IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v40y2021i3p345-361..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public inquiries as procedural policy tools
[Policy tools theory and implementation networks: understanding state enterprise zone partnerships]

Author

Listed:
  • Alastair Stark
  • Sophie Yates

Abstract

In this article we conceptualise the public inquiry as a procedural tool and address the question of what makes a public inquiry an effective policy instrument. The issue of control is central to our arguments. In our conceptual work, we use control as a means of introducing the concept of the ‘catalytic procedural tool’ to better capture the variance in autonomy, location and function that can be associated with different inquiries. In our evaluative work, we use control as a means of analysing the effectiveness of an inquiry as a procedural tool, which centres on a capacity to build legitimacy and prospectively influence the implementation and institutionalisation of recommendations. We conclude by claiming that there is value in thinking about control as a means of understanding policy instruments because it can deliver insights into their effects once they leave the design table and enter a variety of technical, political and social environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Alastair Stark & Sophie Yates, 2021. "Public inquiries as procedural policy tools [Policy tools theory and implementation networks: understanding state enterprise zone partnerships]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 345-361.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:40:y:2021:i:3:p:345-361.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14494035.2021.1955485
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan, 2010. "Reflection in the Shadow of Blame: When Do Politicians Appoint Commissions of Inquiry?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 613-634, July.
    2. Alastair Stark, 2019. "Policy learning and the public inquiry," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 397-417, September.
    3. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    4. Andrew D. Brown, 2000. "Making Sense of Inquiry Sensemaking," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 1-1, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mehmet Akif Demircioglu & Roberto Vivona, 2021. "Positioning public procurement as a procedural tool for innovation: an empirical study [Creating the Conditions for Radical Public Service Innovation]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 379-396.

    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. Azad Singh Bali & Michael Howlett & Jenny M Lewis & M Ramesh, 2021. "Procedural policy tools in theory and practice [The stick, the carrot, and other strategies: A theoretical analysis of governmental intervention]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 295-311.
    2. Brown, Andrew D., 2018. "Making sense of the war in Afghanistan," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 43-56.
    3. Shariful Malik & Mohammad Shahidul Hasan Swapan & Shahed Khan, 2020. "Sustainable Mobility through Safer Roads: Translating Road Safety Strategy into Local Context in Western Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Florence Allard-Poesi & Véronique Perret, 2004. "La construction collective du problème dans la recherche-action:difficultés, ressorts et enjeux," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 7(4), pages 5-36, December.
    5. Sharda, Kirti, 2016. "Sensemaking and Institutionalization in Armed Conflict: Applying Concepts to Practice," IIMA Working Papers WP2016-03-18, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    6. Sébastien Travadel & Franck Guarnieri & Aurélien Portelli, 2018. "Industrial Safety and Utopia: Insights from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 56-70, January.
    7. Yang, You-hong & Gao, Ping & Zhou, Haimei, 2023. "Understanding the evolution of China's standardization policy system," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2).
    8. Clemente J. Navarro-Yáñez, 2021. "The Effectiveness of Integral Urban Strategies: Policy Theory and Target Scale. The European URBAN I Initiative and Employment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    10. Elisabeth Epping, 2020. "Lifting the smokescreen of science diplomacy: comparing the political instrumentation of science and innovation centres," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    11. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    12. Anat Gofen & Adam M. Wellstead & Noa Tal, 2023. "Devil in the details? Policy settings and calibrations of national excellence-centers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 301-323, June.
    13. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    14. Martin Ferry, 2021. "Pulling things together: regional policy coordination approaches and drivers in Europe [‘PiS wchodzi w buty marszałków. Cel? Miliony z funduszy europejskich’]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(1), pages 37-57.
    15. Sally Maitlis & Scott Sonenshein, 2010. "Sensemaking in Crisis and Change: Inspiration and Insights From Weick (1988)," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 551-580, May.
    16. Martin Ratzmann & Robin Pesch & Ricarda Bouncken & Carla Martínez Climent, 2018. "The Price of Team Spirit for Sensemaking Through Task Discourse in Innovation Teams," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 321-341, June.
    17. Nick Oliver & Thomas Calvard & Kristina Potočnik, 2017. "Cognition, Technology, and Organizational Limits: Lessons from the Air France 447 Disaster," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 729-743, August.
    18. Adam Hannah, 2021. "Procedural tools and pension reform in the long run: the case of Sweden [The new politics of the welfare state? A case study of extra-parliamentary party politics in Norway]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 362-378.
    19. Ching Leong & Michael Howlett, 2017. "On credit and blame: disentangling the motivations of public policy decision-making behaviour," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 599-618, December.
    20. Kelly Parsons & David Barling, 2022. "Identifying the Policy Instrument Interactions to Enable the Public Procurement of Sustainable Food," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, 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:oup:polsoc:v:40:y:2021:i:3:p:345-361.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    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.