No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Journal of Public Policy in perspective
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 December 2011
Abstract
In this final JPP issue from the Centre for the Study of Public Policy, I review its distinctive aim of publishing articles applying relevant concepts from the social sciences to problems facing contemporary governments. The aim is illustrated by reprinting five articles from past issues and a Symposium (1986) discussing different ways in which social science journals are edited. The articles are Bowen (1982); Weaver (1986); Rose (2002); Silvia (2004); Bruner and Abdelal (2005).
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
References
CITATIONS
Artis, MichaelRose, Richard (2002) Currency Choices in an Interdependent World. A special issue of the Journal of Public Policy 22(2): 107–260.Google Scholar
Foley, MichaelEdwards, Bob (1999) Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital? Journal of Public Policy 19(2): 141–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Héritier, AdrienneLehmkuhl, Dirk (2008) The Shadow of Hierarchy and New Modes of Governance. Journal of Public Policy 28(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A. Grant (1981) Iron Triangles, Woolly Corporatism and Elastic Nets. Journal of Public Policy 1(1): 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico (1997) From the Positive to the Regulatory State. Journal of Public Policy 17(2): 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressman, JeffreyWildavsky, Aaron (1973) Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard (1976) Disciplined Research and Undisciplined Problems. International Social Science Journal 28(1): 99–121.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard (1991) What Is Lesson-Drawing? Journal of Public Policy 11(1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul (1986) Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research. Journal of Public Policy 6(1): 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symposium (1989) Whatever Happened to Social Indicators? Journal of Public Policy 9(4): 399–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar