Anticipating and designing for policy effectiveness

References

• Alford, J., & O’flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery: Managing with external providers. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Almedom, A. M. (2009). A call for a resilience index for health and social systems in Africa. Issues in Brief No. 10. Boston: Boston University. Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer range Future.
   Google Scholar
• Almedom, A. M., Tesfamichael, B., Mohammed, Z. S., Mascie Taylor, C. G. N., & Alemu, Z. (2007). Use of ‘sense of coherence (SOC)’ scale to measure resilience in Eritrea: Interrogating both the data and the scale. Journal of Biosocial Science, 39(1), 91–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asher, M., & Bali, A. S. (2015). Public pension programs in Southeast Asia: An assessment. Asian Economic Policy Review, 10(2), 225–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacchi, C. (2012). Introducing the “what’s the problem represented to be?” Approach, Chapter 2 in Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic Interventions and Exchanges, A Bletsas and C Beasley (eds,) pp 21-24. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide Press
   Google Scholar
• Bakvis, H. (2000). Rebuilding policy capacity in the era of the fiscal dividend: A report from Canada. Governance, 13(1), 71–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bales, S. (2018). Evidence in Developing and Refining Capitation Payment for Health Care: The case of Vietnam (PhD Thesis). Singapore: National University of Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Bali, A. S., & Ramesh, M. (2018). Policy capacity: A design perspective. In M Howlett and I Mukherjee (eds) Routledge handbook of policy design (pp. 331–344). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F.R. (1989). Conflict and rhetoric in french policymaking. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Béland, D., Rocco, P., & Waddan, A. (2016). Obamacare and the politics of universal health insurance coverage in the United States. Social Policy & Administration, 50(4), 428–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobrow, D., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bobrow, D. B. (2006). Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 75–96). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bovens, M. and ‘t Hart, P. (1996). Understanding Policy Fiascoes, New Brunswick NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capano, G., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2015). Varieties of governance: Dynamics, strategies and capacities. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2018). Designing policy robustness: Outputs and processes. Policy & Society, 37(4), 422–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chindarkar, N., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2017). Introduction to the special issue: ‘Conceptualizing effective social policy design: Design spaces and capacity challenges.’. Public Administration and Development, 37(1), 3–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craft, J., Howlett, M., Crawford, M., & McNutt, K. (2013). Assessing policy capacity for climate change adaptation: Governance arrangements, resource deployments, and analytical skills in Canadian infrastructure policy making. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 42–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLeo, R. (2015). Anticipatory policymaking. When government acts to prevents problems and why it is so difficult. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dingwall, D., . (2017). Parliament launches inquiry into $47 billion spending on contractors. The Sydney Morning Herald, December, 15, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 217–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441–473.
   Google Scholar
• Fuerth, L. S. (2009). Foresight and anticipatory governance. Foresight, 11(4), 14–32.
   Google Scholar
• Fukukura, J., Helzer, E. G., & Ferguson, M. (2013). Prospection by any other name: A response to Seligman et al. 2013. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 146–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilabert, P., & Lawford-Smith, H. (2012). Political feasibility: a conceptual exploration. Political Studies, 60(4), 809-825. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00936.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, J., Hughes, R., Ljungman, G., & Sateriale, C. (2013). Medium-term budget frameworks in advanced economies: Objectives, design and performance. In M. Cangiano, T. Curristine, & M. Lazare (Eds.), Public financial management and its emerging architecture (pp. 137–173). Washington DC: International Monetary Fund (IMF.
