Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8wtlm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T08:25:04.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy integration and the eco-social debate in political analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Ekaterina Domorenok  and
Philipp Trein
Ekaterina Domorenok*
Affiliation:
University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Philipp Trein*
Affiliation:
University of Lausanne, Géopolis 4126, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
*
E-mail: ekaterina.domorenok@unipd.it
E-mail: josefphilipp.trein@unil.ch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In political research, scholars have increasingly paid attention to the political challenges of integrating new public policies into existing policy subsystems, which bears important implications for the study of eco-social policy and politics. By drawing on policy integration research, we identify and discuss insights and lessons deriving from policy integration scholarship, which appear to be relevant for understanding policy linkages between the social and environmental domains especially regarding the European Green Deal (EGD). More specifically, we focus on the following two aspects: (1) the elements of policy design and implementation practices that are deemed to be helpful for ensuring equilibrium between social and environmental goals and (2) political factors that are likely to affect policy integration dynamics along the social and environmental aspects (eco-social nexus). This article contributes to the literature by tracing novel research trajectories for the eco-social debate to explore in the policy integration perspective.

Keywords

Social policyEnvironmental policyPoliticsPolicy designPolicy implementation

Information

Type
Special Issue Article
Information
European Political Science , Volume 23 , Issue 1: Political science perspectives on the emerging eco-social policies, politics and polity in the European Union , March 2024 , pp. 70 - 79
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s)

Introduction

Academic investigation into the political consequences of the move toward sustainability and the accompanying societal hurdles has risen in significance. However, various conceptual, analytical, and empirical issues remain to be resolved. Presently, most of the policy discussion regarding sustainable transitions focuses on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Nevertheless, an important aspect of public policies toward sustainable transition such as the European Green Deal (EGD) emphasizes that the need for environmentally friendly transitions must be done in a socially just manner. For instance, public policies that seek to decrease emissions should be created in such a way as to prevent the creation of new disparities (Meadowcroft Reference Meadowcroft, Barry and Eckersley2009; Meadowcroft et al. Reference Meadowcroft2012).

This article explores some of the political challenges that come along with putting into place public policies for green transitions in a socially responsible way by exploring the implications of the literature on policy coordination and integration. This research has demonstrated that the task of combing different policies can be complicated not only due to the difficulty to balance potentially conflicting goals or to match appropriate instruments, but also because of tensions between various policy subsystems. Policy subsystemsFootnote 1 are communities of diverse actors that are specialized in particular policy fields that work together, e.g., regarding unemployment, economic growth, or environmental protection (Hill and Varone Reference Gugushvili and Otto2021; Howlett et al. Reference Hirvilammi, Häikiö, Johansson, Koch and Perkiö2020; Knill and Tosun Reference Kern, Rogge and Howlett2020; Weible and Sabatier Reference Weible and Sabatier2018). Coordinating actors and organizations that belong to different policy subsystems is complicated due to conflicting interests, beliefs, organizational turf defending, and policy styles (Cairney et al. Reference Büchs, Bardsley and Duwe2021); Peters Reference Peters2015), which constitute the relative autonomy of policy subsystems (Cairney and Weible Reference Büchs and Koch2017).

This article makes a conceptual contribution to this Symposium by reflecting on political challenges for the eco-social policy agenda along the following lines. First, the article identifies elements of policy design and implementation practices that are deemed to be relevant for ensuring equilibrium between social and environmental goals. Second, the article discusses pitfalls and trade-offs of policy integration across the social and environmental domains. Third, the text analyses political factors that are likely to affect policy integration dynamics along the eco-social nexus.

The eco-social debate from a policy perspective

As the introduction to this symposium illustrates (Cotta, 2023), scholars have largely reflected on the general compatibility and trade-offs between social, environmental, and economic objectives (Meadowcroft Reference Meadowcroft, Barry and Eckersley2009; Meadowcroft et al. Reference Meadowcroft2012), discussing the normative issues and societal tensions related to the need of addressing the social costs of ecological transition by specific policies (Fritz and Koch Reference Fischer and Leifeld2014; Gough et al. Reference Gough2011; Gough Reference Fritz and Koch2016; Gugushvili and Otto Reference Gough, Meadowcroft, Dryzek, Norgaard and Schlosberg2023). More recently, scholarly attention has been directed to the practical policy solutions aimed at solving potential tensions and trade-offs between environmental and social domains (Büchs and Koch Reference Briassoulis2019; Hirvilammi et al. Reference Hill and Varone2023).

This article focuses on the political consequences of this agenda by discussing how the eco-social agenda can be integrated into existing public policies. The previous literature has already examined policy capacity, i.e., the ability of the state to carry and to deal with new challenges, in the context of the eco-social transition (Gough et al. Reference Gough2011). Furthermore, the following aspects of policy design have received scholarly attention in this context: (1) the type of mitigation instruments to adopt to support sustainable welfare policies (Büchs et al. Reference Bohnenberger2011); (2) policy instruments that bring about eco-social (co)benefits (Bohnenberger Reference Perri.2020); and (3) mutual impacts of social and environmental policy instruments (i.e., greening labor market policies) (Sabato and Fronteddu 2020). The European Union (EU) context is especially important in this regard, because the European Green Deal has the ambition to reconcile environmental and social goals across a range of sectors (Sabato et al. 2021; Mandelli Reference Lasswell2022; Theodoropoulou et al. 2022; Petmesidou et al. Reference Petmesidou, Branco, Pavolini, González Begega and Guillén2023).

Eco-social policies and policy integration challenges

How does the policy integration perspective help improve our understanding of the political challenges of eco-social policies? Originally, policy integration research has focused on the integration of new policy problems (issues and goals?) into existing policies. For example, scholars have pointed to the necessity to integrate environmental priorities and concerns into existing policies and to build environmental protection measures coherently to other policy instruments (Briassoulis 2017; Jordan and Lenschow Reference Jordan and Lenschow2010). Furthermore, the literature has used the term for the analysis of other policy problems, such as social policy (Tosun and Lang Reference Tosun and Lang2017; Trein et al. Reference Trein, Maggetti and Meyer2021).

Also, scholars have used policy integration as an umbrella term for different concepts that analyze efforts linking between policy subsystems as well as levels of government in policy processes, such as holistic governance or whole-of-government (Tosun and Lang Reference Tosun and Lang2017). Yet, there is some agreement in the literature that policy integration goes beyond policy coordination between administrative organizations (Cejudo and Michel Reference Candel and Biesbroek2017; Trein and Maggetti Reference Trein and Maggetti2020), as it also includes the process of formulating new public policies thus involving political actors and interests.

In a broader perspective, policy integration has been defined as a process that entails integrating policy frames, policy goals, policy instruments, and policy subsystems (Candel and Biesbroek Reference Cairney, Howlett and Tosun2016). Indeed, the political nature of policy integration and the consequences of the subsystem structure for the policy integration process has increasingly attracted scholarly attention (Cejudo and Trein Reference Cejudo and Michel2023). Notably, if governments use the policy integration agenda to depoliticize issues, it becomes difficult to implement integrative policy strategies with new policy capacities. Creating financial and staff capacities to really integrate policies requires the presence of boundary-spanning actors that link different policy subsystems. Otherwise, there is a high likelihood that policy changes are implemented within existing policy subsystems in a sectoral approach that does not do justice to the cross-cutting policy goals (Cejudo and Trein Reference Cejudo and Michel2023).

Another important aspect for policy integration regarding the eco-social linkage can be drawn from the research on policy mixes, which explores how different policy goals and/or instruments can be effectively combined. This strand of research identifies the criteria to be met for policy mixes to be successful, namely, complementarity, consistency, and coherence (Capano and Howlett Reference Cairney and Weible2020; Cejudo and Michel Reference Capano and Howlett2021; Howlett et al. Reference Howlett, Ramesh and Perl2017). This means that “integrated” policy portfolios should ensure: consistency, or the ability of multiple policy tools to reinforce rather than undermine each other in the pursuit of policy goals; coherence, or the ability of multiple policy goals to co-exist with each other and with instrument norms in a logical fashion; and congruence, or the ability of goals and instruments to work together in a unidirectional or mutually supportive fashion (Kern et al. Reference Jordan and Lenschow2019; Lanzalaco Reference Koch, Vanhercke, Ghailani and Sabato2011; Rayner and Howlett Reference Rayner and Howlett2009).

