Advertisement

Approaches to Policy Analysis and the Stages Heuristic

  • Leanne McCarthy-Cotter
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides the intellectual basis and methodological approach for the study. It argues that the ‘stages heuristic’ has not outlived its usefulness in policy analysis, but rather remains a valuable framework to utilise when undertaking research into the policy-making process. It stresses that the purpose of this study is to undertake both an ‘analysis of policy’, and ‘analysis for policy’, this being the view that the field of policy analysis should use its knowledge of policies, and policy-making process, to improve the policy-making process and/or policies.

Keywords

Stages heuristic Policy analysis Framework Policy process Public policy Theory 

References

  1. Allison, G. T. (1971). The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public Policy Making. New York: Holt and Praeger.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. E. (1994). Public Policy Making: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflan Company.Google Scholar
  4. Bardach, E. (1977). The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes a Law. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, S. M., & Fudge, C. (1981a). Examining the Policy-Action Relationship. In S. M. Barrett & C. Fudge (Eds.), Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy (pp. 3–34). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  6. Barrett, S. M., & Fudge, C. (1981b). Reconstructing the Field of Analysis. In S. M. Barrett & C. Fudge (Eds.), Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy (pp. 249–278). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  7. Barrett, S. M., & Fudge, C. (Eds.). (1981c). Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  8. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blackburn, R., & Kennon, A. (2003). Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  10. Brewer, G. D. (1974). The Policy Sciences Emerge: To Nurture and Structure a Discipline. Policy Sciences, 5(3), 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brewer, G. D., & deLeon, P. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  12. Bruner, J. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory. Journal of Politics, 33, 892–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cobb, R. W., Ross, J. K., & Ross, M. H. (1976). Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process. American Political Science Review, 70, 126–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook, T. D. (1985). Positivist Critical Multiplism. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social Science and Social Policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. DeLeon, P. (1998). Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(2), 315–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. deLeon, P. (1999a). The Missing Link Revisited. Review of Policy Research, 16(3–4), 311–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. deLeon, P. (1999b). The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going? In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 19–32), Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  20. deLeon, P. and Martell, C. (2006). The Policy Sciences: Past, Present, and Future. In B. Guy Peters & Jon Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Dery, D. (1984). Problem Definition in Policy Analysis. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  22. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature. Political Studies, 44, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dorey, P. (2005). Policy Making in Britain: An Introduction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunleavy, P. (1995). Policy Disasters: Explaining the UK’s Record. Public Policy and Administration, 10, 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dye, T. R. (1972). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Easton, D. (1953). The Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  28. Easton, D. (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Post Positivist Perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gordon, I., Lewis, J., & Young, K. (1977). Perspectives on Policy Analysis. Public Administration Bulletin, 25, 26–35.Google Scholar
  33. Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence. Inquiry, 13, 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. In Reason and the Rationalization of Society (vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hajer, M. (2003). Policy Without Polity? Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ham, C., & Hill, M. (1993). The Policy Process in Modern Capitalist State (2nd ed.). Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  37. Hill, M. (2009). The Public Policy Process (5th ed.). Edinburgh: Longman.Google Scholar
  38. Hill, M. (2013). The Public Policy Process (6th ed.). Edinburgh: Longman.Google Scholar
  39. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2009). Implementing Public Policy (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Hjern, B. (1982). Implementing Research: The Link Gone Missing. Journal of Public Policy, 1(3), 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hjern, B., & Hull, C. (1982). Implementing Research as Empirical Constitutionalism. In B. Hjern & C. Hull (Eds.), Implementation Beyond Hierarchy. Amsterdam: Elsevier (Special issue of European Journal of Political Research), pp. 105–115.Google Scholar
  42. Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1981). The Policy Orientation. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, Centre for the Study of Public Policy.Google Scholar
  43. Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jenkins, W. I. (1978). Policy Analysis: A Political and Organisational Perspective. London: Martin Roberts.Google Scholar
  45. John, P. (1998). Analysing Public Policy. London: A&C Black.Google Scholar
  46. Jones, C. O. (1970). An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  47. Jordan, A. G., & Richardson, J. J. (1987). British Politics and the Policy Process: An Arena Approach. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  48. Judge, D. (1993). The Parliamentary State. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  50. Lasswell, H. (1951). “The Policy Orientation.” In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell (Eds.), The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method (pp. 3–15). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lasswell, H. (1956). The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. Maryland: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lasswell, H. D. (1970). The Emerging Conception of the Policy Sciences. Policy Sciences, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lasswell, H. (1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  54. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19, 87–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lindblom, C. E. (1968). The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The Policy Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  58. Loehle, C. (1987). “Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Psychological Aspects and the Importance of Theory Maturation.” Quarterly Review of Biology, 62(4), 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mack, R. (1971). Planning and Uncertainty. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. May, J. V., & Wildavsky, A. (Eds.). (1978). The Policy Cycle. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (Eds.). (1981). Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  62. Moe, T. M. (1984). New Economics of Organisations. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 729–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nakamura, R. (1987). The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research. Policy Studies Review, 7, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nelson, B. J. (1984). Making an Issue of Child Abuse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Norton, P. (Ed.). (1990). Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Norton, P. (1993). Does Parliament Matter. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  67. Ostrom, E. (1986). An Agenda for the Study of Institution. Public Choice, 48, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Palumbo, D. J. (1987). The Politics of Program Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Parsons, W. (1995). Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  71. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rein, M., & Schön, D. A. (1977). Problem Setting in Policy Research. In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using Social Research in Policy Making (pp. 235–250). Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  73. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1979). Public Administration and Policy Analysis. Farnborough, Hants: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  74. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  75. Roe, M. J. (1994). Strong Managers, Weak Owners: The Political Roots of American Corporate Finance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Rose, R. (1973). Comparing Public Policy: An Overview. European Journal of Political Research, 1, 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rose, R. (1991a). What Is Lesson-Drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rose, R. (1991b). Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  79. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (1979). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (1993). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Russell, M. (2013). The Contemporary House of Lords. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Russell, M., & Gover, D. (2017). Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Sabatier, P. (1991). Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.Google Scholar
  84. Sabatier, P. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the Policy Process. University of California, Davis: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  85. Sabatier, P. (Ed.). (2007a). Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Westview.Google Scholar
  86. Sabatier, P. (2007b). The Need for Better Theories. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). Cambridge, MA: Westview.Google Scholar
  87. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1988). Symposium Volume: Policy Change and Policy Orientated Learning. Western Political Quarterly, 21, 123–277.Google Scholar
  88. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Learning Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  89. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Davis: University of California; Westview Press.Google Scholar
  90. Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  91. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  92. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1993). Reframing Policy Discourse. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: Duke University Press and UCL Press.Google Scholar
  93. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  94. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  95. Simon, H., (1982). Models of Bounded Rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  96. Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.Google Scholar
  97. Suchman, E. (1967). Evaluative Research. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  98. True, J. L., Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. R. (1999). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 97–115). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  99. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking the Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown (published in the UK as The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis [1980], London, Macmillan).Google Scholar
  100. Zahariadis, N. (1992). To Sell or Not to Sell? Telecommunications Policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zahariadis, N. (1995). Markets, States, and Public Policy: Privatization in Britain and France. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zahariadis, N. (1998). Comparing Three Lenses of Policy Choice. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 434–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zahariadis, N. (1999). Ambiguity, time, and multiple streams. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 73–96). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  104. Zahariadis, N. (2007). The Multiple Streams Framework: Structure, Limitations, Prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  105. Zahariadis, N., & Allen, C. (1995). Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany (with Christopher S. Allen). Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2), 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zander, M. (2015). The Law-Making Process (7th ed.). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leanne McCarthy-Cotter
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations