Policy instruments at work: A meta‐analysis of their applications
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Policy instruments at work : A meta‐analysis of their applications. / Acciai, Claudia; Capano, Giliberto.
I: Public Administration, Bind 99, 2021, s. 118–136.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Policy instruments at work
T2 - A meta‐analysis of their applications
AU - Acciai, Claudia
AU - Capano, Giliberto
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - This article uses a systematic review of the main literature in the field to shed light on different operationalizations of the main classifications of policy instruments. Although the literature offers a large number of instrument taxonomies, many of them act as theoretical guidelines rather than operational concepts that can help to disentangle the different features of governing actions. This article provides a review of the most frequently used policy instrument typologies and, through a meta‐analysis, it analyses how instrument typologies have been differentially adopted to explain real‐world phenomena. The results are a high degree of heterogeneity in citation frequency, the polyhedral nature of the concept of policy instruments, a divide between typologies focused on governmental resources and those focused on drivers of expected behaviour, and ‘labellism’. Thus, what emerges is the urgency of a process of convergence towards a common framework.
AB - This article uses a systematic review of the main literature in the field to shed light on different operationalizations of the main classifications of policy instruments. Although the literature offers a large number of instrument taxonomies, many of them act as theoretical guidelines rather than operational concepts that can help to disentangle the different features of governing actions. This article provides a review of the most frequently used policy instrument typologies and, through a meta‐analysis, it analyses how instrument typologies have been differentially adopted to explain real‐world phenomena. The results are a high degree of heterogeneity in citation frequency, the polyhedral nature of the concept of policy instruments, a divide between typologies focused on governmental resources and those focused on drivers of expected behaviour, and ‘labellism’. Thus, what emerges is the urgency of a process of convergence towards a common framework.
U2 - 10.1111/padm.12673
DO - 10.1111/padm.12673
M3 - Journal article
VL - 99
SP - 118
EP - 136
JO - Public Administration
JF - Public Administration
SN - 0033-3298
ER -
ID: 255507166