A policy integration perspective has been somewhat implicit in the current eco-social debate, denoting above all the integration of environmental protection and social equality in the context of climate policies. The demand for just transition (Sabato and Fronteddu 2020) implies for policy integration that eco-social policies should be consistent (reinforcing rather than undermine each other’s goals), be coherent (co-exist in a logical fashion), and are congruent (work together in a way to support each other). Though being frequently referred to in both the scholarly debate and policy documents on eco-social policies, these criteria have not been systematically elaborated upon, and the way in which political factors matter for their presence or absence has not been investigated yet.

For example, scholars point out that the EGD requires considering four goals: environmental sustainability, productivity growth, fairness, and stability (Sabato and Fronteddu 2020, 20), which stand out as new EU normative propositions. In practice, integrating such broad goals into a single policy challenges decision-makers who need to balance different interests and ideological positions. From this perspective, policy integration at the EU level has been insufficient in the past due to a “silos” mentality and the lack of an overarching strategic framework (Sabato and Mandelli 2018), even though, the integration of SDGs into the European Semester framework, also in connection with the EGD, has led to improved inter-service coordination between the different Directorate Generals of the European Commission (Sabato and Mandelli 2018). In a similar vein, Koch noticed “that the EU fails to explicitly discuss the ‘potential tensions between its ambitious climate targets and its other policy goals such as economic growth, material prosperity and social welfare’,” and that, “the co-existence of a plethora of other non-environmental goals raises several policy coordination challenges. In practice, much of the burden to coordinate economic, social and environmental priorities to meet the goals defined at European level is left to the Member States” (Koch et al. Reference Knill and Tosun2018, 39).

Political challenges to integrate eco and social policies

Among multiple political challenges that decision-makers face when designing and implementing integrated policies, this article emphasizes four factors to be particularly relevant for eco-social policies, such as the EGD: the political temptation of integrated policy strategies, the political consequences of the subsystem logic, the absence of boundary-spanning actors, and the limitations of top-down vs. bottom-up policy integration.

The political temptation of integrated policy strategies

An important insight for understanding the eco-social linkage from a policy integration perspective is that governments use integrated political strategies to set the policy agenda or policy programs to address an important issue that spans across different policy sectors, or to promote far-reaching reforms that deal with an important and complex policy problem (Rayner and Howlett Reference Rayner and Howlett2009). For example, governments have used integrated strategies regarding climate change (Uittenbroek et al. Reference Uittenbroek, Janssen-Jansen and Runhaar2013), different public health topics (Trein Reference Trein2018), and digitalization (Radu Reference Radu2021).

Such strategies simultaneously address several policy goals and may be politically appealing as they allow to respond comprehensively to multiple societal demands but may at the same time have a depoliticizing effect. While outlining a broad agenda for policy change, they often lack concrete proposals about the specific attribution of funds and personnel, overlooking the regulation of economic and social practices that caused the problem they aim to address. Put differently, such strategies may aim at avoiding political conflicts (Fawcett et al. Reference Faling, Biesbroek, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Termeer2017) and be used by governments as a window-dressing exercise to seemingly respond to diverse policy demands to avoid potential policy failures (Cejudo and Trein Reference Cejudo and Michel2022). In the realm of eco-social policies, which indeed contain inherent conflicts and tensions, this scenario implies that politicians and/or public servants launch policy reforms spanning across environmental and social policy subsystems, but do not follow-up by creating appropriate cross-cutting policy instruments and/or administrative and financial capacities to ensure that policy integration goals are accomplished.

The political consequences of the subsystem logic

The second political challenge for integrating the social and environmental domains comes from the subsystem structure of the political system, which also determines the landscape of public policy actors. This means that specialized actors work on particular policy issues within the related subsystems, such as labor market policy, energy, financial policy, transportation, and environmental protection (Hill and Varone Reference Gugushvili and Otto2021; Howlett et al. Reference Hirvilammi, Häikiö, Johansson, Koch and Perkiö2020; Knill and Tosun Reference Kern, Rogge and Howlett2020; Lasswell Reference Lanzalaco1970; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith Reference Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith1993; Weible and Sabatier Reference Weible and Sabatier2018).

This structure implies two potential barriers to the design and implementation of eco-social policies. Firstly, we know from the literature on historical policy analysis that actors who established policy subsystems cling to the stability of policy instruments if they benefit from such structures, either materially (e.g., interest groups representing economic and professional actors), politically (e.g., elected officials whose voters like a particular policy), or interpretatively (e.g., as some existing policy structures represent a particular governance style) (Jacobs et al. Reference Howlett, Vince and Del Río2021; Mettler and SoRelle 2018; Pierson Reference Pierson2000).

Accordingly, it seems feasible to expect that existing subsystems would resist the changes needed for the integration of social and environmental aspects. For example, an eco-social approach might require that energy transition measures not only increase green energy production but also an employment policy-related approach including professional training for new jobs, relocation, or even income support to the workers who risk losing their jobs because of industrial restructuring. Secondly, eco-social policies need new knowledge and practices of policymaking and implementation, which contrast with the professional training and job experiences that have consolidated within existing policy subsystems. Professional identities and practices, which revolved around traditional policy sectors, might impede consistency, coherence, and congruence between ecological and social aspects (Peters Reference Peters2015).

The absence of boundary-spanning actors

The third challenge for eco-social policies is related to the absence of boundary-spanning actors in the policy process. Studies on policy integration have indicated that actors who are able to span across different policy subsystems can contribute to successfully establish policy integration reforms. Under certain conditions, the presence of a policy entrepreneur (Trein et al. Reference Trein, Maggetti and Meyer2021) or a committed leader (Rietig and Dupont Reference Rietig and Dupont2021) can become a driver for policy integration reforms. Similar insights come from the scholarship on agricultural policies and antimicrobial resistance, emphasizing the importance of boundary-spanning actors, i.e., policy actors who actively seek to connect between and across different policy sectors (Faling et al. 2019; Vogeler et al. Reference Vogeler, Hornung, Bandelow and Möck2021). These findings imply that such boundary-spanning could contribute to designing effective integrated eco-social policies. Shared platforms for established actors (e.g., environmental non-governmental organizations, green parties, trade unions, and left parties), such as policy forums (Fischer and Leifeld Reference Fawcett, Flinders, Hay, Wood, Fawcett, Flinders, Hay and Wood2015), could help to achieve boundary-spanning policy entrepreneurship.

Top-down versus bottom-up policy integration

Finally, the eco-social policy integration may face political challenge along the top-down vs. bottom-up dimensions of policy integration and coordination. Traditionally, the policy integration literature has conceived of policy integration as a top-down exercise where national governments integrate new policy goals into existing sectoral public policies, which, in turn, require implementation by lower levels of government (6 Reference Mettler and SoRelle2004; Christensen and Lægreid 2007; Tosun and Lang Reference Tosun and Lang2017). Nevertheless, in a more recent contribution, Domorenok and Tosun Reference Christensen and Lægreid2022 have pointed out that bottom-up policy integration is another way of how policies could be practically integrated without referring to a pre-established integrated policy framework. In fact, many examples exist of how lower levels of government, e.g., regional or municipal governments, can take independent action to integrate ecological and social policies (Winston Reference Winston2022).

This perspective implies important political challenges for eco-social policies. From a top-down perspective, the ambition of and the commitment to eco-social strategies by actors at lower levels of government should not be taken for granted. As Meadowcroft et al. (Meadowcroft et al. Reference Mandelli2005: 21) point out, “Important dimensions of variation in the contours of the ecostate in different countries are likely to include, among others, (1) the trade-offs between central and regional or local decision-making (especially important in federal states); (2) the extent to which the state is involved in collective decisions about environmental futures above and beyond the minimum requirements of crisis avoidance.” A bottom-up policy perspective and drive in eco-social policies may entail strong fragmentation and, consequently, the difficulty to share, upscale, and institutionalize successful policy integration policies and practices.

Conclusions

To sum up, policy integration studies suggest several research directions to be explored in the perspective of the eco-social debate and the research question outlined by this Symposium. The above overview has illustrated how a policy integration approach may help in analyzing the specific political challenges that eco-social transition policies such as the EGD pose to decision-makers. This includes especially the need to ensure consistency, coherence, and congruence between goals, instruments, and subsystems that deal with both environmental and social policy matters. The development of integrated governance architectures can also be challenged as the consolidated “silos” mentality underpinning sectoral logics needs to be overcome to enhance synergies and effectively solve multiple trade-offs along the eco-social axis at the different territorial levels. Finally, political challenges related to the absence of boundary-spanning actors who could advocate and promote a truly integrated eco-social agenda appear to be the most challenging issue, as it requires the transformation of norms, values, and underlying beliefs about social and environmental costs and benefits of green transition.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Lausanne.

Footnotes

1 I.e., policy sectors and policy fields; we use the terms synonymously.

Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Bohnenberger, Katharina 2020. Money, Vouchers, Public Infrastructures? A Framework for Sustainable Welfare Benefits, Sustainability, 12 (2): 596.10.3390/su12020596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briassoulis, Helen ed. 2017. Policy Integration for Complex Environmental Problems: The Example of Mediterranean Desertification, Oxon, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büchs, Milena, Bardsley, Nicholas and Duwe, Sebastian 2011. Who Bears the Brunt? Distributional Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Policies, Critical Social Policy, 31 (2): 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büchs, Milena and Koch, Max 2019. Challenges for the Degrowth Transition: The Debate about Wellbeing, Futures, 105: 155–165.10.1016/j.futures.2018.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, Paul 2021. The Concept of a Sectoral Policy Style, The Routledge Handbook of Policy Styles, ed. Howlett, Michael and Tosun, Jale London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cairney, Paul and Weible, Christopher M 2017. The New Policy Sciences: Combining the Cognitive Science of Choice, Multiple Theories of Context, and Basic and Applied Analysis, Policy Sciences, 50 (4): 619–627.10.1007/s11077-017-9304-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candel, Jeroen J. L. and Biesbroek, Robbert 2016. Toward a Processual Understanding of Policy Integration, Policy Sciences, 49 (3): 211–231.10.1007/s11077-016-9248-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, Giliberto and Howlett, Michael 2020. The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes, SAGE Open, 10 (1): 2158244019900568.10.1177/2158244019900568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cejudo, Guillermo M and Michel, Cynthia L 2017. Addressing Fragmented Government Action: Coordination, Coherence, and Integration, Policy Sciences, 50 (4): 745–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cejudo, Guillermo M and Michel, Cynthia L 2021. Instruments for Policy Integration: How Policy Mixes Work Together, SAGE Open, 11 (3): 21582440211032160.10.1177/21582440211032161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cejudo, Guillermo M., and Philipp Trein. 2022. Pathways to Policy Integration: A Subsystem Approach. Unpublished Manuscript.10.1007/s11077-022-09483-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cejudo, Guillermo M and Trein, Philipp 2023. Pathways to Policy Integration: A Subsystem Approach, Policy Sciences, 10.1007/s11077-022-09483-1 .10.1007/s11077-022-09483-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, Tom and Lægreid, Per 2007. The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform, Public Administration Review, 67 (6): 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotta, B. 2023. Unpacking the eco-social perspective in European policy, politics, and polity dimensions. European Political Science 23 (1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-023-00453-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domorenok, Ekaterina, and Jale Tosun. 2022. From cross-sectoral policy integration to policy sector transformation? Insights from European Regional Policy for the European Green Deal. In Paper presented at the 28th International Conference of Europeanists - Environmental Stewardship and Sector Transformation.Google Scholar
