Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:56:49.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Public Policy

Disrupted Governance

Towards a New Policy Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2022

Kris Hartley  and
Glen David Kuecker
Kris Hartley
Affiliation:
The Education University of Hong Kong
Glen David Kuecker
Affiliation:
DePauw University, Indiana

Summary

This Element explores the uncertain future of public policy practice and scholarship in an age of radical disruption. Building on foundational ideas in policy sciences, we argue that an anachronistic instrumental rationalism underlies contemporary policy logic and limits efforts to understand new policy challenges. We consider whether the policy sciences framework can be reframed to facilitate deeper understandings of this anachronistic epistemic, in anticipation of a research agenda about epistemic destabilization and contestation. The Element applies this theoretical provocation to environmental policy and sustainability, issues about which policymaking proceeds amid unpredictable contexts and rising sociopolitical turbulence that portend a liminal state in the transition from one way of thinking to another. The Element concludes by contemplating the fate of policy's epistemic instability, anticipating what policy understandings will emerge in a new system, and questioning the degree to which either presages a seismic shift in the relationship between policy and society.
Get access

Keywords

critical studiesenvironmental studiespublic administrationpublic policysustainability
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Public Policy
Online ISBN: 9781009127868
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 17 March 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackoff, R. L. (2010). Differences That Make a Difference: An Annotated Glossary of Distinctions Important in Management. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press Limited.Google Scholar
Adam, S., and Kriesi, H. (2007). The network approach. In Sabatier, P., ed., Theories of Public Policy. Bolder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 129–149.Google Scholar
Adorno, T., and Horkheimer, M. (2002 [1945]). In Noerr, G. S., ed. Jephcott, E., trans. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A., and Bauer, J. (2005). Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Aldy, J. E., Barrett, S., and Stavins, R. N. (2003). Thirteen plus one: A comparison of global climate policy architectures. Climate Policy, 3(4), 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldy, J. E., Pizer, W. A., and Akimoto, K. (2017). Comparing emissions mitigation efforts across countries. Climate Policy, 17(4), 501–515.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. C. (2013). The Dark Side of Modernity. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2019a). On the future of the public policy school. Global Policy, 10(1), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2019b). Towards the new Lasswell school of public policy. Global Policy, 10(1), 104–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthem, P. (2020). Risk of hunger pandemic as COVID-19 set to almost double acute hunger by end of 2020. World Food Program Insight, April 16. https://insight.wfp.org/covid-19-will-almost-double-people-in-acute-hunger-by-end-of-2020-59df0c4a8072Google Scholar
Arato, A., and Gebhardt, E. (Eds.). (1978). The Essential Frankfurt School Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, W. (2007). Policy sciences contributions to analysis to promote sustainability. Sustainability Science, 2(2), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, W. (1987). Policy sciences and the economic approach in a “post-positivist” era. Policy Sciences, 20(1), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, F. (1995). Other knowledge and other ways of knowing. Journal of Anthropological Research, 51(1), 65–68.Google Scholar
Barth, T. J., and Arnold, E. (1999). Artificial intelligence and administrative discretion: Implications for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 29(4), 332–351.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F., and Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bazaz, A., Paolo, B., Buckeridge, M., Cartwright, A., de Coninck, H., Engelbrecht, D. et al. (2018). “Summary for Urban Policymakers – What the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C Means for Cities.” Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bangalore, India. http://doi.org/10.24943/SCPM.2018Google Scholar
Benegal, S., and Scruggs, L. (2018). Correcting misinformation about climate change: The impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Climatic Change, 148(2), 61–80.Google Scholar
Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Social Forces, 98(4), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, N., and Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92(1), 10.Google Scholar
Berger, T., and Esguerra, A. (Eds.). (2017). World Politics in Translation: Power, Relationality and Difference in Global Cooperation. New York: Routledge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T., and Böhmelt, T. (2013). National climate policies in international comparison: The climate change cooperation index. Environmental Science & Policy, 25,196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, F., and Berry, D. (2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Sabatier, P., ed. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 253–297.Google Scholar
Best, S., and Kellner, D. (1997). The Postmodern Turn. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, C. J., and Accetti, C. I. (2021). Technopopulism: The New Logic of Democratic Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruntland Commission. (1987). Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burris, B. H. (1993). Technocracy at Work. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. S. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
Cairney, P., Heikkila, T., and Wood, M. (2019). Making Policy in a Complex World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, B. (2015). Beyond Positivism. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. B. (1989). Soft systems methodology. Human Systems Management, 8(4), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, B. (2020). The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Clarke, J., and Newman, J. (2017). “People in this country have had enough of experts”: Brexit and the paradoxes of populism. Critical Policy Studies, 11(1), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J., Stubbs, P., Lendvai, N., and Bainton, D. (2015). Making Policy Move: Towards a Politics of Translation and Assemblage. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Cole, J. (2020). “A Toothpick in a Tsunami”: US big oil faces bankruptcy as prices plunge 30% on Saudi expansion. Informed Comment, March 9, www.juancole.com/2020/03/toothpick-bankruptcy-expansion.htmlGoogle Scholar
Colebatch, H. K. (2018). The idea of policy design: Intention, process, outcome, meaning and validity. Public Policy and Administration, 33(4), 365–383.Google Scholar
Conklin, J. (2006). Wicked Problems and Social Complexity. San Francisco, CA: CogNexus Institute.Google Scholar
Connolly, W. (2013). The Fragility of Things: Self-Organizing Processes, Neoliberal Fantasies, and Democratic Activism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, W. (2011). A World of Becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, B. (2001). “From Colonial Administration to Development Management.” IDPM General Discussion Papers 63/2001, DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.30562Google Scholar
Cortés, U., Sànchez-Marrè, M., Ceccaroni, L., R-Roda, I., and Poch, M. (2000). Artificial intelligence and environmental decision support systems. Applied Intelligence, 13(1), 77–91.Google Scholar
Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady-State Economics: With New Essays. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e‐governance. Public Administration Review, 68,S86–S102.Google Scholar
Defries, R., and Nagendra, H. (2017). Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science, 356,265–270.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. A., and Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.Google Scholar
Denhardt, R. B., and Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roeck, F. (2019). Governmentality and the climate-development nexus: The case of the EU Global Climate Change Alliance. Global Environmental Change, 55,160–167.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1931). The development of American pragmatism. In Thayer, H. S., ed., (1989), Pragmatism: The Classic Writings. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, pp. 23–40.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duit, A. (2016). Resilience thinking: Lessons for public administration. Public Administration, 94(2), 364–380.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E., and McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B., and Schlosberg, D., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford : Oxford University Press, pp. 144–160.Google Scholar
Dunlop, C. A. (2013). Epistemic communities. In Howlett, M., Fritzen, S., Xun, W., and Araral, E., eds., Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. New York : Routledge, pp. 229–243.Google Scholar
Dunn, W. N. (2019). Pragmatism and the Origins of the Policy Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, W. N. (2018a). Harold Lasswell and the study of public policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.600. Available from https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-600Google Scholar
Dunn, W. N. (2018b). “Stage” theories of the policy process. In Colebatch, H. K., and Hoppe, R., eds., Handbook on Policy, Process and Governing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 112–130.Google Scholar
Dunn, W. N., and Holzner, B. (1988). Knowledge in society: Anatomy of an emergent field. Knowledge in Society, 1(1), 3.Google Scholar
Dupuis, J., and Biesbroek, R. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: The dependent variable problem in comparing and evaluating climate change adaptation policies. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1476–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durose, C., and Richardson, L. (2015). Designing Public Policy for Co-production: Theory, Practice and Change. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar
du Sautoy, M. (2019). The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Edis, T. (2020). A Revolt Against Expertise: Pseudoscience, Right-Wing Populism, and Post-Truth Politics. Disputatio, 9(13), 1–29.Google Scholar
Elkins, J., and Norris, A. (Eds.). (2012). Truth and Democracy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellwood, J. L. (1981). “Graduate Education for Non-Academic Careers in the Public Policy Schools: A Look at the Competition.” Typescript of paper presented at the September meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
El-Taliawi, O., and Hartley, K. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis and complexity: A soft systems approach. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 29(1), 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, A. (2011). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Esteva, G., and Prakash, M. S. (1998). Grassroots Postmodernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures. London: Zed Books, Ltd.Google Scholar
Estlund, D. (1993). Making truth safe for democracy. In Copp, D., Hampton, J., and Roemer, E., eds., The Idea of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–100.Google Scholar
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York : St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Farr, J., Hacker, J. S., and Kazee, N. (2008). Revisiting Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
Farr, J., Hacker, J. S., and Kazee, N. (2006). The policy scientist of democracy: The discipline of Harold D. Lasswell. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 579–587.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J. (1994). The Anti-Politics Machine: “Development,” Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (2019). Knowledge politics and post-truth in climate denial: On the social construction of alternative facts. Critical Policy Studies, 13(2), 133–152.Google Scholar
Fischer, F., Torgerson, D., Durnová, A., and Orsini, M. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of Critical Policy Studies. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. R., Waggle, J,. and Leifeld, P. (2012). Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the US climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 70–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Davidson, A., ed.; Burchell, G., trans. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1988). Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture. Interviews and Other Writings, 1977–1984. Kritzman, L. D., ed. New York: Routledge, 1988.Google Scholar
Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New Public Administration. Tuscaloosa University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. (2012). Reverb: Policy making in wave form. Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
Friedman, J. (2019). Power without Knowledge: A Critique of Technocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. S. (1991). Economists and public policy programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(2), 343–359.Google Scholar
Geiger, R. S. (2009). Does Habermas understand the internet? The algorithmic construction of the blogo/public sphere. Gnovis. A Journal of Communication, Culture, and Technology, 10(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Geyer, R., and Cairney, P. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Gore, A. (1992). Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Grundmann, R. (2017). The problem of expertise in knowledge societies. Minerva, 55(1), 25–48.Google Scholar
Haas, P. (1992). Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46,1–35.Google Scholar
Hale, C. (2004). Rethinking indigenous politics in the era of the “Indio Permitido.” NACLA: Report on the Americas, (September/October), pp. 16–21.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A., and Taylor, R. C. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 Lessons for the Twenty-first Century. New York: Spiegel & Grau.Google Scholar
Hartley, K. (2020). The epistemics of policymaking: From technocracy to critical pragmatism in the UN Sustainable Development Goals. International Review of Public Policy, 2(2), 233–244.Google Scholar
Hartley, K., and Ahmad, N. (2019). “Neo-professionalization of the Public Service: Opportunity or Threat for Policy Sciences Education?” First Workshop on the Future of Policy Sciences, sponsored by the Department of Asian and Policy Studies, the Education University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Hartley, K., and Kuecker, G. D. (2020). The moral hazards of smart water management. Water International, 45(6), 693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, K., Kuecker, G. D., and Woo, J. J. (2019). Practicing public policy in an age of disruption. Policy Design and Practice, 2(2), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, K., and Vu, M. K. (2020). Fighting fake news in the COVID-19 era: Policy insights from an equilibrium model. Policy Sciences, 53(4), 735–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Head, B. W. (2019). Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 38(2), 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In King, A., ed., The New American Political System. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
Heng, M. S., and De Moor, A. (2003). From Habermas’s communicative theory to practice on the internet. Information Systems Journal, 13(4), 331–352.Google Scholar
Hershock, P. D. (2006). Buddhism in the Public Sphere: Reorienting Global Interdependence. New York : Routledge Press.Google Scholar
Hessels, L. K., Franssen, T., Scholten, W., & de Rijcke, S. (2019). Variation in valuation: How research groups accumulate credibility in four epistemic cultures. Minerva, 57(2), 127–149.Google Scholar
Hickman, L. A., and Alexander, T. M. (1998). The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hitch, C. (1957). Letter to the Editor – Operations Research and National Planning – A Dissent. Operations Research, 5(5), 718–723.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, R. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American Life. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. (1986). Resilience of ecosystems; local surprise and global change. In Clark, C., and Munn, R. E., eds., Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, pp. 292–317.Google Scholar
Homer-Dixon, T. (2006). The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Hopson, R., and Cram, F. (Eds.). (2018). Tackling Wicked Problems in Complex Ecologies: The Role of Evaluation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M. (2018). Matching policy tools and their targets: Beyond nudges and utility maximisation in policy design. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M. (2012). The lessons of failure: Learning and blame avoidance in public policy-making. International Political Science Review, 33(5), 539–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M., Kekez, A., and Poocharoen, O. O. (2017a). Understanding co-production as a policy tool: Integrating new public governance and comparative policy theory. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(5), 487–501.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., McConnell, A., and Perl, A. (2017b). Moving policy theory forward: Connecting multiple stream and advocacy coalition frameworks to policy cycle models of analysis. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., McConnell, A., and Perl, A. (2015). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 419–434.Google Scholar
Husted, B.W. (2005). Culture and ecology: A cross-national study of the determinants of environmental sustainability. MIR: Management International Review, 45(3), 349–371.Google Scholar
Jann, W., and Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., and Sidney, M. S., eds., Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 43–62.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., and Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of public policy process. In Sabatier, P. A., and Jenkins-Smith, H. C., eds., Policy and Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 135–142.Google Scholar
Kay, A. (2011). Evidence‐based policy‐making: The elusive search for rational public administration. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(3), 236–245.Google Scholar
Kaufman-Osborn, T. V. (1985). Pragmatism, policy science, and the state. American Journal of Political Science, 4,827–849.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W., and Thurber, J. A. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Klein, N. (2015). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Knott, J. H. (2019). The future development of schools of public policy: Five major trends. Global Policy, 10(1), 88–91.Google Scholar
Korten, D. C. (1999). The Post-Corporate World: Life after Capitalism. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
Korten, D. C. (1998). When Corporations Rule the World. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
Krastev, I. (2019). Democracy disrupted. The global politics of protest. In Randeria, S., and Wittrock, B., eds., Social Science at the Crossroads. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, pp. 187–206.Google Scholar
Kuecker, G. D. (2020). The perfect storm’s pandemic driven soft collapse. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 16(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Kuecker, G. D. (2017). Enchanting transition: A post-colonial perspective. In Henfry, T., Maschkowski, G., and Penha-Lopes, G., eds., Resilience, Community Action, and Societal Transformation. Hampshire, UK: Permanent Publications, pp. 193–210.Google Scholar
Kuecker, G. D. (2014a). A global compact? In Battersby, P., Steger, M. B., and Siracusa, J. M., eds., The Sage Handbook of Globalization. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 827–841.Google Scholar
Kuecker, G. D. (2014b). From the alienation of neoliberal globalization to transmodern ways of being: Epistemic change and the collapse of the modern world-system. Journal of Globalization Studies, 5(1), 154–170.Google Scholar
Kuecker, G. D. (2007). The perfect storm: Catastrophic collapse in the 21st century. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 3(5), 1–10.Google Scholar
Kuecker, G. D. (2004). Latin American resistance movements in the time of the posts. History Compass, 2, 1–27.Google Scholar
Kuecker, G. D., and Hartley, K. (2020). Disaster risk reduction and the development narrative: Towards a new public policy epistemic. In Brik, A., and Pal, L., eds., The Future of the Policy Sciences. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (2012 [1962]). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1971a). From fragmentation to configuration. Policy Sciences, 2(4), 439–446.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1971b). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1970). The emerging conception of the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 1(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In Lasswell, H. D., and Lerner, D., eds., The Policy Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.Google Scholar
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y. et al. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096.Google Scholar
Levitas, R., 2013. Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Li, T. M. (2007). The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526.Google Scholar
Lockie, S. (2017). Post-truth politics and the social sciences. Environmental Sociology, 3(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Lubitow, A., and Davis, M. (2011). Pastel injustice: The corporate use of pinkwashing for profit. Environmental Justice, 4(2), 139–144.Google Scholar
Lynch, K. (2015). Control by numbers: New managerialism and ranking in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(2), 190–207.Google Scholar
Mallon, F. E. (1994). The promise and dilemma of subaltern studies: Perspectives from Latin American history. The American Historical Review, 99(5), 1491–1515.Google Scholar
Martin, P. (2011). Oil in the Soil: The Politics of Paying to Preserve the Amazon. Lanham, MD : Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Mas-Coma, S., Jones, M. K., and Marty, A. M. (2020). COVID-19 and globalization. One Health, 9. Doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100132CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, J. (2019). Most Americans support reducing fossil fuel use. Gallup, Inc. news.gallup.com/poll/248006/americans-support-reducing-fossil-fuel.aspxGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. (2010). Understanding Policy Success: Rethinking Public Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McDougal, M. S., Lasswell, H. D., and Reisman, W. M. (1973). The intelligence function and world public order. Temple Law Quarterly, 46 (6), 365–448.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishers.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H. (1980). The unavoidable a priori. In Randers, J., ed., Elements of the System Dynamics Method. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press, pp. 23–56.Google Scholar
Meadows, D., Randers, J., and Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Mignolo, W. (2000). Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledge, and Border Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mukhtarov, F., and Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Epistemic forms of integrated water resources management: Towards knowledge versatility. Policy Sciences, 47(2), 101–120.Google Scholar
Murphy, R. (2012). Sustainability: A wicked problem. Sociologica 2.Google Scholar
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Orach, K., and Schlüter, M. (2016). Uncovering the political dimension of social-ecological systems: Contributions from policy process frameworks. Global Environmental Change, 40,13–25.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N., and Conway, E. M. (2013). The collapse of Western civilization: A view from the future. Daedalus, 142(1), 40–58.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy problems and policy design. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385–396.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (2005). The problem of policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 7(4), 349–370.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. (2007). The new public management: An overview of its current status. Administration and Public Management Review, 8,110–115.Google Scholar
Porpora, D., and Sekalala, S. (2019). Truth, communication, and democracy. International Journal of Communication, 13,18.Google Scholar
Price, M. F. (1990). Humankind in the biosphere: The evolution of international interdisciplinary research. Global Environmental Change, 1(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
Pryshlakivsky, J., and Searcy, C. (2013). Sustainable development as a wicked problem. In Kovacic, S. F., and Sousa-Poza, A., eds., Managing and Engineering in Complex Situations. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 109–128.Google Scholar
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Barnard, P., and Moomaw, W. R. (2020). World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. BioScience, 70(1), 8–12.Google Scholar
Rittel, H., and Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(1–2), 12–33.Google Scholar
Room, G. (2011). Complexity, Institutions and Public Policy: Agile Decision-Making in a Turbulent World. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A., and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, D. (2001). From professionally driven to people-driven poverty reduction: Reflections on the role of Shack/Slum Dwellers International. Environment and Urbanization, 13(2), 135–138.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. (1999). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In Sabatier, P., ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 233–260.Google Scholar
Schmidt, N. M., and Fleig, A. (2018). Global patterns of national climate policies: Analyzing 171 country portfolios on climate policy integration. Environmental Science and Policy, 84,177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6(4), 317–344.Google Scholar
Shiva, V. (2010). Making peace with the earth. City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture. Sydney Opera House, Sydney, Australia. November 3, https://sydneypeacefoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2010-SPP_Vandana-Shiva.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London : Zed Books.Google Scholar
Steelman, T. (2016). US wildfire governance as social-ecological problem. Ecology and Society, 21(4), 3.Google Scholar
Suiter, J. (2016). Post-truth politics. Political Insight, 7(3), 25–27.Google Scholar
Svara, J. H. (2008). Beyond dichotomy: Dwight Waldo and the intertwined politics-administration relationship. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 46–52.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Reprinted in Taylor, F. W., ed., (1964), Scientific Management. London : Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. (2001). The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tenbensel, T. (2006). Policy knowledge for policy work. In Colebatch, H. K., ed., The Work of Policy: An International Survey. New York: Lexington Books, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
Tuck, E., and Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Turnbull, N. (2006). How should we theorise public policy? Problem solving and problematicity. Policy and Society, 25(2), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyfield, D. (2012). A cultural political economy of research and innovation in an age of crisis. Minerva, 50(2), 149–167.Google Scholar
van Beek, U., Fuchs, D., and Klingemann, H. D. (2019). The question of legitimacy in contemporary democracies. In Van Beck, U., ed., Democracy Under Threat: A Crisis of Legitimacy? Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 321–335.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. (1952). Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review, 46(1), 81–103.Google Scholar
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Walker, B. H., and Salt, D. A. (2006). Resilience Thinking Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978 [1921]). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., and Bodin, Ö. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 27.Google Scholar
Whitworth, J. (2020). COVID-19: A fast evolving pandemic. Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 114(4), 241.Google Scholar
Ye, Z., Yang, J., Zhong, N., Tu, X., Jia, J., and Wang, J. (2020). Tackling environmental challenges in pollution controls using artificial intelligence: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 699,134279.Google Scholar
Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In Sabatier, P., ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 65–92.Google Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Disrupted Governance
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Disrupted Governance
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Disrupted Governance
Available formats
×