IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v196y2009i2p808-818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts

Author

Listed:
  • Hermans, Leon M.
  • Thissen, Wil A.H.

Abstract

Public policy analysts use methods rooted in OR and systems analysis to support policy makers in their judgement. In doing so, most policy analysts recognize the value of a certain understanding of the role of actors in policy making processes. Different methods are available to aid such understanding and, although they all focus on actors, there are important differences between them. Insight into the range of available methods and their characteristics will thus help policy analysts to learn more about the potential and limitations involved in analyzing multi-actor processes. This article provides such an overview, based on the main requirements these methods should meet. This overview is used to discuss some of the implications for policy analysts who are interested in analyzing multi-actor processes, focusing specifically on trade-offs between analytic quality and practical usability.

Suggested Citation

  • Hermans, Leon M. & Thissen, Wil A.H., 2009. "Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 808-818, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:196:y:2009:i:2:p:808-818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(08)00342-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thissen, Wil A. H. & Twaalfhoven, Patricia G. J., 2001. "Towards a conceptual structure for evaluating policy analytic activities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 627-649, March.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    3. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    4. Nancy Shulock, 1999. "The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 226-244.
    5. David L. Weimer, 1999. "Comment: Q-method and the isms," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 426-429.
    6. Robert Thomson & Frans Stokman & René Torenvlied, 2003. "Models of Collective Decision-making," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(1), pages 5-14, February.
    7. Masahide Horita, 2000. "Folding Arguments: A Method for Representing Conflicting Views of a Conflict," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 63-83, January.
    8. Michel J.G. van Eeten, 2001. "Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of The Netherlands Civil Aviation Controversy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 391-414.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Flavio Martins & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili & Agatha Oliveira, 2020. "Design Thinking Applied to Smart Home Projects: A User-Centric and Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Heine Klaus & Mause Karsten, 2003. "Politikberatung als informationsökonomisches Problem," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 223(4), pages 479-490, August.
    3. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    4. Wu, Zhangsheng & Li, Yue & Wang, Rong & Xu, Xu & Ren, Dongyang & Huang, Quanzhong & Xiong, Yunwu & Huang, Guanhua, 2023. "Evaluation of irrigation water saving and salinity control practices of maize and sunflower in the upper Yellow River basin with an agro-hydrological model based method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    5. D’Inverno, Giovanna & Carosi, Laura & Romano, Giulia & Guerrini, Andrea, 2018. "Water pollution in wastewater treatment plants: An efficiency analysis with undesirable output," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 24-34.
    6. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Pathiraja, Erandathie & Griffith, Garry & Farquharson, Robert & Faggia, Rob, 2019. "The Cost of Climate Change to Agricultural Industries: Coconuts in Sri Lanka," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(05), December.
    8. Ayodele, T.R. & Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O. & Odigie, O. & Munda, J.L., 2018. "A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1853-1869.
    9. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    10. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2019. "An Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process—Slack Based Measure-Data Envelopment Analysis Model for Evaluating the Efficiency of Logistics Service Providers Considering Undesirable Performance Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Abareshi, Maryam & Zaferanieh, Mehdi, 2019. "A bi-level capacitated P-median facility location problem with the most likely allocation solution," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-20.
    12. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    13. Datu Buyung Agusdinata & Wenjuan Liu & Sinta Sulistyo & Philippe LeBillon & Je'anne Wegner, 2023. "Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 746-759, June.
    14. Xinxin Liu & Xiaosheng Wang & Haiying Guo & Xiaojie An, 2021. "Benefit Allocation in Shared Water-Saving Management Contract Projects Based on Modified Expected Shapley Value," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(1), pages 39-62, January.
    15. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    16. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    17. Hossein Yousefi & Saheb Ghanbari Motlagh & Mohammad Montazeri, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System for Wind Farm Site-Selection Using Geographic Information System (GIS): Case Study of Semnan Province, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-27, June.
    18. Moumita Palchaudhuri & Sujata Biswas, 2016. "Application of AHP with GIS in drought risk assessment for Puruliya district, India," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 1905-1920, December.
    19. Kadir Kaan GÖNCÜ & Onur ÇETIN, 2022. "Evaluation Of Location Selection Criteria For Coordination Management Centers And Logistic Support Units In Disaster Areas With Ahp Method," Prizren Social Science Journal, SHIKS, vol. 6(2), pages 15-23, August.
    20. Tommaso Ortalli & Andrea Di Martino & Michela Longo & Dario Zaninelli, 2024. "Make-or-Buy Policy Decision in Maintenance Planning for Mobility: A Multi-Criteria Approach," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:196:y:2009:i:2:p:808-818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.