Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:43:01.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Comparative Policy Agendas Projects as measurement systems: response to Dowding, Hindmoor and Martin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2015

Bryan D. Jones
Bryan D. Jones*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 31 - 46
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

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

Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (2015) The Politics of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D. and Wilkerson, J. D. (2002) Studying Policy Dynamics. In Baumgartner F. R. and Jones B. D. (eds.), Policy Dynamics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 29–46.Google Scholar
Bevan, S. (2014) Gone Fishing: The Creation of the Comparative Agendas Project Master Codebook.Google Scholar
Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce (2007a) An Introduction to the National Income and Product Accounts. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce (2007b) Measuring the Economy: A Primer on GDP and the National Income and Product Accounts. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce (2014) NIPA Handbook: Concepts and Methods of the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce. http://www.bea.gov/national/pdf/chapters1-4.pdf.Google Scholar
Christ, C. (1955) A Review of Input-Output Analysis. In Goldsmith R. W. (ed.), Input-Output Analysis: An Appraisal. National Bureau of Economic Research Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 137–182.Google Scholar
Dowding, K., Hindmoor, A., Iles, R. and John, P. (2010) Policy Agendas in Australian Politics: The Governor-General Speeches, 1945–2008. Australian Journal of Political Science 45: 533–557.Google Scholar
Dowding, K., Hindmoor, A. and Martin, A. (2013) Attention, Content, and Style. Australian Journal of Public Administration 72: 82–88.Google Scholar
Green-Pederson, C. and Walgrave, S. (eds.) (2014) Agenda-Setting, Politics, and Political Systems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, M. (2014) Artists of the Possible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D., Zalányi, L. and Érdi, P. (2014) An Integrated Theory of Budgetary Politics and Some Empirical Tests: The US National Budget, 1791–2010. American Journal of Political Science 58: 1–18.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T. and Rosenthal, H. (2000) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, S., Wlezien, C. and McLean, I. (2006) Public Expenditure in the UK: How Measures Matter. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 169(Part 2): 255–271.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S. (2003) Measures and Models of Budgetary Policy. Policy Studies Journal 31: 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuskavage, R. (2007) Converting Historical Industry Time Series Data from SIC to NAICS. Paper presented to the 2007 Research Conference of the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Arlington, VA, 5–6 November.Google Scholar