Agenda-setting instruments: means and strategies for the management of policy demands

References

• Anderson, J., Newmark, A., Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (2004). Mayflies and old bulls: Organization persistence in state interest communities. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4(2), 140–160.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, M., & Coleman, W. (1989). Strong states and weak states: Sectoral policy networks in advanced capitalist economies. British Journal of Political Science, 19(1), 47–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bali, A. S., & Ramesh, M. (2018). Policy capacity: A design perspective. 331-344. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Routledge handbook of policy design. 331-344. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bali, A. S., Capano, G., & Ramesh, M. (2019). Anticipating and designing for policy effectiveness. Policy & Society, 38(1), 1–13.
   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
• Barakso, M. (2004). Governing NOW: Grassroots activism in the national organization for women. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C., & Leech, B. L. (2009). Lobbying and policy change. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F., & Leech, B. (2001). Interest niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1191–1213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Béland, D. (2010). Reconsidering policy feedback: How policies affect politics. In Administration & society (Vol. 42 (5), pp. 568–590).
   Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, B. (2005). Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure. Political Studies, 53(4), 694–715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2018). Policy styles in the United Kingdon: A majoritarian UK vs. devolved consensus democracies? In M. Howlett & J. Tosun (Eds.), Policy styles and policy-making: Exploring the linkages (pp. 25–44). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2019). Causal logics and mechanisms in policy design: How and why adopting a mechanistic perspective can improve policy design. Public Policy and Administration. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076719827068
   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), 2158244019900568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capano, G., & Lippi, A. (2017). How policy instruments are chosen: Patterns of decision makers’ choices. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 269–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2018). Designing policy robustness: Outputs and processes. Policy and Society, 37(4), 422–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, R. W., & Ross, M. (1997). Cultural strategies of agenda denial. Lawrence: Kansas University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Congressional Budget Office. (2020). Budget and economic data. “historical budget data, January 2020. Available online at https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-01/51134-2020-01-historicalbudgetdata.xlsx. 
   Google Scholar
• Crow, D., & James, M. (2018). Narratives as tools for influencing policy change. Policy and Politics, 46(2), 217–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowse, R. E., & Hughes, J. A. (1977). Sporadic interventionists. Political Studies, 25(1), 84–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraussen, B. (2014). The visible hand of the state: On the organization development of interest groups. Public Administration, 92(2), 406–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goss, K. (2010). Disarmed: The missing movement for gun control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2008). Development, democracy, and welfare states: Latin America, East Asia, and eastern Europe. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. (2002). Interest groups and (re)establishing stability in policy making: The case of the NSW farmers’ association and the native vegetation conservation act. Australian Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 489–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. (2011). Explaining policy bandwagons: Organized interest mobilization and cascades of attention. Governance, 24(2), 205–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. (2014). The organization of political interest groups: Designing advocacy. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. R., & Fraussen, B. (2021). Interest groups and agenda-setting styles. In Howlett M and J Tosun (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of policy styles. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Heaney, M. T. (2004). Outside the issue niche: The multidimensionality of interest group identity. American Politics Research, 32(6), 611–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. (1981). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1986). the tools of government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (1997). Issue-Attention and punctuated equilibria models reconsidered: An empirical examination of the dynamics of agenda-setting in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 3–29.
   Web of Science ®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. (2019). The policy design primer: Choosing the right tools for the job. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Josun, T. (eds). (2018). Policy styles and policy-making: Exploring the linkages. Abingdon, UK: Routlegde.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. J. (2015). From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: The new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy & Politics, 43(2), 291–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Shivakoti, R. (2014) “Agenda-Setting tools: State-driven agenda activity from government relations to scenario forecasting”, Paper Presented at ECPR General Conference 2014. Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Tosun, J., Eds.. 2021. The routledge handbook of policy styles. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, A. G., & Richardson, J. J. (1982). The British policy style or the logic of negotiation? In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy styles in Western Europe (pp. 80–110). London: Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, G., & Halpin, D. (2006). The political costs of policy coherence: Constructing a rural policy for Scotland. Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 21–41.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston. Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschen, E. S., Benard, J., Besters, H., Blackaby, F., Eckstein, O., Faaland, J., … Tosco, E. (1964). Economic Policy in Our Time. Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. J. (1966). Distribution, regulation, redistribution: The functions of government. In R. B. Ripley (Ed.), Public policies and their politics (Vol. 1966, pp. 27–40). New York: W.W. Norton: Techniques of Government Control.
   Google Scholar
• Maloney, W. A., Jordan, G., & McLaughlin, A. M. (1994). Interest groups and public policy: The insider/outsider model revisited. Journal of Public Policy, 14(1), 17–38.
   Google Scholar
• May, P. J., Jones, B. D., Beem, B. E., Neff‐Sharum, E. A., & Poague, M. K. (2005). Policy coherence and component‐driven policymaking: Arctic policy in Canada and the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 33(1), 37–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherjee, I., Coban, K., & Bali, A. S. (2021). Policy capacities for effective policy designs: A revuew. In Policy sciences,54:243-268.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2021). Administrative traditions: Understanding the roots of contemporary administrative behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ramesh, M., & Asher, M. G. (2000). Welfare capitalism in Southeast Asia: Social security, health and education policies. Springer. Palgrave Macmillan, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. (2018). The changing British policy style: From governance to government? British Politics, 13(2), 215–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. J., Gustafsson, G., & Jordan, G. (1982). The concept of policy style. In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy styles in Western Europe (pp. 1–16). London: George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M. (ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (1st ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. C. (2013). Social processes in lobbyist agenda development: A longitudinal network analysis of interest groups and legislation. Policy Studies Journal, 41(4), 608–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, D. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, Il: Scott, Foresman.
   Google Scholar
• Strolovitch, D. (2007). Affirmative advocacy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vedung, E. (1997). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In R. C. Rist, E. Vedung, & M. L. BemelmansVidec (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, J. (1977). Setting the agenda in the U.S. Senate: A theory of problem selection. British Journal of Political Science, 7(4), 423–445.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar