The Comparative Policy Agendas Project: theory, measurement and findings

Dowding, Keith; Hindmoor, Andrew; Martin, Aaron

doi:10.1017/s0143814x15000124

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include, for example, K 2012), specific verses diffuse interests (Kollman, 1998) and corporate versus public interest groups (Binderkrantz, 2008 associations, insider groups, outside groups or crossbench groups. The Comparative Policy Agendas Project which documents and measures changes in the policy agenda (the set of issues to which political actors are, at any given time, paying serious attention) uses a set of codes distinguishing between different functional areas of policy-making: macroeconomics, education, health, defence and so on to code material (Dowding et al, 2016). Whilst theoretically rich, these distinctions were too rigid to capture the variety of organisations found in our dataset.…”

Section: Ministerial Meetings Databasementioning

confidence: 92%

Who meets whom: Access and lobbying during the coalition years

Dommett

Hindmoor

Wood

2017

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2010, the incoming Coalition government announced that it would publish details of meetings between ministers and outside interests. We have collated and coded these data and, in this article, describe patterns of access between 2010 and 2015. In some respects, access is notably fragmented. No single organisation attends more than 2.5% of the 6292 meetings held by ministers. On the contrary, business, collectively, attends fully 45% of all meetings: more than twice the share of any other category of organisation. We also find evidence of distinctive policy communities characterised by high levels of access between particular interests and ministers within specific departments.

show abstract

Section: Ministerial Meetings Databasementioning

confidence: 92%

Who meets whom: Access and lobbying during the coalition years

Dommett

Hindmoor

Wood

2017

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Study of the executive branch, despite its great wealth of text data, has benefited the least thus far. Purpura and Hillard (2006) use topic modeling, an unsupervised learning approach (see the Fundamentals of Text Analysis section), to map congressional legislation onto the Policy Agendas Project (Dowding, Hindmoor, and Martin 2016), while Quinn et al (2010) use similar methods to measure political attention and agenda setting from congressional speeches. Many studies identify the words and phrases that distinguish Republican from Democratic speech, either in speeches (Diermeier et al 2012;Laver and Benoit 2002;Monroe, Colaresi, and Quinn 2008) or in bills (Denny, O'Connor, and Wallach 2015), and apply these sets of words to examine ideological multidimensionality and polarization.…”

Section: Judicial and Congressional Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Content of Presidential Policy Making: Applying Text Analysis to Executive Branch Directives

Kaufman¹

2019

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The executive branch produces huge quantities of text data: policy‐driving documents such as executive orders, national security directives, and agency regulations; procedural documents such as notices of proposed rule making, meeting transcripts, and presidential daily schedules; and public relations documents including press releases, veto statements, and social media posts. Political science is increasingly turning to methods of automated text analysis to rigorously interrogate such corpora. These tools have proved invaluable to scholars of the judiciary, of the legislature, and of political behavior; they hold great promise for the study of the presidency and bureaucracy. These methods' value lies in measuring complex, nuanced, yet theoretically critical quantities of interest like power, agenda setting, policy significance, ideology, and diplomatic resolve: by categorizing individual documents into a researcher‐defined schema, automated text methods produce large‐N data sets with fine temporal granularity. Recent work using text analysis to study unilateral actions illustrates these methods' promise for upturning conventional wisdom, settling long‐standing debates, and illuminating new puzzles in executive politics in the United States.

show abstract

“…What is more, the Policy Agendas Project was developed which—as the title suggests—collects data on the content of policy agendas. Initially being focused on the United States, under the label Comparative Policy Agendas Project, it has been expanded to several other countries and has provided a whole host of research (Dowding, Hindmoor, & Martin, ; John, ).…”

Section: Punctuated Equilibrium Theory—a Brief Overview Of Its Core Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is Known about Punctuated Equilibrium Theory? And What Does That Tell Us about the Construction, Validation, and Replication of Knowledge in the Policy Sciences?

Kuhlmann

Heijden

2018

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews how the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) has been applied in studies analyzing policy change. It builds on a systematic evidence synthesis of peer-reviewed empirical literature that is based on the core readings by Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones. The article identifies trends in the geographical and policy focus of PET studies; maps, explores, and interrogates how core concepts of PET are applied in empirical analyses; and, finally, assesses the analytical and explanatory power of PETwhen applied to empirical phenomena. The article finds that PET studies have contributed a great deal to our knowledge on particular cases, but that more often than not PET is applied in a selective manner. The article deals with the implications of these findings for further theory development in policy analysis.

show abstract

The Comparative Policy Agendas Project: theory, measurement and findings

Cited by 36 publications

References 65 publications

Who meets whom: Access and lobbying during the coalition years

Who meets whom: Access and lobbying during the coalition years

Measuring the Content of Presidential Policy Making: Applying Text Analysis to Executive Branch Directives

What Is Known about Punctuated Equilibrium Theory? And What Does That Tell Us about the Construction, Validation, and Replication of Knowledge in the Policy Sciences?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About