   Google Scholar
• Hartley, J., Alford, J., Hughes, O., & Yates, S. (2015). Public value and political astuteness in the work of public managers: the art of the possible. Public Administration, 93(1), 195-211. doi:10.1111/padm.2015.93.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head, B. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy‖. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2018). Matching policy tools and their targets: beyond nudges and utility maximisation in policy design. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 101-124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2019). Designing public policies: principles and instruments. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Capano, G., & Ramesh, M. (2018). Designing for robustness: surprise, agility and improvisation in policy design. Policy and Society 37(4), 405-421.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & del Rio, P. (2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: Verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C, 33(5), 1233–1245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. P. (2013). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration & Society, 45(3), 357–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2018a). Policy design and non-design—A continuum of formulation modalities. In Routledge handbook of policy design (pp. 305–315). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2018b). Introduction: The importance of policy design: effective processes, tools and outcomes. In Routledge handbook of policy design (pp. 21–37). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. J. (2015). From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: The new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy & Politics, 43(2), 291–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.
   Google Scholar
• Karinen, R., & Guston, D. H. (2010). Toward anticipatory governance: The experience with nanotechnology. In M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, & C. Rehmann Sutter (Eds.), Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime.
   Google Scholar
• Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In H. D. Lasswell & D. Lerner (Eds.), The policy sciences: recent developments in theory and method. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4, 237–259.
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1975). On the notion of political feasibility. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 259– 274. doi: 10.1111/ejpr.1975.3.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Breen, P., & Anderies, J. M. (2011). Resilience: A literature review. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• McConnell, A. (2010). Understanding policy success: rethinking public policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133−152.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, R. (2011). Futures literacy. Embracing complexity and using the future. Ethos, 10, 23–28.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, R. (2012). Anticipation: The discipline of uncertainty. In A. Curry (Ed.), The future of futures (pp. 39–43). Houston, Texas: Association of Professional Futurists.
   Google Scholar
• Nair, S., & Howlett, M. (2017). Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. Policy & Politics, 45(1), 103-118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. New Jersey: Educational Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2015a). An advanced introduction to public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2015b). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2015c) What is so wicked about wicked problems?: A conceptual analysis and a research Program. Paper presented at 2nd International Conference on Public Policy. Milan, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy Problems and Policy Design. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., Capano, G., Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., Chou, M. H., & Ravinet, P. (2018). Designing for policy effectiveness: defining and understanding a concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & King, D. S. (2005). The politics of path dependency: Political conflict in historical institutionalism. Journal of Politics, 63, 1275–1300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., & Rava, N. (2017). Policy design: From technocracy to complexity, and beyond. International Public Policy Conference, Singapore, June 28–30.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., & van Nispen, F. K. M. (Ed.). (1998). Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration. New York: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=3710
   Google Scholar
• Quay, R. (2010). Anticipatory governance: A tool for climate change adaptation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 496–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos, J. M. (2014). Anticipatory governance: Traditions and trajectories for strategic design. Journal of Future Studies, 19(1), 35–52.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. J. (1982). Policy styles in Western Europe. London: Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Room, G. (2011). Complexity, institutions and public policy: Agile decision-making in a turbulent world. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, R. (1985). Anticipatory systems. Philosophical, mathematical and methodological foundations. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S., & Seubert, S. (2014). The innovativeness of national policy portfolios – Climate policy change in Austria, Germany, and the UK. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 860–883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy formulation: Design and tools. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 79–87). New Brunswick, NJ: CRC, Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial, 3rd eds. Cambridge:MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B. K. (2008). The problem with the ‘portfolio approach’ in American energy policy. Policy Sciences, 41(3), 245–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomann, E. (2018). “Donate your organs, donate life!” explicitness in policy instruments. Explicitness in Policy Instruments. Policy Sciences, 51(4), 433-456. doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9324-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, K. (2009a). “If You Build It, Will They Come? Overcoming Unforeseen Obstacles to Program Effectiveness.” The Tansley Lecture, University of Saskatchewan.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, K. (2009b). Target Compliance: The Final Frontier of Policy Implementation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for safety. London: Transaction Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3), 165–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2012). Policy tool interactions and the adoption of state renewable portfolio standards. Review of Policy Research, 29(2), 193–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience. Why things bounce back. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar