C

Comparative Public Policy Introduction

Wilson Wong Comparative public policy is an important area of

Department of Government and Public study cutting across major disciplines in social
Administration, The Chinese University of Hong science (Adolino and Blake 2011; Castles 1998;
Kong, Hong Kong, China Heidenheimer et al. 1990; Rose 2005). It carries
both academic and policy significance. In recent
years, it is gaining strength and influence because
Synonyms of the growing awareness of the limitation of
isolated and compartmentalized knowledge of tra-
Comparative policy studies; Comparative politi- ditional academic disciplines in policy applica-
cal studies; Comparative politics; Comparative tions and the pressing need to acquire theory-
public administration; Public policy studies guided and empirically proven knowledge for
resolving serious policy problems under a global-
ized environment.
Many traditional disciplines of social sciences
Definition
often select their research questions based on their
disciplinary interest and conduct the analysis fol-
Comparative public policy is an area of interdis-
lowing their own logic of theoretical inquiry.
ciplinary study which uses public policy as its
A single theoretical lens inevitably narrows the
major unit of analysis for comparison across dif-
comprehensiveness and scope of its inquiry.
ferent systems and institutions, usually countries
While compartmentalization of knowledge can
or governments. It typically asks questions about
be taken as specialization of knowledge and
how, why, and to what effect different govern-
gives the advantage of theoretical strength of a
ments pursue different or similar policies. It
disciplinary approach, compared with an interdis-
faces problems of contested identities of method
ciplinary approach, their outputs of research are
versus field and the lack of a coherent and com-
often too partial and fragmented for providing a
prehensive theoretical framework. These prob-
complete analysis of a public problem to meet the
lems are being addressed by its emerging
expectations of scholars and practitioners of
research, which also contributes to the creation
policymaking (Raadschelders 2005; Riggs 1991,
of integrated and impactful knowledge in social
1998; Welch and Wong 1998).
science.
Advance in comparative public policy research
holds the promise of moving both theory and
# Springer International Publishing AG 2016
A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_253-1
2 Comparative Public Policy

practice forward not only in public policy but also problem or matter of concern.” He further
in many major disciplines in social science related supplemented this definition by stating that “this
to public policy (Fitzpatrick et al. 2011; definition focuses on what is actually done instead
Heidenheimer 1985; Pontusson 1995; Rose of what is being proposed and intended; differen-
2005). With its interdisciplinary nature, compara- tiates a policy from a decision, which is essentially
tive public policy can enhance theory develop- a specific choice among alternatives, and views
ment through integrating the theoretical lens and policy as something that unfolds overtime”
strengths of knowledge of different discipline. (pp. 6–7).
Building on a problem-based or issue-based There are several important elements in the
approach and uses “policy” as its major unit of above definition. First, although there are many
analysis, it allows a high level of integration actors, including nongovernmental actors, in the
between theory and practice. Moreover, adopting making of public policy, because of its “public”
a comparative perspective, it assimilates experi- nature which involves the use of public power and
ences and cases across countries and regions in authority, government still plays a central and
making a significant contribution to construct a defining role in the making of public policy. It is
global social science (Gulrajani and Moloney the presence and involvement of government
2012). However, at the current stage of its devel- which makes the whole matter and process “pub-
opment, there is still a gap between what it can lic.” Because of the central and irreplaceable role
deliver and what it has accomplished. of government in public policy, comparative pub-
The main objective of this chapter is to help lic policy is a comparison of policies made by
bridge that gap by introducing comparative public different governments or public institutions. Sec-
policy and discussing critically the challenges and ond, public policy is a purposive and goal-
opportunities it is facing. This chapter is orga- oriented course of action. Although the final out-
nized into the following sections. It first defines come of public policymaking can be irrational and
the field by focusing on its uniqueness as well as may not really solve a public problem, it is often a
relationships with similar areas of studies. The rational compromise among different actors
second section examines its crisis of contested involved based on their goals and incentives fil-
identifies and reviews three key trends of its tered or structured by institutions. That is why
research. Two of them are carrying major hope public policy is different from a specific decision
of enhancing the studies by addressing its core as emphasized by Anderson. Policy is often the
problem of the lack of sophisticated and coherent outcome of a course of action among multiple
theoretical framework dedicated to it. The third players whose role and influence are defined by
section discusses the major challenges and oppor- institutional and structural factors. It also means
tunities of its future development. It concludes by comparing public policy is essentially a compari-
emphasizing the close and important linkage son of the impacts of institutions (Heidenheimer
between comparative public policy and social sci- et al. 1990; Pontusson 1995; Scharpf 2000).
ence in their parallel and interactive development. Building on the main elements of public pol-
icy, Heidenheimer et al. (1990) define compara-
Defining the Field: Uniqueness tive public policy as “the study of how, why, and
and Similarities to what effect different governments pursue par-
Since comparative public policy is mainly about ticular courses of action or inaction.” Recognizing
studying public policy under a comparative con- the influence of institutions on policymaking, they
text, answering the question of “what is public suggest the study of comparative public policy
policy” should be the first and important step in “requires learning aspects of the structures and
defining comparative public policy. According to processes through which governmental decisions
Anderson (2011), public policy can be defined as are reached,” and scholars should keep in mind
“a relatively stable, purposive course of action or the importance of these ultimate determinants of
inaction followed by government in dealing with a policy choices made by nations. They also
Comparative Public Policy 3

Comparative Public Policy, Table 1 Major classification of comparative studies

Core discipline
Fields Unit of analysis (s) Main concerns in development
Comparative Public policy Interdisciplinary Contested identities: method or field
public policy Difficulty in theory development due to the
complexity of the subject matter and its
interdisciplinary nature of inquiry
Applying and “borrowing” theories from other
disciplines, lack of a coherent and comprehensive
theoretical framework
Comparative Political systems and Political science Limitation in power of analysis and scope of inquiry
politics institutions by a single discipline
Comparative Bureaucracy, Interdisciplinary A wider range of theories but mostly “borrowing”
public administrative, and from other disciplines. lack of a coherent and
administration governance systems comprehensive theoretical framework
A wider scope of inquiry from its problem-based
approach but focusing mainly on administrative
apparatus and capacity and the policy
implementation stage

emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of compar- foundation (Heidenheimer 1985; Pontusson 1995;
ative public policy by arguing that it “can never Scharpf 2000). The two are also different in terms
become a self-contained specialized discipline” of their unit of analysis as comparative public
and it is always “located at busy crossroads in policy uses “policy,” not political systems and
social sciences.” institutions as its unit of analysis. To comparative
The interdisciplinary nature of comparative public policy, political systems and institutions
public policy is both a curse and a gift. It can are some of its important independent variables
enrich the content and perspectives of compara- rather than its unit of analysis. Comparative public
tive public policy on the one hand but also cause policy and comparative public administration
concerns of overlapping boundaries and confused share many similarities, for example, both of
identities with other studies and disciplines. them are interdisciplinary in nature and adopt a
Table 1 shows the differences in terms of unit of problem-based approach (Fitzpatrick et al. 2011;
analysis, core discipline, and main concerns in the Gulrajani and Moloney 2012; Jreisat 2005). In
development for three distinctive but interrelated general, however, comparative public policy is a
areas of study: comparative public policy, com- broader and more inclusive area of study. The
parative politics, and comparative public admin- concept of policy, a key focus of comparative
istration. They are all distinctive because they all public policy, is broader than the concept of
have their uniqueness in terms of concerns or bureaucracy, a main concern in comparative pub-
theoretical lens. At the same time, they are also lic administration. Comparative public policy
interrelated as they do share some overlapping goes beyond the study of administrative apparatus
elements. One obvious example is all of them and capacities which is linked mostly to the stage
adopt comparative approaches and methods in of policy implementation and covers all major
the general arena of research in social science. stages in the policy cycle in its analysis.
Comparative public policy is different from
comparative politics as the latter is a subfield of
Contested Identities and Major Trends
political science, while comparative public policy
in Research
is interdisciplinary in nature of which political
Being unique does not mean comparative public
science is only one of the pillars of its theoretical
policy does not encounter any major problems
4 Comparative Public Policy

and crises in its identity and development. Owing because comparative public policy research is an
to the lack of a coherent and comprehensive the- important testing ground of the robustness and
oretical framework of its own, “borrowing” theo- generalizability of theories in social science. The
ries from other well-established disciplines is still recent development in comparative public policy
a common practice in its research (Heidenheimer research should be more appropriately considered
1985; Heidenheimer et al. 1990; Pontusson 1995; from a wider scope as a positive step for enhanc-
Scharpf 2000). This should not be taken as the ing of the development of theories in social
total fault of its scholars as theory development is science.
particularly difficult in comparative public policy According to Gupta’s (2012) review, the first
because of the complexity and multifaceted nature category of research in comparative public policy
of its subject matter. Nevertheless, this still leads refers to the traditional use of comparative method
to a serious problem of contested identities of to answer two primary questions: how do policies
“method versus field” in comparative public pol- different across countries and what explains these
icy (Feldman 1978). There is a debate on whether differences. This category still represents a major-
comparative public policy has reached the status ity of the studies and serves as the existing foun-
of being qualified as a field or it should be taken as dations of comparative public policy research.
no more than a method of using comparative With the rising importance of multilevel gover-
approaches in research. As summarized by nance, a new addition to this category of research
Feldman (1978) very well, “without a guiding is in addition to comparing nationally, many stud-
theory, explanations for policy become lists con- ies also compare subnationally. This category of
stantly awaiting addenda, and comparative cases research, however, still suffers from the weakness
hover close to a line of anecdote” (Feldman 1978, of confining themselves to identifying differences
p. 300). Although these words were written more across systems and countries without intensively
than three decades ago, to a considerable extent, answering the question of “why” through coher-
the situation described still persists. In many text- ent and rigorous theoretical frameworks. Even if a
books of comparative public policy, they are still theoretical lens is applied, it is also often
relatively thin and weak on theory but are rich and borrowed from other fields and disciplines.
more detailed in the discussion of cases of differ- The hope of transforming comparative public
ent countries and policy areas. policy into a respected and well-established field
While its undeniable comparative public pol- of study is pinned on two emerging trends of
icy is lagging behind in developing its own theo- research (Gupta 2012). These two categories are
ries and frameworks, there are some encouraging highly interrelated by their strong theoretical ori-
new developments on this aspect. Gupta (2012) entation. The main difference between them is the
summarizes three major categories of current second category compares a theory (or theories)
research in comparative public policy: using com- across institutional configurations, while the third
parative method, comparing theories across insti- category of studies focuses mainly on comparing
tutional configurations, and comparing theories to theories in answering the same question in policy
one another. By emphasizing being “compara- research. Both of them have the potential of push-
tive” in research, the first category is basically a ing forward the knowledge frontier of compara-
continuation of the tradition of comparative pub- tive public policy by contributing to theory
lic policy. The second and third categories, how- development in public policy. Together, they
ever, are promising developments in transforming form a mutually benefiting process which gener-
the study of comparative public policy from a ates positive inputs to both theories in public
method into a field, a status which it should be policy and social science disciplines related to
long deserved. The development of comparative public policy studies.
public policy in the direction of being more theory One example of the second category of com-
oriented is not only benefiting itself but also social parative public policy research is the testing of the
science disciplines related to public policy. It is validity and applications of Advocacy Coalition
Comparative Public Policy 5

Framework (ACF), a major theoretical framework focuses on a single policy question, by comparing
for analyzing policy equilibrium and change by and integrating theories, it has also helped to serve
key variables including policy learning, policy the same purpose of building better and more
beliefs, policy coalitions, and policy subsystems, powerful theories of public policies which are
across different political settings, systems, and adaptive and resistant to settings and contexts.
contexts. According to Sabatier and Weible
(2014), ACF has been applied in 224 studies Challenges and Opportunities in Future
with applications in all continents and multiple Development
policy areas including environment, health, The two categories of emerging research are really
finance/economics, social, education, technology, two sides of the same coin. Regardless of com-
and recreation/tourism. A major contribution of paring theories across institutional configurations
this category of research is the development and or comparing theories to one another, they share
applications of theories specifically for public the same aim of developing robust general theo-
policy process by testing their explanatory ries which can travel across systems, countries,
power across institutional configurations. By put- and contexts. They have been proved as produc-
ting the theories of public policy process into tive and useful in addressing the two problems
empirical testing across institutional configura- haunting comparative public policy for decades,
tions, it allows researchers to revisit their theories the use of comparison methods without a theoret-
and refine them to take into consideration of the ical framework and the proliferation of diverse
influence of contextual factors, including culture, and misplaced theories borrowed casually from
political structure, economic system which often other fields. To further move the studies of com-
differ across countries but do matter in affecting parative public policy forward in terms of both
policy outcome, and behaviors of policy actors. academic and policy values, there are hurdles
Similar to the category of research comparing scholars must recognize and overcome. As a
the power and validity of public policy theories roadmap for its future, major challenges and
across institutional configurations, the third cate- opportunities of the future development of com-
gory of emerging research in comparative public parative public policy are identified in Table 2.
policy puts a strong emphasis on the use of theo- First of all, challenges of the complex and
retical lens in analysis. However, instead of test- multifaceted nature of the field caused by its
ing a single theory across institutional policy-based nature can be taken as an incentive
configurations and settings, it uses multiple theo- for building knowledge which integrates theory
ries to answer the same research question in public and practice, particularly in constructing middle-
policy in order to develop the best theory. One range theories as an intermediate solution. Its
good example of this category of research is a problem of contested identities of field versus
study by Ness (2010) which examines how state method has been addressed by the two emerging
governments in the US determine merit aid eligi- trends of research, which also provides a good
bility criteria to assign college funding by using opportunity to construct a theory in social science
three competing theories of policymaking, ACF, that is integrative, generalizable, universal,
multiple streams (MS) and the electoral connec- global, robust, and actionable in nature. It has
tion (EC) framework. The study finds MS is the been a common complaint in comparative
most useful theoretical framework for understand- research that there are great difficulties to compare
ing and explaining merit aid policy in the US across systems due to problems of identifying
though this does not exclude the fact that the common variables and contextual factors such as
other two theories also have their explanatory culture and tradition (Haque 1996; Moon and
value. As a result, in concluding his study, Ness Ingraham 1998; Welch and Wong 1998; Wong
designs a revised MS model which also integrates 2013). Fortunately, to a large extent, these diffi-
the useful elements from the two other theories. culties have been relieved under globalization.
Although this third category of research mainly Globalization provides a more interactive and
6 Comparative Public Policy

Comparative Public Policy, Table 2 Future development of comparative public policy: challenges and opportunities
Comparative
public policy Challenges Opportunities
Subject of Using policy as the unit of analysis, a problem- Integrating theory and practice, policy, and
study based and policy-based approach, and a research
comparative perspective makes the subject of Two emerging trends of research
inquiry multifaceted and too complicated to be Part of the problem can be resolved by
theorized constructing middle-range theories that compare
Confusing identity of field versus method similar countries and systems rather than all of
them
Theory Most theories are “borrowed” from other social Provides a valuable opportunity to construct a
development science disciplines and therefore are not theory in social science that is integrative,
compatible and coherent as a theoretical lens generalizable, universal, global, robust, and
actionable in nature
Common Difficulties to compare across systems due to Globalization provides a more interactive and
variables problems of identifying common variables and interconnected environment for introducing
contextual factors (e.g., culture, tradition, and more common variables
history) and defining them Globalization itself and global institutions can
serve as the common variables
Research Require an extreme high level of requirements in Problems can be resolved by team-based
collaboration terms of contextual knowledge, methods, and collaboration, with institutional support and
disciplinary training incentives
Impact and Practical policy advice may come at the expense Visible policy impact increase awareness of
significance of level of theoretical content importance and contribution of social science
knowledge

interconnected environment for introducing more institutional configurations to avoid the

common variables, such as economic and public embarrassing situation of spending a large amount
management reforms and information and com- of fruitless effort on comparing apples to oranges.
munication technology (Jordan et al. 2005; Welch At the same time, with the development of a large
and Wong 2001; Wong 2013). In fact, globaliza- group of theories to capture the effect of globali-
tion itself and actors or pressures induced by it, zation on various aspects of states and govern-
including global institutions, global public- ments, these theories present an ideal
private partnerships, and transnational networks, opportunity for the second category of emergence
can also serve as the common variables (Stone research in comparative public policy. Studies of
2008; Welch and Wong 1998). Studying how globalization has provided its help to the second
these variables affect each country and system category of research by generating multiple theo-
differently can generate many meaningful insights ries to be tested for their explanatory power and
to contribute to the theory development of com- contextual relevancy in its own research, which
parative public policy. may include in-depth case study of an individual
The rise of globalization does fit well in country or a group of countries, for identifying
enhancing the two categories of emerging and developing the best theory to answer a policy
research. Globalization makes comparing theories research question..
across institutional configuration more easily and Due to the complex, multifaceted and interdis-
meaningful as all countries in the world are being ciplinary nature of its subject matter, studies of
impacted by globalization (Welch and Wong comparative public policy demands scholars and
1998, 2001). In essence, it gives scholars of com- researchers to have a very high level of knowledge
parative public policy something common to and skills, which would include knowledge of
compare with in studying countries and their different systems and institutions across countries
Comparative Public Policy 7

and contexts. Apparently, it is very difficult and Conclusion

can even be unrealistic to expect any individual This chapter explains the importance of compara-
researcher to meet all these high levels of require- tive public policy in terms of both policy and
ments and expectations for conducting good- research. It also discusses how comparative public
quality research in comparative public policy. policy can move both theory and practice forward
This issue of “competence” has been a chronic by integrating theories from different disciplines
problem long identified as an obstacle hindering and creating knowledge that is not only actionable
the development of comparative public policy for designing effective policy tools but also gen-
(Feldman 1978). Therefore, it will be more rea- eralizable across countries, institutions, and con-
sonable to seek for collaboration with research texts. It represents an attempt to overcome a long-
conducted on a team basis. Each member should time problem of compartmentalization of knowl-
possess knowledge in a particular country or a edge in the traditional social science disciplines
small group of countries among those being com- which limits the scope and comprehensiveness of
pared. They should also represent a wide and analysis of public policies. The problem of com-
diverse background in disciplinary and methodo- partmentalization has reduced the usefulness and
logical training. weakened the relevancy of social science knowl-
Calling for more effort in collaborative and edge in a globalized and interactive world in
interdisciplinary research has been made in which citizens and policymakers have legitimate
many literature reviews and summary works of expectations for universities and scholars to pro-
comparative public policy for decades but has not vide educated insights on solving major public
been fully answered. It becomes increasingly problems.
clear that institutional restructuring and incentives At the moment, a gap still exists between the
would be necessary for the development and suc- current state of comparative public policy
cess of comparative public policy. For example, research and its potential power. Before the stud-
universities should create more collaborative pro- ies of comparative public policy can make major
jects and programs that promote joint cooperation progress, some major challenges and obstacles
of scholars from different disciplines. The setting must be addressed. Among them, due to the com-
up of those teams alone is not enough to ensure plex and interdisciplinary nature of its subject
commitment and concentration from members if matter, it is extremely difficult to develop a theory
there is a lack of institutional incentive and recog- of its own which triggers an identity crisis. With-
nition built into the personnel system of universi- out a coherent and comprehensive theoretical
ties. Therefore, it is equally important that such framework, it is often perceived as a method
collaborative teams are strongly supported by rather than a respected field of study. Reviewing
incentives on both team and individual levels. the history and development of comparative pub-
Moreover, interdisciplinary and policy-oriented lic policy, a major lesson one should have learnt is
research outputs should be assessed and valued it is not likely those problems and challenges
in the decisions of tenure and promotion of indi- could be overcome by efforts of scholars and
vidual scholars. Despite that, it must also be fully researchers at an individual level. To ensure com-
realized that while institutional support for com- parative public policy can fulfill its promise, it
parative public policy research is critical and nec- would need more than the diligence of individual
essary, it is still the responsibility of scholars in scholars and must require institutional commit-
comparative public policy to prove to universities, ment in the social science enterprise on how com-
policymakers, and society the impact and signifi- parative policy research is going to be recognized,
cance of their research in order to convince them conducted, and supported.
to make the above investment. What is often needed is more cooperation and a
better division of labor. Successfully overcoming
problems of the development of comparative pub-
lic policy would demand scholars and researchers
8 Comparative Public Policy

coming from different disciplines and back- theory, methods, and data in robust and defensible
grounds to work intensively together on a collab- ways” (Gulrajani and Moloney 2012, p. 85). By
orative basis. Instead of requiring each member of enhancing the analytical and explanatory power
a research team having the same set of skills and of its theories, the development of comparative
knowledge in comparative public policy, which is public policy is part of the critical effort of
often too ambiguous and demanding, it is more increasing the visibility and validity of social sci-
realistic and convenient to assemble a team of ence knowledge. Consequently, from a broader
researchers who could complement each other in perspective, the state of comparative public policy
terms of country information, disciplinary knowl- is always a major indicator of the degree of suc-
edge, and methodological training. This collabo- cess of social science scholars in pulling their
ration should be backed up by institutional knowledge together for making an impactful and
restructuring, support, and incentives. Further- discernable contribution to society.
more, the co-optation of policymakers into the
collaborative research team could also be a good
suggestion to ensure the close linkage between
Cross-References
research and practice.
The investment needed for further developing
▶ Advocacy Coalition Framework
and enhancing the study of comparative public
▶ Evolution of Public Policy
policy is definitely not small. However, this
▶ Limits of Public Policy
investment should be worthwhile as the benefits
▶ Policy Change
and contributions are much bigger. The globaliza-
▶ Policy Functions
tion environment also provides a valuable oppor-
▶ Public Policy Analysis
tunity never available before for scholars of
comparative public policy to make their studies
meaningful and manageable. By using globaliza-
tion and similar variables as common variables in References
comparative public policy research, they are no
longer comparing countries without connection Adolino J, Blake C (2011) Comparing public policies:
issues and choices in industrialized countries,
and similarities which is just like comparing 2nd edn. CQ Press, Washington, DC
apples and oranges. In short, globalization has Anderson J (2011) Public policy-making, 7th edn.
reinforced the two emerging trends of research in Wadswoth, Boston
comparative public policy, comparing theories Bastow S, Dunleavy P, Tinkler J (2014) The impact of the
social sciences: how academics and their research make
across institutional configurations and comparing a difference. Sage, London
theories to one another, to create more powerful, Castles F (1998) Comparative public policy: patterns of post-
robust, and generalizable theories in public policy. war transformation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
Development of comparative public policy Feldman E (1978) Comparative public policy: field or
method? Comp Polit 10(2):287–305
also enhances knowledge creation in social sci- Fitzpatrick J, Goggin M, Heikkila T, Klingner D,
ence and raises the visibility and impact of social Machado J, Martell C (2011) A new look at compara-
science knowledge. It is the mission of modern tive public administration: trends in research and an
social science to create a body of integrated agenda for the future. Public Adm Rev 71(November/
December):821–830
knowledge which has the ability to incorporate Gulrajani N, Moloney K (2012) Globalizing public admin-
experiences across countries and disciplines for istration: today’s research and tomorrow’s agenda. Pub-
understanding issues of public concern as well as lic Adm Rev 72(1):78–86
creating high impacts (Bastow et al. 2014). This Gupta K (2012) Comparative public policy: using the
comparative method to advance our understanding of
mission points to the creation of a global science, the policy process. Policy Stud J 40(1):11–26
a more inclusive and reliable scholarship, which Haque MS (1996) The contextless nature of public admin-
“ultimately would become a cumulative and col- istration in third world countries. Int Rev Adm Sci
laborative social science enterprise, one that links 62:315–329
Comparative Public Policy 9

Heidenheimer A (1985) Comparative public policy at the Riggs WF (1991) Public administration: a comparativist
crossroads. J Publ Policy 5(4):441–465 framework. Public Adm Rev 51(6):473–477
Heidenheimer A, Heclo H, Adams CT (1990) Comparative Riggs WF (1998) Public administration in America: why
public policy: the politics of social choice in America, our uniqueness is exceptional and important. Public
Europe and Japan, 3rd edn. St. Martin’s Press, New Adm Rev 58(1):22–31
York Rose R (2005) Learning from comparative public policy: a
Jordan A, Wurel RKW, Zito A (2005) The rise of ‘new’ practical guide. Routledge, London/New York
policy instruments in comparative perspective: has Sabatier P, Weible C (eds) (2014) Theories of the policy
governance eclipsed government? Pol Stud process. Westview Press, Boulder
53:477–496 Scharpf WF (2000) Institutions in comparative policy
Jreisat J (2005) Comparative public administration is back research. Comp Pol Stud 33(6/7):762–790
in, prudently. Public Adm Rev 65(2):231–242 Stone D (2008) Global public policy, transnational policy
Moon M-J, Ingraham P (1998) Shaping administrative communities, and their networks. Policy Stud
reform and governance: an examination of the political J 36(1):19–38
nexus triads in three Asian countries. Governance Welch E, Wong W (1998) Public administration in a global
11(1):77–100 context: bridging the gaps of theory and practice
Ness EC (2010) The politics of determining merit aid between western and non-western countries. Public
eligibility criteria: an analysis of the policy process. Adm Rev 58(1):40–49
J High Educ 81(1):33–60 Welch E, Wong W (2001) Global information technology
Pontusson J (1995) From comparative public policy to pressure and government accountability: the mediating
political economy: putting political institutions in effect of the domestic context on website openness.
their place and taking interests seriously. Comp Pol J Public Adm Theory Res 11(4):509–538
Stud 28(1):117–147 Wong W (2013) The search for a model of public admin-
Raadschelders J (2005) Government and public adminis- istration reform in Hong Kong: Weberian bureaucracy,
tration: challenges to and need for competing knowl- new public management or something else? Public
edge. Adm Theory Praxis 27(4):602–627 Adm Dev 33(4):297–310