Element contents
Series: Elements in Public Policy
Making Policy in a Complex World
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 February 2019
Summary
This provocative Element is on the 'state of the art' of theories that highlight policymaking complexity. It explains complexity in a way that is simple enough to understand and use. The primary audience is policy scholars seeking a single authoritative guide to studies of 'multi-centric policymaking'. It synthesises this literature to build a research agenda on the following questions:1. How can we best explain the ways in which many policymaking 'centres' interact to produce policy?2. How should we research multi-centric policymaking?3. How can we hold policymakers to account in a multi-centric system?4. How can people engage effectively to influence policy in a multi-centric system?However, by focusing on simple exposition and limiting jargon, Paul Cairney, Tanya Heikkila, Matthew Wood also speak to a far wider audience of practitioners, students, and new researchers seeking a straightforward introduction to policy theory and its practical lessons.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Public PolicyOnline ISBN: 9781108679053Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 07 February 2019
References
Ackrill, R. and Kay, A. (2011) ‘Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform’, Journal of European public policy 18:1, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackrill, R., Kay, A. and Zahariadis, N. (2013) ‘Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy’, Journal of European public policy 20:6, 871–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P. D. and Boettke, P. J. (2009) Challenging institutional analysis and development: The Bloomington School (New York, NY: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P. D. and Tarko, V. (2012) ‘Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond’, Governance 25:2, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P. and Davis, G. (2018) The Australian policy handbook. 6th edn. (Sydney: Allen & Unwin).Google Scholar
Andersson, K. P. and Ostrom, E. (2008) ‘Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective’, Policy sciences 41:1, 71–93.Google Scholar
Andres, S. (2010) ‘Adaptive versus restrictive contracts: Can they resolve different risk problems?’, in Feiock, R. C. and Scholz, J. T. (eds), Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 91–113.Google Scholar
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008) ‘Collaborative governance in theory and practice’, Journal of public administration research and theory 18:4, 543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bache, I. (2013) ‘Measuring quality of life for public policy: An idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union’, Journal of European public policy 20:1, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (2004a) ‘Multi-level governance and the study of the British state’, Public policy and administration 19:1, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (2004b) ‘Themes and issues in multi-level governance’, in Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (eds), Multi-level governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baekgaard, M., Baethge, C., Blom-Hansen, J., Dunlop, C. A., Esteve, M., Jakobsen, M., Kisida, B., Marvel, J., Moseley, A., Serritzlew, S. and Stewart, P. (2015) ‘Conducting experiments in public management research: A practical guide’, International public management journal 18:2, 323–342.Google Scholar
Baekkeskov, E. and Rubin, O. (2017) ‘Information dilemmas and blame‐avoidance strategies: From secrecy to lightning rods in Chinese health crises’, Governance 30:3, 425–443.Google Scholar
Bailey, D. and Wood, M. (2017). ‘The metagovernance of English devolution’, Local government studies 43:6, 966–991.Google Scholar
Bakir, C. and Jarvis, D. S. L. (2017) ‘Contextualising the context in policy entrepreneurship and institutional change’, Policy and society 36:4, 465–478. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1393589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. (2014) ‘Ideas, paradigms and confusions’, Journal of European public policy 21:3, 475–480.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. (2017) ‘Endogenous disjoint change’, Cognitive systems research 44, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B. (1993, 2009) Agendas and instability in American politics. 1st and 2nd edn. (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F., Jones, B. and Mortensen, P. (2014) ‘Punctuated-equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking’, in Sabatier, P. and Weible, C. (eds) Theories of the policy process (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Bell, S. and Hindmoor, A. (2009) Rethinking governance: The centrality of the state in modern society (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berardo, R. and Lubell, M. (2016) ‘Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system’, Public administration review 76:5, 738–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, M. (2011) ‘Public administration as storytelling’, Public administration 89:1, 183–195.Google Scholar
Bevir, M. (2013) A theory of governance (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R. A. W. (2003) Interpreting British governance (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Bezes, P. and Le Lidec, P. (2015) ‘The French politics of retrenchment (2007–2012): Institutions and blame avoidance strategies’, International review of administrative sciences 81:3, 498–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkland, T. (1997) After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy and focusing events (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press).Google Scholar
Bixler, R. P. (2014) ‘From community forest management to polycentric governance: Assessing evidence from the bottom up’, Society & natural resources 27:2, 155–169.Google Scholar
Boin, A., Hart, P. T., McConnell, A. and Preston, T. (2010) ‘Leadership style, crisis response and blame management: The case of Hurricane Katrina’, Public administration 88:3, 706–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovaird, T. (2008) ‘Emergent strategic management and planning mechanisms in complex adaptive systems’, Public management review 10:3, 319–340.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. (2010) ‘Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism’, West European politics 33:5, 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, J. and James, T. S. (2012) ‘Statecraft and the assessment of national political leaders: The case of New Labour and Tony Blair’, British journal of politics & international relations 14:4, 534–555.Google Scholar
Bulpitt, J. (1986) ‘The discipline of the new democracy: Mrs Thatcher’s domestic statecraft’, Political studies 34:1, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P. (2002) ‘New public management and the Thatcher health care legacy’, British journal of politics and international relations 4:3, 375–398.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. (2006) ‘Venue shift following devolution: When reserved meets devolved in Scotland’, Regional and federal studies 16:4, 429–445.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. (2009) ‘Implementation and the governance problem: A pressure participant perspective’, Public policy and administration 24:4, 355–377.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. (2012b) ‘Complexity theory in political science and public policy’, Political studies review 10:3, 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P. (2013) ‘Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies?’, Policy studies journal 41:1, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P. (2015a) ‘What is “complex government” and what can we do about it?’, Public money and management 35:1, 3–6.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. (2015b) ‘How can policy theory have an impact on policy making? The role of theory-led academic-practitioner discussions’, Teaching public administration 33:1, 22–39.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. (2015c) ‘Sabatier’s advocacy coalition model of policy change’, in Page, E., Balla, S. and Lodge, M. (eds), Oxford handbook of the classics of public policy and administration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Cairney, P. (2016) The politics of evidence based policy making (London: Palgrave Springer).Google Scholar
Cairney, P. (2018) ‘Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs’, Policy and politics 46:2, 199–215.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. and Geyer, R. (2015) ‘Introduction: A new direction in policymaking theory and practice?’ in Geyer, R. and Cairney, P. (eds), Handbook on complexity and public policy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
Cairney, P. and Geyer, G. (2017) ‘A critical discussion of complexity theory: How does “complexity thinking” improve our understanding of politics and policymaking?’, Complexity, governance & networks 3:2, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P. and Heikkila, T. (2014) ‘A comparison of theories of the policy process’ in Sabatier, P. and Weible, C. (eds), Theories of the policy process. 3rd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Cairney, P. and Jones, M. (2016) ‘Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory?’ Policy studies journal 44:1, 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P. and Kwiatkowski, R. (2017) ‘How to communicate effectively with policymakers’, Palgrave communications 3:1, 37. doi: 10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P. and Weible, C. (2015) ‘Comparing and contrasting Peter Hall’s paradigms and ideas with the advocacy coalition framework’ in Howlett, M. and Hogan, J. (eds), Policy paradigms in theory and practice (Basingstoke: Palgrave), 83–99.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. and 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, 619–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappellaro, G. (2017) ‘Ethnography in public management research: A systematic review and future directions’, International public management journal 20:1, 14–48.Google Scholar
Carlisle, K. and Gruby, R. L. (2017) ‘Polycentric systems of governance: A theoretical model for the commons’, Policy studies journal, Early view. doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212Google Scholar
Christopoulos, D. and Ingold, K. (2015) ‘Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making’, European political science review 7:3, 475–498.Google Scholar
Colebatch, H. (2006) ‘Mapping the work of policy’ in Colebatch, H. (ed.), Beyond the policy cycle: The policy process in Australia (Crow’s Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin).Google Scholar
Committee on Standards in Public Life (2014) Public perceptions of standards in public life in the UK and Europe (London: Committee on Standards in Public Life) www.gov.uk/government/publications/publicperceptions-of-standards-in-public-life-in-the-uk-and-europeGoogle Scholar
Crow, D. and Jones, M. (2018) ‘A guide to telling good stories that affect policy change’, Policy & Politics 46:2, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, P. and Klein, R. (2000) ‘The politics of managing the health service’ in Rhodes, R. (ed.), Transforming British government Vol. 1 (London: MacMillan).Google Scholar
Dommett, K. and Flinders, M. (2015). ‘The centre strikes back: Meta‐governance, delegation, and the core executive in the United Kingdom, 2010–14’, Public administration 93:1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, K. (2015) The philosophy and methods of political science (London: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Duggett, M. (2009) ‘The return of the Westminster supermodel’, Public money and management 29:1, 7–8.Google Scholar
Durose, C. and Richardson, L. (eds) (2016) Designing public policy for co-production (Bristol: Policy Press).Google Scholar
Eller, W. and Krutz, G. (2009) ‘Editor’s notes: Policy process, scholarship and the road ahead: An introduction to the 2008 policy shootout!’ Policy studies journal 37:1, 1–4.Google Scholar
Epp, D. (2017) ‘Public policy and the wisdom of crowds’, Cognitive systems research 43, 53–61.Google Scholar
Everett, S. (2003) ‘The policy cycle: Democratic process or rational paradigm revisited?’, Australian journal of public administration 62:2, 65–70.Google Scholar
Feiock, R. C. (2009) ‘Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action’, Urban affairs review 44:3, 356–377.Google Scholar
Feiock, R. C. (2013) ‘The institutional collective action framework’, Policy studies journal 41:3, 397–425.Google Scholar
Feiock, R. C. and Scholz, J. T. (2010) ‘Self-organizing governance of institutional collective action dilemmas’, In Feiock, R. C. and Scholz, J. T. (eds.), Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 3–32.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. and Forrester, J. (eds) (1993) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and practice (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).Google Scholar
Forrer, J., Kee, J. E., Newcomer, K. E. and Boyer, E. (2010) ‘Public–private partnerships and the public accountability question’, Public administration review 70:3, 475–484.Google Scholar
Fransen, L. (2015) ‘The politics of meta-governance in transnational private sustainability governance’, Policy sciences 48:3, 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gains, F. and Stoker, G. (2009) ‘Delivering “public value”: Implications for accountability and legitimacy’, Parliamentary affairs 62:3, 438–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genschel, P. and Jachtenfuchs, M. (2016) ‘More integration, less federation: The European integration of core state powers’, Journal of European public policy 23:1, 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, B., Bækgaard, M., Decramer, A., Audenaert, M. and Goeminne, S. (2018) ‘Institutional isomorphism, negativity bias and performance information use by politicians: A survey experiment’, Public administration, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/padm.12390.Google Scholar
Geyer, R. (2012) ‘Can complexity move UK policy beyond “evidence-based policy making” and the “audit culture”? Applying a “complexity cascade” to education and health policy’, Political studies 60:1, 20–43.Google Scholar
Geyer, R. and Cairney, P. (eds) (2015) Handbook on complexity and public policy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, M. J. and Page, E. (1997) ‘Farewell to the British state?’ in Lane, J. (ed.), Public sector reform (London: Sage), 147–168.Google Scholar
Gray, C. (2000). ‘A “hollow state”?’ in Pyper, R. and Robins, L. (eds), United Kingdom governance (London: MacMillan).Google Scholar
Greenwood, J., Pyper, R. and Wilson, D. (2001) New public administration in Britain (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Greer, P. (1994) Transforming central government: The next steps initiative (Buckingham: Open University Press).Google Scholar
Griggs, S., Norval, A. J. and Wagenaar, H. (eds) (2014). Practices of freedom: Decentred governance, conflict and democratic participation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Gruby, Rebecca L. and Basurto, X. (2014) ‘Multi-level governance for large marine commons: Politics and polycentricity in Palau’s protected area network’, Environmental science & policy 36, 48–60.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001) ‘The emotional dog and its rational tail’, Psychological review 108:4, 814–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajer, M. (2011) Authoritative governance: Policy making in the age of mediatization (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1993) ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative politics 25:2, 275–296.Google Scholar
