IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v41y2008i4p335-355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Måns Nilsson
  • Andrew Jordan
  • John Turnpenny
  • Julia Hertin
  • Björn Nykvist
  • Duncan Russel

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:41:y:2008:i:4:p:335-355
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-008-9071-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-008-9071-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-008-9071-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. John Turnpenny & Måns Nilsson & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan & Julia Hertin & Bjorn Nykvist, 2008. "Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 759-775.
    2. Pearce, David, 1998. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 14(4), pages 84-100, Winter.
    3. Olsen, Johan P., 2001. "Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 191-198, March.
    4. Harrington, Winston & Morgenstern, Richard D., 2004. "Evaluating Regulatory Impact Analyses," Discussion Papers 10774, Resources for the Future.
    5. Bendor, Jonathan & Moe, Terry M. & Shotts, Kenneth W., 2001. "Recycling the Garbage Can: An Assessment of the Research Program," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 169-190, March.
    6. Albert Weale, 2001. "Science advice, democratic responsiveness and public policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(6), pages 413-421, December.
    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. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Camilla Adelle & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny, 2012. "Proceeding in Parallel or Drifting Apart? A Systematic Review of Policy Appraisal Research and Practices," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 401-415, June.
    3. Collantes, Gustavo, 2008. "The dimensions of the policy debate over transportation energy: The case of hydrogen in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1059-1073, March.
    4. Guido Fioretti & Alessandro Lomi, 2010. "Passing the buck in the garbage can model of organizational choice," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 113-143, June.
    5. Collantes, Gustavo O, 2008. "The dimensions of the policy debate over transportation energy: The case of hydrogen in the United States," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt82j0z800, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    6. Collantes, Gustavo Oscar, 2008. "The dimensions of the policy debate over transportation energy: The case of hydrogen in the United States," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt91f3d1ns, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    7. Guido Fioretti & Alessandro Lomi, 2007. "An Agent-Based Representation of the Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(1), pages 1-1.
    8. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    9. Fancello, Giovanna & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2021. "Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Gesa Pflitsch & Verena Radinger-Peer, 2018. "Developing Boundary-Spanning Capacity for Regional Sustainability Transitions—A Comparative Case Study of the Universities of Augsburg (Germany) and Linz (Austria)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-26, March.
    11. Ali DOUAI, 2007. "Wealth, Well-being and Value(s): A Proposition of Structuring Concepts for a (real) Transdisciplinary Dialogue within Ecological Economics," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2007-18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    12. Marcel Hanegraaff & Arlo Poletti, 2021. "The Rise of Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: An Agenda for Future Research," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 839-855, July.
    13. Christof Rissi & Fritz Sager, 2013. "Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 348-364, September.
    14. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    15. Bjerkan, Kristin Ystmark & Seter, Hanne, 2021. "Policy and politics in energy transitions. A case study on shore power in Oslo," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    16. Mirumachi, Naho & Torriti, Jacopo, 2012. "The use of public participation and economic appraisal for public involvement in large-scale hydropower projects: Case study of the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 125-132.
    17. Choi, Gobong & Huh, Sung-Yoon & Heo, Eunnyeong & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2018. "Prices versus quantities: Comparing economic efficiency of feed-in tariff and renewable portfolio standard in promoting renewable electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 239-248.
    18. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2016. "Energy projects in Iceland – Advancing the case for the use of economic valuation techniques to evaluate environmental impacts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 104-113.
    19. Hynes, Stephen & Tinch, Dugald & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "Estimating the value of improvements to coastal waters resulting from revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive," Working Papers 160058, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    20. Atkinson, Giles & Groom, Ben & Hanley, Nicholas & Mourato, Susana, 2018. "Environmental Valuation and Benefit-Cost Analysis in U.K. Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 97-119, April.

    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:41:y:2008:i:4:p:335-355. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.