Faling, Marijn, Biesbroek, Robbert, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Sylvia and Termeer, Katrien 2019. Policy Entrepreneurship across Boundaries: A Systematic Literature Review, Journal of Public Policy, 39 (2): 393–422.10.1017/S0143814X18000053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Paul, Flinders, Matthew, Hay, Colin and Wood, Matthew 2017. Anti-politics, Depoliticization, and Governance, Anti-politics, Depoliticization, and Governance, ed. Fawcett, Paul, Flinders, Matthew, Hay, Colin and Wood, Matthew Oxford: Oxford University Press 10.1093/oso/9780198748977.001.Google Scholar
Fischer, Manuel and Leifeld, Philip 2015. Policy Forums: Why Do They Exist and What Are They Used For?, Policy Sciences, 48 (3): 363–382.10.1007/s11077-015-9224-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, Martin and Koch, Max 2014. Potentials for Prosperity without Growth: Ecological Sustainability, Social Inclusion and the Quality of Life in 38 Countries, Ecological Economics, 108: 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, Ian 2016. Welfare States and Environmental States: A Comparative Analysis, Environmental Politics, 25 (1): 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, Ian and Meadowcroft, James 2011. Decarbonizing the Welfare State, Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Dryzek, John S., Norgaard, Richard B. and Schlosberg, David Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gugushvili, D. and Otto, Adeline 2023. Determinants of Public Support for Eco-Social Policies: A Comparative Theoretical Framework, Social Policy and Society, 22 (1): 1–15.10.1017/S1474746421000348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Michael and Varone, Frédéric 2021. The Public Policy Process, London, New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003010203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirvilammi, Tuuli, Häikiö, Liisa, Johansson, Håkan, Koch, Max and Perkiö, Johanna 2023. Social Policy in a Climate Emergency Context: Towards an Ecosocial Research Agenda, Journal of Social Policy, 52 (1): 1–23 10.1017/S0047279422000721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, Michael, Ramesh, M. and Perl, Anthony 2020. Studying Public Policy: Principles and Processes, 4th ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howlett, Michael, Vince, Joanna and Del Río, Pablo 2017. Policy Integration and Multi-level Governance: Dealing with the Vertical Dimension of Policy Mix Designs, Politics and Governance, 5 (2): 69.10.17645/pag.v5i2.928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., Mettler, Suzanne and Zhu, Ling 2021. The Pathways of Policy Feedback: How Health Reform Influences Political Efficacy and Participation, Policy Studies Journal, 10.1111/psj.12424.Google Scholar
Jordan, Andrew and Lenschow, Andrea 2010. Environmental Policy Integration: A State of the Art Review, Environmental Policy and Governance, 20 (3): 147–158.10.1002/eet.539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Florian, Rogge, Karoline S and Howlett, Michael 2019. Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions: New Approaches and Insights through Bridging Innovation and Policy Studies, Research Policy, 48 (10): 103832.10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knill, Christoph and Tosun, Jale 2020. Public Policy: A New Introduction, London: Red Globe Press.Google Scholar
Koch, Max 2018. Sustainable Welfare, Degrowth and Eco-Social Policies in Europe, Social Policy in the European Union: State of Play 2018, ed. Vanhercke, Bart, Ghailani, Daila and Sabato, Sebastian 35–50. Brussels: OSE/ETU.Google Scholar
Lanzalaco, Luca 2011. Bringing the Olympic Rationality Back In? Coherence, Integration and Effectiveness of Public Policies, World Political Science, 10.2202/1935-6226.1098/html.10.2202/1935-6226.1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D 1970. The Emerging Conception of the Policy Sciences, Policy Sciences, 1 (1): 3–14.10.1007/BF00145189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelli, Matteo 2022. Understanding Eco-Social Policies: A Proposed Definition and Typology, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 28 (3): 333–348.10.1177/10242589221125083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadowcroft, James 2005. From Welfare State to Ecostate, The State and the Global Ecological Crisis, ed. Barry, John and Eckersley, Robyn 3–24. Cambridge: MIT Press 10.7551/mitpress/6439.003.0003.Google Scholar
Meadowcroft, James 2009. What about the Politics? Sustainable Development, Transition Management, and Long Term Energy Transitions, Policy Sciences, 42 (4): 323.10.1007/s11077-009-9097-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadowcroft, James, Oluf Langhelle, and Audun Ruud. 2012. “Governance, Democracy and Sustainable Development: Moving beyond the Impasse.” In Governance, Democracy and Sustainable Development, Edward Elgar Publishing, 1–13. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781849807562/9781849807562.00009.xml. 25 February 2022.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne and SoRelle, Mallory 2018. Policy Feedback Theories, Theories of the Policy Process,102–133. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Perri., 6. 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): 103–138.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy 2015. Pursuing Horizontal Management: The Politics of Public Sector Coordination, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Petmesidou, Maria, Branco, Rui, Pavolini, Emmanuele, González Begega, Sergio and Guillén, AnaMarta 2023. The EPSR and the Next Generation EU: Heralding a reconfiguration of social protection in South Europe?, Social Policy and Administration, 10.1111/spol.12892.10.1111/spol.12892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul 2000. Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics, American Political Science Review, 94 (2): 251–267.10.2307/2586011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radu, Roxana 2021. Steering the Governance of Artificial Intelligence: National Strategies in Perspective, Policy and Society, 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
Rayner, Jeremy and Howlett, Michael 2009. Introduction: Understanding Integrated Policy Strategies and Their Evolution, Policy and Society, 28 (2): 99–109.10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietig, Katharina and Dupont, Claire 2021. Presidential Leadership Styles and Institutional Capacity for Climate Policy Integration in the European Commission, Policy and Society, 40 (1): 19–36.10.1080/14494035.2021.1936913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. and Jenkins-Smith, Hank 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sabato, Sebastiano, and Boris Fronteddu. 2020. A Socially Just Transition through the European Green Deal? https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3699367. 21 January 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabato, Sebastiano, and Matteo Mandelli. 2018. The EU’s Potential for Promoting an Eco-social agenda. Report Prepared for the Project “Sustainable Welfare Societies: Assessing Linkages Between Social and Environmental Policies. NOVA Norwegian Social Research. Brussels: European Social Observatory, December, 35p.Google Scholar
Sabato, Sebastiano, Matteo Mandelli, and Bart Vanhercke. 2021. The Socio-Ecological Dimension of the EU Recovery. EUROsociAL Collection 24.Google Scholar
Theodoropoulou, Sotiria, Akgüç, Mehtap and Jakob Wall. 2022. Balancing objectives? Just transition in National Recovery and Resilience Plans. ETUI Working Paper 11. Available online from https://www.etui.org/publications/balancing-objectives-just-transition-national-recovery-and-resilience-plans.10.2139/ssrn.4243412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tosun, Jale and Lang, Achim 2017. Policy Integration: Mapping the Different Concepts, Policy Studies, 38 (6): 553–570.10.1080/01442872.2017.1339239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trein, Philipp 2018. Healthy or Sick Coevolution of Health Care and Public Health in a Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108670883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trein, Philipp and Maggetti, Martino 2020. Patterns of Policy Integration and Administrative Coordination Reforms: A Comparative Empirical Analysis, Public Administration Review, 80 (2): 198–208.10.1111/puar.13117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trein, Philipp, Maggetti, Martino and Meyer, Iris 2021. Necessary Conditions for Policy Integration and Administrative Coordination Reforms: An Exploratory Analysis, Journal of European Public Policy, 28 (9): 1410–1431.10.1080/13501763.2020.1788121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uittenbroek, Caroline J., Janssen-Jansen, Leonie B. and Runhaar, Hens A. C. 2013. Mainstreaming Climate Adaptation into Urban Planning: Overcoming Barriers, Seizing Opportunities and Evaluating the Results in Two Dutch Case Studies, Regional Environmental Change, 13 (2): 399–411.10.1007/s10113-012-0348-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogeler, Colette S, Hornung, Johanna, Bandelow, Nils C and Möck, Malte 2021. Antimicrobial Resistance Policies in European Countries – a Comparative Analysis of Policy Integration in the Water-Food-Health Nexus, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1: 1–12.Google Scholar
Weible, Christopher M and Sabatier, Paul A 2018. Theories of the Policy Process, London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429494284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, Nessa 2022. Sustainable Community Development: Integrating Social and Environmental Sustainability for Sustainable Housing and Communities, Sustainable Development, 30 (1): 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar