Public inquiries as procedural policy tools

References

• Acland, H. (1980). Research as stage management: The case of the plowdon committee. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Social research and royal commissions (pp. 19–34). London and Boston: George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Ashforth, A. (1990). Reckoning Schemes of Legitimation: On Commissions of Inquiry as a
   Google Scholar
• Blair, R. (2002). Policy tools theory and implementation networks: understanding state enterprise zone partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 161–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. D. (2000). Making Sense of Inquiry Sensemaking. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 45–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2020). The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis: policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. Sage Open,10(1), 1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900568
   Google Scholar
• Craft, J., & Halligan, J. (2017). Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience. Policy Sciences; Dordrecht, 50(1), 47–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deverell, E. (2009). Crises as learning triggers: exploring a conceptual framework of crisis-induced learning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(3), 179–188.
   Google Scholar
• Eburn, M., & Dovers, S. (2015). Learning lessons from disasters: alternatives to royal commissions and other quasi-judicial inquiries. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(4), 495–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, D. (2009). The failure of organizational learning from crisis – A matter of life and death? Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(3), 157–168.
   Google Scholar
• Ewalt, J. G., & Jennings, E. T., Jr. (2004). Administration, governance, and policy tools in welfare policy implementation. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 449–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamble, D. J. (1978). The berger inquiry: an impact assessment process. Science, 199(4332), 946–951.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilligan, G. (2002). Royal commissions of inquiry. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35(3), 289–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2009). Implementing public policy (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C., & Margetts, H. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2017). Policy tools and their role in policy formulation: Dealing with procedural and substantive instruments. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Handbook of policy formulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2018). Matching policy tools and their targets: Beyond nudges and utility maximisation in policy design. Policy and Politics, 46(1), 101–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2019). Procedural policy tools and the temporal dimensions of policy design: resilience, robustness and the sequencing of policy mixes. International Review of Public Policy, 1(1), 27–45.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Craft, J., & Zibrik, L. (2010). Government communication and democratic governance: Electoral and policy-related information campaigns in Canada. Policy and Society, 29(1), 13–22.
   Google Scholar
• Inwood, G. J., & Johns, C. M. (2014). Why study commissions of Inquiry? In G. J. Inwood & C. M. Johns (Eds.), Commissions of inquiry and policy change: A comparative analysis (pp. 3–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johns, C. M., & Inwood, G. J. (2018). Commissions of inquiry and policy analysis. In L. Dobuzinskis & M. Howlett (Eds.), Policy analysis in Canada (1st ed., pp. 233–254). Bristol: Bristol University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling-through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2009). From intercrisis to intracrisis learning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(3), 189–198.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (2000). Institutional amnesia: A paradox of the “information age”. Prometheus, 19(1), 5–16.
   Google Scholar
• Prasser, S. (2006). Royal commissions in Australia: When should governments appoint them? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(3), 28–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasser, S., & Tracey, H. (2014). Royal commissions and public inquiries: practice and potential. Ballarat: Connor Court Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rares, J. (2013, October 12). Using the “hot tub”—How concurrent expert evidence aids understanding Issues [Presentation]. http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-20131012
   Google Scholar
• Resodihardjo, S. L. (2006). Wielding a double-edged sword: The use of inquiries at times of crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(4), 199–206.
   Google Scholar
• Resodihardjo, S. L. (2020). Inquiries Following Crises. In S. L. Resodihardjo (Ed.), Crises, inquiries and the politics of blame (pp. 33–45). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R. A. W. (2017). Network governance and the differentiated polity: Selected essays (Vol. 1). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, L. (1989). The two contradictions of public inquiries. Dalhousie Law Journal, 3, 173–198.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, L. (2007). The public of public inquiries. In L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, & D. Laycock (Eds.), Policy analysis in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioural assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, A. (2018). Public inquiries, policy learning and the threat of future crises. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, A. (2019). Policy learning and the public inquiry. Policy Sciences, 52(3), 397–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, A. (2019a). Left on the shelf: Explaining the failure of public inquiry recommendations. Public Administration. Early view. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12630.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, A. (2019b). Explaining institutional amnesia in government. Governance, 32(1), 143–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, A., & Head, B. (2019). Institutional amnesia and public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(10), 1521–1539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2010). Reflection in the shadow of blame: when do politicians appoint commissions of inquiry? British Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 613–634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ‘t Hart, P., & Boin, A. (2001). Between crisis and normalcy: the long shadow of post-crisis politics. In U. Rosenthal, Boin, & L. K. Comfort (Eds.), Managing crises: Threats, dilemmas, opportunities. Charles C Thomas.
   Google Scholar
• Yates, S. (2018). A critical frame analysis of victoria’s royal commission into family violence. PhD Thesis, UNSW. Springfield, Illinois.
   Google Scholar