IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/elg/eebook/15898.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

The Tools of Policy Formulation

Editor

Listed:
  • Andrew J. Jordan
  • John R. Turnpenny

Abstract

A PDF version of this book is available for free in open access via the Elgaronline platform - www.elgaronline.com/view/9781783477036.xml Policy analysts are accustomed to thinking in terms of tools and instruments. Yet an authoritative examination of the tools which have been developed to formulate new policies is missing. This book is the first of its kind to distinguish the defining characteristics of the main policy formulation tools, and offer a fresh way of understanding how, why and by whom they are selected, as well as the effects they produce in practice.

Individual chapters are listed in the "Chapters" tab

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew J. Jordan & John R. Turnpenny (ed.), 2015. "The Tools of Policy Formulation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15898.
    • Handle: RePEc:elg:eebook:15898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781783477036.xml
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    2. Craft, Jonathan & Howlett, Michael, 2012. "Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 79-98, August.
    3. Julie Froud & Rebecca Boden & Anthony Ogus & Peter Stubbs, 1998. "Controlling the Regulators," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-14632-1, March.
    4. John Turnpenny & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan, 2014. "The Challenge of Embedding an Ecosystem Services Approach: Patterns of Knowledge Utilisation in Public Policy Appraisal," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 247-262, April.
    5. Andrew Jordan & Elah Matt, 2014. "Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 227-247, September.
    6. Cash, David & Clark, William & Alcock, Frank & Dickson, Nancy & Eckley, Noelle & Jager, Jill, 2002. "Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making," Working Paper Series rwp02-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Wouter De Ridder & John Turnpenny & Måns Nilsson & Anneke Von Raggamby, 2007. "A Framework For Tool Selection And Use In Integrated Assessment For Sustainable Development," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(04), pages 423-441.
    8. Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan, 2009. "Joining up or Pulling Apart? The Use of Appraisal to Coordinate Policy Making for Sustainable Development," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(5), pages 1201-1216, May.
    9. Albert Weale, 2001. "Science advice, democratic responsiveness and public policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(6), pages 413-421, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zimmermann, Michel & Pye, Steve, 2018. "Inequality in energy and climate policies: Assessing distributional impact consideration in UK policy appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 594-601.
    2. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    3. Kristjanson, Patti & Reid, Robin & Dickson, Nancy & Clark, William C. & Vishnubhotla, Prasad & Romney, Dannie & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter & Said, Mohammed & Kaelo, Dickson & Makui, Ogeli & Nkedianye, David, 2008. "Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation: What Works?," Working Paper Series rwp08-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    5. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    6. Alexandra Doernberg & Annette Piorr & Ingo Zasada & Dirk Wascher & Ulrich Schmutz, 2022. "Sustainability assessment of short food supply chains (SFSC): developing and testing a rapid assessment tool in one African and three European city regions," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 885-904, September.
    7. Arshed, Norin, 2017. "The origins of policy ideas: The importance of think tanks in the enterprise policy process in the UK," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-83.
    8. Nathalie Schiffino & Kristian Krieger, 2019. "Advisory bodies and morality policies: does ethical expertise matter?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 191-210, June.
    9. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    10. Bullock Graham, 2015. "Signaling the credibility of private actors as public agents: transparency, independence, and expertise in environmental evaluations of products and companies," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 177-219, August.
    11. Gillian L. Galford & Julie Nash & Alan K. Betts & Sam Carlson & Sarah Ford & Ann Hoogenboom & Deborah Markowitz & Andrew Nash & Elizabeth Palchak & Sarah Pears & Kristen L. Underwood, 2016. "Bridging the climate information gap: a framework for engaging knowledge brokers and decision makers in state climate assessments," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 383-395, October.
    12. Dragana Bojovic & Andria Nicodemou & Asun Lera St.Clair & Isadora Christel & Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, 2022. "Exploring the landscape of seasonal forecast provision by Global Producing Centres," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Sébastien Chailleux, 2020. "Making the subsurface political: How enhanced oil recovery techniques reshaped the energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(4), pages 733-750, June.
    14. Arnošt Veselý, 2017. "Policy advice as policy work: a conceptual framework for multi-level analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 139-154, March.
    15. Caner Bakir, 2023. "The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 419-439.
    16. Strunz, Sebastian & Lehmann, Paul & Gawel, Erik, 2021. "Analyzing the ambitions of renewable energy policy in the EU and its Member States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    17. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    18. Greenhalgh, S. & Samarasinghe, O. & Curran-Cournane, F. & Wright, W. & Brown, P., 2017. "Using ecosystem services to underpin cost–benefit analysis: Is it a way to protect finite soil resources?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 1-14.
    19. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    20. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.

    Book Chapters

    The following chapters of this book are listed in IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:elg:eebook:15898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Darrel McCalla (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.e-elgar.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.