Hay, C. (2009) ‘King Canute and the “problem” of structure and agency: On times, tides and heresthetics’, Political studies 57:2, 260–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, P. (2008) ‘Complexity theory and evaluation in public management’, Public management review 10:3, 401–419.Google Scholar
Haynes, P. (2015) ‘The international financial crisis: The failure of a complex system’ in Geyer, R. and Cairney, P. (eds), Handbook of complexity and public policy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 432.Google Scholar
Hayton, R. (2015) ‘Ideology and statecraft: A reply to Griffiths’, Parliamentary affairs 69:3, 729–734.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1978) ‘Issue networks and the executive establishment’ in King, A. (ed.), The new American political system (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute).Google Scholar
Heikkila, T. and Andersson, K. (2018) ‘Policy design and the added-value of the institutional analysis development framework’, Policy & Politics 46:2, 309–324.Google Scholar
Heikkila, T. and Cairney, P. (2018) ‘A comparison of theories of the policy process’ in Weible, C. and Sabatier, P. (eds), Theories of the policy process. 4th edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkila, T., Schlager, E. and Davis, M. W. (2011) ‘The role of cross‐scale institutional linkages in common pool resource management: Assessing interstate river compacts’, Policy studies journal 39:1, 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkila, T. and Weible, C. (2018) ‘A semi-automated approach to analyzing polycentricity’, Environmental policy and governance, 28:4, 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjern, B. and Porter, D. (1981) ‘Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis’, Organizational studies 2, 211–227.Google Scholar
Hogwood, B. (1997) ‘The machinery of government 1979–97’, Political studies XLV, 704–715.Google Scholar
Hogwood, B. and Peters, B. G. (1983) Policy dynamics (New York, NY: St Martin’s Press).Google Scholar
Holliday, I. (2000) ‘Is the British state hollowing out?’, Political quarterly 71:2, 167–176.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2002) ‘The risk game and the blame game’, Government and opposition 37:1, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (2010) The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Hood, C., Jennings, W. and Copeland, P. (2016) Blame avoidance in comparative perspective: Reactivity, staged retreat and efficacy. Public Administration, 94(2), pp.542–562.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level governance and European integration (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield).Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003) ‘Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance’, American Political Science Review 97:2, 233–243.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., McConnell, A. and Perl, A. (2016) ‘Weaving the fabric of public policies: Comparing and integrating contemporary frameworks for the study of policy processes’, Journal of comparative policy analysis: Research and practice 18:3, 273–289.Google Scholar
Ipsos MORI (2013) ‘Trust in professions’. 3 December. www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/15/Trust-in-Professions.aspx?view=wideGoogle Scholar
James, O., Jilke, S. R. and Van Ryzin, G. G. (eds) (2017) Experiments in public management research: Challenges and contributions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jann, W. and Wegrich, K. (2007) ‘Theories of the policy cycle’ in Fischer, F., Miller, G. and Sidney, M. (eds), Handbook of public policy analysis (London: CRC Press), 69–88.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D. and Weible, C. (2014) ‘The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research process’ in Sabatier, P. and Weible, C. (eds), Theories of the policy process. 3rd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 183–224Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. and Sabatier, P. (1993b) ‘The dynamics of policy-oriented learning’ in Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (eds), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 41–56.Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2006) ‘State-and regulation-theoretical perspectives on the European Union and the failure of the Lisbon agenda’, Competition & change 10:2, 141–161.Google Scholar
Jilke, S., Van de Walle, S. & Kim, S. (2016) ‘Generating usable knowledge through an experimental approach to public administration’, Public administration review 76:1, 69–72.Google Scholar
John, P. (2003) ‘Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations? Using evolutionary theory to explain policy change’, Policy studies journal 31:4, 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. and Baumgartner, F. (2005) The politics of attention (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H. and Zahariadis, N. (2016) ‘A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review’, Policy studies journal 44:1, 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, G. (1981) ‘Iron triangles, woolly corporatism and elastic nets: Images of the policy process’, Journal of public policy 1:1, 95–123.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. and Cairney, P. (2013) ‘What is the “dominant model” of British policy making? Comparing majoritarian and policy community ideas’, British politics 8:3, 233–59.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. and Halpin, D. (2006) ‘The political costs of policy coherence’, Journal of public policy 26:1, 21–41.Google Scholar
Jordan, G., Halpin, D. and Maloney, W. (2004) ‘Defining interests: Disambiguation and the need for new distinctions’, British journal of politics and international relations 6:2, 195–212.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. and Maloney, W. (1997) ‘Accounting for subgovernments: Explaining the persistence of policy communities’, Administration and society 29:5, 557–583.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. and Richardson, J. (1982) ‘The British policy style or the logic of negotiation?’ in Richardson, J. J. (ed.), Policy styles in Western Europe (London: Allen & Unwin), 80.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. and Schubert, K. (1992) ‘A preliminary ordering of policy network labels’, European journal of political research 21:1, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, D. (2013) ‘Recall of MPs in the UK: “If I were you I wouldn’t start from here”’, Parliamentary affairs 66:4, 732–751.Google Scholar
Katz, J. (2015) ‘Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes’, Sociological methods & research 44:1, 108–144.Google Scholar
Kenny, M. (2007) ‘Gender, institutions and power: A critical review’, Politics 27:2, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khagram, S. and Thomas, C. W. (2010) ‘Toward a platinum standard for evidence‐based assessment by 2020’, Public administration review 70:1, S100–S106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. (1984, 1995) Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 1st and 2nd eds. (New York, NY: Harper Collins).Google Scholar
Klijn, E. (2008) ‘Complexity theory and public administration: What’s new?’ Public management review 10:3, 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivu, K. L. and Hinze, A. M. (2017) ‘Cases of convenience? The divergence of theory from practice in case selection in qualitative and mixed-methods research’, PS: Political science & politics 50:4, 1023–1027.Google Scholar
Koski, C. and Workman, S. (2018) ‘Drawing practical lessons from punctuated equilibrium theory’, Policy and politics 46:2, 293–308.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1956) The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis (College Park, MD: University of Maryland).Google Scholar
Lee, I. W., Feiock, R. C. and Lee, Y. (2012) ‘Competitors and cooperators: A micro‐level analysis of regional economic development collaboration networks’, Public administration review 72:2, 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. and Young, P. (2014) ‘A disengaged Britain? Political interest and participation over 30 years’ in Park, A. Bryson, C., Clery, E., Curtice, J. and Phillips, M. (eds), British Social Attitudes: The 30th report (London: NatCen Social Research), 62–86. www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/downloads/bsa-30-downloads.aspxGoogle Scholar
Lewis, O. and Steinmo, S. (2008) Taking evolution seriously (Florence: European University Institute).Google Scholar
Lewis, O. and Steinmo, S. (2010) ‘Taking evolution seriously in political science’, Theory in biosciences 129:2–3, 235–245.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. (2013) Policy thinking, fast and slow. American Political Science Association 2013 annual meeting. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2300479Google Scholar
Little, A. (2008) Democratic piety: Complexity, conflict and violence (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
Little, A. (2012) ‘Political action, error and failure: The epistemological limits of complexity’, Political studies 60:1, 3–19.Google Scholar
Lodge, M. and Wegrich, K. (2016) ‘The rationality paradox of nudge: Rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality’, Law & policy 38:3, 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubell, M. (2013) ‘Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework’, Policy studies journal 41:3, 537–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubell, M., Robins, G. and Wang, P. (2014) ‘Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games’, Ecology and society 19:4. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art23/Google Scholar
Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Mann, M. (1984) ‘The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results’, European journal of sociology/Archives européennes de sociologie 25:2, 185–213.Google Scholar
March, J. and Olsen, J. (1984) ‘The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life’, American political science review 78:3, 734–749.Google Scholar
March, J. and Olsen, J. (2006a) ‘Elaborating the “new institutionalism”’ in Rhodes, R., Binder, S. and Rockman, B. (eds), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 5, 3–20.Google Scholar
March, J. and Olsen, J. (2006b) ‘The logic of appropriateness’ in Moran, M., Rein, M. and Goodin, R. (eds), The Oxford handbook of public policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Marinetto, M. (2003) ‘Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the Anglo-governance School’, Political studies 51, 592–608.Google Scholar
Marks, G. (1993) ‘Structural policy and multi-level governance in the EC’, in Cafruny, A. and Rosenthal, G. (eds), The state of the European community: The Maastrict debate and beyond (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner), 392.Google Scholar
