No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Attention, content and measurement: rejoinder to Adams and Jones
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 May 2015
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press, 2015
References
Adams, J. (2015) On the Relationship Between (Parties’ and Voters’) Issue Attention and Their Issue Positions: Response to Dowding, Hindmoor and Martin. Journal of Public Policy, doi:10.1017/S0143814X1500015X.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R.
et al. (2009) Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective. American Journal of Political Science
53(3): 602–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D. and Mortensen, P. B. (2014) Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. In Sabatier P. A. and Weible C. M. (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 59–104.Google Scholar
Dowding, K., Hindmoor, A. and Martin, A. (2013) Australian Public Policy: Attention, Content and Style. Australian Journal of Public Administration
72(2): 82–88.Google Scholar
Dowding, K.
et al. (2010) Policy Agendas in Australian Politics: The Governor-General’s Speeches, 1945–2008. Australian Journal of Political Science
45(4): 533–557.Google Scholar
Dowding, K.
et al. (2012) Change and Continuity in the Ideology of Australian Prime Ministers: The Governor-General’s Speeches, 1946–2010. Australian Journal of Political Science
47(3): 455–472.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D. (2015) The Comparative Policy Agendas Project: Theory, Measurement and Findings. Journal of Public Policy, doi:10.1017/S0143814X15000161.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D.
et al. (2009) A General Empirical Law of Public Budgets: A Comparative Analysis. American Journal of Political Science
53(4): 855–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar