政策过程研究与因果机制运动:重振该领域?

E. Lindquist, A. Wellstead
{"title":"政策过程研究与因果机制运动:重振该领域?","authors":"E. Lindquist, A. Wellstead","doi":"10.4337/9781788118194.00009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Schlager and Blomquist’s paper comparing three “emerging theories of the policy process.” It examined the ACF, Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Rational Choice (IRC, which later became IAD), and Terry Moe’s politics of structural choice approach. Issues of mechanisms and causality were briefly discussed, with ACF touted as a more sophisticated incorporation of the roles of information and learning; it challenges the other frameworks to consider the “ideological filtering of information, and changes in individuals’ beliefs, as mechanisms promoting or inhibiting policy change” (p. 666).","PeriodicalId":120146,"journal":{"name":"Making Policies Work","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Policy process research and the causal mechanism movement: reinvigorating the field?\",\"authors\":\"E. Lindquist, A. Wellstead\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/9781788118194.00009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Schlager and Blomquist’s paper comparing three “emerging theories of the policy process.” It examined the ACF, Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Rational Choice (IRC, which later became IAD), and Terry Moe’s politics of structural choice approach. Issues of mechanisms and causality were briefly discussed, with ACF touted as a more sophisticated incorporation of the roles of information and learning; it challenges the other frameworks to consider the “ideological filtering of information, and changes in individuals’ beliefs, as mechanisms promoting or inhibiting policy change” (p. 666).\",\"PeriodicalId\":120146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Making Policies Work\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Making Policies Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788118194.00009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Making Policies Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788118194.00009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Schlager和Blomquist的论文比较了三种“新兴的政策过程理论”。它考察了ACF,埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆的制度理性选择(IRC,后来成为IAD),以及特里·莫的结构性选择方法的政治学。简要讨论了机制和因果关系问题,ACF被吹捧为信息和学习作用的更复杂的结合;它挑战其他框架将“信息的意识形态过滤和个人信念的变化视为促进或抑制政策变化的机制”(第666页)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Policy process research and the causal mechanism movement: reinvigorating the field?
Schlager and Blomquist’s paper comparing three “emerging theories of the policy process.” It examined the ACF, Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Rational Choice (IRC, which later became IAD), and Terry Moe’s politics of structural choice approach. Issues of mechanisms and causality were briefly discussed, with ACF touted as a more sophisticated incorporation of the roles of information and learning; it challenges the other frameworks to consider the “ideological filtering of information, and changes in individuals’ beliefs, as mechanisms promoting or inhibiting policy change” (p. 666).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信