IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v39y2006i4p309-321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What work makes policy?

Author

Listed:
  • Hal Colebatch

    ()

Abstract

The mainstream policy literature identifies a number of activities as part of ‘policy-making’: ‘policy analysis’, ‘policy advice’, ‘decision-making’, and perhaps also ‘implementation’ and ‘evaluation’. Describing policy in these terms is compatible with the Western cultural account, and these terms tend to be applied to positions, organisational segments and official procedures. But policy practitioners tend to find that on the one hand, their experience of their work bears little resemblance to the assumptions in this policy-making model, and on the other, that policy outcomes seem to reflect much broader processes than the work of specialist functionaries. On closer examination, we find that our thinking about policy activity draws on several distinct and potentially conflicting perspectives, and that what is seen as ‘policy work’ depends on the conceptualisation of the policy process. Framing the question in this way helps to understand the apparent differences between mainstream (American) accounts of policy activity and policy practice in other political systems. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLP 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Hal Colebatch, 2006. "What work makes policy?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(4), pages 309-321, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:39:y:2006:i:4:p:309-321
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-006-9025-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-006-9025-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak, 2014. "Epistemic forms of integrated water resources management: towards knowledge versatility," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(2), pages 101-120, June.
    2. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.
    3. Novotný Vilém, 2015. "Czech Study of Public Policy in the Perspective of Three Dominant Approaches," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 8-29, May.
    4. Koen Bartels, 2013. "Research as Usual: How Researching Public Problems Affects Problem Solving," Working Papers 13002, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    5. Caspar F. Berg, 2017. "Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 63-84, March.
    6. Jonathan Craft, 2015. "Conceptualizing the policy work of partisan advisers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 135-158, June.
    7. Ann-Charlotte Nedlund & Peter Garpenby, 2014. "Puzzling about problems: the ambiguous search for an evidence-based strategy for handling influx of health technology," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 367-386, December.
    8. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    9. Nambiar, Devaki, 2013. "India's “tryst” with universal health coverage: Reflections on ethnography in Indian health policymaking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 135-142.
    10. Anna Wesselink & Andy Gouldson, 2014. "Pathways to impact in local government: the mini-Stern review as evidence in policy making in the Leeds City Region," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 403-424, December.

    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:kap:policy:v:39:y:2006:i:4:p:309-321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.