References
- Bell, S., & Hindmoor, A. (2009). Rethinking governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Daugbjerg, C., & Fawcett, P. (2015). Metagovernance, network structure, and legitimacy in developing a heuristic for comparative governance analysis. Administration & Society. http://aas.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/23/0095399715581031.abstract
- Haydu, J. (1998). Making use of the past: Time periods as cases to compare and as sequences of problem solving. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 339–371.
- Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government. London: Macmillan.
- Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20, 127–144.
- Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43, 412–431.
- Howlett, M. (2009a). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89.
- Howlett, M. (2009b). Process sequencing policy dynamics: Beyond homeostasis and path dependency. Journal of Public Policy, 29, 241–262.
- Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2006). Understanding the historical turn in the policy sciences: A critique of stochastic, narrative, path dependency and process-sequencing models of policy-making over time. Policy Sciences, 39, 1–18.
- Jacobs, A., & Weaver, K. (2015). When policies undo themselves: Self-undermining feedback as a source of policy change. Governance (currently in early view).
- Kay, A., & Boxall, A. (2015). Success and failure in public policy: Twin imposters or avenues for reform? Selected evidence from 40 years of health-care reform in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74, 33–41.
- Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.
- Lowndes, V., & Roberts, M. (2013). Why institutions matter: The new institutionalism in political science. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
- Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29, 507–548.
- Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13, 563–588.
- Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45, 595–628.
- Pierson, P. (2000). Not just what, but when: Timing and sequence in political processes. Studies in American Political Development, 14, 72–92.
- Peters, B. G. (2009). The two futures of governing: Decentering and recentering processes in governing. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 2, 7–24.
- Rayner, J. (2009). Understanding policy change as a historical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11, 83–96.
- Stinchcombe, A. (2001). When formality works: Authority and abstraction in law and organizations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87, 234–58.
- Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Weaver, K. (2010). Paths and forks or chutes and ladders? Negative feedbacks and policy regime change. Journal of Public Policy, 30, 137–162.
- Vedung, E. (1998). Policy Instruments: Typologies and theories. In M. R. Bemalmans-Videc, C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112446/MPU-L1EB.png"})