Marsh, D. (2008) ‘Understanding British government: Analysing competing models’, British journal of politics and international relations 10:2, 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. A. W. (eds) (1992) Policy networks in British government (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Marsh, D., Richards, D. and Smith, M. J. (2001) Changing patterns of governance in the United Kingdom (London: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Marsh, D., Richards, D. and Smith, M. J. (2003) ‘Unequal plurality: Towards an asymmetric power model of British politics’, Government and opposition 38:3, 306–332.Google Scholar
Marshall, G. (2009) ‘Polycentricity, reciprocity, and farmer adoption of conservation practices under community-based governance’, Ecological economics 68:5, 1507–1520.Google Scholar
Matthews, F. M. (2013) Complexity, fragmentation, and uncertainty: Government capacity in an evolving state (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Matthews, F. M. (2016) ‘Letting go and holding on: The politics of performance management in the United Kingdom’, Public policy and administration 31:4, 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, P., Jones, B., Beem, B., Neff-Sharum, A. and Poague, M. (2005) ‘Policy coherence and component-driven policymaking’, Policy studies journal 33:1, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. (2010) Understanding policy success: Rethinking public policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A., Gauja, A. and Botterill, L. C. (2008) ‘Policy fiascos, blame management and AWB Limited: The Howard government’s escape from the Iraq wheat scandal’, Australian journal of political science 43:4, 599–616.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. D. (1999a) Polycentric governance and development: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. D. (1999b) Polycentricity and local public economies: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. D. (2011) ‘Networks of adjacent action situations in polycentric Governance’, Policy studies journal 39:1, 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mewhirter, J., Lubell, M. and Berardo, R. (2018) ‘Institutional externalities and actor performance in polycentric governance systems’, Environmental policy and governance, 28:4, 295–307.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. and Norman, P. (2009) ‘Policy entrepreneurship and policy change’, Policy studies journal 37:4, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, M. and Vergari, S. (1996) ‘Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs and policy change’, Policy studies journal 24:3, 420–434.Google Scholar
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003) ‘Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures’ in Mitleton-Kelly, E. (ed.), Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives of organisations (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 1, 23–50.Google Scholar
Morrison, T. H. (2017) ‘Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef.’ PNAS [online] www.pnas.org/content/114/15/E3013.full, 114:15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newton, K. and Van Deth, J. (2010) Foundations of comparative politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Niemann, A. and Ioannou, D. (2015) ‘European economic integration in times of crisis: A case of neofunctionalism?’, Journal of European public policy 22:2, 196–218.Google Scholar
Oakerson, R. J. (1999) Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. (Ithaca, NY: ICS Press).Google Scholar
Oakerson, R. J. and Parks, R. B. (2011) ‘The study of local public economies: Multi-organizational, multi-level institutional analysis and development’, Policy studies journal 39:1, 47–167.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1972) ‘Metropolitan reform: Propositions derived from two traditions’, Social science quarterly 53, 474–493.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding institutional diversity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007) ‘Institutional rational choice’ in Sabatier, P. (ed.), Theories of the policy process 2nd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010) ‘Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change’, Global environmental change 20:4, 550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V. and Bish, R. (1988) Local government in the United States (San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press).Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. and Ostrom, E. (1965) ‘A behavioral approach to the study of intergovernmental relations’, Annals of the American academy of political and social science 359:1, 135–146.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1999) ‘Polycentricity (Part 1)’ in McGinnis, M. D. (ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press), 52–74.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V., Bish, R. and Ostrom, E (1988) Local government in the United States (Ithaca, NY: ICS Press).Google Scholar
Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M. and Warren, R. (1961) ‘The organization of government in metropolitan areas: Theoretical inquiry’, American political science review 55:4, 831–842.Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C. and Knieper, C. (2014) ‘The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented, and centralized regimes’, Global environmental change 29, 139–154.Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C. and Kikitina, E. (2012) ‘From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins’, Environmental science and policy 23, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J., Siddiki, S., Jones, M. D., Schumacher, K., Pattison, A. and Peterson, H. L. (2014) ‘Social construction and policy design: A review of past applications’, Policy studies journal 42:1, 1–29.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000) ‘Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics’, American political science review 94:2, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. (2009) ‘Complexity theory and evolutionary public administration: A skeptical afterword’, in Teisman, G., van Buuren, A. and Gerrits, L. M. (eds), Managing complex governance systems (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Poteete, A., Janssen, M. and Ostrom, O. (2010) Working together: Collective action, the commons and multiple methods in practice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Radin, B. (2000) Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis comes of age (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press).Google Scholar
Resodihardjo, S. L., Carroll, B. J., Van Eijk, C. J. and Maris, S. (2016) ‘Why traditional responses to blame games fail: The importance of context, rituals, and sub‐blame games in the face of raves gone wrong’, Public administration 94:2, 350–363.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1994) ‘The hollowing out of the state’, Political quarterly 65:2, 138–151.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2013) ‘Political anthropology and civil service reform: Prospects and limits’, Policy and politics 41:4, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2017) Interpretive political science: Selected essays (vol. 2) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Richards, D. and Smith, M. (2004) ‘The “hybrid state’” in Ludlam, S. and Smith, M. (eds), Governing as new labour (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Richardson, J. and Jordan, G. (1979) Governing under pressure: The policy process in a post-parliamentary democracy (Oxford: Robertson).Google Scholar
Room, G. (2011) Complexity, institutions and public policy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, G. (2016) Agile actors on complex terrains: Transformative realism and public policy (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosamond, B. (2000) Theories of European integration (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. (1987) Ministers and ministries: A functional analysis (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1990) ‘Inheritance before choice in public policy’, Journal of theoretical politics 2:3, 263–291.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. (1993) ‘Policy change over a decade or more’ in Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (eds), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. (ed.) (1999) Theories of the policy process (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. (2007a) ‘The need for better theories’ in Sabatier, P. (ed.), Theories of the policy process. 2nd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 2, 3–17.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. (2007b) ‘Fostering the development of policy theory’ in Sabatier, P. (ed.), Theories of the policy process. 2nd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 2 , 321–336.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993) ‘The advocacy coalition framework: Assessment, revisions and implications for scholars and practitioners’ in Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (eds), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 211–236.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Weible, C. (2007) ‘The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications’ in Sabatier, P. (ed.), Theories of the policy process 2 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Weible, C. (eds) (2014) Theories of the policy process. 3rd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Sanderson, I. (2006) ‘Complexity, “practical rationality” and evidence-based policy making’, Policy and politics 34:1, 115–132.Google Scholar
Sanderson, I. (2009) ‘Intelligent policy making for a complex world: Pragmatism, evidence and learning’, Political studies 57:4, 699–719.Google Scholar
Schillemans, T. (2011) ‘Does horizontal accountability work? Evaluating potential remedies for the accountability deficit of agencies’, Administration & society 43:4, 387–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. (2014) ‘EU enlargement and differentiated integration: Discrimination or equal treatment?’, Journal of European public policy 21:5, 681–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. (2018) ‘Brexit: Differentiated disintegration in the European Union’, Journal of European public policy 25:8, 1154–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlager, E. (2007) ‘A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes’ in Sabatier, P. (ed.), Theories of the policy process. 2nd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 1 , 233–260.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. and Heikkila, T. (2009) ‘Resolving water conflicts: A comparative analysis of interstate river compacts’, Policy studies journal 37:3, 367–392.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. and Heikkila, T. (2011) ‘Left high and dry? Climate change, common‐pool resource theory, and the adaptability of Western water compacts’, Public administration review 71:3, 461–470.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V. (2009) ‘Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse’, Annual review of political science 11, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A. L. and Ingram, H. M. (1997) Policy design for democracy (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press).Google Scholar
Schneider, A. L. and Ingram, H. M. (eds) (2005) Deserving and entitled: Social construction and public policy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).Google Scholar
Schneider, A., Ingram, H. and de Leon, P. (2014) ‘Democratic policy design: Social construction of target populations’ in Sabatier, P. and Weible, C. (eds), Theories of the policy process (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 3, 105–149.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. (1998) Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Sloman, S. and Fernbach, P. (2018) The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone (London: Penguin).Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. and Lubell, M. (2011) ‘An institutional mechanism for assortment in an ecology of games’, PLoS one 6:8, e23019.Google Scholar
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2009) ‘Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance’, Public administration 87:2, 234–258.Google Scholar
Sovacool, B. K. (2011). ‘An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance’, Energy policy 39:6, 3832–3844.Google Scholar
Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming local governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Stoker, G. (2010) ‘Translating experiments into policy’, ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 628:1, 47–58.Google Scholar
Swann, W. and Kim, S. (2018) ‘Practical prescriptions for governing fragmented governments’, Policy and politics 46:2, 273–292.Google Scholar
Teisman, G. and Klijn, E. (2008) ‘Complexity theory and public management’, Public management review 10:3, 287–297.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. and Belkin, A. (eds) (1996) Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: Logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Thelen, K. and Steinmo, S. (1992) ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’ in Steinmo, S., Thelen, K. and Longstreth, F. (eds), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Tormos, F. and Garcia Lopez, G. (2018) ‘Polycentric struggles: The experience of the global climate justice movement’, Environmental policy and governance, 28:4, 284–294.Google Scholar
Vollaard, H. (2014) ‘Explaining European disintegration’, JCMS: Journal of common market studies 52:5, 1142–1159.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (1986) ‘The politics of blame avoidance’, Journal of public policy 6:4, 371–398.Google Scholar
Weible, C. (2007) ‘An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy’, Journal of public administration research and theory 17:1, 95–117.Google Scholar
Weible, C. (2014) ‘Introducing the scope and focus of policy process research and theory’, in Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C. M. (eds), Theories of the policy process. 3rd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 3–21.Google Scholar
Weible, C. and Cairney, P. (2018) ‘Practical lessons from policy theories’, Policy and politics 46:2, 183–197.Google Scholar
Weible, C., Heikkila, T., de Leon, P. and Sabatier, P. (2012) ‘Understanding and influencing the policy process’, Policy sciences 45:1, 1–21.Google Scholar
Weible, C., Heikkila, T., Ingold, K. and Fischer, M. (eds) (2016) Comparing coalition politics: Policy debates on hydraulic fracturing in North America and Western Europe (London: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Weible, C. and Ingold, K. (2018) ‘Why advocacy coalitions matter and practical insights about them’, Policy and politics 46:2, 325–343.Google Scholar
Weible, C., Sabatier, P. and McQueen, K. (2009) ‘Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework’, Policy studies journal 37:1, 121–141.Google Scholar
Weimer, D. L. and Vining, A. R. (2017) Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (New York, NY: Routledge).Google Scholar
Wiseman, J. (2015) ‘Knowledge, policy, politics and power’ in Carey, G., Langdvodt, K. and Barraket, J. (eds), Creating and implementing public policy (London: Routledge), 9–24.Google Scholar
Workman, S., Shafran, J. and Bark, T. (2017) ‘Problem definition and information provision by federal bureaucrats’, Cognitive systems research 43, 140–152.Google Scholar
Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M. and Fritzen, S. A. (2017) The public policy primer: Managing the policy process (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahariadis, N. (2014) ‘Ambiguity and multiple streams’ in Sabatier, P. and Weible, C. (eds), Theories of the policy process. 3rd edn. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 3, 25–29.Google Scholar