Comparing policy process frameworks: What do they tell us about group membership and participation for policy development?

Administration and Society

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 350-374

  Sobeck, Joanne ^a  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Group membership; Local policy making; Participation; Policy process framework

Indexed keywords

EID: 30244484897     PISSN: 00953997     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0095399703035003005     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
2. Barclay, S., & Birkland, T. (1998). Law, policymaking, and the policy process: Closing the gaps. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 227-243.
3. Box, R. C. (1998). Citizen governance leading American communities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Brownson, R. C., Newsschaffer, C. N., & Ali-Abarghoui, F. (1997). Policy research for disease prevention: Challenges and practical recommendations. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 335-339.
5. Dery, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
6. Dievler, A., & Cassady, C. (1998). Politics and policy making. American Journal of Public Health, 88(5), 839.
7. Moe, T. (1990). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. Williamson (Ed.), Organizational theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116-153). New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 35-72). Boulder, CO: Westview.
12. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13. Sabatier, P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129-168.
14. Sabatier, P. (1999). The need for better theories. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3-17). Boulder, CO: Westview.
15. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning. Boulder, CO: Westview.
16. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117-168). Boulder, CO: Westview.
17. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
18. Schlager, E. (1995). Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 28, 243-270.
19. Schlager, E. (1999). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy process. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 233-260). Boulder, CO: Westview.
20. Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 651-672.
21. Stewart, J. (1991). Policy models and equal education opportunity. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24, 167-173.
22. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.