Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 759-775

  Turnpenny, John ^a   Nilsson, Måns ^b   Russel, Duncan ^a   Jordan, Andrew ^a   Hertin, Julia ^c   Nykvist, Bjorn ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^c FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^d STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Environmental policy; Evidence based policy; Institutional analysis; Integration; Policy assessment; Sustainable development

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; INTEGRATED APPROACH; POLICY ANALYSIS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EURASIA; EUROPE;

EID: 57049085283     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: 13600559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640560802423541     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Allison, G. and Zelkow, P. (1999) Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis, Addison Wesley Longman, New York
2. BMI (2000) Moderner Staat-moderne Verwaltung: Gemeinsame Geschaftsordnung der Bundesministerien, German Federal Ministry of the Interior/Bundesministerium des Innern, Berlin
3. (2005) Joined-up government, Oxford University Press, Oxford
4. (1980) Social research and royal commissions, George Allen & Unwin, London
5. Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising government (Cmnd. 4310), HMSO, London
6. Cabinet Office (2003) Regulatory impact assessment guidance, HMSO, London
7. Clemens, E. S. and Cook, J. M. (1999) Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Annual review of sociology, 25, pp. 441-466.
8. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2001) European governance: a White Paper
9. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2002) Communication from the Commission on impact assessment
10. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2002) On the collection and use of expertise by the Commission: Principles and guidelines: 'Improving the knowledge base for better policies', p. 713.
11. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2005) Impact assessment guidelines
12. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2005) Better regulation for growth and jobs in the European Union
13. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2006) The Impact Assessment Board (IAB)-Mandate
14. Dery, D. (1998) Policy by the way: When policy is incidental to making other policies. Journal of public policy, 18:2, pp. 163-176.
15. Eales, R. et al. (2005) Emerging approaches to integrated appraisal in the UK. Impact assessment and policy appraisal, 23:2, pp. 113-123.
16. Eckerberg, K. et al. (2007) Institutional analysis of energy and agriculture. Environmental policy integration in practice, pp. 111-136. Earthscan, London
17. European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils (EEAC) (2006) Impact assessment of European Commission policies: achievements and prospects
18. Fischer, F. (1995) Evaluating public policy, Wadsworth
19. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) Rationality and power: Democracy in practice, University of Chicago Press, London
20. Gibson, R. B. et al. (2005) Sustainability assessment: Criteria, processes and applications, Earthscan, London
21. Hall, P. A. (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning and the state. Comparative politics, 25:3, pp. 275-296.
22. Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political studies, pp. 936-957.
23. Hanf, K. and Underdal, A. (1998) Domesticating international commitments: Linking national and international decision-making. The politics of international environmental management, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
24. Hertin, J. et al. (2008) Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process. Environment and planning A
25. Hill, M. (2005) The public policy process, Harmondsworth, Longman
26. Hood, C. (2005) The idea of joined up government: A historical perspective. Joined up government, Oxford University Press, Oxford
27. John, P. (1998) Analysing public policy, Pinter, London
28. Jordan, G. and Halpin, D. (2006) The political costs of policy coherence: Constructing a rural policy for Scotland. Journal of public policy, 26:1, pp. 21-41.
29. Jordan, A. and Schout, A. (2006) The coordination of the European Union: exploring the capacities for networked governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford
30. Kidd, S. and Fischer, T. B. (2007) Towards sustainability: Is integrated appraisal a step in the right direction?. Environment and planning C: government and policy, 25, pp. 233-249.
31. Kiser, L. and Ostrom, E. (1982) The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. Strategies of political inquiry, pp. 179-222. Sage, Beverly Hills
32. Kriesi, H., Adam, S. and Jochum, M. (2006) Comparative analysis of policy networks in Western Europe. Journal of European public policy, 13:3, pp. 341-361.
33. Lee, N. (2002) Integrated approaches to impact assessment: Substance or make-believe?. In: Environmental Assessment Yearbook 2002, EIA Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester
34. Lee, N. (2006) Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. Environmental impact assessment review, 26, pp. 57-78.
35. Lindblom, C. E. (1979) Still muddling, not yet through. Public administration review, 39:6, pp. 517-526.
36. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989) Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics, The Free Press/Macmillan, New York
37. National Audit Office (NAO) (2006) Regulatory impact assessments and sustainable development, NAO, London
38. Nutley, S., Walter, I. and Bland, N. (2002) The institutional arrangements for connecting evidence and policy: The case of drug misuse. Public policy and administration, 17:3, pp. 76-94.
39. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1996) Performance auditing and the modernisation of government, OECD, Paris
40. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2002) Governance for sustainable development: Five OECD case studies, OECD, Paris
41. Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, New York
42. Owens, S. (2005) Making a difference? Some perspectives on environmental research and policy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, pp. 287-292.
43. Peters, B. G. (1998) Comparative politics: Theory and methods, Macmillan Press, London
44. Pope, J. (2006) Editorial: What's so special about sustainability assessment?. Journal of environmental assessment policy and management, 8:3, pp. v-x.
45. Radaelli, C. M. and De Francesco, F. (2007) Regulatory quality in Europe: Concepts, measures and policy processes, Manchester University Press, Manchester
46. Rayner, S. (2003) Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision-making. Science and public policy, 30:3, pp. 163-170.
47. Renda, A. (2006) Impact assessment in the EU: The state of the art and the art of the state, Centre for Policy Studies, Brussels
48. Russel, D. J. (2005) Environmental policy appraisal in the UK central government: A political analysis
49. Russel, D. and Jordan, A. (2007) Gearing up governance for sustainable development: Patterns of policy appraisal in United Kingdom central government. Journal of environmental planning and management, 50, pp. 1-21.
50. Sanderson, I. (2002) Making sense of what works: Evidence based policy making as instrumental rationality. Public policy and public administration, 17:3, pp. 61-75.
51. Scrase, J. I. and Sheate, W. R. (2002) Integration and integrated approaches to assessment: What do they mean for the environment?. Journal of environmental policy and planning, 4, pp. 275-294.
52. (1992) Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
53. Weaver, P. M. and Rotmans, J. (2006) Integrated sustainability assessment: What is it, why do it, and how?. International journal of innovation and sustainable development, 1:4, pp. 284-303.
54. Wilkinson, D. (2004) The magic bullet? Is ex ante impact assessment the key to advancing environmental policy integration? Environmental policy integration. Paper 4. European Environment Agency
55. Wilkinson, D. et al. (2004) Sustainable development in the European Commission's integrated impact assessments for 2003. IEEP Final Report, April 2004, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London