Evaluating what will work in nanotechnology regulation: In pursuit of the public interest

New Global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 111-133

  Hodge, Graeme ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956363629     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (77)

1. Abbott, K., S. Gopalan, G. Marchant and D. Sylvester (2006), 'Transnational models for the regulation of nanotechnology', paper presented at the International Studies Association Conference, San Diego, 22-25 March.
2. Beauprez, J. (2003), 'Nanotechnology - tiny miracles', Denver Post, 13 July, p. K1.
3. Black, J. (2002), 'Critical reflections on regulation', Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 27, 1-36.
4. Bingham, R.D. and C. L. Felbinger (2002), Evaluation in Practice: A Methodological Approach (2nd edn), New York: Chatham House.
5. Black, J. (2005), 'Tomorrow's worlds: frameworks for understanding regulatory innovation', in J. Black, M. Lodge and M. Thatcher (eds), Regulatory Innovation: A Comparative Analysis, Northampton, MA, and Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 16-44.
6. Bowman,D. M. and G. A. Hodge (2006), 'Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier', Futures Journal, 38, 1060-73.
7. Bowman,D. M. and G. A. Hodge (2007), 'Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: some international observations, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27, 118-32.
8. Bridgman, P. and G. Davis (1998), Australian Policy Handbook, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
9. Commonwealth of Australia (2006), Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee - Inquiry Into Workplace Exposure to Toxic Dust - Terms of Reference, Canberra: Commonwealth Government.
10. Crotty, M. (1998), The Foundation of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, London: Sage Publications.
11. Council for Science and Technology (2005), Policy Through Dialogue: Informing Policies Based on Science and Technology, London: Council for Science and Technology.
12. Davies, H. T. O., S. M. Nutley and P. C. Smith (1999), 'Editorial: what works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice', Public Money and Management, 19(1), 3-5.
13. Drexler, K. E. (2001), 'A debate about assemblers', accessed at www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/smalley.html.
14. ETC Group (2003), The Big Down: Atomtech - Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale, Ottawa: ETC Group.
15. Fitzgerald, P. (2004), Review of Partnerships Victoria Provided Infrastructure, Melbourne: Growth Solutions Group.
16. Fox, C. A. (1996), 'Reinventing government as postmodern symbolic politics', Public Administration Review, 56(3), 256-62.
17. Freiberg, A. (2006), 'The tools of government', paper presented to the Australasian Compliance Institute, 26 April, unpublished.
18. Glimell, H. (2004), 'Grand visions and Lilliput politics: staging the exploration of the "endless frontier" ', in D. Baird, A. Nordmann, and J. Schummer (eds), Discovering the Nanoscale, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 231-46.
19. Gordon, J. (2006), 'IR overhaul based on short "essay": economic case contains no modeling', The Age, Melbourne, 5 June.
20. Grattan, M. (2005), 'Yes, Minister. Your will is my command: public servants are reminded that their job is to serve the public, The Age, Melbourne, 6 July.
21. Grove-White, R., M. Kearnes, P. Miller, P. Macnaghten, J. Wilsdon and B. Wynne, (2004), Bio - to - Nano? Learning the Lessons, Interrogating the Comparison, London: Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University.
22. Guba, E.G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23. Hatry, H. P., L. H. Blair, D. M. Fisk, J. M. Greiner, J. R. Hall and P. S. Schaeman (1977), How Effective Are Your Community Services? Procedures for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Municipal Services, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute and the International City Management Association.
24. Hodge, G. A. (1993), Minding Everybody's Business: Performance Management in Public SectorAgencies, Melbourne:MonashUniversity Public SectorManagement Institute.
25. Hodge, G. A. (1997), 'Privatisation: an international review of performance', unpublished PhD thesis for, Monash University, Melbourne.
26. Hodge, G. A. (2000), Privatisation: An International Review of Performance, Boulder CO: Westview Press.
27. Hodge, G. A. and D. M. Bowman (2007), 'Engaging in small talk: nanotechnology policy and dialogue processes in the United Kingdom and Australia', Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(2), 222-37.
28. Hodge, G. A. (2004), 'Accountability in the privatised state: the changing of the guardians', Alternative Law Journal, 29(1), 4-9.
29. Hodge, G. A., D. M. Bowman and P. Binks (2005), 'Regulating the invisible: nanotechnology and the public interest', paper presented to the Integrated Governance: Linking up Government, Business and Civil Society meeting, Prato, Italy, 26-9 October.
30. Hogwood, B. W. and L. A. Gunn, (1984), Policy Analysis for the Real World, London: Oxford University Press.
31. Hood, C. and M. Lodge (2005), 'Pavlovian innovation, pet solutions, and economizing on rationality? Politicians and dangerous dogs', in J. Black, M. Lodge and M. Thatcher (eds), Regulatory Innovation: A Comparative Analysis, Northampton, MA and Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 138-55.
32. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000), Science and Society, Third Report, London: House of Lords.
33. Jackson, R., F. Barbagallo, and H. Haste (2005), 'Strengths of public Dialogue on science-related issues', Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(3), 349-58.
34. Jasanoff, S. (1991), 'Cross-national differences in policy implementation', Evaluation Review, 15(1), 103-19.
35. Jasanoff, S. (2005), Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36. Jenkins, W. I. (1978), Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective, London: Martin Robertson.
37. Johnson, A. (2004), 'The end of pure science: science policy from Bayh-Dole to the NNI', in D. Baird, A. Nordmann and J. Schummer (eds), Discovering the Nanoscale, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 217-30.
38. Joy, B. (2000), 'Why the future doesn't need us', Wired, 8(4), 1-2.
39. Kingdon, J. (1995), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy, 2nd edn, New York: Longman.
40. Lasswell, H. D. (1956), The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis, College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
41. Mack, R. (1971), Planning and Uncertainty, New York: John Wiley.
42. MacNaghten, P., M. Kearnes and B. Wynne (2005), 'Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?', Science Communication, 27(2), 268-91.
43. Moe, R. C. (1994), 'The reinventing government exercise: misinterpreting the problem, misjudging the consequences', Public Administration Review, 2, 111-22.
44. Mulgan, R. (2000a), 'Perspectives on the public interest', Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 9, 6-12.
45. Mulgan, R. (2000b), 'Public servants and the public interest', Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 97, 1-4.
46. Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG) (2005), The Nanotechnology Engagement Group - An Introduction, London: NEG.
47. Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG) (2006), The Nanotechnology Engagement Group - Policy Report 1, London: NEG.
48. Nanotechnology Issues Dialogue Group (2005), The Nanotechnology Issues Dialogue Group and the Nanotechnology Research Coordination Group, London: Office of Science and Technology.
49. Nanologue (2005), Nanologue Mapping Study, Wuppertal, Germany: Wuppertal Institute, EMPA, Forum of the Future and triple innova.
50. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1993) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spririt is Transforming the Public Sector, Reading: Addison- Wesley Publishing.
51. Parsons, W. (1995), Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
52. Pawson, R. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage Publications.
53. Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (2005), Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage Publications.
54. Newcomer, K. (1996), 'Evaluating public programs', in J. L. Perry (ed.), Handbook of Public Administration, 2nd edn, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 555-73.
55. Roco,M. C. and W. S. Bainbridge (eds) (2001), Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, New York: Springer.
56. Rose, R. (1973), 'Comparing public policy: an overview', European Journal of Political Research, 1, 67-94.
57. Rosenthal, R. (1991), Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research, vol. 6, Sage Publications, Applied Social Research Methods Series.
58. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004), Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, London: RS-RAE.
59. Sabatier, P. A. (1999), Theories of the Policy Process, in the Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy series, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
60. Sabatier, P. A. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith (1999), 'The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment', in P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 117-66.
61. Sanderson, A. (2002), 'Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making', Public Administration, 80(1), 1-22.
62. Shafritz, J. M. and E. W. Russell (2000), Introducing Public Administration, New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
63. Simon, H. A. (1947), Administrative Behaviour, New York: Free Press.
64. Simon, H. A. (1997), 'Keynote address', presentation to the American Society of Public Administration Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, July.
65. Smalley, R. (2001), 'Of chemistry, love and nanobots', Scientific American, 285(3), 76-7.
66. Suchman, M. C. (1995), 'Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches', Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
67. Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., von Bergmann-Winberg, M-L., Bridgman, E., Durant, J., Einsiedel, E., Fjaestad, B., Gaskell, G., Grabner, P., Hieber, P., Jelsoe, E., Lassen, J., Marouda-Chatjoulis, A., Nielsen, T. H., Rusanen, T., Sakellaris, G., Seifert, F., Smink, C., Twardowski, T., Kamara, M. W. (2002), 'Promise, problems and proxies: twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe', M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds), Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-94.
68. True, J. L., B. D. Jones, and F. R. Baumgartner (1999), 'Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in American policymaking', in P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, in the Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy series, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 97-115.
69. UK Government (2005), Policy through Dialogue, London: HM Government.
70. Vogel, D. (2001), The New Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe, Berkeley, CA: Department of Political Science and the Haas School of Business, University of California.
71. Walker, R. (2000), 'Welfare policy: tendering for evidence', in H. T. O. Davies, S.M. Nutley and P. Smith (eds), What Works? Evidence Based Policy and Practice in Public Services, Bristol: Policy Press.
72. Weiner, D. L. and A. R. Vining (1992), Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 2nd edn, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
73. Weiss, C. H. (1998), Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, 2nd edn, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
74. Wejnert, J. (2004), 'Regulatory mechanisms for molecular nanotechnology', Jurimetrics, 44, 323-50.
75. Whiteside, G. M. (2003), 'The "right" size in nanobiotechnology', Nature Biotechnology, 21(9), 1161-5.
76. Wholey, J. S. (1979), Evaluation: Promise and Performance, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
77. Wood, S., R. Jones and A. Geldart (2003), The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology, London: Economic and Social Research Council.