Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-01T01:05:19.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How States Utilize Foreign Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Colin J. Bennett
Colin J. Bennett
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of Victoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how evidence about Program A in Country A may be utilized in Country B, and thus how utilization may explain the adoption of the same program. Elites and activists have a number of interests in using policy evidence from another country: to put an issue to a systemic or institutional agenda, mollify political pressure, provide an exemplar, indicate the range of options or reinforce conclusions already reached. The interests of the importer dictate the nature, timing and origins of the evidence injected into policy debate. This framework is applied to the case of freedom of information policy. An analysis of how and why evidence about the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was utilized in Canada and Britain reveals that FOIA was used as an exemplar in Canada and the reverse in Britain.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 31 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, A. I. (1980). The United States: Political Culture under Stress. In Almond, G. and Verba, S. (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. (1985). From the Dark to the Light: The Open Government Debate in Britain, Journal of Public Policy, 5, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, C. (1988). Different Processes, One Result: The Convergence of Data Protection Policy in Europe and the United States. Governance, 1, 415–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canada, Department of the Secretary of State (1977) Legislation on Public Access to Government Documents (Green Paper) Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.Google Scholar
Canada, Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (1980) Access to Information Legislation: Cabinet Discussion Paper. Ottawa: Secretary of State and Minister of Communications.Google Scholar
Canada, House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General (1987). Open and Shut: Enhancing the Right to Know and the Right to Privacy. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.Google Scholar
Canada, Information Commissioner (1990). Annual Report 1989–90. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.Google Scholar
Cobb, R. W. and Elder, C. D. (1975). Participation in American Politics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1972). Up and Down with Ecology – The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle’. The Public Interest, 28, 38–50.Google Scholar
Etheridge, L. S. (1985). Can Governments Learn? American Foreign Policy and Central American Revolutions. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Franson, R. (1979). Access to Information: Independent Administrative Agencies. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar
Galnoor, I. ed. (1977). Government Secrecy in Democracies. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britain, Great, Cmnd. 3638 (1968). The Civil Service (The Fulton Commission). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Britain, Great, Cmnd. 5104 (1972). Departmental Committee on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (The Franks Committee). 4 vols. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Britain, Great, Cmnd, 7520 (1979) Open Government. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Britain, Great, Civil Service Depatment (1979) Disclosure of Official Information: A Report on Overseas Practice. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1974). Modem Social Politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hendricks, E. (1982). Former Secrets: Government Records Made Public through the Freedom of Information Act. Washington DC: Campaign for Political Rights.Google Scholar
Henig, J. R., Hamnett, C. and Feigenbaum, H. B. (1988). The Politics of Privatization: A Comparative Perspective. Governance, 1, 442–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennessy, P. and Bennett, C. (1980). A Consumer's Guide to Open Government. London: Outer Circle Policy Unit.Google Scholar
Hills, J. (1989). Neo-Conservative Regimes and Convergence in Telecommunications Policy. European Journal of Political Research, 17, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoberg, George (1991). Sleeping with an Elephant: the American Influence on Canadian Environmental Regulation. Journal of Public Policy 11, 1.Google Scholar
Hooper, D. (1988). Official Secrets: The Use and Abuse of the Act. London: Coronet.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. (1975) Government, Broadcasting and the Press. Granada Guildhall Lecture 1975: London: Hart-Davis MacGibbon.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Kuhnle, S. (1981). The Growth of Social Insurance Programs in Scandinavia: Outside Influences and Internal Forces. In Flora, P. and Heidenheimer, A., eds., The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.Google Scholar
Leichter, H. (1977) Comparative Public Policy: Problems and Prospects. Policy Studies Journal, 5, 583–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, J. L. (1989) Emulation and Policy Adoptions in the Canadian Provinces. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 22, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majone, G. (1991). Cross-National Sources of Regulatory Policymaking in Europe and the United States. Journal of Public Policy, 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, N. ed. (1987). Public Access to Government-Held Information: A Comparative Symposium. London: Stevens.Google Scholar
Michael, J. (1982). The Politics of Secrecy. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Nader, R. (1970). Freedom from Information: The Act and the Agencies. Harvard Civil Rights Law Review, 1.Google Scholar
Poel, D. H. (1976). The Diffusion of Legislation among the Canadian Provinces: A Statistical Analysis. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 9, 605–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, A. and Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rankin, M. (1977). Freedom of Information In Canada: Will the Doors Stay Shut. Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association.Google Scholar
Riley, Y. and Relyea, H. (1983). Freedom of Information Trends in the Information Age. London: Cass.Google Scholar
Robertson, K. G. (1982). Public Secrets: A study in the Development of Government Secrecy. New York: St. Martins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1988). Comparative Policy Analysis: The Program Approach. In Dogan, M., ed., Comparing Pluralist Democracies. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (Forthcoming) Lesson-Drawing Across Time and Space. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Rowat, D. (1965). How Much Administrative Secrecy? Canadian Journal of Economic and Political Science, 31, 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowat, D. ed. (1979). Administrative Secrecy in Developed Countries. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H., eds. (1988). Policy Change and Policy-Oriented Learning: Exploring an Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Sciences 21, 123–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. L. (1969). The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States. American Political Science Review 63, 880–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J. (1987). The Canadian Access to Information Act 1982. In Marsh, , ed., American Political Science Review, 122–171.Google Scholar
Waltman, J. L. (1980). Copying Other Nations’ Policies: Two American Case Studies. Cambridge, Mass: Schenkman.Google Scholar
Weir, M. & Skocpol, T. (1985). State Structures and the Possibilities of‘Keynesian’ Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain and the United States. In Evans, P. B., Rueschmeyer, D. & Skocpol, T., eds. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. (1977). Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Wilensky, H., Luebbert, G. M., Hahn, S. R. and Jamieson, A. M. (1987) Comparative Social Policy: Theories, Methods, Findings. In Dierkes, M., Weiler, H. N. and Antal, A. B., eds. Comparative Policy Research: Learning from Experience. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1984) The Secrets File: The Case for Freedom of Information in Britain Today. London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
Wise, D. (1973). The Politics of Lying. New York: Random House.Google Scholar