CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE ROLE OF CRISIS IN INDUCING POLICY CHANGE
Introduction
Most nations make policies after they enter serious crisis. There is a general notion that a critical problem requires a critical solution. Thus, nations that came under Nazi or Japanese attack in the eve of the Second World War declared a state of emergency and made sweeping changes to their national policies. These changes had far-reaching impacts on the functioning of the arms of governments and the entire nation had to suspend various activities to implement the policies in response to the crises.
However, after World War II, significant events have been considered as turning points in national affairs around the world. These caused states to undergo major alterations and modifications to their national structures. These crisis events induced the creation of some form of moral panic that led to the justification of various policies and procedures that ushered in far-reaching changes.
The purpose of this research is to conduct a review of the role and importance of crisis in inducing policy change. In order to attain this end, the following objectives will be explored:
An evaluation of dominant theories in International Relations and World Affairs which explain the trend and patterns in defining the influence of crisis on policy change;
The analysis of a case of a global event that caused nations to unilaterally change their internal policies in the Cold War era;
An assessment of a modern national issue that caused the unipolar superpower to make changes that affected the entire world.
This research will evaluate important theories and concepts in International Relations and World Affairs and how they relate to the changes in national policy. It will first begin by examining the framework of the relationship between crisis and policy change. This will culminate in the formulation of a hypothesis that will lay the foundation for the discussions that will be undertaken in this research.
General Framework of the Relationship between Crisis and Policy Change
International Relations positions the state as the dominant actor in international affairs. This therefore means the state has the power to make policy and respond immediately to crises. Other things in the global order evolve over time as a result of many state policies that come together to define a broad array of rules and regulations that gain international acceptance.
In order to commence this enquiry, it will be appropriate to ask the basic question –what constitutes a crisis? This will provide the fundamental premise on which theoretical evaluations can be done in this research.
One perspective states that “crisis and disaster can result in exogenous shock which can de-stabilise existing policies”. This implies that before a crisis occurs, some form of policy existed that provided answers to a particular problem. This includes a series of policies that were formulated and implemented by relevant authorities to deal with the issue at hand. It is rare for a novel crisis to occur that had no pre-instituted policy.
In the event of something external occurring, a crisis happens that destabilises the existing policy framework. Thus, the framework for expected results that were to be invoked in the case of such a crisis becomes deficient or woefully inadequate in preventing a certain undesirable outcome.
Crisis are induced by the actions and inactions of a particular public sector organisation or authority entrusted with preventing it. On the other hand, disasters are induced by natural phenomenon or things beyond human action but they are of a nature that requires the government or specific organisations to respond to. This means they all come out as things that destabilise the normal functioning of society as it has been accepted and understood by the society over a considerable period of time. And this is considered “normal” because they are covered by policies and arrangements that are made with the view of resolving all these problems and issues before they occur.
Crisis are therefore to be seen as unexpected events that happen, for which the authorities in question have no policy or proper arrangements to prevent. They are externalities and they come up in ways that modifies and changes the scope of things.
“Crises expose decision makers to criticism and demands for more effective action”. This is because in most cases, even if it is outside the scope of control or the ability to predict and prepare for it, the relevant authority that would have formulated an appropriate policy solution is singled out and blamed for it.
In evaluating and assessing crisis, “The distinction between actions that have purpose, will, or motivation and those that do not is crucialSo, too, is distinction between effects that are intended and those that are not, since we know all too well that our purposeful actions may have unintended consequences.”.
Therefore, a crisis is seen as something that is significant and/or serious if there was a will or motive to formulate a policy about it and nothing was done. In cases of a disaster, there is usually a lack of a motive or intention. However, if it happened on the basis of a motivated person or a criminal minded individual, the authorities responsible are held to a higher level of accountability. This is because it is assumed that if the authorities were proactive and they had done something significant, they could have detected the problem and challenge and dealt with it with an appropriate policy.
Crisis and their reactions play a major role in shaping the way people think and this influences domestic and foreign policy in many ways. This is because it induces some kind of reaction that shows that everyone could potentially be affected by the crisis. This way, the quest towards uncertainty avoidance is severely breached and there is a vote of no confidence in the authorities tasked with the formulation of policies designed to prevent such crises from occurring in future. There is always a question of preventing further loss in life or the repetition of a costly damage in the future. Therefore, these concerns lead to a gap that is filled with a lot of speculation and uncertainty.
Crisis will often “elevate an issue on the agenda to a place where it is taken seriously in one of more policy domains”. This is because the nature of modern public sectors is that it is positioned to deal with all the major problems and issues that could arise. Thus, there are different ministries and cabinet positions in the executive arm of government that is to ensure there are policies to cover all foreseeable eventualities. Thus, an issue with terrorism is within the power of the intelligence agencies. Action against perceived terrorists must be taken by the police, military or a similar entity. The laws that will enable them must come from the legislative arm of government and this must be approved by the executive arm of government. This will help to enable the relevant authorities to carry out their actions to prevent terrorist acts. In a situation where the network and framework is breached, and a terrorist gets his way to commit a large atrocity, there are questions asked about the national security apparatus. What were the laws? Who was responsible for detecting the terrorist act? What were the authorities doing at the time the attack was being planned and perpetrated? These are all relevant questions that people ask.
After the events of September 11 2001 when the Twin Towers of New York were attacked, there were questions about how the terrorists got into America. They came on visas that assumed they were clean because they had no criminal records. There were questions of what was in place to detect terrorism. It can be recalled that in the events before that attack, US President George W. Bush was more focused on a missile defence shield that was to protect the United States from attacks from faraway nations like Iran and North Korea. However, the fact that terrorism within US borders could plan and execute attacks in the US led to major concerns. Questions were asked if the systems at the airport were good enough. Questions were asked about how terrorists managed to get into the United States and do what they did. This created questions that led to no other option but a change in policy.
Thus, it is almost always common for the people charged with the prevention of a crisis to come out to say what they did and discuss the realities that existed before the policy. This gives way for a moral panic. This is because there is a general attempt by the authorities charged with a given crisis-prevention drive to argue that they did everything humanly possible. This moves the case from a negligence on their part to a moral crisis that must be controlled.
On the other hand, opponents of the authorities charged with the formulation of the policy come out to show that there was negligence on the part of the policymakers. This makes it imperative for some form of sanctions to be issued to the offenders and this leads to a situation whereby some kind of moral attribution to be made to these policymakers. However, it does not end there. There is always a need and requirement for something to be done to prevent the crisis from occurring again in the future. Therefore, a sense of moral panic and a sense of urgency are formulated which makes it imperative for some action to be taken to prevent it from recurring in future.
The media, known as the fourth estate of governance is always crucial in what information is spread and how it is spread. There are media houses that will support the moral panic, there are those who will play it down and assure the masses that changes will be made. Whatever it is, this induces major needs for change and it leads to a will and a desire to change the status quo.
Crisis is important to policy change. However, as post-positivist theory suggests there are many constraints within which policies are evaluated and eventually changed. There are issues relating to global complexities, individual sovereign capacities, and varying definitions of crisis which influences the policy agenda that is evaluated and what is ultimately accepted to be a policy to resolve the issues.
In order to conduct this research, we come up with four main hypothesis which will be tested in this research:
H1: Crisis induce moral panic and this could lead to the belief that there was a lack of will, agenda and/or motive by the relevant authorities to prevent the crisis;
H2: The moral panic that comes in the aftermath of a crisis gives government far-reaching powers which is premised on the fact that a new policy will safeguard lives and prevent costly damage;
H3: The moral panic creates a temporary gap that gives government adequate power and scope to create policies that have far-reaching impacts to assure the public that the crisis will not recur in future;
H4: With time, there is a general convergence of these policies around the world and an international legal order evolves from such policy arrangements.
Theoretical Review of Crisis Induced Policy Change in National and World Affairs
There are many angles through which policy change in national affairs can be construed. This is inherently based on the way through which nations formulate their policies and respond to issues in order to create the right and appropriate framework for national development and endowment.
There are two approaches of viewing policy formulation methods. These provide insights into how crisis can intervene in these approaches and induce policy in response to changes. There are bounded rationality theories and incremental theories. The Bound Rationality theory model is attributed to Dr Herbert A. Simon who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978. Bounded rationality theories are based on the view that the view that decision-making is a fully rational process of finding an optimal choice given the information available.
Incrementalism on the other hand is based on the idea that there is a basic set of policies. This becomes the core and fundamental set of policies that run things. However, with time, as emerging issues come up, there is the addition of new methods and processes that are added to the policy framework. Incrementalism is based on the existing rules and regulations as well as the expenditure which gets an add-on at regular intervals and different points.
Rationalism and incrementalism clashes along various fronts and points. Rationalism identifies that there is one correct and appropriate way of resolving things. Therefore, they find the best alternative and the best way of doing things and integrate it into the policy. Incrementalism on the other hand focuses on what works. It is about trying to find a workable solution to issues and matters. This helps to promote the attainment of fundamental results in policy processes and activities.
The rational model leads to the formation of a decision-making process. This includes the identification of a flow of options and processes to critique possible ways of formulating and creating a policy. This is about utilising codes of best practice in order to resolve issues and choose the best option amongst several possibilities. This is about finding the most ideal and creating something that is new and often very unique and distinct.
The incrementalism method is about finding a way of working within the best way of discharging goals that will lead to results. The idea is to avoid mistakes. This is about the way of creating simplification and choice. Therefore, the view of incrementalism is to do the least to avoid upsetting the existing system. This is because the existing system is viewed as the main process through which goals and ends would be met. Hence, the essence of this system is to keep it going and ensure it works to meet goals with as little intervention and changes as possible.
There is the need to put rational goals and means ahead of means. This is because the rationality of choices and options are considered to be better than the goals and how they are achieved. There is the need to consider goals and means together. Thus, whilst rational goals and approaches are theoretical in outlook, incremental options are practical. Incremental policy formulation is based on the utilisation of the main practical means and continuously implementing things as they are in motion. On the other hand, rational methods of policy formulation is based on the halting of work in totality and then the introduction of new ideas and views based on idealistic theories formulated specifically to build new approaches to problems and issues.
In a situation of crisis, it is logical to infer that normally, rationalism might come to play. This is because it might be serious enough to pose questions to the existing system and processes. Therefore, it might be necessary to find ways based on new theories and concepts in order to modify the existing system in a way that leads to a paradigm shift. This is because a major crisis is likely to destabilise the existing systems and its parameters. There are new methods that might be based on new ideas that will be considered to be relevant and important in resolving the situation by introducing new policies.
The Punctuated Equilibrium theory indicates that “public policy is stable for a long period of time and interrupted occasionally by periods of abrupt change. However, during times of crisis, public policy change abruptly and substantially”.
This implies that public policy is viewed as something that continues over a long period of time. There is no attempt to change public policy until something happens that is significant and induces change in various ways and forms. Punctuated Equilibrium indicates that evolutionary development is based on isolated episodes of rapid speciation which spans between long periods of little or no change. This is due to the fact that things continue and is built upon for a long period of time. Therefore, they become the norm and status quo until something occurs and there is the need for change and an undeniable requirement for modification. This lays the background and foundation for a major adjustment.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework is developed to deal with intense public policy problems. This is important when there is a goal disagreement in the formulation of a policy. Hence, it is necessary to bring to the fore, different stakeholders in order to identify the best solutions to problems and create a policy out of it. Thus, there is an external system of inputs which complements the relatively stable parameters and processes. This leads to consensus that leads to a new system that is utilised and applied to bring on some positive solutions.
This method of Advocacy Coalition Framework might be necessary when there is a major crisis. This is because in the period of a crisis, there is going to be a question of inclusion in the policies that were utilised to create the existing policies. Therefore, there is a general trend towards the creation and modification of the existing systems to meet positive results and avoid risks in order to achieve a more robust policy solution in the future.
John Kingdon identifies the Multiple Streams Framework which is a policy formulation tool that is used to understand the policy, process and agenda-setting process through the evaluation of the problems, policies and politics. This method is going to be necessary to understand a failed policy in order to formulate a complementary system that would deal with a given problem with policy formulation and utilisation. This will define the constraints for a new process and research system.
The gaps in this review of theories show that policy is something that comes to force when there is an urgent need for change. No government or public institution will make a new policy when it is not needed. Therefore, it is almost always necessary to define important turning points where there is a basis and motivation for change.
Looking at all the theories discussed, incremental policies seem to be the cause of policy change. This is because they are functioning and are made to be preventive. However, it is mainly where they fail that new policy changes are necessary. This is because an incremental policy is normally created to handle all foreseeable issues and problems. In spite of this, when a major incident occurs, and there is the need for change, this is informed by the need for a better solution to problems and issues.
For instance, there is the need for a rational approach. This lays the foundation for the Punctuated Equilibrium approach or Advocacy Coalition to ensure comprehensiveness or the Multiple Streams Framework. Either of these methods and approaches are meant to ensure the best kinds of corrective action is taken to deal with problems relating to the gaps that led to a particular problem or issue.
Thus, it is logical to infer that crisis is a central cause and inducer of public policy change. This is because in the absence of a major crisis, the incremental system might be the most appropriate and less onerous solution to a policy problem.
The Chernobyl 4 Reactor emitted an immediate surge in power on April 26, 1986. This led to an attempted shutdown of the reactor, but a higher and unexpected power surge occurred which cause the reactor’s vessel to rupture leading to a stream of explosions. The disaster was a major point that led to important questions about the ability to use nuclear reactors and how it should be deployed and monitored.
In-depth investigation of the disaster identifies that four nuclear reactors malfunctioned. This led to the surges in power and the excessive flow of currents which led to the fire. The fire resulted in the release of 20 – 40 metric tons of uranium dioxide fuel. The contamination led to major pollution that affected various nations in the former Soviet Union. This is because the Chernobyl reactor was located at a strategic location to provide power to various Soviet bloc nations like Belarus, and Russia. Although the reactor was located in what is now Ukraine, it served a lot of purposes in the former Soviet Union. The contamination was widespread throughout Europe causing radioactive substances to be felt in as far away as Italy.
The main response of the Soviet authorities was to evacuate the area in an ad hoc manner. This is because the immediate approach of the Soviet Union was to deal with things as and how it came. There was no generally accepted policy for handling such an eventuality. Another problem was with the USSR’s unwillingness to provide accurate information and cover up the seriousness of the contamination.
Then the Soviets came up with an emergency policy to deal with the situation. This include the provision of emergency food stamps to people affected by the disaster. These food stamps were distributed at an ad hoc basis. Evacuations were done only as and how they were needed.
The need to save face and prevent reputational issues caused the evacuation process of the Soviet authorities to be sluggish. On the other hand, in Western Europe, there was widespread international concern. The Italians and other nations had major concerns and had to take up emergency tasks by deploying authorities to measure radioactive emissions and seek information from the Soviets. However, the Soviets played down the seriousness of the disaster. They gave assurances that turned out to be untrue. Therefore, the Italians and other nations like Sweden asked for a halt in nuclear programs.
There were many peace groups that came up with demands and requirements that were presented to different stakeholders. These groups believed that nuclear energy was destructive and as such, they stated that it should not be encouraged in any way or form.
There was a disconcerted effort in dealing with the situation of the Chernobyl disaster. This was fundamentally due to the secrecy of the Soviet bloc of eastern nations. This was an era where everything was done secretly and the Eastern bloc nations were censored. The media was full of propaganda and everything was done in a form of protecting the Communist governments. Therefore, with that, they were able to cover up the elements of the disaster and prevent real facts from being discussed.
However, there was the need to check on nuclear safety and ensure such an incident never occurred in the Soviet Union and other eastern bloc nations. This led to actions meant to protect human lives in these nations and communities. It is also noted that at that time in 1986, the Chernobyl disaster encouraged the Soviets to cooperate more with western scientists in the area of biosciences through the policy of Glasnost. This caused the east and west to cooperate and formulate new policies that were considered to be international in outlook and more prone towards enhancing and promoting the quality of life in these areas and the prevention of future nuclear disasters.
The Chernobyl disaster led to some policy change in the area of public health. This is based on the fact that more people suffered from complications and there was the need to create a framework for ensuring there was healing and proper monitoring and care. The disaster created a system of improved surveillance and the gathering of records. However, due to the nature of the Soviet Union, there were questions about how these information and data influenced the way things were done. Therefore, it was generally problematic and complicated to figure out what actually happened.
However it is undeniable to state that the nature and scale of the Chernobyl disaster forced the Soviet authorities and commissars to carry out various actions to ameliorate things. But the reality of the situation is that the Soviet Union was at the crossroads. And this was a point where it was imperative for the Union to change and it was at the point of fragmentation. With perestroika and glasnost, it was almost difficult to make any concrete changes. Therefore, a lot of things remained superficially checked. This is in spite of the fact that the complications and difficulties of the urgent need for action remained significant. On the other hand, the policy responses were mainly ad hoc. That is because there was no other alternative.
The International Atomic Energy Agency on the other hand conducted a lot of research into the matter and made many recommendations. There was a desire and an expectation for changes to be made. However, the Soviet Union used its own plans and agenda to carry out changes and deal with the situation. This was in contrast with the other nations in Western Europe that set up standards for dealing with nuclear safety and modifications.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was speculated to be due to the policy failure of Chernobyl. Although this is not universally accepted, there is no doubt that the failure of the Soviet Union to decisively formulate policy in response to the Chernobyl disaster contributed to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
It can be deduced from this case study that crisis lead to major concerns and a moral panic. Some of this might be speculative. Others might be based on opinions of people that are not real. However, in situations where there is a real panic, there must be real solutions. Where solutions are not forthcoming and policy changes are not occurring, there is a problematic situation that can lead to far-reaching consequences.
On September 11th 2001, the World Trade Center of the United States were razed down to the ground after two airlines hijacked by Islamic terrorists crushed into them. There was a generally perceived terrorist threat to the United States throughout the 1990s. Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network was identified to have caused the 1998 bombing of US embassies in East Africa. This led to many problems and issues that caused problems and panic in the United States.
However, there was a general lack of will to deal with this threat. There are some different views that showed that there was no basis for the formulation of a policy to deal with terrorists. Therefore, it is generally assumed that the United States was waiting for the first strike to formulate a framework and strategy to conceptualise Islamic terrorism and find a way of dealing with it. In the absence of a major attack by Islamic terrorists, there could be no real political will to formulate a robust policy framework to go after terrorists.
The 1999 Hart-Rudman Commission implemented some policies for dealing with terrorism, however, the lack of a real approach and will to deal with these terrorist treats caused it to be delayed. Some authorities identify that the failure to implement the Hart-Rudman Commission’s recommendations since 1999 was due to the blurring boundaries between homeland defence and policy frameworks.
Therefore, the events of 9/11 which led to the death of over 3,000 Americans in one event created a sense of urgency that came with a moral panic. This was simply premised on the fact that terrorism had occurred and if nothing was done, any American could come under the nefarious attacks of other terrorists. Thus, American politician and leaders had to quickly react by formulating policies to protect Americans from future attacks.
The first reaction to the events of September 11th 2001 was the passing of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (PATRIOT Act) in 2001. The idea was to close the gap between domestic and foreign policy in meeting the anti-terrorism agenda. This is because the blurring lines between the authorities made it difficult for coordination to be done in order to deal with terrorism.
The main element and process of ending this was the formation of the Department of Homeland Security which was meant to lay down new security guidelines for dealing with terrorists. This included the gathering of data and information and critiquing it in order to deal with the problems and risks relating to terrorism.
The Department of Homeland Security replaced the Immigration and Naturalization Services. Their duty was to guide and secure America’s borders with new security guidelines. There was a conflation between Security and Immigration which was to provide a way of screening migrants from certain high-risk countries.
“The new terrorism policy sends the message that immigrants of certain nationalities should be viewed as potential terror suspects first and as welcome newcomers second, if at all.”. This was to promote stronger background checks and guide the selection process in order to prevent the entry of undesirables into America. This was something that was previously unchecked and led to major loopholes that gave rise to 9/11
Mass surveillance also became common because the Patriot Act increased the power of the NSA through the Surveillance Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After 9/11, there were Drone Acts which gave the US power to use drones to kill terrorists and fight to prevent risks of terror from overseas.
Conclusion
This research confirms that crisis induce a moral panic. This is because it lays the foundation for the formulation of an agenda for change. This is because crisis create a will and an agenda as well as a motive to prevent future incidents.
The moral panic that comes out of a crisis gives government and the ruling class extra power and authority. This is because there is a justified view that the government can and must act to prevent the crisis or disaster in future. In cases where a malicious offender contributed to the act in question, there is a stronger desire to get the government to move to make changes.
Therefore, with sufficient power, policies are made within a larger scope and over a shorter timeline. There is a sense of urgency and this is proven in the Chernobyl and September 11 cases that were studied. There is more power and authority over the various institutions. However, this hypothesis is qualified by the fact that the government has an obligation to act in a highly decisive manner. This is because failure to act in a decisive manner could lead to problems and issues that could be problematic.
The research also confirms that the moral panic and crisis of one country becomes the reference point for changes in other countries. This is inferred from the Chernobyl case and the New York terrorist attacks. They caused all nations around the world to get a reference point to change and enhance existing policy. This is based on a rational approach of building a completely different policy framework based on the inputs of stakeholders. Through this, there was convergence in the international community and crisis influenced policies in faraway nations.
References
Bagheri, M. & Jahromi, M., 2012. Globalization and extraterritorial application of economic regulation: crisis in international law and balancing interests.. European Journal of Law and Economy, 41(2), pp. 393-429.
Birkland, T., 2006. Lessons of disaster. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press..
Chambliss, S., 2009. The Future of Detainees in the Global War On Terror: A U.S. Policy Perspective.. University of Richmond Law Review, 43(3), pp. 821-844.
Cronin, A., 2003. Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism.. International Security, 27(3), pp. 30-58..
Drezner, D., 2001. Globalization and Policy Convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1), pp. 53-78..
Dumbrell, J., 2002. Unilateralism and 'America First'? President George W. Bush's Foreign Policy. Political Quarterly, 73(3), pp. 279-287..
Grossman, P., 2015. Energy shocks, crises and the policy process: A review of theory and application.. Energy Policy, Volume 77, pp. 56-69.
Hogan, J. & Feeney, S., 2012. Crisis and Policy Change: The Role of the Political Entrepreneur.. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 3(2), pp. 1-24..
Kearney, A. T., 2005. Measuring Gloalization. Foreign Policy, 30(4), pp. 52-60.
Kingdon, J. W., 2003. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.
Kirshner, J., 2008. Globalization, American Power, and International Security. Political Science Quarterly, 123(3), pp. 363-389.
Kriesberg, L., 1984. Policy Continuity and Change. Social Problems, 32(2), pp. 89-102.
Macionis, G. & John, L., 2010. Sociology. Toronto: Pearson Canada.
Messina, A., 2008. Pathways from September 11: Politics, Policy, and State Sovereignty in an Age of Terror.. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(2).
Naim, M., 2002. Missing Links: Post-Terror Surprises.. Foreign Policy, Volume 132, p. 95.
Napoli, P. M. & Friedland, L., 2016. US Communications Policy Research and the Integration of the Administrative and Critical Communication Research Traditions.. Journal of Information Policy, Volume 6, p. 41.
Nei.org, 2016. Chernobyl Accident And Its Consequences - Nuclear Energy Institute. [Online] Available at: http://www.nei.org/master-document-folder/backgrounders/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences.[Accessed 7 August 2016].
Provost, C. & Teske, P., 2009. President George W. Bush's influence over bureaucracy and policy.. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sabatier, P., 2007. Theories of the policy process.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Salge, M. & Milling, P., 2006. Who is to blame, the operator or the designer? Two stages of human failure in the Chernobyl accident.. System Dynamics Review, 22(2), pp. 89-112.
Shipman, G., 1959. The Policy Process: an Emerging Perspective.. Political Research Quarterly, 12(2), pp. 535-547.
Stone, D., 1989. Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), pp. 281-300.
Tumlin, K., 2004. Suspect First: How Terrorism Policy Is Reshaping Immigration Policy.. California Law Review, 92(4), p. 1173.
Walsh, J. I., 2006. Policy Failure and Policy Change: British Security Policy after the Cold War. Comparative Political Studies, 39(4), pp. 490-518.
Weible, C. & Sabatier, P., 2010. A Guide to Advocacy Coalition Framework. Denver: UCDenver Press.
Wilson, C., 2014. Public Policy: Continuity and Change. 2nd ed. New York: Waveland Publishing.
Woodhouse, E. & Collingridge, D., 1991. Incrementalism, Intelligent Trial and Error, and the Future of Political Decision Theory. Long Range Planning, Volume 24, pp. 101-107.
