Policies (redirected from Policy)

Page history last edited by Dmitry PNGHS 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Go:

Visual Taxonomy

Links

Hide/Show:

Taxonomy Path

Top > Business > Management > Decision Making > Policies

Change Policies

What do we mean by policies?

Policies

Assumptions

Policies are the written or unwritten guidelines that governments, organizations and institutions, communities, or individuals use when responding to issues and situations. They are generally shaped both by logic (e.g., get a medical history before you prescribe medication) and by people's assumptions about reality, including:

Assumptions about the way things should be. These are formed by a combination of the values people learn as children, conventional wisdom (what "everyone knows"), local custom and community norms, cultural factors, religion, and "common sense" (which may be neither common nor sense). People's conceptions of gender roles, relationships among groups, appropriate behavior, etc., are usually subject to this set of assumptions.
Assumptions about what works. These assumptions guide ideas about how to address a particular issue. They can determine, for instance, whether a community drug problem is approached with stricter enforcement and harsher punishment, or with an increase in funding for treatment and follow-up programs.
Assumptions about people. What people think they know about other people in general or about members of other ethnic, racial, or social groups. Sensitivity to other cultures - or its absence - has a lot to do with these assumptions, as do empathy and exposure to a variety of cultures and situations.
Assumptions about what's good for the community. These assumptions may not reflect reality, or the needs and wishes of everyone in the community. Until the 1960's, for example, the majority of the white population in many American communities - and not only in the South - honestly felt that separation of the races was best for everyone, and that African Americans were perfectly happy with their position in society. It is probably fair to say that most Black people's assumptions in this matter were quite different

Policies can take different forms, depending upon whose policies they are, and what they refer to. They may be public or private, official or unofficial, expressed or unexpressed. Some common types of policies:

Official government policies.

These are usually discussed publicly and written down, either as or within laws and official regulations (such as those of a government agency, e.g. the Department of Education), or as statements of policy in government documents. It is, for instance, currently the US government's policy to reduce the welfare rolls as much as possible, and to give welfare recipients only two years of eligibility. Official policy, in and of itself, can take many forms:

Simple recognition of the seriousness of an issue.
Support for addressing an issue, or for a specific position on that issue. A policy of support may mean that officials consider that issue when discussing others related to it, that it gets funding priority, etc.
The amount of funding available for a specific issue reflects government policy on the importance of that issue.
Funding and eligibility standards for publicly funded programs. Eligibility in this case might include the types of programs the government is willing to fund, which reflects its policy (and assumptions) on what will actually work to resolve the issue. It might also include who is eligible for services, which reflects official policy on where and what the need is.
Enforcement - or lack of enforcement - of existing laws and regulations. Whether laws and regulations are enforced strictly, leniently, or at all is an indication of policy toward the issues they cover and/or the entities regulated by them. The policy of many states is to consider marijuana possession a misdemeanor, for instance, because it is so widespread.
Actual laws or regulations are an expression of official policy, often brought about by pressure from citizens. Changes in official policy, leading to changes in laws and regulations, are also often motivated by public pressure.

Unofficial government policy.

Unofficial policies are shaped by the unspoken attitudes and assumptions held by policy makers. They aren't generally written down anywhere, and may not even be stated to anyone, but they are powerful and long-lasting. They can become part of the culture of a governing body or agency, and, at least in part because they are unwritten, they are often incredibly difficult to change.

No one may admit that unwritten policies exist, or they may be so deeply ingrained that they're viewed not as policies, but as facts. Assumptions about such issues as gender roles, race relations, or the relative status of particular groups may play a huge, but unacknowledged, role in public or corporate policy. Unofficial policies may have to be exposed and changed before any official policy change is possible.

There are numerous instances in the US of unofficial policy guiding lawmaking and other forms of official policymaking. The "glass ceiling" for women and minorities in government and corporations, for instance - the usually unofficial understanding that women and minorities could advance only so far and no farther in management - was, and often still is, one example. Another was the federal government's unwillingness to act to prevent racial discrimination prior to the 1960's, even though it was clearly indefensible under the Constitution.

Policies made by government bureaucracies, and by public services such as police and fire departments.

These policies may cover such areas as:

How citizens are treated by agencies and departments, including disparities in the ways members of different racial and ethnic groups are treated.
How bureaucrats choose to interpret and enforce laws and regulations.
Whose emergency calls get answered, and how quickly.
The character and quality of schools and services in different neighborhoods.
The siting of environmentally questionable industries or facilities.

The policies of foundations and other private funders.

Foundations and other private funders make policies about what and whom they'll fund, and can have a large influence on what kinds of issues are addressed as a result. In addition to choosing the issues or areas they'll put money toward, these funders' policies may specify:

The geographic areas they'll fund.
The target populations they're interested in.
The kinds of program activities that are acceptable (most foundations, for instance, prefer to fund specific services or programming, rather than organizational operating costs).
The types of organizations that are eligible for funding (non-profits, for example, or community-based organizations, as opposed to statewide ones).
The methods or program structures they encourage.

Policies of businesses.

All businesses, from the smallest mom-and-pop corner store to the largest multinational corporation, have official and unofficial policies about the ways they do business. Among most businesses' policies are:

Hiring policies. Some businesses may favor minority applicants, for instance, while others may pay no attention to racial or ethnic background, or actively avoid hiring minority applicants. Some may try to hire workers from the local community, while others may simply look for anyone with the appropriate skills.
Compensation. Starting salary, regular raises, stock options, and fringe benefits all fall into this category. Compensation policy - including the difference between the pay of those at the bottom and those at the top of the company - reflects the business's view of employees' importance.

In the 1950's, even in major corporations, the CEO seldom made more than ten or 15 times what the lowest-paid employee made. By the 1990's, some CEO's of major corporations were making hundreds of times as much as the corporations' lowest-paid employees, sending lower-paid workers a clear message about their value to their employer.

Employer-employee relations. Company policy about how workers are treated may have a major influence not only on the company itself, but on the community in which it's located. Generous benefits, workplace education, promotion from within, and the encouragement and rewarding of workers' initiative are all evidence of respect and concern for the workforce, and - in the case of a town's major employer - can create a community climate of harmony and shared purpose.
Employer-community relations. Again, especially in the case of a major employer, a business's relationship with the community can have a profound effect on both. Some businesses try to be good citizens, supporting community services, offering employees paid release time to work on community projects, and responding to community concerns about such issues as pollution. Others ignore the needs and wishes of the community entirely, often poisoning the atmosphere - literally and figuratively - both within the business and outside it.
Business practices and ethics. Illegal and unethical practices are the result of policies, just as community-friendly stances are. We are currently all too aware of corporate executives whose concern for their own finances leads them to "creative" bookkeeping and illegal dealings. Businesses, in the name of profits, can act legally but unethically - failing to deliver on promises made to a community, for instance, pressuring suppliers for discounts or services, or, as John D. Rockefeller did, forcing local competitors out of business.

Policies of human service, health, and other non-profit organizations.

Like businesses, non-profit organizations have both official and unofficial policies which govern and affect all aspects of their operations. These policies usually have a great deal to do with the organizations' effectiveness, and with the way they are viewed by participants and the community. In addition to many of the same policies that businesses might institute - hiring, employee-staff relations, relations with the community - non-profits also usually have policy that governs other important areas:

The organization's view of participants. Does it see participants - patients at a clinic, job trainees, at-risk youth, etc. - as "clients" that the organization is doing something to or for, or as partners in a change effort? Are staff members expected to treat participants respectfully, as equals, or to condescend or be authoritative?
Specific practices, methods, or programs. Many human service, health, and educational organizations are governed by policies that suggest or mandate certain ways of carrying out their work, or particular methods for particular circumstances.
Collaboration. Some non-profits make it a point to collaborate as much as possible, from joining coalitions to engaging in joint projects with other organizations. Others rarely, if ever, work with other organizations.
Professional ethics. Many non-profits expect staff members to adhere to a particular code of professional ethics - either an internal one, or one set out by a professional association - that governs such areas as confidentiality, inappropriate relationships, abuse of position, reporting (or non-reporting) of specific kinds of illegal behavior, etc. They may also have formal or informal ethical standards for their relationships with other organizations and with the community.

Policies of the media.

While some media outlets follow policies that reflect particular political agendas, almost all media, no matter how objective they try to be, make and demonstrate policies by what stories they choose to cover, what features of those stories they choose to emphasize, where they maintain regular bureaus or reporters, and the words and pictures they use to describe what they report.

Much of the world sees the United States as self-centered and oblivious to the needs and concerns of other nations. This view is bolstered by the general American media policy of covering foreign news only when it directly relates to or involves the United States. Many of the major news stories of the past decade - the votes on the European Union, horrific genocide in Rwanda, crucial national elections in Europe and South America and India - went largely uncovered in the US media, and were perceived by much of the American public as therefore unimportant or nonexistent.

Policies adopted by the community as a whole.

While there may be no discussion or complete consensus about what community policy actually is, communities do have policies on issues and other matters. During the darkest days of the Civil Rights Movement, for example, it was community policy in most communities in the South to maintain segregation, often by any means necessary. In many affluent communities, it is clearly a community policy that education is important, and worth spending money on.

Community policy is made by a combination of factors, but two are by far the most important. One is the opinions of community leaders - not necessarily those elected, but those whose opinions are listened to, because of their economic or political clout, or simply because of the respect they've earned. These may include influential business people, clergy, educators, or directors of organizations, among others.

The second factor is public opinion. Public opinion may be formed partially by the opinions of community leaders, but is also a product of people's own experiences, the media, and the long-time standards and practices of the community. Segregation was unquestioningly accepted because it had been in force for a hundred years. Affluent communities are willing to spend money on schools largely because many of the parents in those communities themselves gained affluence through education.

A small community can have its policies determined by an elite group that controls the area's economy. People are afraid to challenge them openly because of their control over the livelihoods of community members, who may include themselves or their relatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy

For other uses, see Policy (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Police.

For policies regarding Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Politics
Part of the Politics series
Outline Index Category
Primary topics
Political systems
Academic disciplines
Public administration
Policy Public policy (doctrine) Domestic policy Foreign policy Civil society Public interest

Government branches
Related topics
Subseries
Politics portal
v t e

Policy is a deliberate system of guidelines to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. Policies are generally adopted by a governance body within an organization. Policies can assist in both subjective and objective decision making. Policies used in subjective decision-making usually assist senior management with decisions that must be based on the relative merits of a number of factors, and as a result, are often hard to test objectively, e.g. work–life balance policy. Moreover, Governments and other institutions have policies in the form of laws, regulations, procedures, administrative actions, incentives and voluntary practices. Frequently, resource allocations mirror policy decisions.

Policy is a blueprint of the organizational activities which are repetitive/routine in nature.

In contrast, policies to assist in objective decision-making are usually operational in nature and can be objectively tested, e.g. password policy.^[1]

The term may apply to government, public sector organizations and groups, as well as individuals, Presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are all examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While the law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve the desired outcome.^[2]

Policy or policy study may also refer to the process of making important organizational decisions, including the identification of different alternatives such as programs or spending priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will have. Policies can be understood as political, managerial, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals. In public corporate finance, a critical accounting policy is a policy for a firm/company or an industry that is considered to have a notably high subjective element, and that has a material impact on the financial statements.^{[citation needed]}

It has been argued that policies ought to be evidence-based. An individual or organization is justified in claiming that a specific policy is evidence-based if, and only if, three conditions are met. First, the individual or organization possesses comparative evidence about the effects of the specific policy in comparison to the effects of at least one alternative policy. Second, the specific policy is supported by this evidence according to at least one of the individual’s or organization’s preferences in the given policy area. Third, the individual or organization can provide a sound account for this support by explaining the evidence and preferences that lay the foundation for the claim.^[3]

Policies are dynamic; they are not just static lists of goals or laws. Policy blueprints have to be implemented, often with unexpected results. Social policies are what happens 'on the ground' when they are implemented, as well as what happens at the decision making or legislative stage.^[4]

When the term policy is used, it may also refer to:^[4]

Official government policy (legislation or guidelines that govern how laws should be put into operation)
Broad ideas and goals in political manifestos and pamphlets
A company or organization's policy on a particular topic. For example, the equal opportunity policy of a company shows that the company aims to treat all its staff equally.

