Mayer, I. (2013). A policy sciences view on policy analysis. In W. Thissen, & W. Walker (Eds.), Public policy analysis: New developments (pp. 11–40). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Felix, E. R., & Trinidad, A. (2020). The decentralization of race: Tracing the dilution of racial equity in educational policy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(4), 465–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositivist perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01929.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 223–36). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Godziewski, C. (2020). Evidence and power in EU governance of health promotion: Discursive obstacles to a “health in All policies” approach. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 58(5), 1307–1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godziewski, C. (2021). Is ‘health in All policies’ everybody’s responsibility? Discourses of multistakeholderism and the lifestyle drift phenomenon. Critical Policy Studies, 15(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2020.1795699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh, T., & Engebretsen, E. (2022). The science-policy relationship in times of crisis: An urgent call for a pragmatist turn. Social Science and Medicine, 306, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornung, J. (2023). Social identities and deadlocked debates on nuclear energy policy. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2215495
   Google Scholar
• Hurka, S., Haag, M., & Kaplaner, C. (2022). Policy complexity in the European union, 1993-today: Introducing the EUPLEX dataset. Journal of European Public Policy, 29(9), 1512–1527. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1938174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M., & Radaelli, C. (2016). The narrative policy framework’s call for interpretivists. Critical Policy Studies, 10(1), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1111156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M., Shanahan, E., & McBeth, M. (Eds.) (2014). The science of stories: Applications of the narrative policy framework in public policy analysis. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner, & H. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences (pp. 104–23). Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. (1956). The political science of science: An inquiry into the possible reconciliation of mastery and freedom. American Political Science Review, 50(4), 961–979. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. (1971). A pre-view of the policy sciences. American Elsevier Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lynggaard, K., & Triantafillou, P. (2023). Discourse analysis and strategic policy advice: manoeuvring, navigating, and transforming policy. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2217846
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maloney, W., Jordan, G., & McLaughlin, A. (1994). Interest groups and public policy: The insider/outsider model revisited. Journal of Public Policy, 14(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00001239
   Google Scholar
• Mavrot, C., Hadorn, S., & Sager, F. (2023). Blood, sweat, and cannabis: Real-world policy evaluation of controversial issues. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2222141
   Google Scholar
• McConnell, A. (2018). Hidden agendas: Shining a light on the dark side of public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(12), 1739–1758. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1382555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConnell, A., & ‘t Hart, P. (2019). Inaction and public policy: Understanding why policymakers ‘do nothing’. Policy Sciences, 52(4), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09362-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meltzer, R., & Schwartz, A. (2019). Policy analysis as problem solving. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, T., Head, B., & Wanna, J. (2021). Learning policy, doing policy: How do theories about policymaking influence practice? ANU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mintrom, M. (2012). Contemporary policy analysis. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mintrom, M. (2019). So you want to be a policy entrepreneur? Policy Design and Practice, 2(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2019.1675989
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J., & Mintrom, M. (2023). Mapping the discourse on evidence-based policy, artificial intelligence, and the ethical practice of policy analysis. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2193223
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, L. K. N., Kumar, C., Jiang, B., & Zimmermann, N. (2023). Implementation of systems thinking in public policy: A systematic review. Systems, 11(2), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional rational choice. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process 2 (pp. 21–64). Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: Theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagliarello, M. C. (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
• Radaelli, C. M. (2023). Occupy the semantic space! Opening up the language of better regulation. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2181852
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. (2019). Policy analysis in the twenty-first century. Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Rein, M., & Schön, D. (2013). Reframing policy discourse. In F. Fischer, & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 145–66). UCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. J. (1982b). Policy styles in Western Europe. Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. J., & Jordan, G. (1979). Governing under pressure: The policy process in a post-parliamentary democracy. Robertson.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. J., & Mazey, S. (2015). European union: Power and policy-making (4th ed). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Riker, W. (1986). The Art of political manipulation. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255–275.
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the New governance. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Kansas: University of Kansas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (Eds.) (2005). Deserving and entitled: Social construction and public policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books).
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed). Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies (2nd ed). London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed). Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Thissen, W., & Walker, W. (Eds.) (2013). Public policy analysis: New developments. Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Thorius, K. A., & Maxcy, B. D. (2015). Critical practice analysis of special education policy: An RTI example. Remedial and Special Education, 36(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514550812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, E. O., & Spain, A. K. (2020). The multiple meanings of (In)Equity: Remaking school district tracking policy in an Era of budget cuts and accountability. Urban Education, 55(5), 783–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916674060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weible, C., & Cairney, P. (2021). Practical lessons from policy theories. Bristol University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weimer, D., & Vining, A. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (6th ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and choice in public policy. Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar