Procedural policy tools in theory and practice

References

• Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery: Managing with external providers. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public policymaking. New York: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Balch, G. I. (1980). The stick, the carrot, and other strategies: A theoretical analysis of governmental intervention. Law & Policy, 2(1), 35–60.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter-Moore, N. (1987). Policy implementation and the role of the state: A revised approach to the study of policy instruments. In Contemporary Canadian politics: readings and notes, eds. RJ Jackson, D. Jackson, and N. Baxter-Moore. Nelson Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. London: Macmillan
   Google Scholar
• Bellehumeur, R. (1997). Review: An instrument of change. Optimum, 27(1), 37–42.
   Google Scholar
• Bulmer, S. J. (1993). The governance of the European Union: A new institutionalist approach. Journal of Public Policy, 13(4), 351–380.
   Google Scholar
• Burt, S. (1990). Canadian women’s groups in the 1980s: Organizational development and policy influence. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse De Politiques, 16(17–28), 17.
   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. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900568
   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
• Chapman, R. (2003). A policy mix for environmentally sustainable development-learning from the Dutch experience. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 7, 29–51
   Google Scholar
• Chapman, R. A. (Ed.). (1973). The role of commissions in policy-making. Allen & Unwin Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Cushman, R. E. (1941). Independent regulatory commissions. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare: Planning and politico-economic systems resolved into basic social processes. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• de Bruijn, J. A., & ten Heuvelhof, E. F. (1997). Instruments for network management. In W. J. M. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn, & J. F. M. Koppenjan (Eds.), Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector (pp. 119–136). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dickinson, H., Glasby, J., Nicholds, A., Jeffares, S., Robinson, S., & Sullivan, H. (2013). Joint commissioning in health and social care: An exploration of definitions, processes, services and outcomes.Southampton: National Institute for Health Research, Service Delivery and Organisation Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Doern, G. B. (1981). The peripheral nature of scientific controversy in federal policy formulation. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Doern, G. B., & Phidd, R. W. (1983). Canadian public policy: Ideas, structure, process. Nelson Canada
   Google Scholar
• Doern, G. B., & Wilks, S. (1998). Changing regulatory institutions in Britain and North America (Vol. 1). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doern, G. B., & V. S. Wilson. (1974). ‘Conclusions and Observations.’ In In Issues in Canadian Public Policy, eds., G. B. Doern and V. S. Wilson, 337-345. Toronto, ON: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6(3), 217–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmore, R. F. (1987). “Instruments and Strategy in Public Policy.” Policy Studies Review 7(1): 174–86.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. B. (1999). Voluntary initiatives and the new politics of corporate greening. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Givoni, M. (2013). Addressing transport policy challenges through policy-packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givoni, M., Macmillen, J., Banister, D., & Feitelson, E. (2013). From policy measures to policy packages. Transport Reviews, 33(1), 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington DC: Brookings Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gormley, W. T., Jr. (2007). Public policy analysis: Ideas and impacts. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 297–313.
   Google Scholar
• Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green markets: Environmental regulation by the private sector. Law & Policy, 16(4), 419–448.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, K. (1999). Retreat from regulation: The evolution of the Canadian environmental regime. In G. B. Doern, R. J. Schulz, & M. M. Hill (Eds.), Changing the rules: Canadian regulatory regimes and institutions (pp. 122–142). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hennicke, P. (2004). Scenarios for a robust policy mix: The final report of the German study commission on sustainable energy supply. Energy Policy, 32(15), 1673–1678
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermann, C. F. (1982). Instruments of foreign policy. In Callahan, P et al (eds) Describing foreign policy behavior (pp. 153–174) Beverly Hills: Sage.
   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
• Hou, Y., & Brewer, G. (2010). Substitution and supplementation between co- functional policy instruments: Evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 914–924.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.
   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. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2019). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. Pablo del Rio (2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1233–1245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1998). Policy subsystem configurations and policy change: operationalizing the postpositivist analysis of the politics of the policy process. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 466–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy. Canada: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Vince, J., & del Río, P. (2017). Policy integration and multi-level governance: Dealing with the vertical dimension of policy mix designs. Politics and Governance, 5(2), 69–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenson, J. (1994). Commissioning ideas: Representation and royal commissions’. In How Ottawa spends, 1994-95: Making Change, Susan D. Philips (eds.) Ottawa: Carlton University Press. (pp. 39–69).
   Google Scholar
• Kay, A. (2007). Tense layering and synthetic policy paradigms: The politics of health insurance in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 579–591
   Web of Science ®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
• Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2015). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Klijn, E. H., Koppenjan, J., & Termeer, K. (1995). Managing networks in the public sector: A theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks. Public Administration, 73(3), 437–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (2006). Institutional design: Changing institutional features of networks. Public Management Review, 8(1), 141–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Grand, J. (1991). The theory of government failure. British Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 423–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. J. (1966). Distribution, regulation, redistribution: The functions of government. In R. B. Ripley (Ed.), Public policies and their politics: Techniques of government control (pp. 27–40). New York: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maor, M. (2012). Policy Overreaction. Journal of Public Policy, 32(3), 231–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maor, M. (2014). Policy persistence, risk estimation and policy underreaction. Policy Sciences, 47(4), 425–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milkman, K. L., Mazza, M. C., Shu, L. L., Tsay, C. J., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Policy bundling to overcome loss aversion: A method for improving legislative outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 158–167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nownes, A. J., & Neeley, G. (1996). Public interest group entrepreneurship and theories of group mobilization. Political Research Quarterly, 49(1), 119–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Flynn, J. (2019). Rethinking relationships: Clarity, contingency, and capabilities. In Policy Design and Practice, 2(2):115-136.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (1992). Government reorganization: A theoretical analysis. International Political Science Review, 13(2), 199–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2002). The politics of tool choice. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 552–564). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2005). The problem of policy problems. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 77–105). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, S. D. (1991). How Ottawa blends: Shifting government relationships with interest groups. In Frances Abele (Ed.) How Ottawa spends: The politics of fragmentation (pp.183-228). Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, R., & Dean, L. E. R. (1994). An inquiry into Lowi’s policy typology: The conservation coalition and the 1985 and 1990 farm bills. Environment and Planning C, 12(1), 71-71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/c120071
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255–275.
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M., & Lund, M. S. (1989). Beyond privatization: The tools of government action.Washington DC: Urban Institute Press .
   Google Scholar
• Salter, L., Slaco, D., & Konstantynowicz, K. (1981). Public inquiries in Canada (Vol. 47). Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (2005). Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy. Albany: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G., & Wales, C. (2000). Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 48(1), 51–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, A. (2019). Policy learning and the public inquiry. Policy sciences , 52: 397-417 .
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, Mark C. 1995. ‘Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.’ Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571–610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taeihagh, A., Givoni, M., & René, B.-A. (2013). Which policy first? A network-centric approach for the analysis and ranking of policy measures. Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design, 40(4), 595–616.
   Google Scholar
• Timmermans, A., Rothmayr, C., Serduelt, U., & Varone, F. (1998). The design of policy instruments: perspectives and concepts. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Trebilcock, M., & Hartle, D. G. (1982). The choice of governing instrument. International Review of Law and Economics, 2(1), 29–46.
   Google Scholar
• Trebilcock, M. J., Tuohy, C. J., & Wolfson, A. D. (1979). Professional regulation: A staff study of accountancy, architecture, engineering, and law in Ontario prepared for the professional organizations committee. Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General.
   Google Scholar
• Tupper, A., & Doern, G. B. (1981a). Public corporations and public policy in Canada. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Tupper, A., & Doern, G. B. (1981b). Public corporations and public policy in Canada. In A. Tupper & G. B. Doern (Eds.), Public corporations and public policy in Canada (pp. 1–50). Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Heijden, J. (2011). Institutional layering: A review of the use of the concept. Politics, 31(1), 9–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varone, F. (1998). Policy Design: Le choix des instruments des politiques publiques. In Evaluation 2 (pp. 5–14).
   Google Scholar
• Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In M. L. Bemelmans-Videc & R. C. Rist (Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 103–128). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Voß, J. P., & Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: The social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, R. K. (2015, July 1). Getting people to behave: Research lessons for policy makers. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 806–816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775–793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolley, A. (2008). Legitimating public policy. University of Toronto Law Journal, 58(2), 153–184.
   Google Scholar
• Wraith, R. E., & Lamb, G. B. (1971). Public inquiries as an instrument of government. Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X., & Ramesh, M. (2014). Market imperfections, government imperfections, and policy mixes: policy innovations in Singapore. Policy sciences, 47(3), 305–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yates, S. (2019). “An exercise in careful diplomacy”: Talking about alcohol, drugs and family violence. Policy Design and Practice, 2(3), 258–274.
   Google Scholar