The actions the organization actually takes may often vary significantly from stated policy. This difference is sometimes caused by political compromise over policy, while in other situations it is caused by lack of policy implementation and enforcement. Implementing policy may have unexpected results, stemming from a policy whose reach extends further than the problem it was originally crafted to address. Additionally, unpredictable results may arise from selective or idiosyncratic enforcement of policy.^[4]

Effects

Intended effects and policy-design

The intended effects of a policy vary widely according to the organization and the context in which they are made. Broadly, policies are typically instituted to avoid some negative effect that has been noticed in the organization, or to seek some positive benefit.^{[citation needed]}

A meta-analysis of policy studies concluded that international treaties that aim to foster global cooperation have mostly failed to produce their intended effects in addressing global challenges, and sometimes may have led to unintended harmful or net negative effects. The study suggests enforcement mechanisms are the "only modifiable treaty design choice" with the potential to improve the effectiveness.^[5]^[6]

Corporate purchasing policies provide an example of how organizations attempt to avoid negative effects. Many large companies have policies that all purchases above a certain value must be performed through a purchasing process. By requiring this standard purchasing process through policy, the organization can limit waste and standardize the way purchasing is done.^[7]

The State of California provides an example of benefit-seeking policy. In recent years, the numbers of hybrid cars in California has increased dramatically, in part because of policy changes in Federal law that provided USD $1,500 in tax credits (since phased out) and enabled the use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes to drivers of hybrid vehicles. In this case, the organization (state and/or federal government) created an effect (increased ownership and use of hybrid vehicles) through policy (tax breaks, highway lanes).^[8]

Unintended

Policies frequently have side effects or unintended consequences. Because the environments that policies seek to influence or manipulate are typically complex adaptive systems (e.g. governments, societies, large companies), making a policy change can have counterintuitive results. For example, a government may make a policy decision to raise taxes, in hopes of increasing overall tax revenue. Depending on the size of the tax increase, this may have the overall effect of reducing tax revenue by causing capital flight or by creating a rate so high that citizens are deterred from earning the money that is taxed.^[a]^[9]

The policy formulation process theoretically includes an attempt to assess as many areas of potential policy impact as possible, to lessen the chances that a given policy will have unexpected or unintended consequences.^[10]

Cycle

Example of the policy cycle concept.

In political science, the policy cycle is a tool used for analyzing the development of a policy. It can also be referred to as a "stages model" or "stages heuristic". It is thus a rule of thumb rather than the actual reality of how policy is created, but has been influential in how political scientists looked at policy in general.^[11] It was developed as a theory from Harold Lasswell's work. It is called the policy cycle as the final stage (evaluation) often leads back to the first stage (problem definition), thus restarting the cycle.

Harold Lasswell's popular model of the policy cycle divided the process into seven distinct stages, asking questions of both how and why public policies should be made.^[12] With the stages ranging from (1) intelligence, (2) promotion, (3) prescription, (4) invocation, (5) application, (6) termination and (7) appraisal, this process inherently attempts to combine policy implementation to formulated policy goals.^[13]

One version by James E. Anderson, in his Public Policy-Making (1974) has the following stages:

Agenda setting (Problem identification) – The recognition of certain subject as a problem demanding further government attention.
Policy formulation – Involves exploring a variation of options or alternative courses of action available for addressing the problem. (appraisal, dialogue, formulation, and consolidation)
Decision-making – Government decides on an ultimate course of action, whether to perpetuate the policy status quo or alter it. (Decision could be 'positive', 'negative', or 'no-action')
Implementation – The ultimate decision made earlier will be put into practice.
Evaluation – Assesses the effectiveness of a public policy in terms of its perceived intentions and results. Policy actors attempt to determine whether the course of action is a success or failure by examining its impact and outcomes.

Anderson's version of the stages model is the most common and widely recognized out of the models. However, it could also be seen as flawed. According to Paul A. Sabatier, the model has "outlived its usefulness" and should be replaced.^[14] The model's issues have led to a paradoxical situation in which current research and updated versions of the model continue to rely on the framework created by Anderson. But the very concept of the stages model has been discredited, which attacks the cycle's status as a heuristic.^[15]

Due to these problems, alternative and newer versions of the model have aimed to create a more comprehensive view of the policy cycle. An eight step policy cycle is developed in detail in The Australian Policy Handbook by Peter Bridgman and Glyn Davis: (now with Catherine Althaus in its 4th and 5th editions)

Issue identification
Policy analysis
Consultation (which permeates the entire process)
Policy instrument development
Building coordination and coalitions
Program Design: Decision making
Policy Implementation
Policy Evaluation

The Althaus, Bridgman & Davis model is heuristic and iterative. It is intentionally normative^{[clarification needed]} and not meant to be diagnostic^{[clarification needed]} or predictive. Policy cycles are typically characterized as adopting a classical approach, and tend to describe processes from the perspective of policy decision makers. Accordingly, some post-positivist academics challenge cyclical models as unresponsive and unrealistic, preferring systemic and more complex models.^[16] They consider a broader range of actors involved in the policy space that includes civil society organizations, the media, intellectuals, think tanks or policy research institutes, corporations, lobbyists, etc.

Content

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Policies are typically promulgated through official written documents. Policy documents often come with the endorsement or signature of the executive powers within an organization to legitimize the policy and demonstrate that it is considered in force. Such documents often have standard formats that are particular to the organization issuing the policy. While such formats differ in form, policy documents usually contain certain standard components including:

A purpose statement, outlining why the organization is issuing the policy, and what its desired effect or outcome of the policy should be.
An applicability and scope statement, describing who the policy affects and which actions are impacted by the policy. The applicability and scope may expressly exclude certain people, organizations, or actions from the policy requirements. Applicability and scope is used to focus the policy on only the desired targets, and avoid unintended consequences where possible.
An effective date which indicates when the policy comes into force. Retroactive policies are rare, but can be found.
A responsibilities section, indicating which parties and organizations are responsible for carrying out individual policy statements. Many policies may require the establishment of some ongoing function or action. For example, a purchasing policy might specify that a purchasing office be created to process purchase requests, and that this office would be responsible for ongoing actions. Responsibilities often include identification of any relevant oversight and/or governance structures.
Policy statements indicating the specific regulations, requirements, or modifications to organizational behavior that the policy is creating. Policy statements are extremely diverse depending on the organization and intent, and may take almost any form.

Some policies may contain additional sections, including:

Background, indicating any reasons, history, ethical background statements, and/or intent that led to the creation of the policy, which may be listed as motivating factors. This information is often quite valuable when policies must be evaluated or used in ambiguous situations, just as the intent of a law can be useful to a court when deciding a case that involves that law.
Definitions, providing clear and unambiguous definitions for terms and concepts found in the policy document.

Types

The American political scientist Theodore J. Lowi proposed four types of policy, namely distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent in his article "Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice" and in "American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory". Policy addresses the intent of the organization, whether government, business, professional, or voluntary. Policy is intended to affect the "real" world, by guiding the decisions that are made. Whether they are formally written or not, most organizations have identified policies.^[4]

Policies may be classified in many different ways. The following is a sample of several different types of policies broken down by their effect on members of the organization.^[4]

Distributive

Regulatory

Regulatory policies aim to control or regulate the behavior and practices of individuals, organizations, or industries. These policies are intended to address issues related to public safety, consumer protection, and environmental conservation. Regulatory policies involve government intervention in the form of laws, regulations, and oversight. Examples include environmental regulations, labor laws, and safety standards for food and drugs. Another example of a fairly successful public regulatory policy is that of a highway speed limit.^[4]

