Abstract
The main objective of public policy-making process is the formulation of a solution to the problems of the society. These solutions need to be operational and able to guide different actors involved in various stages of public policy; they also should engage specific, sustainable, realistic, and time-limited measures. In traditional public policy models, policy formulation is the stage before policy-making. This phase involves identifying and/or creating a set of policy alternatives to address a problem and reduce the number of possible solutions involved in preparing the final policy decision.
One of the basic concepts related to policy formulation is policy design. Policy formulation and policy design processes have a decisive influence on the results of implementation. In fact, the limited amount of human cognition and interest, as well as our limited knowledge of the social world, inevitably causes policy-makers to focus on some aspects of the problem and ignore some others. After switching to presidential system, Turkey took some steps in creating a policy formulation and design bureaucracy populated by policy professionals. In particular, innovation policies provide an interesting example of policy formulation and design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Darüşşafaka is the foundation of a secondary school for orphans founded in 1863. It is the first civil society organization of Turkey in the field of education.
- 3.
In the public policy literature, the 1970s are referred to as a “decade of failure” especially for the USA and the UK. Many examples such as the energy crisis and the subsequent economic crisis, the empty-handed withdrawal from Vietnam and the failure of the welfare state are shown as examples. These failures were presented as the rationale for the change in the public administration paradigm (transition to public management) that began at the end of the same decade.
- 4.
However, in order to decide whether one action is more rational than the other, observers need to agree on the objectives in question and their respective assumptions of reality. They also need to agree on the consequences of certain types of action reaching the target in the context of this assumed reality. The authors have tried to explain this with the example of a person trying to warm up in the fire: “If a person is cold and wants to warm up, it is a rational choice to stand a few steps away from the fire… almost every adult in the world will agree that it is irrational to jump into the fire or to get away from it. In fact, assuming that we can’t get enough evidence about people’s reactions, most people will probably agree exactly where to stand. Nevertheless, any individual who wants to warm up to different degrees can identify a more rational and slightly different point for him” (Dahl and Lindblom 1953: 38–39).
- 5.
- 6.
Such arguments had a significant impact on policy design research. Changes in forms of governance have differentiated the ability of various public and private actors to play a role in policy formulation discussions and decisions. In addition, there have been important changes in the types of policy instruments selected to implement public policy. All of these are the issues at the center of policy design. See March and Olsen 1996; Offe and Preuss 2006; Weaver and Rockman 1993; Scharpf 1991).
- 7.
This issue will be examined in detail in the section titled “Deliberation in public policy.”
- 8.
Dialogical action is a concept that refers to the skills to be used in the event of a communication problem. Accordingly, there are four possible acts in communication: action (starting the interview, making an offer), monitoring (accepting and continuing accordingly), opposing (rejecting an offer), and observing.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
For a useful discussion on the relationship between the concept of “invisible hand” and policy design, see Lake and Baum 2001.
- 14.
For example, how the policy consultancy system is structured in a particular sector gives an idea about the effective actors involved in design decisions (Howlett 2014: 195).
- 15.
- 16.
Provincial governors in Turkey, who benefit from decentralized authorities, can be given as example to this phenomenon.
- 17.
See Ward et al. (2012) for an examination of the concept of knowledge brokers in the health sector. The author underlines the role played by knowledge brokers to translate research results into policy and practice.
- 18.
- 19.
Policy paradigms are discussed below.
- 20.
Limitations will be discussed below under the heading “bounded rationality.”
- 21.
When we ask the students to prepare homework on any subject, we expect them to determine the subject in general terms and then to “narrow it down”. Is there a policy formulation process that operates in our subconscious?
- 22.
Impact analysis, which will be discussed below, is one of the instruments developed to minimize policy failures.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
The types of policy change that Hall identified relate primarily to economic policies, but in general it can be considered to apply to all public policies.
- 27.
One of the issues emphasized by Hall is that the first two types of policy changes do not necessarily lead to the third type of policy change over time; although the first two types of policy changes may be relatively interrelated, the policy change (third type) that leads to paradigm shift is a different process in itself (Hall 1993: 280).
- 28.
- 29.
It should be noted that the organization-method school was dominant in Turkey during this period.
- 30.
At the time, PPBS (programming, planning, and budgeting system), which was a major discussion topic in the USA, was criticized by Dror. He claimed that the system, which was brought up as an advanced policy analysis method, had serious shortcomings. Instead, it was necessary to use a more advanced type of professional information that could improve public decision-making processes further (1967: 199–200).
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
United Kingdom and Canada emerge as the most advanced examples of the practice of establishing institutions that provide professional support to the central government in policy-making.
- 35.
Geva-May (2005: 277) revealed that the process was partly due to the emergence of public policy graduate programs and the development of a specialized training and certification practice, especially in the USA and Canada in the 1960s. It is remarkable that this process is similar to cameral sciences.
- 36.
See Page and Jenkins (2005).
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
“Ipsa scientia potestas est” in Latin. Hobbes wrote “scientia potentia est” in Leviathan in 1688 (“knowledge is power”).
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
Information on EXTRA is available at http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/WhatWeDo/extra
- 44.
- 45.
For detailed information on Campbell Collaboration, please visit https://campbellcollaboration.org/
- 46.
One of the methods used to determine what matters is “impact assessment,” which will be discussed below.
- 47.
Kay explains the relationship between evolutionist epistemology and evidence-based policy-making as follows: “The search for what works assumes that politics must be developed in an evolutionary way and that there are strong limitations… on a universal rationality in policy-making. Indeed, myopia and random change or the importance of designed experiments are concepts at the core of evolutionist theory; this is what distinguishes it from other policy models, or other models in social sciences” (Kay 2006: 51). For a comprehensive bibliography on evolutionist epistemology, see Campbell et al. 1987.
- 48.
In 2000, David Blunkett, then Minister of Education, said in a speech to the ESRC: “Social science research is central to policy development and evaluation… We need social science and social scientists to tell us what works and what types of policy initiatives will be most effective” (Young et al. 2002: 215).
- 49.
The “Modernizing Government” initiative started with the White Paper published by the Cabinet Office (1999a), declaring that “policy decisions should be based on sound evidence.”
- 50.
As a left party, the Labor Party’s continuance with public administration reforms initiated by the previous Conservative Party has been subject to severe criticism.
- 51.
Founded in 2013, What Works Network was established within the Economic and Social Research Council, which is a government unit. Members of the network include the National Institute of Excellence in Health and Care, the Early Intervention Foundation, What Works Center for Local Economic Growth, What Works Scotland, the Education Donation Foundation, the Police College, What Works Center for Well-being, the Better Aging Center, and the Welsh Public Policy Institute. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network
- 52.
Society Volunteers, Purple Roof Women’s Shelter, AIESEC Turkey, and the Turkish foundation for combating erosion reforestation and the protection of natural habitats (TEMA) are among the most well-known civil initiatives that promote evidence-based policy-making.
- 53.
TÜİK is short for Turkish Statistical Institute and ADNKS is short for Address-Based Census Registry System.
- 54.
These abbreviations stand for Programme for International Student Assessment, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, Level Identification Exam, Student Selection Exam, and Student Achievement Identification Exam, respectively.
- 55.
The concept of “managing by measuring” is defined as the search for “objective” indicators as the basis of initiating and evaluating political actions. See Noordegraaf and Abma 2003.
- 56.
However, some “interpretive” authors (e.g., Fischer 2003; Stone 2001; Yanow 2000) argue that policy-making is not a simple process that involves choosing tools based solely on academic research. According to these authors, policy-making takes place in an interactive, discursive, and deliberative area. Academic research is just one of the “valid meaning frameworks.” Therefore, policymakers may experience uncertainty about where research is useful (Williams 2010: 197).
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
The classical progressive public policy approach addresses this activity under the heading of “ongoing evaluation.”
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
Muhtar is the elected head of local neighbourhoods. He/she serves a renewable 5-year term.
- 64.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
Most of the tools listed are interchangeable and contain more or less similar content; three of them (deliberative forums, deliberative surveys and citizen juries), which are the most emphasized in the literature and have relatively more distinctive features, will be discussed in this section.
- 69.
According to Mutz, the most important challenge in making cause-effect inferences about the deliberation power of deliberative surveys is the manipulation of several independent variables simultaneously. For example, explanatory materials are sent to those who agree to participate. During the study, they also obtain information from experts and politicians. As a result, it can be difficult to identify whether the benefits determined by the person come from information obtained from the political elite, the materials previously distributed by the organizers, or the deliberations among the participants at the weekend meeting (Mutz 2006: 58–59).
- 70.
Fung (2006) cites citizen juries as an example of the Twenty-First Century Urban Meetings developed by an organization called America Speaks. Thousands of citizens attend these meetings and carry out innovative uses of technology. See http://www.americaspeaks.org/
- 71.
The jury method was developed by Ned Crosby, who promotes and organizes juries on state-level agriculture, water and social policies in the USA, and health reform, federal budget and candidate scores at the federal level (Abelson et al. 2003: 242). Also see https://nedcrosby.org/
- 72.
Planning cells in Germany receive official support from government and public institutions. For example, a Research Institute for Citizen Participation was established using public resources. The aim of the Institute is to contribute to policy making processes in areas such as local planning, national energy, technology and communication (Smith and Wales 1999). In planning cells, deliberation occurs among about 25 randomly selected citizens who meet several times. The results are announced to the sponsors, the media and other relevant groups. At the end of the process, the sponsor must agree to pay attention to the decisions made by the planning cell (Abelson et al. 2003: 242).
References
Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 239–251.
Akarca, A. T., & Tansel, A. (2015). Impact of internal migration on political participation in Turkey. IZA Journal of Migration, 4(1), 1.
Alexander, E. R. (1982). Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sciences, 14, 279–292.
Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1975). Public participation and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 429–479.
Aminy, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning A, 34(3), 385–399.
Anderson, C. W. (1971). Comparative policy analysis: The design of measures. Comparative Politics, 4(1), 117–131.
Anderson, C. W. (1978). The logic of public problems: Evaluation in comparative policy research. Comparing Public Policies: New Concepts and Methods, 4, 24–26.
Andrews, C. J. (2007). Rationality in Policy Decision Making. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller and M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis (pp. 161–173). London: CRC Press.
Arts, B. (2003). Non-state actors in global governance: Three faces of power (No. 2003/4). Preprints aus der Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter.
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. (2010). Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind sprots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63.
Bakvis, H. (1997). Advising the executive: Think tanks, consultants, political staff and kitchen cabinets. In P. Weller, H. Bakvis, & R. A. W. Rhodes (Eds.), The hollow crown: Countervailing trends in core executives (pp. 84–125). London: Macmillan.
Bakvis, H. (2000). Rebuilding policy capacity in the era of the fiscal dividend: A report from Canada. Governance, 13(1), 71–103.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639.
Balzat, M., & Pyka, A. (2006). Mapping national innovation systems in the OECD area. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 2(1–2), 158–176.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2015). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Ideas and policy change. Governance, 26(2), 239–258.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beaumont, D. (2003). Rehabilitation and retention in the workplace—The interaction between general practitioners and occupational health professionals: A consensus statement. Occupational Medicine, 53(4), 254–255.
Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review, 16(3–4), 75–103.
Bellinger, W. K. (2015). The economic analysis of public policy. London and New York: Routledge.
Bendor, J. B. (2010). Bounded rationality and politics (Vol. 6). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.
Birgili, M., & Banger, G. (2009). Yerel Yönetimde Yeni Değerler. In Ulusal Kalkınma ve Yerel Yönetimler Sempozyum Bildirileri Kitabı, 1 (pp. 103–116). Istanbul.
Birkland, T. A. (2007). Agenda setting in public policy. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 63–78). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press.
Bobrow, D. (2006). Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 75–96). London: Sage.
Bobrow, D. B., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bohman, J. (1997). Do practices explain anything? Turner’s critique of the theory of social practices. History and Theory, 36: 93–107.
Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400–425.
Bovens, M., & ‘t Hart, P. (2016). Revisiting the study of policy failures. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(5), 653–666.
Boyd, W. L. (1976). The public, the professionals, and educational policy making: Who governs? Teachers College Record, 77(4), 539–577.
Brint, S. (1990). Rethinking the policy influence of experts: From general characterizations to analysis of variation. Sociological Forum, 5(3), 361–385. Kluwer Academic Publishers/Plenum Publishers.
Browne, W. P. (1990). Organized interests and their issue niches: A search for pluralism in a policy domain. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 477–509.
Buysse, J., Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Lauwers, L. (2007). Normative, positive and econometric mathematical programming as tools for incorporation of multifunctionality in agricultural policy modelling. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 120(1), 70–81.
Cabinet Office. (1999a). Modernising Government (Cm 4310). London: Stationery Office.
Cabinet Office. (1999b). Professional policy-making for the twenty first century. London: Cabinet Office.
Campbell, D. T., Heyes, C. M., & Callebaut, W. G. (1987). Evolutionary epistemology bibliography. In W. Callebaut & R. Pinxten (Eds.), Evolutionary epistemology (pp. 405–431). New York: Springer.
Carlsson, L. (2000). Policy networks as collective action. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 502–520.
Carlsson, B. (2007). Innovation systems: A survey of the literature from a Schumpeterian perspective. In H. Hanusch & A. Pyka (Eds.), Elgar companion to Neo-Schumpeterian economics (pp. 857–871). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Carson, M. (2004). From common market to social Europe?: Paradigm shift and institutional change in European Union policy on food, asbestos and chemicals, and gender equality. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326.
Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350.
Clarke, C. L. (1999). Family care-giving for people with dementia: Some implications for policy and professional practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(3), 712–720.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.
Coburn, C. E., Touré, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.
Cohen, J. (1983). On democracy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Cohen, J. (1989). The economic basis of deliberative democracy. Social Philosophy and Policy, 6(2), 25–50.
Cohen, J., & Sabel, C. (1997). Directly-deliberative polyarchy. European Law Journal, 3, 313–342.
Colebatch, H. K. (2006). What work makes policy? Policy Sciences, 39(4), 309–321.
Colebatch, H. K., Hoppe, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (2011a). The lessons for policy work. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 11–30). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Colebatch, H. K., Hoppe, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (2011b). Understanding policy work. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 227–246). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Coulthard, G. S. (2007). Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’ in Canada. Contemporary Political Theory, 6(4), 437–460.
Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79–98.
Dahl, R., & Lindblom, C. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper.
Daigneault, P.-M. (2014). Puzzling about policy paradigms: Precision and Progress. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(3), 481–484.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Accountability for professional practice. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 59–80.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi delta kappan, 76(8), 597–604.
De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.
DeLeon, P. (1988). The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 297–309.
Demir, F. (2020). Evidence-based policy-making: Merits and challenges. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration. Cham: Springer.
Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3–31.
Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36–46.
Dorfman, R. (1986). Benefit/cost analysis of environmental problems. In I. Adelman & J. E. Taylor (Eds.), The design of alternative development strategies (pp. 103–123). Rohtak: Jan Tinbergen Institute of Development Planning.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1120–1171.
Dror, Y. (1967). Policy analysts: A new professional role in government service. Public Administration Review, 27(3), 197–203.
Dryzek, J. S. (1983). Don’t toss coins in garbage cans: A prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3(4), 345–367.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 651–669.
Dryzek, J. S., & Ripley, B. (1988). The ambitions of policy design. Review of Policy Research, 7(4), 705–719.
Dunn, W. N. (1981). Public policy analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Durning, D., & Osuna, W. (1994). Policy analysts’ roles and value orientations: An empirical investigation using Q methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(4), 629–657.
Dunlop, C. A. (2009). Policy transfer as learning: capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy studies, 30(3), 289–311.
Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Ebbinghaus, B. (2002). Trade unions’ changing role: Membership erosion, organisational reform, and social partnership in Europe. Industrial Relations Journal, 33(5), 465–483.
Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2008). Revisiting politicization: Political advisers and public servants in Westminster systems. Governance, 21(3), 337–363.
Elliott, L. (2004). The global politics of the environment. In The global politics of the environment (pp. 223–238). London: Palgrave.
Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Etzioni, A. (2004). The common good. Camrbridge: MaldenPress.
European Commission. (2001). European Governance: A White Paper, COM(2001) 428 final, Brussels.
Evett, I. W., Jackson, G., Lambert, J. A., & McCrossan, S. (2000). The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice, 40(4), 233–239.
Fearon, J. D. (1998). Deliberation as discussion. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 44–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, M. (1989). Order without design: Information production and policy making. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park: Sage.
Fischer, W. (1992). Climate protection and international policy: The Rio-conference between global responsibility and national interests. Zentralbibliothek: Forschungszentrum Jülich.
Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham/London: Duke University Press.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 223–236). Sydney/London/New York: CRC Press.
Fisher, F., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1983). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin.
Fishkin, J. S. (2003). Consulting the public through deliberative polling. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(1), 128–133.
Fishkin, J. S. (2011). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fishkin, J. S., & Laslett, P. (Eds.). (2008). Debating deliberative democracy. New York: Wiley.
Forester, J. (1992). Envisioning the politics of public-sector dispute resolution. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 12, 247–286.
Franz, J. S., & Kirkpatrick, C. (2008). Improving the quality of integrated policy analysis: Impact assessment for sustainable development in the European Commission. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 4(2), 171–185.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance, Lessons from Japan. London, New York: Pinter Publishers.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fung, A. (2006). Democratizing the policy process. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 669–685). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gastil, J. (2000). Is face-to-face citizen deliberation a luxury or a necessity? Political Communication, 17, 357–361.
Gauthier, D. (1975). Coordination. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue canadienne de philosophie, 14(2), 195–221.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
George, A. L. (1969). The operational code: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 190–222.
Geva-May, I. (2005). Thinking like a policy analyst. In I. Geva-May (Ed.), Thinking like a policy analyst. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gill, J. I., & Saunders, L. (1992). Toward a definition of policy analysis. New Directions for Institutional Research, 76, 5–13.
Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27(4), 21–39.
Giorgi, L., & Pohoryles, R. (2005). Challenges to EU political integration and the role of democratization, innovation. The European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 407–418.
Gormley, W. T., Jr. (2007). Public policy analysis: Ideas and impacts. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 297–313.
Greener, I. (2005). The potential of path dependence in political studies. Politics, 25(1), 62–72.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2009). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Haas, E. B. (2008). Beyond the nation state: Functionalism and international organization. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
Habermas, J. (1997). Popular sovereignty as procedure. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 35–65). Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.
Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public service. In B. G. Peters & D. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). Kingston/Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press and Canadian Centre for Management Development.
Hanson, J. (2001). Morphology and design: Reconciling intellect, intuition, and ethics in the reflective practice of architecture. Proceedings of the third International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, 06:1-06:18.
Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 209–227.
Hassenteufel, P. (2008). Sociologie politique: l’action publique. Lectures, Les livres.
Hawkesworth, M . E. (1988). Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany: SUNY Press.
Heinz, J. P., Laumann, E. O., & Nelson, R. L. (1993). The hollow core: Private interests in national policy making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413–432.
Higgott, R., & Payne, A. (2000). The new political economy of globalisation. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (1995). Globalization and the future of the nation state. Economy and Society, 24(3), 408–442.
Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., & Gómez, A. P. (1994). Questions of perception: phenomenology of architecture. Tokyo: A+ U, Architecture and Urbanism.
Hopf, T. (2007). The limits of interpreting evidence. In R. Lebow & M. Lichbach (Eds.), Theory and evidence in comparative politics and international relations (pp. 55–84). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From ‘speaking truth to power ’to ‘making sense together. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210.
Howlett, M. (2002). Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: Evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 35(2), 235–267.
Howlett, M. (2009). Policy advice in multi-level governance systems: Sub-national policy analysts and analysis. International Review of Public Administration, 13(3), 1–16.
Howlett, M. (2012). The lessons of failure: Learning and blame avoidance in public policy-making. International Political Science Review, 33(5), 539–555.
Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.
Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1), 33–46.
Howlett, M., & Migone, A. (2013). Policy advice through the market: The role of external consultants in contemporary policy advisory systems. Policy and Society, 32(3), 241–254.
Howlett, M., & Newman, J. (2010). Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multi-level governance systems. Policy and Society, 29(2), 123–136.
Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. M. (2009). Re-visiting Meltsner: Policy advice systems and the multi-dimensional nature of professional policy analysis. Available at SSRN 1546251.
Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. M. (2011). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy revisited: The nature of professional policy work in contemporary government. Politics and Policy, 39.4: 613–633.
Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. M. (2012). Professional policy work in federal states: Institutional autonomy and Canadian policy analysis. Canadian Public Administration, 55(1), 53–68.
http://www.americaspeaks.org/. Last accessed: 19 September 2020.
http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/WhatWeDo/extra. Last accessed: 19 September 2020.
http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx. Last accessed: 19 September 2020.
https://campbellcollaboration.org/. Last accessed: 19 September 2020.
https://nedcrosby.org/. Last accessed: 19 September 2020.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network. Last Accessed: 19 September 2020).
Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 363–391.
Huberman, M. (1994). Research utilization: The state of the art. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 7(4), 363–391.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American planning association, 65(4), 412–423.
Ingraham, P. W. (1987). Toward more systematic consideration of policy design 1. Policy Studies Journal, 15(4), 611–628.
James, T. E., & Jorgensen, P. D. (2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: Revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 141–162.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of the public policy process. In P. A. Sabatier & H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 1–9). Boulder: Westview Press.
Johnson, B. L., Jr. (1999). The politics of research-information use in the education policy arena. Educational Policy, 13(1), 23–36.
Jordan, G., & Schubert, K. (1992). A preliminary ordering of policy network labels. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 7–27.
Josselin, D., & Wallace, W. (2001). Non-state actors in world politics. New York: Springer.
Kabasakal, M. (2014). Factors influencing intra-party democracy and membership rights: The case of Turkey. Party Politics, 20(5), 700–711.
Kalaycıoğlu, E. (1984). Çağdaş siyasal bilim: teori, olgu ve süreçler. Istanbul: Osman Aykaç matbaası.
Kassirer, J. P., & Kopelman, R. I. (1991). Learning clinical reasoning. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Kathlene, L., & Martin, J. A. (1991). Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1), 46–63.
Kay, A. (2006). The dynamics of public policy: Theory and evidence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kehoe, S. M., & Ponting, J. R. (2003). Value importance and value congruence as determinants of trust in health policy actors. Social Science and Medicine, 57(6), 1065–1075.
Kennedy, M. (1982). Working Knowledge and Other Essays (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED248605.pdf).
Keyman, E. F., & Düzgit, S. A. (2007). Europeanization, democratization and human rights in Turkey. In Turkey and the European union (pp. 69–89). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
King, M. B. (1996). Participatory decision making. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED397492
Klijn, E. H., & Teisman, G. R. (1991). Effective policy making in a multi-actor setting: Networks and steering. In R. J. ‘t Veld, C. J. A. M. Termeer, L. Schaap, & M. J. W. Van Twist (Eds.), Autopoiesis and configuration theory: New approaches to societal steering (pp. 99–111). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kluckhohn, C., Lerner, D., & Laswell, H. D. (1951). The policy sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Knill, C. (1999). Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 113–139.
Knoke, D. (2011). Policy networks. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 210–222). Los Angeles: Sage.
Kuhn, T. S. (1963). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lafont, C. (2006). Is the ideal of a deliberative democracy coherent? In J. L. Marti & S. Besson (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.
Lake, D. A., & Baum, M. A. (2001). The invisible hand of democracy: Political control and the provision of public services. Comparative Political Studies, 34(6), 587–621.
Lang, A. (2008). Agenda-setting in deliberative forums: Expert influence and citizen autonomy in the British Columbia citizens’ assembly. In M. Warren & H. Pearse (Eds.), Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly (pp. 85–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1943). Legal education and public policy: Professional training in the public interest. The Yale Law Journal, 52(2), 203–295.
Lax, D., & Sebenus, J. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York: The Free Press.
Leroux, T., Hirtle, M., & Fortin, L.-N. (1998). An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21(4), 445–481.
Levi-Faur, D. (1997). Friedrich list and the political economy of the nation-state. Review of International Political Economy, 4(1), 154–178.
Lewicki, R. J., & Literer, J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.
Lindblom, C. E. (1969). The science of “muddling through”. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), Readings on modern organizations (pp. 75–92). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517–526.
Lindblom, C. E. (2018). The science of muddling through. In J. Stein (Ed.) Classic Readings in Urban Planning (pp. 31–40). New York: Routledge.
Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.
Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Implementation as a Guide to Policy Formulation: A Question of’ ‘When’ Rather Than ‘Whether’. International review of administrative sciences, 55(4), 631–652.
Lindquist, E. A. (1992). Public managers and policy communities: Learning to meet new challenges. Canadian Public Administration, 35(2), 127–159.
Lindquist, S. A. (2006). Bureaucratization and balkanization: The origins and the effects of decision-making norms in the Federal Appellate Courts. University of Richmond Law Review, 41, 659–682.
Lindvall, J. (2009). The real but limited influence of expert ideas. World Politics, 61(4), 703–730.
Lomas, J. (2000). Essay: Using ‘linkage and exchange ‘to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation: Encouraging partnerships between researchers and policymakers is the goal of a promising new Canadian initiative. Health Affairs, 19(3), 236–240.
Lundvall, B. Å. (1999). National business systems and national systems of innovation. International Studies of Management and Organization, 29(2), 60–77.
Luskin, R., Fishkin, J., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinion: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455–487.
Maaka, R., & Fleras, A. (2005). The politics of indigeneity: Challenging the state in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand. Dunedin: Otago University Press.
Mackay, K. R., & Uhr, J. (1996). Evaluating policy advice: Learning from the commonwealth experience. Federalism Research Centre, Australian National University and Commonwealth Department of Finance.
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139–167.
Maley, M. (2000). Conceptualising advisers’ policy work: The distinctive policy roles of ministerial advisers in the Keating government, 1991–96. Australian Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 449–470.
Manin, B. (2005). Democratic deliberation: Why we should promote debate rather than discussion. Paper delivered at the program in ethics and public affairs seminar (Vol. 13). Princeton University.
Mansbridge, J. (1980). Beyond adversary democracy. New York: Basic Books.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1996). Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance, 9(3), 247–264.
Marriott, L. (2010). Innovation in retirement savings policy: The New Zealand experience. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 12(1–2), 197–212.
Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 143–163.
Martin, C., & Milas, C. (2004). Modelling monetary policy: Inflation targeting in practice. Economica, 71(282), 209–221.
May, P. J. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 331–354.
Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (2006). Interest groups and EU policy-making. In European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 247–265). New York: Routledge.
McCowan, T. (2011). Rethinking citizenship education: A curriculum for participatory democracy. London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi, Sydney: A&C Black.
Meltsner, A. J. (1975). Bureaucratic policy analysts. Policy Analysis, 1(1), 115–131.
Meltsner, A. J. (1976). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meltsner, A. J. (1979). Creating a policy analysis profession. Society, 16(6), 45–51.
Meltsner, A. J. (1986). The seven deadly sins of policy analysis. Knowledge, 7(4), 367–381.
Mill, J. S. (2015). On liberty, utilitarianism, and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, T., & Guria, J. C. (1991). The value of statistical life in New Zealand: market research on road safety. Land Transport Division, Ministry of Transport.
Miller, D. (1992). Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political studies, 40(1 Suppl), 54–67.
Ministry of Development. (2013). 10. Development Plan. Ankara.
Ministry of National Education. (2019). National education statistics, Formal Education 2018/’19. Ankara.
Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770.
Mitchell, D. (2005). Centralizing advisory systems: Presidential influence and the US foreign policy decision-making process. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(2), 181–206.
Moran, M. (2001). Not steering but drowning: Policy catastrophes and the regulatory state. The Political Quarterly, 72(3), 414–427.
Mumcuoğlu, M. (1982). Çağdaş demokrasi kurumlarında katılma ve Türkiye’de katılmanın gelişimi. Ankara: Doçentlik Tezi, Ankara University.
Mushkin, S. J. (1977). Policy analysis in state and community. Public Administration Review, 37(3), 245–253.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Academic accounts of policy experience. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 45–74). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Noordegraaf, M., & Abma, T. (2003). Management by measurement? Public management practices amidst ambiguity. Public Administration, 81(4), 853–871.
Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. Swindon: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.
O’Hara, K. (1998). Comparative family policy: Eight countries’ stories. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
O’Tuama, S. (2004). Public policy and public participation in the knowledge society prospects for decision making in science and technology policies. In D. L. Faurve & E. V. Gadot (Eds.), International public policy and management: Policy learning beyond regional, cultural and political boundaries (pp. 369–393). New York: MarcelDekker.
Offe, C., & Preuss, U. K. (2006). The problem of legitimacy in the European polity: Is democratization the answer? In C. Crouch & W. Streeck (Eds.), The diversity of democracy. Corporatism, social order and political conflict (pp. 175–204). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Özbudun, E. (2015). Social change and political participation in Turkey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Page, E. C., & Jenkins, B. (2005). Policy bureaucracy: Governing with a cast of thousands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2010). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pandey, R. (2002). Energy policy modelling: Agenda for developing countries. Energy Policy, 30(2), 97–106.
Parsons, W. (2001). Modernising policy-making for the twenty first century: The professional model. Public Policy and Administration, 16(3), 93–110.
Perry, J. L. (1988). Making policy by trial and error: Merit pay in the federal service. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 389.
Peters, B. G. (1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of co-ordination. Public Administration, 76(2), 295–311.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.
Pettit, P. (2006). Democracy, national and international. The Monist, 89(2), 301–324.
Pham, M. T. (2007). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 155.
Phipps, D. J., & Shapson, S. (2009). Knowledge mobilisation builds local research collaborations for social innovation. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5(3), 211–227.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
Pratchett, L. (1999). New fashions in public participation: Towards greater democracy? Parliamentary Affairs, 52(4), 616–633.
Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C. S., Stokes, S. C., & Manin, B. (Eds.). (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Radin, B. A. (2000). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis comes of age. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Reber, B. (2007). Technology assessment as policy analysis: From expert advice to participatory approaches. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 493–511). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press.
Robinson, P. (2005). The CNN effect: The myth of news, foreign policy and intervention. London: Routledge.
Rose, R. (1992). Escaping from absolute dissatisfaction: A trial-and-error model of change in eastern Europe. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4(4), 371–393.
Rosenberg, S. W. (Ed.). (2007). Deliberation, participation and democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosenthal, A. (1998). The decline of representative democracy. London: Sage.
Rubin, B. M., & Heper, M. (Eds.). (2002). Political parties in Turkey (Vol. 3). London, Portland: Psychology Press.
Sanderson, I. (2003). Is it ‘what works’ that matters? Evaluation and evidence-based policy-making. Research Papers in Education, 18(4), 331–345.
Saunders, H. (1999). A public peace process: Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New York: Springer.
Savolainen, R. (1993). The sense-making theory: Reviewing the interests of a user-centered approach to information seeking and use. Information Processing and Management, 29(1), 13–28.
Scharpf, F. W. (1991). Political institutions, decision styles, and policy choices. In R. M. Czada & A. Windhoff-Héritier (Eds.), Political choice: Institutions, rules, and the limits of rationality (pp. 53–86). Frankfurt: Campus.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (2006). Public policy and democratic citizenship: What kinds of citizenship does policy promote? In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 329–347). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press.
Schneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 103–119.
Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.
Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.
Secor, A. J. (2001). Ideologies in crisis: Political cleavages and electoral politics in Turkey in the 1990s. Political Geography, 20(5), 539–560.
Shaxson, L. (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 1(1), 101–112.
Shmueli, D. F., & Plaut, P. O. (2004). Translating public participation into planning policy—The Israeli experience. In D. L. Faur & E. V. Gadot (Eds.), International public policy and management: Policy learning beyond regional, cultural and political boundaries (pp. 395–422). New York: MarcelDekker.
Shore, C. (2011). Locating the work of policy. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 211–226). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy formulation: Design and tools. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 79–87). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press.
Sieyès, E. J. (2003). Political writings. In M. Sonenscher (Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York: Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. (1990). Bounded rationality. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and probability. The New Palgrave. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Skjærseth, J. B. (1994). The climate policy of the EC: Too hot to handle. Journal of Common Market Studies, 32, 25–42.
Smith, G., & Wales, C. (1999). The theory and practice of citizens’ juries. Policy and Politics, 27(3), 295–308.
Smith, P. C., Davies, H. T. O., & Nutley, S. M. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Sokolowski, J. A., & Banks, C. M. (Eds.). (2011). Principles of modeling and simulation: A multidisciplinary approach. New York: Wiley.
State Planning Organization. (2007). 9th Development Plan. Ankara.
Stedman, R. C. (2004). Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1395–1406.
Stein, A. A. (1982). Coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world. International Organization, 36(2), 299–324.
Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Susskind, L. (2006). Arguing, bargaining and getting agreement. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 269–295). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Susskind, L., & Elliott, M. (1983). Paternalism, conflict, and coproduction. New York: Plenum Press.
Susskind, L., & Field, P. (1996). Dealing with angry public: The mutual gains approach to resolving disputes. New York: Free Press.
Susskind, L., & Ozawa, C. (1984). Mediated negotiation in the public sector: The planner as mediator. Journal of Planning in Education Research, 4(1), 5–15.
Sutton, R. (1999). The policy process: An overview. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.
Taşkın, B. (2015). Voter turnout in Turkey’s parliamentary and local elections (1950–2014): Does participation increase when competition decreases? Turkish Studies, 16(4), 465–486.
Teisman, G. (2000). Strategies for improving policy results in a pluricentric society: An interactive perspective on strategic policy behaviour. In W. Salet & A. Faludi (Eds.), The revival of stategic spatial planning. Amsterdam: KNAW.
Thomas, H. G. (2001). Towards a new higher education law in Lithuania: Reflections on the process of policy formulation. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 213–223.
Throgmorton, J. A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago’s electric future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
TÜBİTAK. (1983). Turkish science and technology policy: 1983–2003. Ankarra.
TÜBİTAK. (1993). Turkish science and technology policy: 1993–2003. Ankara.
TÜBİTAK. (2004). Ulusal Bilim ve Teknoloji Politikaları 2003–2023 Strateji Belgesi. Ankara.
Türkcan, E. (2009). Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Bilim, Teknoloji ve Politika. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Van Huyck, J. B., Battalio, R. C., & Beil, R. O. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–248.
Veasey, E. N. (2002). State-Federal Tension in corporate governance and the professional responsibilities of advisors. Journal of Corporation Law, 28, 441–455.
Verschuere, B. (2009). The role of public agencies in the policy making process: Rhetoric versus reality. Public Policy and Administration, 24(1), 23–46.
Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (1999). Inefficiency in public organizations. International Public Management Journal, 2(1), 1–24.
Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Walker, W. E., Adnan Rahman, S., & Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policymaking. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 282–289.
Ward, V., Smith, S., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2012). Exploring knowledge exchange: A useful framework for practice and policy. Social Science and Medicine, 74(3), 297–230.
Warren, M. E., & Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008). Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B. A. (1993). Assessing the effects of institutions. In R. K. Weaver & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad (pp. 1–41). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Weller, P., & Stevens, B. (1998). Evaluating policy advice: The Australian experience. Public Administration, 76(3), 579–589.
Wildavsky, A. (1969). Rescuing policy analysis from PPBS. Public Administration Review, 29(2), 189–202.
Williams, A. (2010). Is evidence-based policy making really possible? Reflections for policymakers and academics on making use of research in the work of policy. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 195–210). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Wilson, V. S., & Seymour, V. (1974). Issues in Canadian public policy. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada.
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.
Yatkın, A., & Sürekli, G. (2009). Demokratikleşme ve Katılımcı Demokrasi Anlayışı Sürecinde Yerel Yönetimlerin Rolü. Ulusal Kalkınma ve Yerel Yönetimler Sempozyum Bildirileri Kitabı, 2, 785–795.
Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A., & Grayson, L. (2002). Social science and the evidence-based policy movement. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 215–224.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Demir, F. (2021). Policy Formulation. In: Public Policy Making in Turkey. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-68714-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-68715-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)