Metagovernance of migration policy in the Asia Pacific region: an analysis of policy tools

References

• Baker, K., & Stoker, G. (2012). Metagovernance and nuclear power in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(7), 1026–1051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bali, A. S., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2021). Unpacking policy portfolios: Primary and secondary aspects of tool use in policy mixes. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2021.1907653
   Google Scholar
• Bali Process. (2011a, October 11-12). Operationalisation of the regional cooperation framework. Retrieved from https://www.baliprocess.net/UserFiles/baliprocess/File/1200%20UNHCR.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bali Process. (2011b, March 9). Ad Hoc group progress report by the co-chairs. Retrieved from https://www.baliprocess.net/UserFiles/baliprocess/File/FINAL%20Signed%20AHG%20Progress%20Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• BBC. (2019, March 1). Rohingya crisis: Bangladesh will no longer take in Myanmar refugees. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47412704
   Google Scholar
• Bell, S., & Hindmoor, A. (2009). Rethinking Governance – The Centrality of the State in Modern Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bossong, R. (2014). The European Programme for the protection of critical infrastructures – Meta-governing a new security problem? European Security, 23(2), 210–226.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, A. (2016). The engagement pendulum: Australia’s alternating approach to irregular migration. Journal of Australian Studies, 40(3), 319–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Co-Chairs’ Statement (2011, 29-30 March). Fourth Bali Regional Ministerial Conference. Retrieved from https://www.baliprocess.net/UserFiles/baliprocess/File/110330_FINAL_Ministerial_Co-chairs%20statement%20BRMC%20IV(1).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Curley, M., & Vandyk, K. (2016). The securitisation of migrant smuggling in Australia and its consequences for the Bali Process. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(1), 42–62.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, J. S. (2011). Challenging governance theory: From networks to hegemony. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dommett, K., & 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, J. H., & Schloenhardt, A. (2012, February). Combatting migrant smuggling with regional diplomacy: An examination of the Bali Process. University of Queensland Research Paper. Retrieved from https://law.uq.edu.au/files/6723/Douglas-Schloenhardt-Bali-Process.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Erik-Hans, K., & Edelenbos, J. (2007). Meta-governance as network management. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 199–214). London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Fawcett, P., & Daugbjerg, C. (2017). Metagovernance, network structure and legitimacy: Developing a heuristic for comparative governance analysis. Administration & Society, 49(9), 1223–1245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzscheiter, A., Bahr, T., & Pantzerhielm, L. (2016). Emerging governance architectures in global health: Do metagovernance norms explain inter-organisational convergence? Politics and Governance, 4(3), 5–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C., & Margetts, H. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. London: 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. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2016). Achilles’ heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance, 10(4), 301–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IOM. (2021), Inter-State Consultation Mechanisms on Migration. Retrieved from https://www.iom.int/inter-state-consultation-mechanisms-migration
   Google Scholar
• Kneebone, S. (2014). The Bali Process and global refugee policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Journal of Refugee Studies, 27(4), 596–618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knill, C., & Bauer, M. W. (2016). Policy-making by international public administrations: Concepts, causes, and consequences. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 949–959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen, G. (2006). The Bali Process on people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime. In Berne Initiative and International Organization for Migration (Eds.), Interstate Cooperation and Migration (pp. 44–47). Geneva: FOM and IOM.
   Google Scholar
• Legrand, T. (2015). Transgovernmental policy networks in the Anglosphere. Public Administration, 93(4), 973–991.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamudu, H., Cairney, P., & Studlar, D. (2015). Global public policy: Does the new venue for transnational tobacco control challenge the old way of doing things? Public Administration, 93(4), 856–873.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margetts, H., & Hood, C. (2016). Tools Approaches. In B. Guy Peters & P. Zittoun (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to public policy (pp. 133–154). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, D. (2011). The new orthodoxy: The differentiated polity model. Public Administration, 89(1), 32–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-Diaz, L., & Woods, N. (Eds.). (2009). Networks of influence?: Developing countries in a networked global order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nethery, A., & Gordyn, C. (2014). Australia–Indonesia cooperation on asylum-seekers: A case of ‘incentivised policy transfer'. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68(2), 177–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reddy, S. K., Mazhar, S., & Lencucha, R. (2018). The financial sustainability of the World Health Organization and the political economy of global health governance: A review of funding proposals. Globalization and Health, 14, 119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regional Support Office. (2015). Forward Work Plan 2015-2017. Retrieved from http://www.baliprocess.net/UserFiles/baliprocess/File/Forward%20Work%20Plan%202015-2017(1).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, A.-M. (2009). A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2016). Political leadership in the age of interactive governance: Reflections on the political aspects of metagovernance. In J. Edelenbos & V. M. Ingmar (Eds.), Critical reflections on interactive governance (pp. 444–466). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, D. (2008). Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their networks. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 19–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, D., & Ladi, S. (2015). Global public policy and transnational administration. Public Administration, 93(4), 839–855.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNHCR. (2010). Regional cooperative approach to address refugees, asylum-seekers and irregular movement. Discussion Paper presented at the Bali Process Ad Hoc Group-UNHCR Regional Cooperation on Refugees and Irregular Movement Workshop. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4e92d7c32.pdf
   Google Scholar