Constituent

Constituent policies are less concerned with the allocation of resources or regulation of behavior, and more focused on representing the preferences and values of the public. These policies involve addressing public concerns and issues that may not have direct economic or regulatory implications. They often reflect the broader values and beliefs of the society. Constituent policies can include symbolic gestures, such as resolutions recognizing historical events or designating official state symbols. Constituent policies also deal with fiscal policy in some circumstances.^[4]

Redistributive

Redistributive policies involve the transfer of resources or benefits from one group to another, typically from the wealthy or privileged to the less advantaged. These policies seek to reduce economic or social inequality by taking from those with more and providing for those with less. Progressive taxation, welfare programs, and financial assistance to low-income households are examples of redistributive policies.

Notable schools

Balsillie School of International Affairs at the CIGI Campus

Blavatnik School of Government building

Subtypes

Induction of policies

In contemporary systems of market-oriented economics and of homogeneous voting of delegates and decisions, policy mixes are usually introduced depending on factors that include popularity in the public (influenced via media and education as well as by cultural identity), contemporary economics (such as what is beneficial or a burden in the long- and near-term within it) and a general state of international competition (often the focus of geopolitics). Broadly, considerations include political competition with other parties and social stability as well as national interests within the framework of global dynamics.^[17]^{[additional citation(s) needed]}

Policies or policy-elements can be designed and proposed by a multitude of actors or collaborating actor-networks in various ways.^[18] Alternative options as well as organisations and decision-makers that would be responsible for enacting these policies – or explaining their rejection – can be identified. "Policy sequencing" is a concept that integrates mixes of existing or hypothetical policies and arranges them in a sequential order. The use of such frameworks may make complex polycentric governance for the achievement of goals such as climate change mitigation and stoppage of deforestation more easily achievable or more effective, fair, efficient, legitimate and rapidly implemented.^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^{[additional citation(s) needed]}

Contemporary ways of policy-making or decision-making may depend on exogenously-driven shocks that "undermine institutionally entrenched policy equilibria" and may not always be functional in terms of sufficiently preventing and solving problems, especially when unpopular policies, regulation of influential entities with vested interests,^[22] international coordination and non-reactive strategic long-term thinking and management are needed.^[23] In that sense, "reactive sequencing" refers to "the notion that early events in a sequence set in motion a chain of causally linked reactions and counter-reactions which trigger subsequent development".^[24] This is a concept separate to policy sequencing in that the latter may require actions from a multitude of parties at different stages for progress of the sequence, rather than an initial "shock", force-exertion or catalysis of chains of events.

In the modern highly interconnected world, polycentric governance has become ever more important – such "requires a complex combination of multiple levels and diverse types of organizations drawn from the public, private, and voluntary sectors that have overlapping realms of responsibility and functional capacities".^[25] Key components of policies include command-and-control measures, enabling measures, monitoring, incentives and disincentives.^[19]

Science-based policy, related to the more narrow concept of evidence-based policy, may have also become more important. A review about worldwide pollution as a major cause of death – where it found little progress, suggests that successful control of conjoined threats such as pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss requires a global, "formal science–policy interface", e.g. to "inform intervention, influence research, and guide funding".^[26] Broadly, science–policy interfaces include both science in policy and science for policy.^[27]

Notes

For more information on the effect of tax policy on state revenues, see Laffer curve.

References

Office, Publications. "What is policy". sydney.edu.au. Retrieved 15 April 2018.
Voican, Mădălina (2008). "Government's Role in Coordination of Decision- Making Process". Revista de Științe Politics. Journal of Political Science (17): 26–31.
Gade, Christian (2023). "When is it justified to claim that a practice or policy is evidence-based? Reflections on evidence and preferences". Evidence & Policy: 1–10. doi:10.1332/174426421X16905606522863. S2CID 261138726. This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Lowi, Theodore J. (July 1972). "Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice". Public Administration Review. 32 (4): 298–310. doi:10.2307/974990. JSTOR 974990.
"Most international treaties are ineffective, Canadian study finds". CTVNews. 3 August 2022. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
Hoffman, Steven J.; Baral, Prativa; Rogers Van Katwyk, Susan; Sritharan, Lathika; Hughsam, Matthew; Randhawa, Harkanwal; Lin, Gigi; Campbell, Sophie; Campus, Brooke; Dantas, Maria; Foroughian, Neda; Groux, Gaëlle; Gunn, Elliot; Guyatt, Gordon; Habibi, Roojin; Karabit, Mina; Karir, Aneesh; Kruja, Krista; Lavis, John N.; Lee, Olivia; Li, Binxi; Nagi, Ranjana; Naicker, Kiyuri; Røttingen, John-Arne; Sahar, Nicola; Srivastava, Archita; Tejpar, Ali; Tran, Maxwell; Zhang, Yu-qing; Zhou, Qi; Poirier, Mathieu J. P. (9 August 2022). "International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (32): e2122854119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11922854H. doi:10.1073/pnas.2122854119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9372541. PMID 35914153.

University press release: "Do international treaties actually work? Study says they mostly don't". York University. Retrieved 15 September 2022.

Herbert, Peter (1984). "The financial implications of purchasing policy". Journal of General Management. 9 (4): 36–54. doi:10.1177/030630708400900403. S2CID 168835724.
Nesamani, K.S.; Lianyu, C.H.U.; Recker, Will (2010). "Policy implications of incorporating hybrid vehicles into high-occupancy vehicle lanes". Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology. 10 (2): 30–41. doi:10.1016/S1570-6672(09)60031-3. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
Lai, Yu-Bong (2006). "Capital Tax Competition in the Presence of Rent-Shifting Incentives" (PDF). 經濟研究 (Taipei Economic Inquiry). 42 (1): 1–24. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
Deleon, Peter; Steelman, Toddi A. (2001). "Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 20 (1): 163–171. doi:10.1002/1520-6688(200124)20:1<163::aid-pam2011>3.0.co;2-w. ISSN 0276-8739.
Nakamura 1987.
Laswell, H(1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York, Elsevier.
Howlett, M. (2011) Designing public policies: principles and instruments. Routledge.
Sabatier, Paul A. (June 1991). "Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process". PS: Political Science and Politics. 24 (2): 147–156. doi:10.2307/419923. JSTOR 419923. S2CID 153841704.
Fischer, Frank; Miller, Gerald J. (2006-12-21). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4200-1700-7.
Young, John and Enrique Mendizabal. Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs, Overseas Development Institute, London, September 2009.
Birkland, Thomas A. (2 July 2019). An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making (5 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-02394-8.
Taeihagh, Araz (1 June 2017). "Network-centric policy design". Policy Sciences. 50 (2): 317–338. doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9270-0. ISSN 1573-0891. S2CID 157209343.
Furumo, Paul R.; Lambin, Eric F. (27 October 2021). "Policy sequencing to reduce tropical deforestation". Global Sustainability. 4. Bibcode:2021GlSus...4E..24F. doi:10.1017/sus.2021.21. ISSN 2059-4798. S2CID 239890357.
Meckling, Jonas; Sterner, Thomas; Wagner, Gernot (December 2017). "Policy sequencing toward decarbonization". Nature Energy. 2 (12): 918–922. Bibcode:2017NatEn...2..918M. doi:10.1038/s41560-017-0025-8. ISSN 2058-7546. S2CID 158217818.
Pahle, Michael; Burtraw, Dallas; Flachsland, Christian; Kelsey, Nina; Biber, Eric; Meckling, Jonas; Edenhofer, Ottmar; Zysman, John (October 2018). "Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency". Nature Climate Change. 8 (10): 861–867. Bibcode:2018NatCC...8..861P. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0287-6. ISSN 1758-6798. S2CID 92543128.
"Timing is everything: Researchers reveal why the right sequence of policies is essential to slow deforestation". Stanford University. Retrieved 23 November 2021.
Howlett, Michael (December 2009). "Process Sequencing Policy Dynamics: Beyond Homeostasis and Path Dependency". Journal of Public Policy. 29 (3): 241–262. doi:10.1017/S0143814X09990158. ISSN 1469-7815. S2CID 155023873.
Daugbjerg, Carsten (1 April 2009). "Sequencing in public policy: the evolution of the CAP over a decade". Journal of European Public Policy. 16 (3): 395–411. doi:10.1080/13501760802662698. ISSN 1350-1763. S2CID 153785609.
Carlisle, Keith; Gruby, Rebecca L. (2019). "Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons". Policy Studies Journal. 47 (4): 927–952. doi:10.1111/psj.12212. ISSN 1541-0072.
Fuller, Richard; Landrigan, Philip J; Balakrishnan, Kalpana; Bathan, Glynda; Bose-O'Reilly, Stephan; Brauer, Michael; Caravanos, Jack; Chiles, Tom; Cohen, Aaron; Corra, Lilian; Cropper, Maureen; Ferraro, Greg; Hanna, Jill; Hanrahan, David; Hu, Howard; Hunter, David; Janata, Gloria; Kupka, Rachael; Lanphear, Bruce; Lichtveld, Maureen; Martin, Keith; Mustapha, Adetoun; Sanchez-Triana, Ernesto; Sandilya, Karti; Schaefli, Laura; Shaw, Joseph; Seddon, Jessica; Suk, William; Téllez-Rojo, Martha María; Yan, Chonghuai (June 2022). "Pollution and health: a progress update". The Lancet Planetary Health. 6 (6): e535–e547. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00090-0. PMID 35594895. S2CID 248905224.

"Science-Policy Interface Platform". Major Group for Children and Youth. Retrieved 10 July 2022.

Bibliography

Althaus, Catherine; Bridgman, Peter; Davis, Glyn (2007). The Australian Policy Handbook (4th ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Blakemore, Ken (1998). Social Policy: an Introduction. Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Dye, Thomas R. (1976). Policy Analysis. University of Alabama Press.
Greenberg, George D.; et al. (December 1977). "Developing Public Policy Theory: Perspectives from Empirical Research". American Political Science Review. 71 (4): 1532–1543. doi:10.2307/1961494. JSTOR 1961494. S2CID 145741414.
Heckathorn, Douglas D.; Maser, Steven M. (1990). "The Contractual Architecture of Public Policy: A Critical Reconstruction of Lowi's Typology". The Journal of Politics. 52 (4): 1101–1123. doi:10.2307/2131684. JSTOR 2131684. S2CID 154496294.
Jenkins, William (1978). Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective. London: Martin Robertson.
Kellow, Aynsley (Summer 1988). "Promoting Elegance in Policy Theory: Simplifying Lowi's Arenas of Power". Policy Studies Journal. 16 (4): 713–724. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1988.tb00680.x.
Lowi, Theodore J.; Bauer, Raymond A.; De Sola Pool, Ithiel; Dexter, Lewis A. (1964). "American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory". World Politics. 16 (4): 687–713. doi:10.2307/2009452. JSTOR 2009452. S2CID 154980260.
Lowi, Theodore J. (1972). "Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice". Public Administration Review. 32 (4): 298–310. doi:10.2307/974990. JSTOR 974990.
Lowi, Theodore J. (1985). "The State in Politics". In Noll, Roger G. (ed.). Regulatory Policy and the social Sciences. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 67–110.
Müller, Pierre; Surel, Yves (1998). L'analyse des politiques publiques (in French). Paris: Montchrestien.
Nakamura, Robert T. (September 1987). "The textbook policy process and implementation research". Review of Policy Research. 7 (1): 142–154. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1987.tb00034.x.
Paquette, Laure (2002). Analyzing National and International Policy. Rowman Littlefield.
Smith, K. B. (2002). "Typologies, Taxonomies, and the Benefits of Policy Classification". Policy Studies Journal. 30 (3): 379–395. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2002.tb02153.x.
Spitzer, Robert J. (June 1987). "Promoting Policy Theory: Revising the Arenas of Power". Policy Studies Journal. 15 (4): 675–689. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1987.tb00753.x.