RA S4 The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies PDF

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice ISSN: 1387-6988 (Print) 1572-5448 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcpa20 The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies: A Systematic Comparative Review Philipp Trein, Iris Meyer & Martino Maggetti To cite this article: Philipp Trein, Iris Meyer & Martino Maggetti (2019) The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies: A Systematic Comparative Review, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 21:4, 332-349, DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2018.1496667 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2018.1496667 View supplementary material Published online: 29 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1185 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 18 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fcpa20 Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2019 Vol. 21, No. 4, 332–349, https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2018.1496667 Article The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies: A Systematic Comparative Review PHILIPP TREIN *, IRIS MEYER**, & MARTINO MAGGETTI** *Institute of European Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA, **Institute of Political, Historical and International Studies (IEPHI), University of Lausanne, Switzerland (Received 20 August 2017; accepted 4 June 2018) ABSTRACT This article undertakes a systematic comparative review of research on policy integra- tion and coordination. Speciﬁcally, it compares studies focusing on “policy integration” with those using “joined-up government” or “whole-of-government” as key analytical concepts. It discusses differences and similarities between the two groups of articles in terms of empirical and theoretical focus as well as research design, and concludes by suggesting that the existence of different strands of literature makes sense but more exchanges across them are both possible and welcome, so as to align organizational and policy-related factors for the analysis of the relations between policy sectors. Keywords: policy integration; joined-up government; whole-of-government; comparative review; multiple correspondence analysis 1. Introduction This paper undertakes a systematic comparative review of research on the integration and coordination of public policies. Speciﬁcally, we compare studies that refer to “policy integration” (PI) with those using “joined-up government” (JUG) or “whole-of-govern- ment” (WOG) as key analytical concepts. Thereby, we examine the following research question: how do PI and JOG/WOG studies differ or resemble one another regarding the building blocks of their research approaches? In addition, we also discuss how researchers can deal with the similarities and differences between these concepts. Philipp Trein ([email protected]) is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute of Political, Historical, and International Studies (IEPHI) of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and a Visiting Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. His research interests cover comparative public policy, federalism and multilevel governance, and comparative politics. More information is available at: www.philipptrein.com. Iris Meyer ([email protected]) is PhD candidate at the Institute of Political, Historical and International Studies (IEPHI) of the University of Lausanne. She holds degrees in political science and public administration from IEP Aix-en-Provence and the Universities of Freiburg and Speyer. Her current research focuses on the integration and coordination of public policies, with an empirical focus on housing policy in Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) countries. Martino Maggetti ([email protected]) is associate professor at the Institute of Political, Historical, and International Studies (IEPHI) of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. His research interests are mainly oriented towards regulatory governance and comparative public policy. More information is available at: www.maggetti.org. Correspondence address: Philipp Trein, Géopolis 4346, IEPHI, University of Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland. Email: [email protected] © 2018 The Editor, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 333 The integration and coordination of policies across sectors is of growing importance for both scholars and policymakers. New policy challenges that require the boundaries of policy sectors to be rearranged emerge rapidly but public policies are embedded in institutions and organizational structures that adapt slowly and gradually to policy demands. Researchers use many different terms to refer to the issue of integration and coordination. Tosun and Lang (2017) point to as many as ten different analytical concepts used in the literature. For example, the concept of “policy integration” entails policy measures that bring together different policy goals or develop “encompassing common visions for the future” in different policy sectors (Braun 2008, p. 231). In the environ- mental policy literature, scholars use policy integration typically with reference to mea- sures that integrate environmental concerns in existing policies, such as energy policy (Jordan and Lenschow 2010). Different examples are those concerning the integration of social policy or homeland security policy (Cejudo and Michel 2017). Other analytical concepts are applied to examine the institutional and organizational relations between various policy sectors, namely “joined-up government” (6, Perri 2004) and “whole-of- government” (Christensen and Laegreid 2007) among others. The backdrop of such conceptual variety comes along with some problems, such as the fragmentation of empirical ﬁndings, their redundancy, and, more generally, a lack of cross-fertilization between different strands of research. Therefore, it is important and increasingly common in political science and public policy research to take stock and synthesize existing studies (e.g. Graham et al. 2013). Such an endeavor enables research- ers to assemble and compare ﬁndings about the relationship between policy sectors that the different literature strands have generated independently from one another. In addition, it promotes a dialogue between researchers and helps to move the ﬁeld forward by enhancing the accumulation of knowledge over time and across different groups of studies (Maggetti 2015). To achieve this goal, our contribution undertakes a systematic review1 of two groups of studies. For this purpose, we selected a sample of peer-reviewed articles belonging to two sub-strands of the literature on policy integration and coordination: articles adopting PI as a conceptual framework, and articles that use the concepts of JUG/WOG. These two groups of papers represent important and distinct sub-ﬁelds within the broader literature on policy integration and coordination. In other words, we consider that PI and JUG/ WOG can be seen as umbrella terms that largely subsume similar concepts used in other studies. At the same time, they differ in two crucial aspects. On the one hand, PI articles typically focus on the policy dimension whereas JUG/WOG articles mostly emphasize the organizational dimension of the relations between policy sectors (Tosun and Lang 2017). Our systematic review examines and compares the building blocks (see Maggetti and Gilardi 2016) of research in the two groups: i.e., PI and JUG/WOG articles. For our purposes, building blocks of research are each paper’s epistemology, policy research design, country research design, method of analysis, country focus, policy focus, and theoretical focus. We selected these building blocks as they correspond to basic dimen- sions of comparative policy analysis (Knoepfel et al. 2011; Tosun and Workman 2017). For each building block, we coded one variable or more to measure the concept. For example, we created one categorical variable for the method building block and several binary variables for the theoretical focus building block (see Section 3 of the paper and Table A1 in supplementary material document for more details). To assess the variance within and between the two article groups along these variables, we use multiple 334 P. Trein et al. correspondence analysis (MCA) – a version of factor analysis designed for categorical variables – to detect similarities and differences, in a statistically inductive manner. Exadaktylos and Radaelli (2009) used a similar comparative strategy to review research design issues in the literature on Europeanization as compared to the larger ﬁeld of European studies. This strategy allows us to explore systematic patterns and variations between these two streams of literature, which are interested in distinctive facets and manifestations of a larger underlying fundamental issue, namely the rearrangement of the boundaries of policy sectors, from the perspective of the integration and, respectively, the coordination of policies and public sector organizations. Our results point to some systematic commonalities and differences between the two groups of articles. The ﬁndings display similarities between the article groups regarding an overall dominance of empirical articles, as well as a common theoretical core across groups ‒ that is, a similar theoretical focus that is prevalent in both groups. However, the two groups of articles are overall very different concerning the choice of policy ﬁelds and countries that are examined. What are the implications of these results for research on policy integration and coordination? In the conclusion, we point out that there is room for further combination, interaction and cross-fertilization between these two sub-strands of literature. At the same time, we conclude that it is also crucial to recognize the distinctive contribution of each of these approaches. Furthermore, our method could be used for systematic reviews in other subject areas of comparative public policy analysis. 2. Conceptual Background Against the background of the fragmentation of political authority and delegation to subnational and supranational as well as private actors, a new strand of research has emerged arguing that the governance of policy sectors is becoming more integrated and/or coordinated – or that it needs to become so. This composite literature points to the growing inter-sectoralization of policymaking and public policy instruments, and, corre- spondingly, to the increased integration and coordination across – or even merger of – different policy instruments and public sector organizations. Interestingly, this research builds on a variety of concepts that can be distinguished broadly in governance- and government-centered approaches (Tosun and Lang 2017, p. 4). Amongst the governance-centered approaches, public policy scholars, who focus on policy processes and implementation, tend to look at these phenomena through the lenses of a “policy integration” perspective (see for instance Lafferty and Hovden 2003; Leibfried and Pierson 1995; Lenschow 2002; Nilsson 2005; Nilsson and Eckerberg 2007). For instance, policy integration is considered essential to involve all actors in an integrated approach to develop and implement appropriate policy solutions to tackle the issue of environmental sustainability, such as those actors concerned with agriculture, energy or transport policies (Eckerberg and Nilsson 2013; Jordan and Lenschow 2010). In other words, policy integration typically aims at creating new instruments to connect existing sectors and create more effective and/or more legitimate policy solutions (Hou and Brewer 2010; Schaffrin et al. 2015, p. 263). Other examples for governance-centered approaches to the integration and coordination of policies are boundary-spanning policy regimes (Jochim and May 2010; Laffan and O’Mahony 2007; May et al. 2011) and functional regulatory spaces (Varone et al. 2013). The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 335 Government-centered approaches to the study of the integration and coordination of policies have pointed to the institutional and organizational dimension. Organizational reforms to create or re-create an integrated branch of government were initially labeled “joined-up government” (6, Perri 2004; Bogdanor 2005; Cabinet Ofﬁce 1999) and later known as “whole-of-government” (Christensen and Laegreid 2007; Chow et al. 2007). Other examples of government-centered approaches are comprehensive planning (Andrews et al. 2009; Roberts and Wargo 1994; Sanchirico et al. 2009), policy coherence (May et al. 2005, 2006; Keiser and Meier 1996), and holistic government (Dunleavy et al. 2006; 6, Perri 2013; Mawson and Hall 2013). In the remainder of this article, we explore how these concepts display systematic similarities and differences in several dimensions (i.e. building blocks) of empirically oriented analytical research. Therefore, we selected two groups of articles from this literature, one that focuses on policy (or governance-centered) approaches and a second one targeting organizational (or government-centered) approaches to the analysis of policy integration and/or coordination. We create two groups of articles from this literature – policy integration on the one hand, and joined- up government and whole-of-government on the other. Before moving forward, it is worth noting that we refer to the integration and coordination of public policies as two dimensions of the rearrangement of the boundaries of policy sectors, which are typically examined by the two above-mentioned streams of literature. More speciﬁcally, the two terms embody a conceptual distinction as integration refers to the incorporation of some elements into a larger entity or a uniﬁed whole (as is the case for policy goals and instruments), whereas coordination is about the reorganization of previously separate processes or units to make them work together properly (it refers typically to administrative units).2 Coordination entails “ideas about joint and holistic working” between sectors. Integration contains, in addition, “integrated structures [and policies] to create common organizational elements and to merge professional practices and interventions” (6 et al. 2002, pp. 33–34; Trein 2017, p. 747). Thus, integration captures the actual integration of policies, notably policy goals and policy instruments, which are the essence of the PI literature. Conversely, the relation between public sector organizations tends to be one of coordination. Indeed, mergers of organizations are expected to be rarer as substantial integra- tion might come along with a reduction of personnel and other elements that are contested politically. Thus, the concept of coordination conveys what scholars of the JUG/WOG literature typically focus on. 3. Review Protocol and Analytical Strategy 3.1 Sampling Procedure To determine the two groups of articles forming the basis of this systematic review, we followed an empirical as well as a theoretical approach. Firstly, we performed a search3 in the online database Web of Science for all the concepts mentioned by Tosun and Lang (2017)4 in the topic or title of the articles, limited to articles in peer-reviewed journals published since 1985. Secondly, we decided to keep papers referring to “policy integra- tion” on the one hand and “whole-of-government” or “joined-up government” on the other, as the articles in these groups appear mostly in the categories “political science” and “public administration” in the Web of Science database. Articles referring to other concepts, such as comprehensive planning and policy coherence, are distributed more 336 P. Trein et al. evenly amongst the various article categories, such as “environmental studies” or “plan- ning development”. In doing so, we make sure that the journals from which we selected the articles operate against a public policy and political science background, and can plausibly assume that the selected papers are potentially similar regarding their empirical focus, research design, and theory. In contrast, had we compared papers from very different categories in the Web of Science database we would have run the risk of self- selecting articles that are very different from one another, and thus would bias our analysis towards an overemphasis on differences between the groups of papers. Thirdly, we took into consideration theoretical reasons for article selection. Notably, we made sure that the article groups corresponded to governance-centered approaches on the one hand (PI) and to government-centered approaches on the other (JUG/WOG) (Tosun and Lang 2017). Our search yielded 592 results (360 on “policy integration” vs. 151 on “whole-of-govern- ment” and 81 on “joined-up government”). Over time, the number of articles published has increased continuously in both groups. Our analysis does not identify any published journal articles referring to these keywords prior to 1990. Then, the introduction of joined-up govern- ment by the British government in 1997 prompted publications on the subject. In the following decade, both strands of literature grew evenly. From 2009 onwards, the “policy integration” literature gained momentum, while the number of publications per year on “joined-up govern- ment” and “whole-of-government” have stagnated relatively (Figure 1). For the type of comparative analysis performed in this paper, we had to further limit the number of articles. We restricted the sample to a maximum of 120 articles, which we selected according to their thematic relevance5 and impact. We set this limit to keep the number of papers manageable while focusing on the most relevant. Similar to other Figure1. Publications of articles per year The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 337 review articles (e.g. Exadaktylos and Radaelli 2009), we included especially the most- cited articles. However, to reduce the sample bias towards older papers, we also took into account that articles published later in the observed time span were naturally less frequently cited than articles that came out earlier. Therefore, we included the same number of most frequently cited articles published before 2010 and after that year. Our ﬁnal sample contains 76 PI articles and 44 JUG/WOG papers. 3.2 Dataset and Method In order to analyze our sample of articles, we coded a selection of variables that measure the different building blocks of each piece of research (see Maggetti and Gilardi 2016). For the purposes of this article, we deﬁne the following research building blocks: epistemology, policy research design, country research design, method of analysis, country focus, policy focus, and theoretical focus (Knoepfel et al. 2011; Tosun and Workman 2017). We coded either several binary or one categorical variables to operationalize each building block (Table 1; the decision between a binary or categorical variable is based on practical reasons; see our supplementary material concerning the details regarding the coding procedure and the summary statistics for each variable).6 The binary variables measuring the theoretical focus of the articles reﬂect whether a paper employs a theory relevant to the political science or the public administration literature. We determined the theoretical elements by means of a thematic coding procedure (Thomas and Harden 2008; Krippendorff 2013). First, we developed themes – that are related to theories of the policy process and policy change (Weible and Sabatier 2017) – inductively to form the analytical Table 1. Distribution of variables across groups (in percentage of items in article group ‒ PI or JUG/WOG) PI JUG/WOG PI JUG/WOG Country focus Policy focus Anglo-Sax. 22.4 65.9 Econ./Fin. Pol. 6.6 15.9 Scand. 11.8 13.6 Soc./Heal./Ed. Pol. 15.8 52.3 Cont. Eur. 10.5 4.5 Env. Pol. 69.7 9.1 South. Eur. 2.6 2.3 Clim. Pol. 23.7 2.3 EU 11.8 0 Energy Pol. 10.5 4.5 No/Other 22.3 9.1 Infra./Land. Pol. 47.4 11.4 Across Groups 18.4 4.5 Food/Agri. Pol. 11.8 9.1 Policy research design Techn. Pol. 5.3 2.3 Admin. Ref./No. Pol. 0 36.3 Theoretical focus Single Pol. 82.9 63.6 Soc.-Econ. 6.6 6.8 Comp. Pol. 17.1 0 Neg. Eff. Inst. 88.2 79.5 Country research design Pos. Eff. Inst. 11.8 20.5 Sing. Count. 43.4 61.4 Diffusion 13.2 2.3 Comp. Count. 38.1 20.5 Learning 15.8 11.4 Concept. Art. 18.4 18.1 Pol. Ideas 14.5 9.1 Method Actor 22.4 27.3 Qual. Meth. 76.3 81.8 Politics 9.2 18.2 Quant. Meth. 1.3 0 Implem. 23.7 36.4 Mixed Meth. 7.9 4.5 Pol. Instrum. 14.5 4.5 No Meth. 14.4 13.6 Pol. Capac. 10.5 18.2 338 P. Trein et al. categories for the theoretical focus, which we then used to code the other papers. Through iterative reﬁnement, we coded the other articles according to these categories – and reﬁned the categories, which implied recoding the ﬁrst article group. We retained the following variables for the theoretical focus building block: socio-economic factors, negative effects of domestic institutional and organizational factors, positive effects of domestic institutional and organiza- tional factors, policy diffusion, learning, policy ideas, actors/networks, politics, implementation, policy instruments, and policy capacity. Two caveats are important to keep in mind. The variables do not measure the relationship between the various theoretical perspectives and the binary coding of the variables does not imply that the absence of a category measures its negation; that is, for example, policy capacity being “0” implies only that the article does not refer to policy capacity as an important theoretical focus, and not that the article discusses the negative effect of a lack of policy capacity for PI or JUG/WOG. The institutional variables are an exception because this is the only instance where we were able to code the directional effect of institutions on PI or JUG/WOG (see our supplementary material for more information). To analyze our dataset, we use descriptive statistics and perform a multiple correspondence analysis. This is a technique similar to factor analysis for nominal categorical data, whose aim is to ﬁnd groups according to a number of attributes (Greenacre and Blasius 2006). Pierre Bourdieu notably popularized this method in the book The Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgements of Taste (Bourdieu 1984). The main goal is to detect (and represent) the underlying patterns and structures in a dataset (Le Roux and Rouanet 2010). The result is a symmetric matrix of all two-way cross tabulations between the categorical variables, which can be represented graphically as a map of a multi-dimensional space. This map offers the representation of general patterns of relationships among the categorical variables, allowing the researcher to identify those categories that cluster together (Van Schendelen 2002). We implement an MCA using the statistical software Stata, notably its command “mca”. This method is particularly suited to the analysis in this article as it allows us to detect regularities amongst the different building blocks of the research in PI and JUG/WOG articles that we are interested in. 4. Results A ﬁrst look at the descriptive statistics regarding the distribution of the variables for the various research building blocks across both groups of articles (PI vs. JUG/WOG) in our sample reveals both distinctive patterns and relevant overlaps (Table 1). Notably, there are disparities regarding the country focus, research design, and, to some extent, the theoretical focus of the articles. To the contrary, the two groups display similar patterns regarding methodological choices and, above all, their theoretical core (that is, key common elements of their theoretical focus). In the following sub-sections, we discuss in detail our main ﬁndings based on descrip- tive statistics and the results of the multiple correspondence analysis.7 A comment on the model ﬁt, tables with the precise results of the MCA, and a discussion of the speciﬁcation of the multiple correspondence analysis can be found in the supplementary material to this article. Table 1 shows how the variables are linked to each building block. 4.1 Conceptual Studies vs. Different Types of Empirical Articles Our ﬁndings show that there is no difference between PI and JUG/WOG articles regarding the prevalence of conceptual articles versus more empirically oriented ones ( Figure 2).8 On the one hand, our sample comprises conceptual articles that have no reference to method, refer to a The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 339 Figure2. Dimensions 1 and 2 of the MCA showing methods, research design, and countries country in the “other” countries group, and do not contain any empirical analysis. Contrariwise, empirical contributions that correspond either to single case studies or to comparative country studies and use mostly qualitative methods are located between the two groups. In other words, as we would have expected intuitively, each group of articles contains some conceptual papers that deﬁne either PI or JUG/WOG from a general point of view. An example for such a paper in the JUG/WOG group is the article by Christensen and Laegreid (2007) that develops the concept of whole-of-government. Concerning PI, the most cited conceptual articles concern environ- mental policy integration, which frame the concept of policy integration from the perspective of a speciﬁc policy problem, namely environmental protection, such as the paper by Oberthür (2009). Only more recently have contributions extended the discussion on policy integration to public policy analysis more generally (Candel and Biesbroek 2016). The presence of a distinctive group of conceptual papers is not surprising in a relatively young research area. On the other hand, empirical studies mostly use a case study approach. They open an opportunity for further research that synthesizes existing studies and develops encompassing theoretical insights from the case study material. In addition, the results of the MCA suggest that among the empirical studies in the sample, JUG/WOG articles tend to focus on administrative reforms only, whereas PI papers also include policy-related elements (Figure 2, Table A4 in the supplementary material document). For instance, the study on the limits of joined-up government by Davies (2009) or the comparative work by Sang et al. (2005) concerning rural data infrastructure mainly deal with administrative reforms. Conversely, PI papers have a tendency to analyze the policy dimension more explicitly when looking at the horizontal relations between policy ﬁelds. For instance, the comparative research on climate policy integration by Casado-Asensio and Steurer (2016) focuses explicitly on the adoption of policy programs instead of administrative reforms. This ﬁnding underlines the point made by previous review articles (e.g. Tosun and Lang 2017) that JUG/WOG and PI have a 340 P. Trein et al. different focus on the analysis of a wider research problem, i.e. the relationship between policy sectors. Particularly, our results empirically conﬁrm that JUG/WOG research focuses on the administrative and organizational dimension of public sector reforms, whereas PI articles focus on the policy dimension and afford less importance to the organizational aspect. 4.2 Regulative vs. (Re)Distributive Policies Concerning the types of policies referred to by the articles under investigation, our results indicate that PI papers and JUG/WOG papers tend to focus on different types of policy instruments. On the one hand, PI papers tend to deal with sectors in which regulative instruments play an important role for the integration of different sectors and subsystems, such as environmental, climate, or energy policies (Figure 3, Table A4 in the supplemen- tary material document). As an example, Hull’s (2008) study analyzes sustainable solu- tions in transport policy, focusing on the integration of environmental protection, public transport, walking and cycling, air quality, land use, and public health. On the other hand, we ﬁnd that JUG/WOG articles tend to focus on policy sectors that have a strong (re)distributive component. These analyses concern for instance different sub-ﬁelds of social policy, which includes predominantly employment-related policy integration, but also health and education policy (Figure 3, Table A4 in the supplementary material document) as well as policies designed to target speciﬁc groups. For instance, Signoretta and Craglia (2002) analyze a joined-up government strategy for addressing the needs of children in the city of Shefﬁeld, UK. The authors show how the elaboration of a children’s plan included a wide range of administrative units, among them the Police, the Departments of Social Services, Education, the Young Children’s Service, Community Health Shefﬁeld, Shefﬁeld Health, Authority, Central Policy Unit, and the Department of Figure3. Dimensions 1 and 2 of the MCA showing policy ﬁelds, countries, and theoretical approaches The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 341 Housing. The Department of Social Services took the leadership in this reform of administrative coordination (Signoretta and Craglia 2002, p. 66). This difference in the policy focus of the two groups of articles leads us to suggest that the nature of the policy instruments under investigation determines a speciﬁc form of integration. In the case of regulative policies, bridging different policy sectors can be done effectively by using policy instruments only, such as legal frameworks and policy strategies. On the other hand, in case of redistributive policies, the relationship between policy sectors entails a strong bureaucratic component because funds and their use need to be coordinated by public sector organizations. In regulative policies, the ﬁnancial aspect is less important. Further empirical analysis is needed to test this hypothesis about the different forms of integration and coordination that regulative and distributive policy instruments call for respectively. 4.3 Continental Europe and the EU vs. Anglo-Saxon and Southern European Countries The results further reveal systematic similarities and differences between the samples of countries examined in the PI and the JUG/WOG groups of articles. Notably, PI papers tend to focus on continental European countries and on the political system of the EU, while also mostly taking a cross-national comparative approach (Figure 2, Table A4 in the supplementary material document). For instance, Schout and Jordan’s (2005) empirical study of environmental policy integration at the European level reveals the weaknesses of network governance for achieving good coordination. On the other hand, JUG/WOG articles tend to deal with different country samples, among which Anglo-Saxon and Southern European countries ﬁgure most prominently (Figure 2, Table A4 in the supple- mentary material). For instance, Ross et al. (2011) analyze the introduction of a whole-of- government approach for a strategy to prevent family violence in the Australian state of Victoria, focusing on the establishment of administrative structures at different levels of government. The article by Lewis (2011) on the Central Policy Review Staff provides us with a more historic example of administrative coordination in the UK. Some clusters of countries, however, are equally important for both PI and JUG/WOG articles. Scandinavian countries, for instance, are located in between the groups, according to the multiple correspondence analysis.9 Indeed, there is no substantial difference regarding their operationalization in either PI or JUG/WOG papers (Figure 2, Table A4 in the supplementary material document). For instance, Christensen et al. (2007) analyze coordination in the Norwegian welfare and employment administration from a whole-of- government perspective. On the other hand, Nilsson (2005) analyzes the horizontal coordination regarding environmental policy integration in Sweden from the perspective of policy integration. These differences between the two groups on that dimension can be explained as follows. The prominence of EU studies in the PI group may derive from the fact that the European Union engages above all in regulatory policymaking, which is typically examined using a policy integration approach, as mentioned above. The ﬁnding that JUG/ WOG articles tend to study Anglo-Saxon, Southern European or Scandinavian countries is potentially related to the structure of the state. These countries (except for Canada and the US) tend to build on strong central states and national governments should therefore possess stronger steering capacities to coordinate public sector organizations, which could explain why administrative forms of coordination prevail in these countries. National 342 P. Trein et al. governments in Scandinavian and Southern European countries have wide discretion over the public sector in combination with developed and tax-ﬁnanced welfare states, which leaves room for JUG/WOG reforms. Also, NPM reforms were implemented early and extensively in Anglo-Saxon countries and later created a high demand for “post-NPM” coordination. 4.4 Theoretical Focus: Commonalities and Differences Between Groups Concerning the theoretical focus applied in the reviewed articles, our ﬁndings are parti- cularly interesting. They show that there is, on the one hand, a common theoretical core of PI and JUG/WOG research, while, on the other, there are also systematic theoretical differences between the two groups. The two groups of articles share a common theoretical core, as they build on theories about the role of institutions, actors and politics, policy implementation, and policy capacity (Figure 4). Concerning the institutional dimension, articles in the sample refer to positive or negative impacts of institutions on coordination arrangements in both the PI and the JUG/WOG literature (Table 1).9 For instance, even in a centralized government, such as in the UK, pre-existing institutional differences between various departments complicate successful implementation of joined-up government arrangements (Kavanagh Figure4. Theoretical similarities and differences between groups (summary statistics) The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 343 and Richards 2001, p. 17). A very similar argument is put forward in PI papers. For instance, Giessen and Krott (2009, p. 97) analysis of PI in the forestry sector shows that integrative programs designed at higher levels of government are often incompatible with the actual policy implementation units and the subnational and local levels of government. In both groups we ﬁnd papers that point out that institutional factors can have positive effects. For instance, the presence of an institutional core is important to establish policy integration successfully, such as in the food policy sector (Ugland and Veggeland 2006, p. 613). Next to institutional elements, PI and JUG/WOG articles share additional theoretically relevant elements, for example regarding politics, implementation, and policy capacity. The above-cited article by Kavanagh and Richards refers not only to institutional elements regarding joined-up government but also to the effect of politics. The paper points out that considerable differences exist in how joined-up government worked under New Labour and the Conservative Major governments due to political conﬂicts within political parties (Kavanagh and Richards 2001, pp. 16–17). Furthermore, theoretical approaches con- cerned with policy implementation and policy capacity appear with approximately the same frequency across groups. For instance, a paper by Weber and Driessen (2010, p. 1121) provides us with an analysis of the implementation of noise and spatial planning in the Dutch context. Hughes et al. (2015) illustrate the link of policy capacity, implementa- tion, and whole-of-government in Australia. In addition to these similarities, we ﬁnd systematic differences concerning the theore- tical focus used in the two groups of articles. In particular, our results reveal that PI articles tend to concentrate more on the role of diffusion, learning, and policy ideas, while also adopting a policy instruments perspective, whereas this is not the case for JUG/WOG papers (Figure 4). For instance, the paper by Lafferty and Hovden (2003, p. 4), which deﬁned environmental policy integration as a conceptual framework, implicitly refers to the role of the United Nations Conference for Environment and Development and the EU for the diffusion of the ideas of environmental policy integration. Similar to diffusion and related theoretical frameworks, researchers have used the notion of policy instruments especially in articles on policy integration. As an example, the research by Urwin and Jordan (2008, p. 183) on public support for climate change adaptation refers explicitly to policy instruments as a distinct analytical category for policy integration. Contrariwise, JUG/WOG papers tend to refer relatively less to diffusion, learning, ideas, and policy instruments. The theoretical focus of these papers privilege institutional elements, politics, implementation, and policy capacity. For instance, Lægreid and Rykkja (2015) highlight the importance of an organizational culture that favors the ﬁnding of joint solutions and coordination in a joined-up organizational setting. From an implementation perspective, Carey et al. (2015) show that a “supportive architecture” and consistency of instruments, processes, and goals are decisive for achieving joined-up government. The differences and similarities between the two groups of articles regarding their theoretical focus uphold the assumption that PI articles mainly address the policy dimen- sion whereas JUG/WOG papers point (also) to the administrative and organizational dimension of policy sector rearrangement. Indeed, PI studies use theories and concepts that are particularly well-suited to examine policy instruments, such as learning, ideas, diffusion, and instrumental design, whereas approaches suitable for organizational analy- sis are more frequent in the JUG/WOG group. On the other hand, it is remarkable to observe that both groups share a theoretical core that reveals the institutional foundations 344 P. Trein et al. of the analyses centered on the reconﬁguration of the boundaries of policy sectors. As a consequence, further research on the relations between policy sectors should regard both dimensions as important and at the same time could use a more explicit institutional perspective to connect and articulate these two dimensions. 5. Conclusions This article undertakes a systematic review of the literature on the integration and coordination of public policies by comparing articles referring to policy integration with papers looking at joined-up government and/or whole-of government. We tackled the following research question: how do PI and JOG/WOG studies differ or resemble one another regarding the building blocks of their research approaches? In the following, we will summarize the results and discuss how researchers can deal with the similarities and differences between these concepts. Taken together, our results point to some systematic commonalities and differences between the two groups of articles. Regarding similarities, we ﬁnd that most of the papers correspond to single policy and/or country studies using qualitative methods. In both samples, there is a clear difference between a set of conceptual papers without an explicit focus on methods, as opposed to the larger group of empirical articles. Furthermore, and importantly, both groups have a common theoretical core ‒ i.e. similar theoretical focuses ‒ that refers to institutional aspects, actor-level, and politics-related elements, the question of policy imple- mentation, and policy capacity. Nevertheless, there are some important dissimilarities in the focus of PI and JUG/WOG articles: the concept of policy integration is mostly used for analyzing environmental and climate policy and tends to be applied in studies on continental European countries and the EU as a whole; JUG/WOG articles, on the other hand, tend to examine social, health, and education policies, as well as general reforms of the administration and organizational coordination, mostly in Anglo-Saxon and Southern European countries. What is more, there are some differences regarding the theoretical focus of the papers. PI articles mainly focus on diffusion, ideational approaches, and policy learning as well as policy instruments, whereas these approaches are much less prominent in the JUG/WOG group. Overall, our analysis shows that, in the last ten years, there has been a considerable increase in the academic attention towards the integration and coordination of policies, mostly under the PI label but also framed in JUG/WOG terms, although to a lesser extent (Figure 1). This trend goes along with heterogeneity in theories, designs, and empirical focus between the two strands of research. This heterogeneity is probably related to historical and contingent factors, such as speciﬁc country-related scientiﬁc trajectories and research group programs. This is not surprising in comparative political science (Maggetti 2015), especially for a ﬁeld that is still in its infancy, and similar situations can be found in more mature ﬁelds of research, such as policy diffusion studies (Maggetti and Gilardi 2016). At the same time, there are some systematic similarities between the two groups of articles, which suggest that there is potential for cross-fertilization and tighter connection between the two approaches. What are the main implications of our systematic review and how do we move on from here? Firstly, since both groups – PI and JUG/WOG – share a common theoretical core, speciﬁcally related to their institutionalist foundations, there is potential for researchers to consider both policy and administrative/organizational elements for the analysis of the relations between policy sectors. However, since there are also signiﬁcant differences, we The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 345 suggest articulating these two dimensions and exploring their relationships by keeping them analytically separated, instead of conﬂating them in a single measure that ranks them according to the degree of coordination/integration (Braun 2008). Such a strategy would allow researchers to raise a coherent set of research questions that span over the policy and organizational dimensions. Therefore, it would be possible to combine policy-oriented and administration/organization-oriented approaches, for instance by analyzing in-depth the interplay between policy learning and organizational dynamics with respect to the diffusion of policy/administrative instruments. This would imply, for example, research questions be formulated that address explicitly the policy and strategic as well as the organizational dimensions of the interplay between policy sectors (e.g. Cejudo and Michel 2017), or the co-evolution (Trein 2017) of policy integration and organizational coordina- tion, which allows the temporality and hierarchy of the two dimensions along reforms that rearranged the relationship of policy sectors to be explored. Such a research strategy would combine insights from the different sub-strands of research and relate them to concerns of design and implementation of integrated policies. Secondly, there is room for the systematic comparison and even the aggregation of the ﬁndings from case studies – not necessarily into new analytical concepts, but regarding the drivers and consequences of the integration and coordination of policy sectors. This could be done by means of meta-analyses or comparative research projects that bridge different countries and policy ﬁelds. More speciﬁcally, to promote the accumulation of knowledge, future research could take over meta-analytic techniques to adjoin, synthesize, and distill the ﬁndings from the wealth of case studies that have been and hopefully will continue to be produced in this literature. At the same time, there is room for comparative empirical research on the relationship between policy sectors (e.g. Trein 2015, 2017). In addition, future research should resort to statistical analysis to complement qualitative research as it would aim at testing different explanatory factors emerging from case studies; in turn, subsequent case studies would help improve the interpretation of statis- tical ﬁndings. For instance, future research could compare integration and coordination of policies within larger policy ﬁelds, such as environmental and employment policy, across a sample of comparable countries from different geographical areas and political tradi- tions, for example Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members. Such an approach would build on and complement existing case studies with cross-sectoral and cross-national comparative research to advance our understanding of the integration and coordination of policies and produce more generalizable knowledge. This macro-comparative research strategy would build on existing work and feed its ﬁndings back to more speciﬁc and case-oriented analyses. These two suggestions to move forward the research agenda on policy integration and coordination would allow the different strands of literature – and the scholarly commu- nities related to them – to learn from one another. In other words, these considerations could enable a potentially fruitful exchange between PI and JUG/WOG approaches, while at the same time making the case for the importance of keeping them distinct and pointing to their respective contributions. Hopefully, this common endeavor could foster an even more productive analysis of “new” complex or wicked policy problems, such as the migration crisis, from a broader perspective articulating policy and organizational ele- ments for the analysis of the reconﬁguration of policy sectors. Clarifying the connection between the policy and organizational elements of cross-sectoral policymaking is not only interesting from a research-oriented perspective but also has very practical implications. 346 P. Trein et al. The elaboration of integrated policy strategies necessarily requires their implementation through the coordination of public sector organizations. This further step might prove to be complicated, as the implementation literature has since long shown (McLaughlin 1987; Matland 1995). More systematic cross-fertilization between policy and administrative research could facilitate this endeavor, thus representing a crucial milestone towards the development of a better policy practice. Supplemental Data Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2018.1496667 Notes 1. For the differences between meta-analysis, research synthesis, and systematic review, and their respective objectives, see Cooper et al. (2009). 2. This distinction between integration and coordination differs from the one recently put forward by Cejudo and Michel (2017), but is compatible with it. Indeed, integration refers to policies oriented towards a “broader goal”, while coordination is similarly located at organizational level. 3. We carried out the search for articles on March 7, 2016. 4. These are: comprehensive planning, policy coherence, holistic government, joined-up government, whole of government, horizontal governance, holistic governance, policy integration, policy mainstreaming, and boundary-spanning policy regimes (Tosun and Lang 2017). 5. We excluded articles that draw on related yet different literature strands, such as science-policy integration, vertical policy integration (i.e. papers that only focus on the integration of policies between levels but not between sectors), or literature on donor coordination in international development cooperation. 6. Primarily, one of the authors coded the articles. A second author recoded a sub-sample of the papers to verify inter-coder reliability. Consequently, we adapted our coding procedure to make it more coherent and recoded the entire sample of articles for the variables affected by any change. We implemented the test for inter-coder reliability using Stata. A second author recoded 39 randomly selected articles (37.5 per cent of the sample). Average agreement between coders across the variables was 88.45 per cent (Min. 72.5 per cent; Max. 98.08 per cent), which is an acceptable level of agreement. Although this strategy does not necessarily help to increase validity, it improves the transparence and congruence of the coded variables (Exadaktylos and Radaelli 2009, p. 517; Krippendorff 2013). 7. Table 1 reports the count for the different variables in both groups without the weight that we applied in Figure 4. Thus, the share of references to negative institutional factors is higher in the PI group. 8. To continue with the analysis, in the following we focus only on the variables that contribute at least 1 per cent to the explanation of the inertia within the respective dimension. 9. The graphs show the account for each of the theoretical categories per article group. To take into considera- tion the different sample sizes for PI and JUG/WOG articles we inserted a weight when creating Figure 4. Notably, we weighed the articles in the second group (JUG/WOG) by 1.73, which reﬂects the relationship of 76 PI to 44 JUG/WOG articles in the sample. References 6, Perri, 2004, Joined-up government in the western world in comparative perspective: A preliminary literature review and exploration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), pp. 103–138. doi:10.1093/jopart/muh006. 6, Perri, 2013, Housing policy in the risk archipelago: Toward anticipatory and holistic government. Housing Studies, 13(3), pp. 347–375. doi:10.1080/02673039883326. 6, Perri, Leat, D., Setzler, K. and Stoker, G. 2002. Towards Holistic Governance: The New Reform Agenda (Basingstoke: Palgrave). The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 347 Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J. and Walker, R. M., 2009, Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), pp. 57–80. doi:10.1093/ jopart/mum039. Bogdanor, V. (Ed), 2005, Joined-Up Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Bourdieu, P., 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Tast (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Braun, D., 2008, Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 35(4), pp. 227–239. doi:10.3152/030234208X287056. Candel, J. J. L. and Biesbroek, R., 2016, Toward a processual understanding of policy integration. Policy Sciences, 49(3), pp. 211–231. doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y. Carey, G., McLoughlin, P. and Crammond, B. 2015, Implementing joined‐up government: lessons from the Australian social inclusion agenda. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(2), pp. 176–186. doi:10.1111/aupa.2015.74.issue-2 Casado-Asensio, J. and Steurer, R., 2016, Bookkeeping rather than climate policy making: National mitigation strategies in Western Europe. Climate Policy, 16(1), pp. 88–108. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.980211. Cejudo, G. M. and Michel, C. L., 2017, Addressing fragmented government action: Coordination, coherence, and integration. Policy Sciences, 50, pp. 745–767. doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9281-5. Chow, D. S. L., Humphrey, C. and Moll, J., 2007, Developing whole of government accounting in the UK: Grand claims, practical complexities and suggested future research agenda. Financial Accountability & Management, 23(1), pp. 27–54. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2007.00418.x. Christensen, T., Fimreite, A. L. and Laegreid, P., 2007, Reform of the employment and welfare administrations - the challenges of co-coordinating Diverse Public Organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), pp. 389–408. doi:10.1177/0020852307081149. Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P., 2007, The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), pp. 1059–1066. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. and Valentine, J. C., 2009, The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (New York: Russell Sage Foundation). Davies, J. S., 2009, The limits of joined-up-government: Towards a political analysis. Public Administration, 87 (1), pp. 80–96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01740.x. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J., 2006, New public management is dead—Long live digital- era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), pp. 467–494. doi:10.1093/ jopart/mui057. Eckerberg, K. and Nilsson, M., 2013, Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning (London: Routledge). Exadaktylos, T. and Radaelli, C. M., 2009, Research design in European studies: The case of Europeanization. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(3), pp. 507–530. Giessen, L. and Krott, M., 2009, Forestry joining integrated programmes? A question of willingness, ability and opportunities. Allgemeine Forst- Und Jagdzeitung, 180(5–6), pp. 94–100. Graham, E. R., Shipan, C. R. and Volden, C., 2013, The diffusion of policy diffusion research in political science. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), pp. 673–701. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000415. Greenacre, M. and Blasius, J., 2006, Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods (Boca Raton: CRC Press). Hou, Y. and Brewer, G. A., 2010, Substitution and supplementation between co-functional policy instruments: Evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), pp. 914–924. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02223.x. Hughes, A., Gleeson, D., Legge, D. and Lin, V., 2015, Governance and policy capacity in health development and implementation in Australia. Policy and Society, 34(3), pp. 229–245. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.11.001. Hull, A., 2008, Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transport Policy, 15(2), pp. 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.004. Jochim, A. E. and May, P. J., 2010, Beyond subsystems: Policy regimes and governance. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), pp. 303–326. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00363.x. Jordan, A. and Lenschow, A., 2010, Environmental policy integration: A state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), pp. 147–158. doi:10.1002/eet.v20:3. Kavanagh, D. and Richards, D., 2001, Departmentalism and joined-up government. Parliamentary Affairs, 54(1), pp. 1–18. doi:10.1093/pa/54.1.1. 348 P. Trein et al. Keiser, L. R. and Meier, K. J., 1996, Policy design, bureaucratic incentives, and public management: The case of child support enforcement. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(3), pp. 337–364. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024316. Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C. and Varone, F., 2011, Public Policy Analysis (Bristol: The University of Bristol, The Policy Press). Krippendorff, K., 2013, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (Los Angeles, CA: Sage). Lægreid, P. and Rykkja, L. H., 2015, Hybrid collaborative arrangements: The welfare administration in Norway – Between hierarchy and network. Public Management Review, 17(7), pp. 960–980. doi:10.1080/ 14719037.2015.1029349. Laffan, B. and O’Mahony, J., 2007, Managing Europe from an irish perspective: Critical junctures and the increasing formalization of the core executive in Ireland. Public Administration, 85(1), pp. 167–188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00639.x. Lafferty, W. and Hovden, E., 2003, Environmental policy integration: Towards an analytical framework. Environmental Politics, 12(3), pp. 1–22. doi:10.1080/09644010412331308254. Le Roux, B. and Rouanet, H., 2010, Multiple Correspondence Analysis (Los Angeles: Sage). Leibfried, S. and Pierson, P. (Eds), 1995, European Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration. Washington: Brookings Publications. Lenschow, A., 2002, Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe (London: Earthscan). Lewis, J., 2011, The search for coordination: The case of the central policy review staff and social policy planning, 1971-77. Social Policy & Administration, 45(7), pp. 770–787. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00793.x. Maggetti, M., 2015, Knowledge progress in comparative political science, in: D. Braun and M. Maggetti (Eds) Comparative Politics: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp. 154–185. Maggetti, M. and Gilardi, F., 2016, Problems (and solutions) in the measurement of policy diffusion mechanisms. Journal of Public Policy, 36(1), pp. 87–107. doi:10.1017/S0143814X1400035X. Matland, R. E., 1995, Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conﬂict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), pp. 145–174. Mawson, J. and Hall, S., 2013, Joining it up locally? Area regeneration and holistic government in England. Regional Studies, 34(1), pp. 67–74. doi:10.1080/00343400050005899. May, P. J., Jochim, A. E. and Sapotichne, J., 2011, Constructing homeland security: An anemic policy regime. Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), pp. 285–307. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00408.x. May, P. J., Jones, B. D., Beem, B. E., Neff-Sharum, E. A. and Poague, M. K., 2005, Policy coherence and component-driven policymaking: Arctic policy in Canada and the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 33(1), pp. 37–63. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00091.x. May, P. J., Sapotichne, J. and Workman, S., 2006, Policy coherence and policy domains. Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), pp. 381–403. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00178.x. McLaughlin, M. W., 1987, Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), pp. 171–178. doi:10.3102/01623737009002171. Nilsson, M., 2005, Learning, frames, and environmental policy integration: The case of Swedish energy policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(2), pp. 207–226. doi:10.1068/c0405j. Nilsson, M. and Eckerberg, K., 2007, Environmental Policy Integration in Practice: Shaping Institutions for Learning (London: Earthscan). Oberthür, S., 2009, Interplay management: Enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(4), pp. 371–391. doi:10.1007/s10784-009-9109-7. Ofﬁce, C., 1999, Modernising Government, Vol. Cm 4310 (London: HMSO). Roberts, N. C. and Wargo, L., 1994, The dilemma of planning in large-scale public organizations: The case of the United States Navy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(4), pp. 469–491. Ross, S., Frere, M., Healey, L. and Humphreys, C., 2011, A whole of government strategy for family violence reform. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(2), pp. 131–142. doi:10.1111/aupa.2011.70.issue-2. Sanchirico, J. N., Eagle, J., Palumbi, S. and Thompson, B. H., 2009, Comprehensive planning, dominant-use zones, and user rights: A new area in ocean governance. Bulletin of Marine Sciences, 2, pp. 273–285. Sang, N., Birnie, R. V., Geddes, A., Bayﬁeld, N. G., Midgley, J. L., Shucksmith, D. M. and Elston, D., 2005, Improving the rural data infrastructure: The problem of addressable spatial units in a rural context. Land Use Policy, 22(2), pp. 175–186. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.08.008. The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies 349 Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S. and Seubert, S., 2015, Toward a comparative measure of climate policy output. Policy Studies Journal, 43(2), pp. 257–282. doi:10.1111/psj.12095. Schout, A. and Jordan, A., 2005, Coordinated European governance: Self‐organizing or centrally steered? Public Administration, 83(1), pp. 201–220. doi:10.1111/padm.2005.83.issue-1. Signoretta, P. and Craglia, M., 2002, Joined-up government in practice: A case study of children’s needs in shefﬁeld. Local Government Studies, 28(1), pp. 59–76. doi:10.1080/714004127. Thomas, J. and Harden, A., 2008, Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), pp. 1. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. Tosun, J. and Lang, A., 2017, Policy integration: Mapping the different concepts. Policy Studies, 38(6), pp. 553– 570. doi:10.1080/01442872.2017.1339239. Tosun, J. and Workman, S., 2017, Struggle and triumph in fusing policy process and comparative research, in: C. M. Weible and P. Sabatier ed. Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), pp. 329–362. Trein, P., 2015, Co-evolution of policy sectors: Health care and public health in ﬁve countries, Doctoral thesis, Department of Political, Historical and International Studies, University of Lausanne. Trein, P., 2017, Coevolution of policy sectors: A comparative analysis of health care and public health. Public Administration, 95(3), pp. 744–758. doi:10.1111/padm.2017.95.issue-3. Ugland, T. and Veggeland, F., 2006, Experiments in food safety policy integration in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), pp. 607–624. Urwin, K. and Jordan, A., 2008, Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), pp. 180–191. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.08.002. Van Schendelen, R., 2002, Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press). Varone, F., Nahrath, S., Aubin, D. and Gerber, J.-D., 2013, Functional regulatory spaces. Policy Sciences, 46(4), pp. 311–333. doi:10.1007/s11077-013-9174-1. Weber, M. and Driessen, P. P. J., 2010, Environmental policy integration: The role of policy windows in the integration of noise and spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(6), pp. 1120–1134. doi:10.1068/c0997. Weible, C. M. and Sabatier, P. eds, 2017, Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).

RA S4 The Integration and Coordination of Public Policies PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue