A glossary of theories for understanding: Policymaking

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 198-202

  Smith, Katherine Elizabeth ^a   Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH SURVEY; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH;

ARTICLE; BOOK; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; POLICY; PUBLIC HEALTH; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DICTIONARIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 84872126513     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: 14702738     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2012-200990     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Commission of the European Communities. Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013 (White Paper). COM(2007) 630 final. Brussels: European Commission, 2007.
2. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008.
3. Milio N. Glossary: healthy public policy. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:622-3.
4. Exworthy M. Policy to tackle the social determinants of health: using conceptual models to understand the policy process. Health Policy Planning 2008;23:318-27.
5. Bambra C, Fox D, Scott-Samuel A. A politics of health glossary. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:571-4.
6. Goodin RE, Rein M, Moran M. The public and its policies. In: Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006;3-35.
7. Moynihan DP. Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation. Am Rev Public Administration 2003;33:164-88.
8. Hogwood BW, Gunn LA. Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
9. The Treasury. The Green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: The Stationary Office, 2003.
10. Cohen M, March J, Olsen J. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Sci Quart 1972;17:1-25.
11. Lipsky M. Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation: New York, 2010.
12. Asare B, Cairney P, Studlar DT. Federalism and multilevel governance in tobacco policy: the European Union, the United Kingdom, and devolved UK institutions. J Public Policy 2009;29:79-102.
13. Baumgartner F. EU Lobbying: A view from the US. J Eur Public Policy 2007;14:482-8.
14. Béland D. Ideas and social policy: an institutionalist perspective. Social Policy Administration 2005;39:1-18.
15. Schmidt V. Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism'. Eur Polit Sci Rev 2010;21:1-25.
16. Immergut EM. The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Polit Soc 1998;26:5-34.
17. Hay C, Wincott D. Structure, agency and historical institutionalism. Polit Studies 1998;46:951-57.
18. Exworthy M, Hunter DJ. The challenge of joined-up government in tackling health inequalities. Int J Public Administration 2011;34:201-12.
19. Smith KE. (2012) Institutional Filters: The Translation and Re-Circulation of Ideas about Health Inequalities within Policy. Policy & Politics. Fast track online publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655413
20. Boase JP. Institutions, institutionalized networks and policy choices: health policy in the US and Canada. Governance 1996;9:287-310.
21. David PA. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econom Rev 1985;75:332-7.
22. Wilsford D. Path dependency, or why history makes it difficult but not impossible to reform health care systems in a big way. In: Watson J, Ovseiko P Health care systems: major themes in health and social welfare volume II: understanding health care politics. London: Routledge, 2005:355-85.
23. McDonald TJ. ed. The historic turn in the human sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.
24. Kay A. A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Pub Administration 2005;83:553-71.
25. Smith KE. Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journeys of ideas from research into policy. Social Sci Med 2007;64:1438-49.
26. Greener I. Understanding NHS reform: the policy-transfer, social learning, and path-dependency perspectives. Governance 2002;15:161-83.
27. Lindblom CE. The science of 'Muddling Through'. Public Administration Rev 1959;19:79-88.
28. Lindblom CE. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Rev 1979;39:517-26.
29. Lindblom C. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Rev 1959;19:79-88.
30. Heclo H. Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press, 1974.
31. Stone D. Transfer agents and global networks in the 'transnationalization' of policy. J Eur Pub Policy 2004;11:545-66.
32. Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Macintyre SJ, et al. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: The reality according to policymakers. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:811-16.
33. Mackenbach JP. Tackling inequalities in health: the need for building a systematic evidence base. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:162.
34. Baumgartner F, Jones B. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
35. Cairney P. A 'Multiple Lenses' approach to policy change: the case of tobacco policy in the UK. Br Polit 2007;2:45-68.
36. Shiffman J, Beer T, Wu Y. The emergence of global disease control priorities. Health Policy Planning 2002;17:225-34.
37. Kingdon JW. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd edn. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995 (1984).
38. Exworthy M, Blane D, Marmot M. Tackling health inequalities in the United Kingdom: The progress and pitfalls of policy. Health Serv Res 2003;38.
39. Hall PA. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comp Politics 1993;25:275-96.
40. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
41. Bergeron H, Kopp P. Policy paradigms, ideas, and interests: the case of the French public health policy toward drug abuse. Ann Am Acad Polit Social Sci 2002;582:37-48.
42. Lavis JN, Posada FB, Haines A, et al. Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet 2004;364:1615-21.
43. Smith KE, Joyce KE. Capturing complex realities-understanding efforts to achieve evidence-based policy and practice in public health. Evid Policy 2012;8:59-80.
44. Smith KE. Health Inequalities in Scotland and England: the translation of ideas between research and policy. Ph.D. thesis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 2008.
45. Atkinson P, Coffey A. Analysing documentary realities. In: Silverman D Qualitative analysis issues of theory and method. 2nd edn. London: Sage, 2004:56-75.
46. Borzel TA. Organizing Babylon-on the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Adm 1998;76:253-73.
47. Overman ES, Don FS. Iron triangles and issue networks of information policy. Public Adm Rev 1986;46:584-9.
48. Jordan AG. Iron triangles, woolly corporatism and elastic nets: images of the policy process. J Public Policy 1983;1:95-123.
49. Heclo H. Issue Networks and the executive establishment. In: King A The New American political system. Washington, D.C: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978:87-124.
50. Rhodes RAW. Policy networks: a British perspective. J Theoret Polit 1990;2:293-317.
51. Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC. The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In: Sabatier PA Theories of the policy process. Oxford: Westview Press, 1999:117-66.
52. Walter I, Nutley S, Davis H. What works to promote evidence-based practice? Evid Policy 2005;1:335-63.
53. Lomas J. The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ 2007;334:129-32.
54. Dolowitz D, Marsh D. Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer literature. Polit Studies 1996;44:343-57.
55. Sanderson I. Complexity, practical rationality and evidence-based policy making. Policy Politics 2006;34:115-32.
56. Blyth M. 'Any More Bright Ideas?' The ideational turn of comparative political economy. Comp Polit 1997;29:229-50.
57. McGarity TO, Wagner WE. Bending science: how special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
58. Scheufele DA, Tewksbury D. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. J Commun 2007;57:9-20.
59. Weiss JA. The powers of problem definition: the case of government paperwork. Policy Sci 1989;22:97-121.