Advertisement

Institutional and Policy Change: Meta-theory and Method

  • Caner Bakir
  • D. S. L. Jarvis
Chapter
Part of the Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy book series (PEPP)

Abstract

This volume emerged from a general call for papers for a panel on institutional entrepreneurship and institutional change at the International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP) held in Milan, Italy, in the summer of 2015. We were overwhelmed by submissions to the panel and a level of interest in the topic which far exceeded our expectations. In retrospect, we should not have been surprised. Issues of institutional change continue to be of central concern to political scientists, economists, sociologists, and policy scholars alike—indeed, why and how institutions emerge, change, or are transcended over time is a core theoretical question at the centre of most social science inquiry.

References

  1. Bakir, C. (2013). Bank behaviour and resilience: The effects of structures, institutions and agents. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakir, C. (2017). How can interactions among interdependent structures, institutions, and agents inform financial stability? What we have still to learn from global financial crisis. Policy Sciences, 50(20), 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakir, C., & Jarvis, D. S. L. (2017, December). Contextualising the context in policy entrepreneurship and institutional change. Policy and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Policy Research, 36(4), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081087.2017.1393588
  4. Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2014). Institutional change in economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3), 340–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513507823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Mortensen, P. B. (2014). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policy making. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 25–58). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beckert, J. (2009). The social order of markets. Theory and Society, 38(3), 245–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9082-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). The role and impact of the multiple-streams approach in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 221–227.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2016.1174410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Besley, T., & Case, A. (2003). Political institutions and policy choices: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(1), 7–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blyth, M. (2002). Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance: Against the new myths of our time. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Bush, P. D. (1987). The theory of institutional change. Journal of Economic Issues, 21(3), 1075–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cairney, P. (2011). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Cairney, P. (2015). Paul A. Sabatier, “An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein”. In M. Lodge, E. C. Page, & S. J. Balla (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of classics in public policy and administration (pp. 484–497). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27(3), 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Campbell, J. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ and Woodstock, Oxfordshire, UK: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Campbell, J. L. (2008). What do we know–Or not–About ideas and politics? In P. Nedergaard & J. L. Campbell (Eds.), Politics and institutions (pp. 157–176). Copenhagen, Denmark: DJØF Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Campbell, J. L. (2010). Institutional reproduction and change. In G. Morgan, J. L. Campbell, C. Crouch, O. K. Pedersen, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis (pp. 87–115). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. (2001). The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis. In J. L. Campbell & O. K. Pedersen (Eds.), The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis (pp. 1–24). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cao, X. (2010). Networks as channels of policy diffusion: Explaining worldwide changes in capital taxation, 1998–2006. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 823–854.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00611.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Capano, G. (2009). Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 7.31.Google Scholar
  25. Carroll, T., & Jarvis, D. S. L. (2015). The new politics of development: Citizens, civil society and the evolution of neoliberal development policy. Globalisations, 12(3), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Carroll, T., & Jarvis, D. S. L. (2017). Disembedding autonomy: Asia after the developmental state. In T. Carroll & D. S. L. Jarvis (Eds.), Asia after the developmental state: Disembedding autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Carstensen, M. B. (2011). Paradigm man vs. the Bricoleur: Bricolage as an alternative vision of agency in ideational change. European Political Science Review, 3(1), 147–167.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Carstensen, M. B. (2015). Institutional bricolage in times of crisis. European Political Science Review, 9(1), 139–160.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773915000338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Colomy, P. (1998). Neofunctionalism and neoinstitutionalism: Human agency and interest in institutional change. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Commons, J. R. (1959). Institutional economics: Its place in political economy (Vol. 1 & 2). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  33. Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. David, P. A. (2002). Path dependence, its critics and the quest for ‘historical economics’. In T. Cowen & E. Crampton (Eds.), Market failure or success: The new debate. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Elgar.Google Scholar
  35. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Elkins, Z., & Simmons, B. (2005). On waves, clusters, and diffusion: A conceptual framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 33–51.  https://doi.org/10.2307/25046078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Foster, J. F. (1981). The theory of institutional adjustment. Journal of Economic Issues, 15, 923–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Foucault, M. (1969). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Harper Colophon.Google Scholar
  41. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of a theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  44. Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  45. Goodin, R. E. (1996). Institutions and their design. In R. E. Goodin (Ed.), The theory of institutional design (pp. 1–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hall, P. A. (1986). Governing the economy: The politics of state intervention in Britain and France. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hall, P. A. (2010). Historical institutionalism in rationalist and sociological perspective. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 204–224). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2013). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hammond, T. H., & Knott, J. H. (1999). Political institutions, public management, and policy choice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 9(1), 33–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2015). Straightening the three streams: Theorising extensions of the multiple streams framework. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 435–449.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, XL(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–46.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980802648144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Howlett, M., McConnell, A., & Perl, A. (2015). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 419–434.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Immergut, E. M. (2006). Historical-Institutionalism in political science and the problem of change. In A. Wimmer & R. Kössler (Eds.), Understanding change: Models, methodologies, and metaphors (pp. 237–259). Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jacobs, A. M. (2009). How do ideas matter? Mental models and attention in German pension politics. Comparative Political Studies, 42(2), 252–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jakobi, A. P. (2012). International organisations and policy diffusion: The global norm of lifelong learning. Journal of International Relations and Development, 15(1), 31–64.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2010.20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. James, T. E., & Jorgensen, P. D. (2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: Revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 141–162.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00300.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jameson, F. (1997). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Jarvis, D. S. L. (2012). State theory and the rise of the regulatory state. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & W. Xun (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 59–72). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Jarvis, D. S. L. (2017a). Exogeneity and convergence in policy formulation: Contested theories, approaches and perspectives. In M. H. A. I. Mukherjee (Ed.), Elgar handbook of policy formulation (pp. 394–409). Cheshire, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jarvis, D. S. L. (2017b, November). The OECD and the reconfiguration of the state in emerging economies: Manufacturing “regulatory capacity”. Development and Change, 48(6), 1386–1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12343
  64. John, P. (2003). Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: Using evolutionary theory to explain policy change? Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 481–498.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0072.00039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Johnson, C. (1966). Revolutionary change. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., & Zahariadis, N. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration, 83(3), 553–571.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00462.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kingdon, J. (1984a). Agendas alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  70. Kingdon, J. (1984b). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  71. Kingdon, J. L. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.Google Scholar
  72. Koning, E. A. (2015). The three institutionalisms and institutional dynamics: Understanding endogenous and exogenous change. Journal of Public Policy, 36(4), 639–664.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X15000240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Koppell, J. G. S. (2010). World rule: Accountability, legitimacy, and the design of global governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Krasner, S. (1984). Approaches to the state: Alternative conceptions and historical dynamics. Comparative Politics, 16(2), 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Levi-Faur, D. (2005). Agents of knowledge and the convergence on a ‘new world order’: A review article. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 954–965.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  77. Levy, D., & Scully, M. (2007). The institutional entrepreneur as modern prince: The strategic face of power in contested fields. Organization Studies, 28(7), 971–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010a). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & T. Kathleen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2010b). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Mambrol, N. (2016). Claude Levi Strauss’ concept of bricolage. Literary theory and Criticism notes. Retrieved from https://literariness.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/claude-levi-strauss-concept-of-bricolage/
  82. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  83. Meier, K. J. (2009). Policy theory, policy theory everywhere: Ravings of a deranged policy scholar. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 5–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00291.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Meseguer, C. (2005). Policy learning, policy diffusion, and the making of a new order. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), 67–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716204272372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Meseguer, C., & Gilardi, F. (2009). What is new in the study of policy diffusion? Review of International Political Economy, 16(3), 527–543.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290802409236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Morgan, G., Campbell, J. L., Crouch, C., Pedersen, O. K., & Whitley, R. (2010). Introduction. In G. Morgan, J. L. Campbell, C. Crouch, O. K. Pedersen, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis (pp. 1–14). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mukand, S. W., & Rodrik, D. (2016). Ideas versus interests: A unified political economy framework. Retrieved from https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/.../ideasinterestsapr10sm_dr.pdf
  89. North, D. C. (1981). Structure and change in economic history. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  90. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. North, D. C. (2005). Institutions and the performance of economies over time. In C. Ménard & M. M. Shirley (Eds.), Handbook of new institutional economics (pp. 21–30). Dordrecht and Great Britain: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Nowlin, M. C. (2011). Theories of the policy process: State of the research and emerging trends. Policy Studies Journal, 39(S1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Obinger, H., Schmitt, C., & Starke, P. (2013). Policy diffusion and policy transfer in comparative welfare state research. Social Policy and Administration, 47(1), 111–129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ostrom, E. (1993). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 21–64). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  96. Papageorgiou, T., Katselidis, I., & Michaelides, P. G. (2013). Schumpeter, commons, and veblen on institutions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 72(5), 1232–1254.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Persson, T. (2002). Do political institutions shape economic policy? Econometrica, 70(3), 883–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Peters, B. G. (2001). Institutional theory in political science: The ‘new institutionalism’. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  99. Peters, B. G. (2012). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  100. Pierre, J., Peters, B. G., & Stoker, G. (Eds.). (2008). Debating institutionalism. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  101. Rawat, P., & Morris, J. C. (2016). Kingdon’s “streams” model at thirty: Still relevant in the 21st century? Politics & Policy, 44(4), 608–638.  https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Roberts, P. W., & Greenwood, R. (1997). Integrating transaction cost and institutional theories: Toward a constrained-efficiency framework for understanding organizational design adoption. The Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 346–373.Google Scholar
  103. Robinson, S. E., Caver, F. s., Meier, K. J., O’Tool, J., & Laurence, J. (2007). Explaining policy punctuations: Bureaucratization and budget change. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Rodrik, D. (2012). Ideas over interests. Project syndicate: The worlds opinion page. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ideas-over-interests?barrier=accessreg
  105. Rodrik, D. (2014). When ideas trump interests: Preferences, worldviews, and policy innovations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Rona-Tas, A. (2007). The three modalities of rationality and their contradictions in post-communist consumer credit markets. In J. Beckert, R. Diaz-Bone, & H. Ganssmann (Eds.), Märkte als soziale Strukturen (pp. 113–134). Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  107. Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.  https://doi.org/10.2307/419923 Google Scholar
  108. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1988). An advocacy coalition model of policy change and the role of policy orientated learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  110. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  111. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Scott, W. R., & Myer, J. W. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  113. Sewell, J. W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Shepsle, R. (1985). Comment of why the regulators chose to deregulate. In R. Noll (Ed.), Regulatory policy and the social sciences (pp. 231–239). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  115. Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2012). Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 788–796.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02610.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Starke, P., Obinger, H., & Castles, F. G. (2008). Convergence towards where: In what ways, if any, are welfare states becoming more similar? Journal of European Public Policy, 15(7), 975–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802310397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Steinmo, S. (2008). Historical institutionalism. In D. D. Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective (pp. 118–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Stone, D. (2001). Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of policy ideas. CSGR Working Paper No. 69/01. Warwick: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  120. Strang, D. (1991). Adding social structure to diffusion models: An event history framework. Sociological Methods and Research, 19(3), 324–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1988). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Strebel, F., & Widmer, T. (2012). Visibility and facticity in policy diffusion: Going beyond the prevailing binarity. Policy Sciences, 42, 385–398.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-9161-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Institutional change in advanced political economies. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 1–39). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(June), 369–404.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Thompson, J. B. (1989). The theory of structuration. In D. Geld & J. B. Thompson (Eds.), Social theory of modern societies (pp. 56–76). Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Veblen, T. (2007). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study in the evolution of institutions Oxford world’s classics (pp. electronic text.). Retrieved from https://virtual.anu.edu.au/login/?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/anuau/Top?id=10211797
  128. Vormedal, I. (2012). States and markets in global environmental governance: The role of tipping points in international regime formation. European Journal of International Relations, 18(2), 251–275. http://ejt.sagepub.com/archive/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans and T. Parsons, Ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  130. Weber, M., Wittich, C., & Roth, G. (2013). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  131. Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2006). A guide to the advocacy coalition framework. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 123–136). London and New York: CTC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Woo-Cumings, M. (1999). The developmental state. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  134. Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 65–92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  135. Zahariadis, N. (2016). Delphic oracles: Ambiguity, institutions, and multiple streams. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9243-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Zohlnhöfer, R., Herweg, N., & Rüb, F. (2015). Theoretically refining the multiple streams framework: An introduction. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 412–418.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caner Bakir
    • 1
  • D. S. L. Jarvis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of International RelationsKoç UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Liberal Arts and Social SciencesThe Education University of Hong KongTing KokHong Kong

Personalised recommendations