Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 107–112 | Cite as

Policy ideas through the prism of knowledge regimes and framing

  • Patrycja Rozbicka
Review Article

John L Campbell and Ove K Pedersen The National Origins of Policy Ideas: Knowledge Regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2014, 424 pp., $29.95 ISBN: 978-0691161167

Falk Daviter Policy Framing in the European UnionHoundmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 208 pp., $100.00 ISBN: 978-0230277786

Policymakers are often confronted with problems that involve ambiguity and uncertainty (Zahariadis, 2003). In order to make sense of such problems and to identify possible solutions, they are on the lookout for policy ideas. Those are defined as general information, scientific or expert knowledge, cognitive frames, representations and moral values used by various stakeholders in order to justify collective choices for public policies. More specifically, they help those stakeholders to analyse and identify policy problems and define policy solutions that can be incorporated in the public agenda (Nay, 2012). To date, scholars have...


  1. Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F.R. and Mahoney, C. (2008) The two faces of framing – Individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European Union. European Union Politics 9 (3): 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boräng, F., Eising, R., Klüver, H., Mahoney, C.h., Naurin, D., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2014) Measuring frames: A comparison of methodological alternatives. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3 (2): 188–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2014) Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, 4th edn. London: Siege Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, J.L. and Pedersen, O.K. (2014) The National Origins of Policy Ideas: Knowledge Regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daviter, F. (2009) Schattschneider in Brussels: How policy conflict reshaped the biotechnology agenda in the European Union. West European Politics 32 (6): 1118–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daviter, F. (2011) Policy Framing in the European Union. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eising, R., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2015) Institutions, policies, and arguments: Context and strategy in EU policy framing. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (4): 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kingdon, J.W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little Brown: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  10. Klüver, H. (2009) Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics 10 (4): 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krugman, P. (2007) On being partisan. The New York Times, 26 January: A21.Google Scholar
  12. Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway. Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. McCombs, M. and Shaw, D. (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2): 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nay, O. (2012) How policy ideas spread among international administrations? Policy entrepreneurs and bureaucratic influence in the UN response to AIDS. Journal of Public Policy 32 (I): 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Radaelli, C. (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 2 (2): 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rhodes, R.A. (1986) Power-dependence. Theories of central-local relations: A critical assessment. In: M. Goldsmith (ed.) New Research in Central-Local Relations. Aldershot, UK: Gower, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
  17. Riker, W. (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Schattschneider, E. (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Stone Sweet, A., Sandholtz, W. and Fligstein, N. (2001) The Institutionalization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Surel, Y. (2000) The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy 7 (4): 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Terry, S., Terry, P., Rauen, K., Uitto, J. and Bercovitch, L. (2007) Advocacy groups as research organizations: The PXE international example. Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2): 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weiss, C. (1991) Policy research as advocacy: Pro and con. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer 4 (1–2): 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zahariadis, N. (2003) Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrycja Rozbicka
    • 1
  1. 1.Aston UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations