Author:
McConnell Allan,’t Hart Paul
Abstract
Abstract
In recent decades, the policy sciences have struggled to come to terms with the significance of inaction in public policy. Inaction refers to instances when policymakers ‘do nothing’ about societal issues. This article aims to put the study of inaction on a new footing. It presents a five-part typology of forms of inaction before focusing on detail on core drivers of inaction found at four policy-making loci: individuals (coping behaviour), public organisations (information pathologies), governments (agenda control and protection) and networks (non-coordination and lack of feasibility). Acknowledging the conceptual and methodological challenges of researching inaction, it concludes by identifying strategies for putting ‘doing nothing’ (back) on the research agenda of the policy sciences.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,General Social Sciences,Sociology and Political Science,Development
Reference104 articles.
1. Albala-Bertrand, J. (2010). Responses to complex humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters: An analytical comparison. Third World Quarterly,21(2), 215–227.
2. Alberini, A., Bigano, A., Post, J., & Lanzie, E. (2016). Approaches and issues in valuing the costs of inaction of air pollution on human health. OECD environment working papers, No. 108, Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from
https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlww02k83r0-en
.
3. Althaus, C. (2008). Calculating political risk. Sydney: UNSW Press.
4. Anand, S., Desmond, C., Fuje, H., & Marques, N. (2012). The cost of inaction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,18(4), 543–571.
Cited by
87 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献