Making and Changing Policies

Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL, volume 3)

Abstract

This book has two central analytical objectives. The first is to illustrate how the precautionary principle is applied in the definition of EU food safety standards. The second objective is to evaluate whether the application of the precautionary principle is subject to changes and to assess the determinants inducing the changes. To pursue these research interests, however, it is necessary to first provide a more general understanding of how policies come about. Second, we must develop a theoretical model that explains the conditions under which the application of the precautionary principle in the making of regulatory decisions is likely to be subject to changes.

Keywords

Arena Haas Benz 

References

  1. Basse, E.M. 2007. Denmark. In Implementing the precautionary principle—Approaches from the Nordic countries, EU and USA, ed. N. de Sadeleer, 63–75. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F.R., and B.D. Jones. 2002. Policy dynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F.R., and B.D. Jones. 2009. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benz, A. 2004. Path-dependent institutions and strategic Veto players: National parliaments in the European Union. West European Politics 27: 875–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkland, T. 1998. Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy 18: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron, J., and J. Abouchar. 1991. The precautionary principle: A fundamental principle of law and policy for the protection of the global environment. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 14: 1–27. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol14/iss1/2. Accessed 26 Apr 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Capano, G. 2009. Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 11: 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capoccia, G., and R.D. Kelemen. 2007. The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics 59: 341–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, H.F. 2003. Risk regulation, endogenous public concerns, and the hormones dispute: Nothing to fear but fear itself. Southern California Law Review 77: 743–775.Google Scholar
  10. Cobb, R.W., and C.D. Elder. 1983. Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cobb, R.W., J.-K. Ross, and M.H. Ross. 1976. Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review 70: 126–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudley, G., and J. Richardson. 2000. Why does policy change? Lessons from British transport policy 1945–99. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Ebbinghaus, B. 2006. From path dependence to path departure in welfare reform analysis. European Politics and Society Newsletter 5: 1–4.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. 2001. European Governance—A White Paper (COM (2001) 428, 25.7.2001). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Haas, P. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hacker, J.S. 2004. Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review 98: 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, P. 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning and the state. Comparative Politics 25: 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanney, S.R., M.A. Gonzalez-Block, M.J. Buxton, and M. Kogan. 2003. The utilization of health research in policy making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Research Policy and Systems 1: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henstra, D. 2011. The dynamics of policy change: A longitudinal analysis of emergency management in Ontario, 1950–2010. Journal of Policy History 23: 399–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howlett, M., and B. Cashore. 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: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 2002. The policy effects of internationalization: A subsystem adjustment analysis of policy change. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 4: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howlett, M., M. Ramesh, and A. Perl. 2009. Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Huitema, D., and S. Meijerink. 2010. Realizing water transitions. The role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and Society 15(2): 26. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art26. Accessed 27 Apr 2012.Google Scholar
  24. Jasanoff, S. 1996. Is science socially constructed—And can it still inform public policy? Science and Engineering Ethics 2: 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knill, C., and J. Tosun. 2012. Public policy: A new introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Knill, C., K. Schulze, and J. Tosun. 2012. Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship. Regulation & Governance. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01150.x.
  27. König, T., G. Tsebelis, and M. Debus (eds.). 2010. Reform processes and policy change: Veto players and decision-making in modern democracy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Lasswell, H.D. 1956. The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
  29. Listerman, T. 2008. Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: International comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Understanding of Science 19: 5–15.Google Scholar
  30. Mahoney, C. 2008. The role of interest groups in fostering citizen engagement: The determinants of outside lobbying. In Civil society and governance in Europe. From national to international linkages, ed. W.A. Maloney and J.W. Van Deth, 170–192. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Majone, G. 2008. Agenda setting. In The Oxford handbook of public policy, ed. M. Moran, M. Rein, and R.E. Goodin, 228–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McDermott, R., J.H. Fowler, and O. Smirnov. 2008. On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. The Journal of Politics 70: 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newton, K., and J.W. van Deth. 2010. Foundations of comparative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in time. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pollack, M.A., and G.C. Shaffer. 2009. When cooperation fails. The international law and politics of genetically modified foods. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Princen, S.B.M. 2010. Venue shifts and policy change in EU fisheries policy. Marine Policy 34: 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ringquist, E.J., J. Worsham, and M.A. Eisner. 2003. Salience, complexity, and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13: 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sabatier, P.A. 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21: 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sabatier, P.A., and H.C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the policy process, ed. P.A. Sabatier, 117–166. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sleet, D.A., S.L. Mercer, K. Hopkins Cole, R.A. Shults, R.W. Elder, and J.L. Nichols. 2011. Scientific evidence and policy change: Lowering the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers to 0.08% in the USA. Global Health Promotion 18: 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stone, D.A. 1989. Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly 104: 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Streeck, W., and K. Thelen. 2005. Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies, ed. W. Streeck and K. Thelen, 1–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sunstein, C. 2005. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tosun, J. 2013. Environmental policy change in emerging market democracies—Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America compared. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  46. True, J.L. 2000. Avalanches and incrementalism: Making policy and budgets in the United States. American Review of Public Administration 30: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. True, J.L., B.D. Jones, and F.R. Baumgartner. 2007. Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in American policymaking. In Theories of the policy process, ed. P.A. Sabatier, 97–115. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto players. How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vis, B. 2011. Prospect theory and political decision making. Political Studies Review 9: 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walgrave, S., and F. Varone. 2008. Punctuated equilibrium, and agenda-setting: bringing parties back in. Policy change after the Dutroux crisis in Belgium. Governance 21: 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weible, C.M., P.A. Sabatier, and K. McQueen. 2009. Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal 37: 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams, R.A. 2009. Exogenous shocks in subsystem adjustment and policy change: The credit crunch and Canadian banking regulation. Journal of Public Policy 29: 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mannheim Centre for European Social ResearchUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations