Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssues6:1ForumPolicy capacity research: An over...

Forum

Policy capacity research: An overview and bibliography of the international literature, 1978 to 2023

Bobby Thomas Cameron and Bryan Evans
p. 110-141

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview and bibliography of international policy capacity research that has developed over the past 40 years and to highlight themes that constitute the field. Through an international and multi-disciplinary synthesis of 311 English abstracts in 172 peer-reviewed journals, we find that policy capacity research has been driven by a handful of widely cited researchers, maintained a predominantly qualitative methodology, and focused on governments located in the West. Empirical research is needed to understand the dynamics of policy capacity outside of governments in the West, with a focus on developing actionable recommendations for practitioners to improve the quality of public policy in their respective jurisdictions. This paper fulfils the need for a comprehensive bibliography of policy capacity research for use by both academics and practitioners.

Top of page

Full text

Introduction

1Policy capacity, “the set of skills and resources—or competences and capabilities—necessary to perform policy functions” (Wu et al., 2015b, p. 165), is an area of inquiry that is important for both academics and practitioners. As aptly summarized by Mardiyanta and Wijaya (2022), policy capacity is pertinent to all stages of the policy cycle, includes government and nongovernmental organizations and requires a high level of capacity in multiple dimensions. Practitioners have implemented task forces (Anderson, 1996), training programs for civil servants (Cameron, 2022a) and developed new tools and frameworks (Washington & Mintrom, 2018) to identify and improve their policymaking capabilities. Academics have shown tremendous interest in policy capacity, demonstrated by the body of literature on the readiness of organizations and individuals to develop effective public policies, of which there are too many studies of this nature to concisely cite here. The combination of both scholarly and applied contributions to policy capacity has resulted in a complex web of inter- and multi-disciplinary studies.

2Journal articles are critical and central to the work of both academics and practitioners. University-based researchers are familiar with requirements to identify knowledge gaps and conduct literature reviews for funding applications and journal manuscripts. Graduate students are often required to do the same to fulfill the requirements of a thesis or dissertation. Policy practitioners, such as policy analysts, undertake research activities to help decision makers understand the general scope of a policy problem and to propose potential solutions. Peer-reviewed articles are an important tool that can aid analysts with evidence-informed policy development.

3However, whereas academics employed by universities in the Global North generally have access to paid journals, policymakers’ access is often limited. While some studies of public servants have shown that work units have a relatively adequate level of access to paid journals (Newman et al., 2016, p. 27; 2017, p. 164), others have pointed to a lack of access (Brownson et al., 2018, p. 31; Ouimet et al., 2017, p. 195) most notably in the Global South (Ashby, 2021). As such, it is important, particularly for practitioners, that abstracts are easily accessible, free, and contain a sufficient amount of information to inform policy decisions.

4Querying “policy capacity” in Google Scholar yields over 17,000 results, creating obvious challenges for practitioners and researchers who seek to quickly understand the general themes associated with policy capacity research. Particularly for those who are in the early stages of familiarizing themselves with policy capacity, articles that provide a broad overview of the general themes and findings contained in the literature serve as a useful starting point. Similarly, bibliographies have been published in peer-reviewed literature as a tool for academics and practitioners to become acquainted with various topics (see Éinrí & White, 2008; Goyal et al., 2013; Kang & Lee, 2016; Stevens, 2023). This article, and the bibliographies it contains, is intended for practitioners and researchers who are in the early stages of learning about policy capacity and how it has been studied and applied in different international contexts. We anticipate that this article and the extensive bibliography in the references section will be of interest to a range of audiences, including researchers who are new to the study of policy capacity, professors who may assign this article to students, and practitioners who wish to familiarize themselves with the literature.

5The guiding research question that this article answers is: What key themes constitute the body of policy capacity research as contained in the abstracts of English peer-reviewed journal articles? We present the results of a broad survey of policy capacity literature to better understand how this field of research has been constructed over the past 45 years. We find that, since the 1970s, a growing body of work has been produced outside Australia, North America and Europe, but a gap remains in English-language studies of policy capacity outside the context of governments in these continents. Furthermore, a relatively small group of researchers, most often affiliated with North American institutions, have collectively produced the vast majority of English studies of policy capacity. Studies have predominantly relied on qualitative methodologies and the perceptions of policy analysts to assess policy capacity at the federal level. Finally, most English abstracts of policy capacity studies lack concrete recommendations for practitioners to improve the effectiveness of public policy, which limits the applicability of results and perpetuates a theory-practice divide. There is an opportunity for future policy capacity research to employ new methodologies involving the end-users or target groups of public policy, particularly for studies set outside the context of the West, with a focus on developing recommendations for practitioners to improve the overall quality of public policy.

Policy Capacity Literature Review

6Definitions of policy capacity have evolved over the past 20 years, reflecting an increasingly complex view of policy development and its requisite capabilities and competencies. Fellegi (1996) wrote that policy capacity “is a loose concept which covers the whole gamut of issues associated with government’s arrangements to review, formulate and implement policies within its jurisdiction” (p. 1). Others, such as Evans and Wellstead (2013), understand policy capacity “broadly to include policy formulation and political responsiveness to the demands of social forces” (p. 63). The idea that policy capacity extends beyond the day-to-day tasks of government bureaucracy was highlighted by Parsons (2004), who saw policy capacity as a process of “mapping and navigating through the complexities of interconnected problems, multi-level governance, multiple fault lines and multiorganizational settings, cross-cutting issues, policy networks, organisational interdependencies and linkages” (p. 44). Therefore, while government appears to be fully embedded in most definitions of policy capacity, other definitions have recognized its globalized, networked, scalar, and nongovernmental features. Here, it is understood that policy is increasingly being developed in the context of networks, collaboration, and deliberation, and, therefore, the concept includes both government as well as non-governmental organizations (e.g., Evans & Wellstead, 2014). Finally, Wu et al. (2015b) define the concept as the set of necessary analytical, operational, and political skills and resources required at the individual (micro), organizational (meso) and systemic (macro) levels to perform policy functions. This definition appears to have gained traction among researchers, with over 250 articles in Scopus and 500 texts in Google Scholar citing Wu et al. (2015b).

7There are relatively few peer-reviewed articles whose primary purpose is to systematically review the policy capacity literature (Table 1).

Table 1. Peer-reviewed articles containing studies of the policy capacity literature

Author (Year)

Focus

Time Period

# of Articles Reviewed

Findings

Brenton et al. (2023)

Definitions of policy capacity

N/A

278

The body of work has evolved from a focus on bureaucratic and implementation capacity to “capacity as a function of state supply in response to public and political demands” (p. 303).

Mardiyanta and Wijaya (2022)

COVID-19 policy in Asia

January-October 2020

30

Most studies addressed operational capacity, with fewer studies focusing on political and analytical capacity.

Mukerjhee et al. (2021)

Policy design

1900-2020

146

The “body of research on policy design effectiveness … remains largely descriptive and tends to confound rather than clarify the relationship between policy capacity and effective policy design” (p. 260).

Wellstead (2019)

Topics included in literature and policy design

1997-2018

223

“Fairly broad macro-level political-economic topics such as state, governance, institutions, and politics” are addressed in the literature (p. 169).

Gleeson et al. (2009)

Health

1995-2005

15

Policy capacity recommendations focus mainly on organizational capacity and individual competencies.

Baskoy et al. (2011) and Johns (2014) noted that the empirical policy capacity literature has been understood mainly in the neo-institutionalist tradition, is lacking in focus on non-state actors, is largely compartmentalized (e.g., it is either government-focused or non-government-focused, not both), is often aggregated across an entire level of government or across an entire department, and is often focused on policy capacity within or between jurisdictions (see also Levasseur, 2014).

Source: the Authors

8To date, studies of the literature have tended to focus on specific concepts or regions of the world. We are not aware of any bibliographies or reviews of the policy capacity literature that provide an overview of the general international landscape of policy capacity research.

Research Methods

9Integrative reviews provide an opportunity to make sense of a concept or area of research, particularly one that is fragmented across research approaches and fields (Cronin & George, 2023). Whittemore and Knafl (2005) proposed a methodological strategy for conducting integrative reviews, which was subsequently adopted for this study, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Stages of the integrative review process.

Stage of Review

Present Study

Problem Identification

We observed that articles providing a bibliography and global perspective of the general policy capacity research landscape were missing from the body of English peer-reviewed literature. Such introductory-type articles are important, particularly for students, researchers, and practitioners new to the study of policy capacity.

Literature Search

Our search parameters were designed to cast as wide a net as possible to capture as many English peer-reviewed journal articles as possible.

  • Date of Search: August 2022 to February 2023

  • Databases and Sources: GoogleScholar1, Scopus2, 39 policy-relevant journals3

  • Timeframe: None

  • Keywords: “policy capacity/ies”, “policy capability/ies”, “capacity/capability for policy research”, “policy research capacity/capability”, “skills for policy”

  • Inclusion criteria: An abstract was considered relevant and subsequently included in the sample if ‘policy capacity’ or a closely related term appeared in the title or abstract.4

Evaluation

Abstracts were evaluated in a manner similar to historical research, where “the authenticity, methodological quality, informational value, and representativeness” were considered (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 550 citing Kirkevold, 1997).

Analysis

We coded and categorized the content contained in the abstracts to identify key themes across the entire sample of abstracts.

Presentation

In this article, we capture the breadth and depth of policy capacity research and emphasize implications for practice, research, and policy. Bibliographies are presented for each continent to support future research and learning.

1 Google Scholar is a common tool used by researchers (Oh & Colón-Aguirre, 2019; Pierce et al., 2014) and provides more coverage for the social sciences than other databases (Doğan, 2022; Gehanno et al., 2013). However, known issues include a lack of systematic quality control in the articles retrieved through searches (Doğan, 2022). Therefore, other databases and sources were also searched.

2 Scopus is a multidisciplinary database considered to be “among the largest curated bibliographic abstract and citation databases today” providing approximately 76 million “high quality” records as of 2020 (Baas et al., 2020, p. 377).

3 A total of 39 policy-relevant journals were identified with the assistance of an information specialist at Toronto Metropolitan University.

4 In total, 311 articles published in English were included in the study, of which 93 (29%) were a study of policy capacity (the remaining articles contained findings relevant to policy capacity).

Source: the Authors

Limitations

10Our study has limitations that may affect its results. First, only abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles were included. Excluded from the study were books (e.g., Howlett et al., 2017; Inwood et al., 2011; Owen et al., 2017; Painter & Pierre, 2005b; Wu et al., 2018), conference papers (e.g., Lodhi, 2018; Saguin et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2015a) working papers and technical reports (e.g., Cameron, 2018; Ramesh et al., 2016), theses and dissertations (e.g., Akcay, 2017; Cameron, 2019; Fobé, 2020; Lawrence, 2020; Hassen, 2015; Houle, 2015; Krouzil, 2011; Oli, 2018; Patterson, 2015; Rahman, 2015; Robinson, 2003; Tanis, 2021) government reports (e.g., Auditor General of Manitoba, 2001; Fellegi, 1996; Government of Australia, 2019; Government of New Zealand, 2022; Peters, 1996), public sector periodicals and blogs (e.g., Katsonis, 2019; Washington, 2023), news articles (e.g., Doyle, 2007), and other media (e.g., Agileducation, 2020; Bali, 2020; Rural Policy Learning Commons, 2021). These are potentially valuable sources for understanding the body of knowledge on policy capacity. Second, only English abstracts were included in the sample. There is a high likelihood that there are peer-reviewed articles published in languages other than English that were not included in the study. Third, the quality of the abstracts varied widely, with some abstracts providing details on most, if not all, of the variables of interest to the study, while other abstracts provided little or no relevant information, such as key findings, methodology, or geographic context. Therefore, it is possible that variables relevant to the study were not included in the abstracts but may be found in the body of the articles. To mitigate these limitations, this article does not make claims about the body of policy capacity knowledge; rather we have been careful to specify that the findings speak to themes and patterns in policy capacity research as found only in the abstracts of English peer-reviewed journal articles.

Results

Periodization, Authors and Journals

11The sample covered five decades, from the 1970s to the 2020s, with the earliest publication in 1978 (Sundquist) and the most recent in 2023 (e.g., Albareda et al.; da Cunha Saddi; Denis et al.; Husain et al.; Knox & Janenova; Lesch & McCambridge; Mascarenhas de Oliveira Amaral et al., 2023; Migone & Howlett; Roy et al.) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

12Year of Publication (N=311)

Source: the Authors

13There was a notable increase in the number of publications between 2010 and 2019, with 51 percent of articles published during this period. Twenty-five percent of articles were published in the first three years of the 2020 decade (2020 to 2023). There were 251 first authors in the sample, and 178 articles (71%) had two or more authors. A total of 10 individuals, seven of whom were affiliated with North American institutions, were listed as first author on three or more articles. Combined, these 10 authors were listed as first author on 81 percent of all articles in the sample. As shown in Table 3, 172 journals were included in the sample, with ten journals publishing five or more articles each, for a combined total of 36 percent of the articles. The remaining 162 journals published four articles or less (66%).

Table 3. Number and percentage of journals in the sample

Journal

Articles

(#)

% of Total (N=311)

1. Policy and Society

27

9%

2. Canadian Public Administration

13

4%

3. Australian Journal of Public Administration

11

4%

4. Canadian Political Science Review

11

4%

5. International Journal of Health Policy and Management

10

3%

6. Policy Sciences

10

3%

7. Review of Policy Research

8

3%

8. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis

7

2%

9. Journal of Asian Public Policy

5

2%

10. Policy Design and Practice

5

2%

Total (Top Ten Journals)

107

34%

Other Journals

204

66%

Total

311

100%

Does not equal 100% due to rounding.

Source: the Authors

14Second to policy and administration, journals associated with health, the environment, and education featured prominently in the sample, with 32 abstracts found in journals associated with health or medicine, 15 associated with the environment or ecology, and 11 associated with education or teaching. An even closer look at the results shows the diversity of fields in which policy capacity research can be found. For example, Agricultural and Food Economics; Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research; Energies; Sport in Society; Urban Studies and World Development all contained at least one abstract relevant to the study, reflecting the multi-disciplinary nature of policy capacity.

Empirical findings, theories and concepts

15In total, 59 percent of the abstracts included at least one empirical finding, 41 percent of the articles contained at least one theoretical or conceptual finding, and 12 percent of the abstracts contained no easily discernable findings. A broad range of theories and concepts were found in the abstracts (Table 4).

Table 4. Theories and concepts

Theory/Concept

e.g.

Policy capacity theory

Brenton et al. (2023 ; Peters (2015) ; Regonini (2017) ; Wu et al. (2015b)

Policy capacity assessment tools, frameworks, training and interventions

Angel (2015) ; Cameron (2022a) ; de Coning (1994); Gleeson et al. (2016) ; Keynejad et al. (2016) ; Lawrence et al. (2020); Lutabingwa et al. (1997); Oehmke et al. (2022); Polidano, (2000); Scott (2013)

Globalization and internationalization

Cerny (1999); Conley (2022); Porto de Oliveira & Massaco Koga (2023)

Governance

Howlett & Ramesh (2014, 2016); Mukherjee & Howlett (2015); Rayner & Howlett (2009)

New public management

Edwards (2009)

Regulations

Howlett & Mukherjee (2016)

Innovation

Karo & Kattel (2014)

Policy analysis styles

Head (2019); Regonini (2017); Newman et al. (2022)

Social movements

Ng (2013)

Policy evaluation

Pattyn & Brans (2015)

Design

Mukherjee et al. (2021); Mukherjee & Bali (2019)

Leadership

Cameron (2022b); Gleeson et al. (2011); Tiernan (2011)

Ontology and epistemology

Parsons (2004)

Research ethics

Cameron (2021)

Policy problems

Walter et al. (2020)

Source: the Authors

16Using the policy capacity framework described earlier to understand patterns regarding the scope of findings shows that most articles (42%) included findings related to organizations (“meso”) and 37% contained findings associated with the environment or system within which organizations are located (“macro”). Less than 26 percent of abstracts contained findings associated with individual policy workers (“micro”).

Methodologies

17The majority of abstracts in the sample indicated that some form of qualitative methodology had been used (70%). Fewer articles were quantitative (19%) followed by mixed methods research (5%). Interviews and case studies appeared to be common qualitative methods, while surveys and secondary data analysis were often employed with quantitative methodologies. Interviews were most commonly conducted with governmental policy analysts (e.g., Cameron, 2020, 2021, 2022b; Hughes et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2013) while interviews with representatives of nongovernmental organizations were less common (e.g., Evans & Wellstead, 2014; Fraussen & Halpin, 2017). Methodologies involving end-users of policy, such as citizens, were not identified in any of the abstracts reviewed. Finally, nine percent of the abstracts reported studies that compared two or more countries or regions (e.g., Capano & Lippi, 2021; Dickenson et al., 2022; Schiavon & Figueroa, 2019; Sundquist, 1978).

Organization Type

18In total, 66 percent of the articles in the sample focused on some aspect of government and 15 percent focused on some aspect of the non-governmental sector. The remaining 19 percent were either conceptual in nature or lacked sufficient information to determine whether they addressed governmental or nongovernmental matters. Looking more closely at the articles that focused on governments, it was found that at least 57 percent of government-focused articles examined matters related to the federal level (38% of the entire sample), while at least 25 percent focused on the provincial or state level, and 11 percent focused on the local, municipal, or city level (“at least” is used because 7 percent of the abstracts indicated that government was a focus of the article but did not specify which level). Combining the provincial, state, and local, municipal, and city articles, at least 36 percent of the articles in the sample focused on some aspect of policy capacity at the sub-national level.

Topics and Continents

19As shown in Table 5, all habitable continents and 14 major themes were found in the sample.

Table 5. Article topics by continent

Africa

Asia

Australia

Europe

North

America

South

America

N.A.

N.D.

Total

(#)

% Sample (N=311)

# of Articles

Public Admin.

3

18

13

12

39

4

4

1

94

30%

Health

7

18

5

4

10

2

8

2

56

18%

Environment

2

8

2

10

20

0

1

1

44

14%

Training

6

3

1

1

6

0

1

3

21

7%

Finance

0

5

1

2

5

2

2

0

17

5%

Governance

2

8

0

1

1

0

2

1

15

5%

Development

3

7

0

1

0

3

0

0

14

5%

Education

2

1

0

5

3

1

0

2

14

5%

Innovation

2

2

2

5

1

2

0

0

14

5%

Politics

0

5

1

2

1

1

2

0

12

4%

Social Policy

1

3

0

2

2

2

1

0

11

4%

Economy

3

0

0

3

1

1

0

1

9

3%

Policy Analysis

2

1

0

3

0

1

0

0

7

2%

Design

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

5

2%

Other

3

5

3

9

12

0

3

3

38

12%

Total

36

87

28

60

101

19

26

14

(Note)

(Note)

% Sample (N=311)

12%

28%

9%

19%

32%

6%

8%

5%

(Note)

(Note)

One article could focus on more than one topic and continent. Therefore, the combined total for topics and continents is greater than the sample. ‘N.A.’: Continent not applicable. ‘N.D.’ Continent not identifiable in abstract.

20Source: the Authors

21Public administration was the most represented topic in the sample, with 30% of articles focusing on some aspect of government (such as the bureaucracy, civil servants, or public service at large). Health and the environment also featured prominently in the sample, with 18 percent and 14 percent of articles, respectively, focusing on these topics. Topics included under an ‘other’ category included food, immigration, and transportation (4 articles each); think tanks and infrastructure (3 articles each); agriculture, business, housing, human resources, labor, land, and law (2 articles each); and evaluation, sports, security, technology, and trade (1 article each).

22South America was least represented in the sample, with six percent of the articles focusing on the continent. North America was the most common geographic focus of the studies, with 32% of articles examining some aspect of policy capacity in relation to a country in that continent. This was followed by Asia (28%), Europe (19%), Africa (12%), and Australia (9%).

Africa

23Knowledge relevant to understanding policy capacity in Africa was most commonly found in abstracts for studies related to health policy and training for policymakers. Abstracts most often reported on studies associated with the African continent, a region within the continent, South Africa, Ghana, Malawi, and Tanzania (Table 6).

Table 6. Africa – Bibliography

Location

Select References

Continent or Region in Africa

Babu (2001); Baek (2019); Cloete (2002); Ebikeme (2022); Kinyanjui (1994); Lutabingwa et al. (1997); Orsini et al. (1996); Petersen & Kruss (2021); Rispel & Bruce (2015); Williams (1999)

South Africa

Blaauw et al. (2014); de Coning (1994); de Coning & Fick (1995); Ditlopo et al. (2014); Förster et al. (2021); Heymans (1996)

Ghana

Appiah-Adu & Aning (2012); Dordunoo et al. (1997); Dugle et al. (2021)

Malawi

Akiba et al. (2019); Babu (1997, 2000)

Tanzania

Akiba et al. (2019); Churk & Volkner (2021); Yambesi (1997)

Nigeria

Uneke et al. (2017, 2018)

Congo

Ragasa et al. (2014)

Mauritius

Carroll & Carroll (1999)

Uganda

Ssonko (1997)

Source: the Authors

Asia

24Asia was the second most represented continent in the sample (28%), surpassed only by North America (32%). The body of work on policy capacity in Asian countries was most often situated in studies of public administration and, or in combination with, health. Compared to other continents, studies of policy design containing findings relevant to policy capacity were most often associated with Asia, as were studies of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Asmorowati et al., 2022; Ginata et al., 2022; Sajadi & Hartley, 2022; Woo, 2020; Zhu et al., 2022). The countries most frequently included in Asian research were China, Indonesia, Iran, India, and the Philippines (Table 7).

Table 7. Asia – Bibliography

Location

Select References

China

Cheung (2004, 2007); Groth (2003); He et al. (2022); Husain et al. (2023); Tan & Bairner (2011); Zhu et al. (2022)

Iran

Foruzande & Fateh (2019); Khoondi et al. (2022); Mirzamani et al. (2022); Rowshan & Momeni (2022); Sajadi & Hartley (2022); Tirandaz et al. (2021)

Indonesia

Asmorowati et al. (2022); Ginata et al. (2022); Harmensyah et al. (2021); Newman et al. (2022); Setiawan et al. (2022); Tan (2019)

India

Bali & Ramesh (2019); Chindarkar (2017); Goyal & Saguin (2019); Maurya (2019); Roy et al. (2023)

Philippines

Blanco & Bairner (2019); Jensen (2019); Saguin et al. (2018)

Thailand

Bali & Ramesh (2019); Croissant & Chambers (2010)

Vietnam

Phuong et al. (2018); Wurtzebach et al. (2019)

Kazakhstan

Knox & Janenova (2023)

Kyrgyzstan

Knox & Janenova (2023)

Laos

Vilaysouk et al. (2018)

Malaysia

Jensen (2019);

Pakistan

Siddiqi (2021)

Singapore

Woo (2020)

Continent

Mukherjee & Howlett (2015)

Source: the Authors

Australia

25Policy capacity findings associated with continental Australia were often set in the context of studies of public administration or health. According to the information provided in the abstracts, most articles were based on research conducted in Australia, with fewer articles focusing on New Zealand or other countries in the continent (Table 8).

Table 8. Australia - Bibliography

Location

Select References

Australia

Althaus et al. (2021); Butcher & Dalton (2014); Carson & Wellstead (2015); Conley (2002); Dickinson et al. (2022); Daugbjerg & Halpin (2010); Edwards (2009); Fraussen & Halpin (2017); Ginata et al. (2022); Gleeson et al. (2009, 2011, 2016); Hughes et al. (2015); Jones (2001); Lindquist & Tiernan (2011); McGann et al. (2021); Milligan & Tiernan (2011); Newman et al. (2017); O’Flynn et al. (2011); Scott (2013); Tiernan (2011) Uhr (1996); Vince & Nursey-Bray (2016); Walter et al. (2020)

New Zealand

Dickinson et al. (2022); McGann et al. (2021); McKinlay (2016); Scott (2013); Tenbensel & Silwal (2023); Washington & Mintrom (2018)

Source: the Authors

Europe

26In the European abstracts, findings relevant to understanding policy capacity were most frequently found in studies related to public administration and the environment. Studies set in the context of continental Europe, its regions, and the European Union were most common, followed by abstracts that included findings relevant to understanding policy capacity in the context of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Romania, and Spain (Table 9).

Table 9. Europe - Bibliography

Location

Select References

Continent or Regions

Albareda et al. (2023); Coremans & Meissner (2018); Cucca & Ranci (2022); da Cunha Saddi et al. (2023); Karo (2011); Karo & Kattel (2014); Kasperskaya & Xifré (2020); Lierse (2012); Sundquist (1978)

United Kingdom

Cooke & Robimrie (1989); Giest (2017); Keating (2011); Kuzemko (2022); McDaniel (2014)

France

Adisson et al. (2020); Dupuy (2014); McDaniel (2014); Regonini (2017)

Germany

Dupuy (2014); Regonini (2017); Klüser (2022); Stipetić (2013)

Belgium

Kurzer (1997); Pattyn & Brans (2015); Vanhoof et al. (2009)

Denmark

Daugbjerg & Halpin (2010); Giest (2017); Klüser (2022)

Romania

Neves (2000); Petrescu & Lambru (2021); Stănuș (2022)

Spain

Busetti & Dente (2015); Regonini (2017); Salvador & Sancho (2021)

Czech Republic

Evans & Veselý (2014); Nekola & Kohoutek (2016)

Ireland

Birrell (2014); Murphy & Hogan (2020)

Italy

Adisson et al. (2020); Regonini (2017)

Scotland

Busetti & Dente (2015); Keating (2005)

The Netherlands

Klüser (2022); Sleegers et al. (1994)

Wales

Lesch & McCambridge (2023); Quinn (2002)

Austria

Giest (2017)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Struyk & Miller (2004)

Russia

Cashaback (2008)

Serbia

McConnell (2009)

Sweden

Giest (2017)

Source: the Authors

North America

27North American research comprised the largest share of the sample, with 32 percent of abstracts containing findings pertinent to understanding policy capacity in Canada (74% of the North American sub-sample), the United States (20% of the sub-sample) or Mexico (5% of the sub-sample) (Table 10). The most common type of study featured matters related to public administration, followed by environment and climate change.

Table 10. North America - Bibliography

Location

Selected References

Canada

Federal/National Focus

Anderson (1996); Bakvis (2000); Craft & Daku (2017); Donaldson (2007); Flynn (2011); Hale (2020); Henderson & Craft (2022); Kmiecic (1997); Morton (1995); Nason & O’Neill (2015); Perl & White (2002); Roberge (2013); Wellstead (2019); Wellstead & Stedman (2010); Wellstead et al. (2009); Wilson (2016)

Federal Comparative

Baskoy et al. (2011); Béland et al. (2019); Craft & Howlett (2013); Howlett & Wellstead (2012); Migone & Howlett (2023); Nekola & Kohoutek (2016); Rayner (2012); Rayner et al. (2013)

Provinces/Territories

Alberta (Clare & Creed, 2014) British Columbia (Perl & Newman, 2012); Ontario (Perl & Newman, 2012); Prince Edward Island (Cameron, 2020, 2021, 2022a, 2022b); Quebec (Bédard, 2015); Multiple & Other (Denis et al., 2023; Evans & Veselý, 2014; Evans & Wellstead, 2013; Newman et al., 2013; Sapeha et al., 2019; Weinrib & Jones, 2014)

Other1

Craft et al. (2013); Howlett (2009a); Howlett & Oliphant (2010); Howlett & Wellstead (2011); Levasseur (2014); Wellstead et al. (2011); Wellstead & Stedman (2011); Williams (2012)

United States

Allred et al. (2021); Castrucci et al. (2015); Craft & Howlett (2013); Elgin et al. (2012); Hertel-Fernandez (2014); Lane et al. (2016); Mumme (2015); Pirani et al. (2022); Press (1998); Shaffer (1995); Sundquist (1978); Waugh & Hy (1988); Willison (2017)

Mexico

Aguilar-Barajas & Ramirez (2019); Mumme (2015); Rojas & Ponce (2021); Schiavon & Figueroa (2019)

1 ‘Other’: Study addressed Canadian context, but abstract did not indicate if study focused on federal only, federal comparative or provinces/territories.

Source: the Authors

South America

28South America was the least represented continent in the sample, with six percent of articles containing findings relevant to understanding policy capacity in the continent. As with other continents where English is not the dominant language, the study’s limitation of searching only English abstracts is likely reflected in these findings. Abstracts containing findings relevant to understanding policy capacity in South America were most often set in the context of Brazil (Table 11).

Table 11. South America - Bibliography

Location

Select References

Brazil

Mascarenhas de Oliveira Amaral et al. (2021); Morais de Sá e Silva (2022); Fenwick & Rennó (2022); Ferraz et al. (2022); Koga et al. (2022); Loureiro et al. (2020); Shiavon & Figueroa (2019)

Argentina

Buckley (2006)

Bolivia

Arce (2003)

Chile

Buckley (2006)

Columbia

Paz-Gomez & Santelices Enríquez (2020)

Ecuador

Paz-Gomez & Santelices Enríquez (2020)

Source: the Authors

Observations and Discussion

29As noted by Wu et al. (2015b), policy capacity continues to be a fundamental concept in policy studies. This is evidenced by the sheer number of publications about policy capacity that are included in this article. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have generated renewed interest in understanding the capacity of organizations and individuals to develop public health policy. Given that health was one of the most frequently addressed topics in the sample, second only to public administration, academics and practitioners have a solid base of knowledge from which to draw for future pandemic-related studies and initiatives.

30Studying policy capacity in health and other policy domains is important because it shows a government’s general capacity to govern (Painter & Pierre, 2005b). Theoretically, it is assumed that low levels of policy capacity increases the likelihood of policy failure (Wellstead et al., 2011) or at least a diminishing of the quality of the “final product” (Craft & Howlett, 2013, p. 10). However, policy capacity research needs to be transferred to the world of policy work to improve the capacity of governments and other organizations to develop public policy. The paucity of action-oriented recommendations for practitioners in the abstracts is therefore concerning. While we recognize that identifying and understanding the root causes of problems is a valid and important scholarly endeavor, we also see public administration as a discipline that has great potential to bridge the divide between theory and practice. This divide can be narrowed, in part, by ensuring that abstracts include recommendations for improving policy capacity that policymakers can consider.

31Our review of the abstracts found that, methodologically, policy capacity research continues to maintain a qualitative orientation and often relies on the perceptions and observations of policymakers to complete assessments of analytical, operational, and political skills and resources. Policy capacity research methodologies can be further developed by considering the possibilities of using empirical methods and involving citizens. Indeed, arguments have been put forward which stress that effective public policy development requires a connection between analysts and the end-users or target groups of policy (e.g., Blomkamp 2018; Pahl-Wostl, 2010). In the future, there is an opportunity to further develop policy capacity research methodologies that involve citizens in policy capacity assessments.

32For researchers and practitioners working exclusively in English, there are major gaps in the body of English peer-reviewed journal articles addressing policy capacity outside of Australia, Europe, and North America. Even more so, we see evidence of elements of “methodological nationalism” (Mahon et al., 2007; Chou et al., 2022), where, overall, sub-national governments and nongovernmental organizations appear to be addressed less frequently in the English peer-reviewed literature when compared to national governments. This finding is at odds with definitions of policy capacity that see public policy as an output of the interplay between international bodies, national and sub-national governments, nongovernmental organizations, interest groups, the public, and other actors.

33As such, there is an opportunity for future research to more closely examine the dynamics of policy capacity outside the context of federal governments in Western countries; joint research projects between English and non-English speaking policy capacity researchers located in different areas of the world may be one way to achieve this. The results show that a comparative methodology is emerging in the English peer-reviewed literature, as well as a tendency for articles to be published by two or more authors. Therefore, the comparative and multi-author nature of the existing research provides a framework for such types of joint projects.

34Finally, while the findings described in the abstracts did indeed identify situations where high levels of policy capacity were observed and assessed (e.g., Carroll & Carroll, 1999; Edwards, 2009; Daugbjerg, 2022; Fenwick & Rennó, 2022; Flynn, 2011; Zhu et al., 2022), overall, most studies pointed to declines and deficits in policy capacity. This raises several important questions that should be addressed in future studies of policy capacity and related literature. For example, to what degree is the lack of studies showing high levels of policy capacity purely a result of the search strategy used in this article? Do studies in languages other than English contain examples of policy capacity “success”? Or, in fact, do governments around the world generally lack adequate levels of policy capacity (which is the overall assessment one arrives at when looking at the 311 English peer-reviewed abstracts)? Should all studies of policy capacity contain recommendations for improving policy capacity in practice? This last question requires a much more abstract and general consideration of the purpose of research and its intended outcomes. In other words, should policy capacity research be assessed in terms of the extent to which it has instrumentally improved day-to-day decision-making in public administration practice? Nevertheless, there is an opportunity for future research to deliberately seek out examples of where policy capacity has been improved or where an adequate level of policy capacity has been observed to achieve outcomes. This research is needed not only to fill gaps, but also to provide an important blueprint for policymakers seeking to improve public policy.

Conclusion

35This study has provided a broad overview and integrated synthesis of international policy capacity research as presented in the abstracts of English peer-reviewed journal articles. The article provides an opportunity to those new to the study of policy capacity to become acquainted with and reflect on the cumulative body of research across a variety of disciplines and continents. We find that policy capacity research has been driven by a handful of widely cited researchers, maintained a predominantly qualitative methodology, and focused on individuals and organizations in the public sector. More research is needed to understand the dynamics of policy capacity outside of governments in the West using empirical methodologies, with a focus on developing actionable recommendations for practitioners to improve the quality of public policy in their respective jurisdictions.

Top of page

Bibliography

Akcay, M. (2017). The bureaucratic policy capacity of the Turkish Ministry of the interior (2002 - 2016) [Doctoral thesis, University of Southhampton].
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423434/

Adisson, F., & Artioli, F. (2020). Four types of urban austerity: Public land privatisations in French and Italian cities. Urban Studies, 57(1), 75-92.

Agileducation. (2020, November 27). Policy capacity & managing Covid response by prof Xun Wu. YouTube. https://youtu.be/FY_1lzCqKog

Aguilar-Barajas, I., & Ramirez, A. (2019). Recovering of the Monterrey Metropolitan Area, Mexico, after Hurricane Alex (2010): The role of the Nuevo Leon State Reconstruction Council. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7, 1-13.

Akiba, C., Go, V., Mwapasa, V., Hosseinipour, M., Gaynes, B., Amberbir, A., Udedi, M., & Pence, B. (2019). The sub-Saharan Africa Regional Partnership (SHARP) for mental health capacity building: A program protocol for building implementation science and mental health research and policymaking capacity in Malawi and Tanzania. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 13(1), 1-13.

Albareda, A., Braun, C., & Fraussen, B. (2023). Explaining why public officials perceive interest groups as influential: On the role of policy capacities and policy insiderness. Policy Sciences, 56.

Allred, S., Stedman, R., Heady, L., & Strong, K. (2021). Incorporating biodiversity in municipal land-use planning: An assessment of technical assistance, policy capacity, and conservation outcomes in New York’s Hudson Valley. Land Use Policy, 104, 1-17.

Althaus, C., Carson, L., & Smith, K. (2021). Rethinking the commissioning of consultants for enhancing government policy capacity. Policy Sciences, 54, 887-889.

Anderson, G. (1996). The new focus on the policy capacity of the federal government. Canadian Public Administration, 39(4), 469-488.

Angel, H. (2015). Measuring policy analytical capacity for the environment: A case for engaging new actors. Policy and Society, 34(3-4), 197-208.

Appiah-Adu, K., & Aning, S. (2012). Enhancing government’s policy management and decision-making system: The case of Ghana’s central governance reforms project. Canadian Public Administration, 55(1), 125-147.

Arce, A. (2003). Value contestations in development interventions: Community development and sustainable livelihoods approaches. Community Development Journal, 38(3), 199-212.

Ashby, M. (2021). The open-access availability of criminological research to practitioners and policy makers. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 32(1), 1-21.

Asmorowati, S., Schubert, V., & Ningrum, A. (2022). Policy capacity, local autonomy, and human agency: Tensions in the intergovernmental coordination in Indonesia’s social welfare response amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 15(2), 213-227.

Auditor General of Manitoba. (2001). A review of the policy development capacity within government departments.
https://www.oag.mb.ca/audit-reports/report/a-review-of-the-policy-development-capacity-within-government-departments/

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377-386.

Babu, S. (1997). Facing donor missions with informed policy decisions: Lessons from capacity strengthening for policy analysis in Malawi. Africa Development, 22(2), 5-24.

Babu, S. (2000). Capacity strengthening in environmental and natural resource policy analysis: Meeting the changing needs. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(1), 71-86.

Babu, S. (2001). Food and nutrition policies in Africa: Capacity challenges and training options. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 1(1), 19-28.

Baek, S. J. (2019). Viewpoint: Cooperating in Africa’s sustainable structural transformation: Policymaking capacity and the role of emerging economies. International Development Planning Review, 41(4), 419-434.

Bakvis, H. (2000). Rebuilding policy capacity in the era of the fiscal dividend: A report from Canada. Governance, 13(1), 71-103.

Bali, A. (2020, May 3). Prof Michael Howlett on policy capacity. YouTube. https://youtu.be/8MJ9HSkBVko

Bali, A., & Ramesh, M. (2019). Assessing health reform: Studying tool appropriateness & critical capacities. Policy and Society, 38(1), 148-166.

Baskoy, T., Evans, B., & Shields, J. (2011). Assessing policy capacity in Canada’s public services: Perspectives of deputy and assistant deputy ministers. Canadian Public Administration, 54(2), 217-234.

Bédard, P. (2015). The mobilization of scientific evidence by public policy analysts. SAGE Open, 5(3), 1-15.

Béland, D., & Koreh, M. (2018). Social insurance as fiscal policy and state-building tool: The development and politics of payroll contributions in Israel and Canada. Journal of Social Policy, 48(1), 1–20.

Birrell, D. (2014). Qualitative research and policy-making in Northern Ireland: Barriers arising from the lack of consensus, capacity and conceptualization. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(1), 20-30.

Blaauw, D., Ditlopo, P., & Rispel, L. (2014). Nursing education reform in South Africa – Lessons from a policy analysis study. Global Health Action, 7(1), 1-12.

Blanco, D., & Panao, R. (2019). Caring for the orphan in the Philippines: A policy-capacity review. Child & Youth Services, 40(1), 65-92.

Blomkamp, E. (2018). The promise of co-design for public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4), 729-743.

Brenton, S., Baekkeskov, E., & Hannah, A. (2023). Policy capacity: Evolving theory and missing links. Policy Studies, 44(3), 297-315.

Brownson, R., Fielding, J., & Green, L. (2018). Building capacity for evidence-based public health: Reconciling the pulls of practice and the push of research. Annual Review of Public Health, 39(1), 27-53.

Buckley, R. (2006). Why the policy development capacity of some developing countries exceeds that of the International Monetary Fund. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15(1), 121-153.

Busetti, S., & Dente, B. (2016). The advantages of proximity: Comparing higher education policy in Scotland and Catalonia. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(1), 38-53.

Butcher, J., & Dalton, B. (2014). Cross-sector partnership and human services in Australian states and territories: Reflections on a mutable relationship. Policy and Society, 33(2), 141-153.

Cameron, B. (2018). Understanding policy workers’ policy innovation capacity: An exploratory and qualitative mixed methods evaluation study of a policy hackathon program in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Ryerson University Centre for Policy Innovation and Engagement.
https://doi.org/10.32920/ryerson.14636229.v1

Cameron, B. (2019). Perceptions of policy capacity: A case study of the Prince Edward Island public service using theory and practice [PhD dissertation, Toronto Metropolitan University (Ryerson University)].
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4300708

Cameron, B. (2020). Governmental policy capacity and policy work in a small place: Reflections on perceptions of civil servants in Prince Edward Island, Canada from a practitioner in the field. Journal of Public Administration Studies, 5(02), 79-88.

Cameron, B. (2021). Qualitative insider research in a government institution: Reflections on a study of policy capacity. The Qualitative Report, 26(11), 3519-3533.

Cameron, B. (2022a). Training for policy capacity: A practitioner’s reflection on an in-house intervention for civil servants, students, and post-secondary graduates in Canada. Teaching Public Administration, 40(2), 014473942110194.

Cameron, B. (2022b). Leadership, change and conflict: An examination of informal human resources theory for policy capacity. Canadian Political Science Review, 16(1), 42-59.

Capano, G., & Lippi, A. (2021). Decentralization, policy capacities, and varieties of first health response to the COVID-19 outbreak: Evidence from three regions in Italy. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(8), 1197-1218.

Carroll, B., & Carroll, T. (1999). Civic networks, legitimacy and the policy process. Governance, 12(1), 1-28.

Carson, D., & Wellstead, A. (2015). Government with a cast of dozens: Policy capacity risks and policy work in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(2), 162-175.

Cashaback, D. (2008). Assessing asymmetrical federal design in the Russian Federation: A case study of language policy in Tatarstan. Europe-Asia Studies, 60(2), 249-275.

Castrucci, B., Leider, J., & Sellers, K. (2015). Perceptions regarding importance and skill at policy development among public health staff. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 21(Supplement 6), S141-S150.

Cerny, P. (1999). Globalization and the erosion of democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 36(1), 1–26.

Cheung, A. (2004). Strong executive, weak policy capacity: The changing environment of policy‐making in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Political Science, 12(1), 1-30.

Cheung, A. (2007). Policy capacity in post-1997 Hong Kong: Constrained institutions facing a crowding and differentiated polity. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 29(1), 51-75.

Chindarkar, N. (2017). Beyond power politics: Evaluating the policy design process of rural electrification in Gujarat, India. Public Administration and Development, 37(1), 28-39.

Chou, M., Moloney, K., Osei, P., & Campbell, Y. (2022). Methodological nationalism and epistemological diversity in (American) public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 44(4), 261-276.

Churk, J., & Volkmer, I. (2021). Shaping citizen’s freedom of social media interaction in Tanzania: The role of city policy experts in digital policy-making. Journal of African Media Studies, 13(1), 73-87.

Clare, S., & Creed, I. (2014). Tracking wetland loss to improve evidence-based wetland policy learning and decision making. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 22(3), 235-245.

Cloete, G. (2002). Improving effective governance outcomes with electronic decision support tools. Journal of Public Administration, 37(4), 438-452.

Conley, T. (2002). Globalisation as constraint and opportunity: Reconceptualising policy capacity in Australia. Global Society, 16(4), 377-399.

Cooke, P., & Robimrie. (1989). Little victories local economic development in European regions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1(4), 313–327.

Coremans, E., & Meissner, K. (2018). Putting power into practice: Administrative and political capacity building in the European Parliament’s Committee for International Trade. Public Administration, 96(3), 561-577.

Craft, J., & Daku, M. (2017). A comparative assessment of elite policy recruits in Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(3), 207-226.

Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2013). Policy capacity and the ability to adapt to climate change: Canadian and U.S. case studies. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 1-18.

Craft, J., Howlett, M., Crawford, M., & McNutt, K. (2013). Assessing policy capacity for climate change adaptation: Governance arrangements, resource deployments, and analytical skills in Canadian infrastructure policy making. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 42-65.

Croissant, A., & Chambers, P. (2010). Unravelling intra-party democracy in Thailand. Asian Journal of Political Science, 18(2), 195-223.

Cronin, M., & George, E. (2023). The why and how of the integrative review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 168-192.

Cucca, R., & Ranci, C. (2022). Urban policy in times of crisis: The policy capacity of European cities and the role of multi-level governance. Urban Affairs Review, 58(6), 1493-1522.

da Cunha Saddi, F., Peckham, S., Bloom, G., Turnbull, N., Schattan Coelho, V., & Denis, J. (2023). Employing the policy capacity framework for health system strengthening. Policy and Society, 42(1), 1-13.

Daugbjerg, C. (2022). Against the odds: How policy capacity can compensate for weak instruments in promoting sustainable food. Policy Sciences, 55(3), 451-467.

Daugbjerg, C., & Halpin, D. (2010). Generating policy capacity in emerging green industries: The development of organic farming in Denmark and Australia. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(2), 141-157.

de Coning, C. (1994). Workshop on policy skills, Dikhololo, Brits, 19‐23 January 1994. Development Southern Africa, 11(2), 259-270.

de Coning, J., & Fick, C. (1995). A development perspective on policy management: From analysis to process facilitation. Africanus, 25(2), 8-46.

Denis, J., Usher, S., & Préval, J. (2023). Health reforms and policy capacity: The Canadian experience. Policy and Society, 42(1), 64-89.

Dickinson, H., Smith, C., Carey, N., & Carey, G. (2022). “We’re still struggling a bit to actually figure out what that means for Government”: An exploration of the policy capacity required to oversee robot technologies in Australia and New Zealand care services. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), 1-14.

Ditlopo, P., Blaauw, D., Penn-Kekana, L., & Rispel, L. (2014). Contestations and complexities of nurses’ participation in policy-making in South Africa. Global Health Action, 7(1), 1-9.

Doğan, G. (2022). Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment in the social sciences. In T. Engels & E. Kulczycki (Eds.), Handbook on Research Assessment in the Social Sciences (pp. 162–180). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Donaldson, I. (2007). Enhancing policy capacity on the issue of foreign credential recognition. Canadian Issues, Spring, 55-58.

Dordunoo, C., Dogbey, G., & Sackey, H. (1997). Ghana’s experience in policy analysis issues: The Case of economic policy analysis. African Administrative Studies, 49, 45-69.

Doyle, S. (2007, October 29). Foreign Affairs department has “no policy capacity,” has become a “roving travel agency and property management department.” The Hill Times.
https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2007/10/29/foreign-affairs-department-has-no-policy-capacity-has-become-a-roving-travel-agency-and-property-management-department/239752/

Dugle, G., Kpinpuo, S., & Ghartey, B. (2021). From paper to practice: An exploratory study of policy making and implementation in alternative forms of healthcare public‐private partnership in Ghana. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 36(3), 866-884.

Dupuy, C. (2014). Actively cultivating policy similarity: A regional strategy in education policy in France and Germany. Regional & Federal Studies, 24(4), 451-471.

Ebikeme, C. (2022). The future of health in Africa must include urban health. Cities & Health, 6(1), 7–9.

Edwards, L. (2009). Testing the discourse of declining policy capacity: Rail policy and the Department of Transport. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(3), 288-302.

Elgin, D., Pattison, A., & Weible, C. (2012). Policy analytical capacity inside and outside of government: A case study of Colorado climate and energy issues. Canadian Political Science Review, 6(1), 101-116.

Evans, B., & Veselý, A. (2014). Contemporary policy work in subnational governments and NGOs: Comparing evidence from Australia, Canada and the Czech Republic. Policy and Society, 33(2), 77–87.

Evans, B., & Wellstead, A. (2013). Policy dialogue and engagement between non-governmental organizations and government: A survey of processes and instruments of Canadian policy workers. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 60–87.

Evans, B., & Wellstead, A. (2014). Tales of policy estrangement: Non-governmental policy work and capacity in three Canadian provinces. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 5(2), 7-28.

Fellegi, I. (1996). Strengthening our policy capacity. Government of Canada.
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/SC93-8-1996-2E.pdf

Fenwick, T., & Rennó, L. (2022). Policy capacity: Explaining the surprising durability of CCTs in Brazil. Global Social Policy, Online first, 1-18.

Ferraz, J., Ramos, L., & Plattek, B. (2022). Development finance innovations and conditioning factors: The case of the Brazilian Development Bank and sustainable industries. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 42(4), 977-997.

Flynn, G. (2011). Rethinking policy capacity in Canada: The role of parties and election platforms in government policy-making. Canadian Public Administration, 54(2), 235–253.

Fobé, E. (2020). The policy analytical capacity of in-house policy workers in Belgium [PhD dissertation, KU Leuven].

Förster, J., Downsborough, L., Biber-Freudenberger, L., Kelboro Mensuro, G., & Börner, J. (2021). Exploring criteria for transformative policy capacity in the context of South Africa’s biodiversity economy. Policy Sciences, 54(1), 209-237.

Foruzande, L., & Fateh, A. (2019). Designing a model for promoting policy making capacity in Iranian public administration: A mixed method design. Management and Development Process Quarterly, 1(2), 53-57.

Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2017). Think tanks and strategic policy-making: The contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 105-124.

Gehanno, J., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(1).

Giest, S. (2017). Big data analytics for mitigating carbon emissions in smart cities: Opportunities and challenges. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 941-957.

Ginata, A., Pandu, P., Handayani, N., & Ariawantara, P. (2022). Comparison of Covid-19 control policies between Indonesia and Australia based on the perspective of policy capacity theory. Jurnal Borneo Administrator, 18(3), 279-294.

Gleeson, D., Dwyer, J., Lin, V., Legge, D., & Hughes, A. (2016). Can learning sets help policy managers with their wicked problems? Health Services Management Research, 29(1-2), 2-9.

Gleeson, D., Legge, D., & O’Neill, D. (2009). Evaluating health policy capacity: Learning from international and Australian experience. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 6(1).

Gleeson, D., Legge, D., O’Neill, D., & Pfeffer, M. (2011). Negotiating tensions in developing organizational policy capacity: Comparative lessons to be drawn. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13(3), 237-263.

Government of Australia. (2019). APS policy capability roadmap: A practical plan to lift policy capability across the APS.
https://www.policyhub.gov.au/sites/default/files/projects/aps-policy-capability-roadmap.pdf

Government of New Zealand. (2021). Interim evaluation of the policy project.
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/interim-evaluation-policy-project

Goyal, N., & Saguin, K. (2019). Capacity, control, and content: The supply of think tank policy advice in India. Policy Studies, 40(3-4), 337-352.

Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., & Kazmi, A. (2013). Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research. Management Decision, 51(2), 361-379.

Groth, A. (2003). China in comparative perspective: From policy capacity to obsolescence? The Journal of East Asian Affairs, 17(2), 352-383.

Hale, G. (2020). Capacity and conditions for choice: Managing Canada’s international economic policy relations in an unstable world. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 26(3), 276-297.

Harmensyah, B., Muluk, M., Supriyono, B., & Hidayati, F. (2021). Analysis of the capacity of the rehabilitation and reconstruction policy due to the Mount Sinabung eruption disaster in Indonesia. Review of International Geographical Education Online.

Hassen, T. (2015). Policy capacity building in the Ethiopian civil service [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa]. https://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/18989

He, A., Bali, A., & Ramesh, M. (2022). Active stewardship in healthcare: Lessons from China’s health policy reforms. Social Policy & Administration, 56(6), 925-940.

Head, B. (2019). Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 38(2), 180-197.

Henderson, S., & Craft, J. (2022). Composition, distribution, and change in Canada’s federal policy staff. Canadian Public Administration, 65(3), 457-481.

Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2014). Who passes business’s “model bills”? Policy capacity and corporate influence in U.S. state politics. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 582-602.

Heymans, C. (1996). Towards strategic public policy-making in a democratic South Africa: Some international lessons. Africanus, 26(2), 28-50.

Houle, D. (2015). Carbon pricing in Canadian provinces: From early experiments to adoption (1995-2014) [PhD dissertation, University of Toronto]. https://hdl.handle.net/1807/82454

Howlett, M. (2009a). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153-175.

Howlett, M. (2009b). A profile of B.C. provincial policy analysts: Troubleshooters or planners? Canadian Political Science Review, 3(3), 55-68.

Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2016). Achieving regulatory excellence in the agri-food biotechnology sector: Building policy capacity. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 18(1), 35-46.

Howlett, M., & Oliphant, S. (2010). Environmental organizations and climate change policy capacity: An assessment of the Canadian case. Canadian Political Science Review, 4(2-3), 18-35.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2014). The two orders of governance failure: Design mismatches and policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 317-327.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2016). Achilles’ heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance, 10(4), 301-313.

Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. (2011). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy revisited: The nature of professional policy work in contemporary government. Politics & Policy, 39(4), 613-633.

Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. (2012). Policy work in multi-level states: Institutional autonomy and task allocation among Canadian policy analysts. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 757-780.

Howlett, M., Wellstead, A., & Craft, J. (Eds.). (2017). Policy work in Canada: Professional practices and analytical capacities. University of Toronto Press.

Hughes, A., Gleeson, D., Legge, D., & Lin, V. (2015). Governance and policy capacity in health development and implementation in Australia. Policy and Society, 34(3-4), 229-245.

Husain, L., Bloom, G., & Xiao, Y. (2023). Building policy capacity for managing rapid, complex change in China’s health system. Policy and Society, 42(1), 28-48.

Inwood, G., Johns, C., & O’Reilly, P. (2011). Intergovernmental policy capacity in Canada: Inside the worlds of finance, environment, trade, and health. McGill-Queen’s Press.

Jensen, O. (2019). Designing effective water policy: Capacity and effectiveness of reforms in developing countries. Policy and Society, 38(1), 77-95.

Johns, C. (2014). Conceptualizing and assessing governance and policy capacity in the North American Great Lakes Region: The case for integrating network analysis and policy capacity. Paper presented at the 23rd World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Montreal, July 21.
https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/1434468096.pdf

Jones, E. (2001). The purse strings and the policy process: Bureaucratic shaping of industry policy capacity after 1945. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(1), 21-33.

Kang, S., & Lee, K. (2016). Mainstreaming corporate environmental strategy in management research. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(3), 618-650.

Karo, E. (2011). The evolution of innovation policy governance systems and policy capacities in the Baltic States. Journal of Baltic Studies, 42(4), 511-536.

Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2014). Public management, policy capacity, innovation and development. Revista de Economia Política, 34(1), 80-102.

Kasperskaya, Y., & Xifré, R. (2020). The analytical capacity of budgetary administrations: The case of the Euro area. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(3), 379-398.

Katsonis, M. (2019, June 10). Rethinking policy capacity, competencies and capabilities. The Mandarin.
https://www.themandarin.com.au/109791-rethinking-policy-capacity-competencies-and-capabilities/

Keating, M. (2005). Policy convergence and divergence in Scotland under devolution. Regional Studies, 39(4), 453-463.

Keating, M. (2011). Policy styles, public service delivery and devolution in the United Kingdom and beyond. Scottish Affairs, 74(1), 68-78.

Keynejad, R., Semrau, M., Toynbee, M., Evans-Lacko, S., Lund, C., Gureje, O., Ndyanabangi, S., Courtin, E., Abdulmalik, J., Alem, A., Fekadu, A., Thornicroft, G., & Hanlon, C. (2016). Building the capacity of policy-makers and planners to strengthen mental health systems in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 16(1), 1-11.

Khoondi, Z., Nazari, A., & Zibakalam, S. (2022). Policy capacity: Understand the discursive field and the issue of women’s political participation. Iranian Journal of Public Administration Mission, 13(46), 97-114.

Kinyanjui, K. (1994). Educational research and policy analysis capacity for educational change in sub-Saharan Africa. Africa Development, 19(4), 113-125.

Kirkevold, M. (1997). Integrative nursing research — An important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(5), 977-984.

Klüser, K. (2022). From bureaucratic capacity to legislation: How ministerial resources shape governments’ policy-making capabilities. West European Politics, 46(2), 347-373.

Kmiecic, E. (1997). Canada’s policy research capacity: Observations from the Public Policy Forum. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 20(1/2), 287-291.

Knox, C., & Janenova, S. (2023). Does bureaucratic performance vary across authoritarian regimes? Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 45(1), 16-36.

Koga, N., Loureiro, M., de Moura Palotti, P., da Silva Lins, R., do Couto, B., & Lima, S. (2022). Analysing the information sources Brazilian bureaucrats use as evidence in everyday policymaking. Policy & Politics, 50(4), 483-506.

Krouzil, J (2001). Canada's free trade policy experience, from economic adjustment to civil participation [PhD dissertation, University of Toronto]. https://hdl.handle.net/1807/15949

Kurzer, P. (1997). Decline or preservation of executive capacity? Political and economic integration revisited. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 35(1), 31-56.

Kuzemko, C. (2022). Business, government and policy‐making capacity: UK energy and net zero transitions. The Political Quarterly, 93(2), 235-243.

Lane, J., Verani, A., Hijazi, M., Hurley, E., Hagopian, A., Judice, N., MacInnis, R., Sanford, S., Zelek, S., & Katz, A. (2016). Monitoring HIV and AIDS related policy reforms: A road map to strengthen policy monitoring and implementation in PEPFAR partner countries. PLOS ONE, 11(2), 1-13.

Lawrence, L. (2020). Assessing policy capacity: A mixed-methods study of health policy making in Nova Scotia [PhD dissertation, Dalhousie University].
http://hdl.handle.net/10222/78554

Lawrence, L., Fierlbeck, K., McGrath, P., & Curran, J. (2020). An expert‐generated tool for assessing policy capacity. Canadian Public Administration, 63(2), 293-317.

Lesch, M., & McCambridge, J. (2023). Policy communities, devolution and policy transfer: The case of alcohol pricing in Wales. Regional & Federal Studies, 33(2), 163-185.

Levasseur, K. (2014). Moving mountains and applying band-aids: The state of policy capacity in Canada. Canadian Political Science Review, 8(2), 1-16.

Lierse, H. (2012). European taxation during the crisis: Does politics matter? Journal of Public Policy, 32(3), 207-230.

Lindquist, E., & Tiernan, A. (2011). The Australian public service and policy advising: Meeting the challenges of 21st century governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(4), 437-450.

Lodhi, I. (2018). Policy capacity: Introducing a comprehensive index. Paper prepared for the International Workshop on Public Policy, International Public Policy Association, June 26–28, Pittsburgh, United States.
https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/5b2f6cd6d2c6b.pdf

Loureiro, M., Lima-Silva, F., Veiga Aranha, A., & Calabrez, F. (2020). Building policy capacity within contextual and political boundaries: An analysis of policies in fiscal and social areas in Brazil (1988/2016). Revista Do Serviço Público, 71(b), 7-37.

Lutabingwa, J., Gray, K., & Skinner, E. (1997). NGOs in sub-Saharan Africa: Developing critical capacity for policy advocacy [with comment and rejoinder]. International Journal on World Peace, 14(3), 35-70.

Mac Éinrí, P., & White, A. (2008). Immigration into the Republic of Ireland: A bibliography of recent research. Irish Geography, 41(2), 151-179.

Mahon, R., Andrew, C., & Johnson, R. (2007). Policy analysis in an era of “globalization”: Capturing spatial dimensions and scalar strategies. In M. Orsini & M. Smith (Eds.), Critical Policy Studies (pp. 41–64). University of British Columbia Press.

Mardiyanta, A., & Wijaya, C. (2022). Policy capacity during COVID‐19 in Asia: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Affairs, Online ahead of print, 1-18.

Mascarenhas de Oliveira Amaral, D., Campos Bahia Moscon, D., & Pinto da Silva, L. (2023). State capacities and influencers of the implementation of public policies: A study at the Federal Institute of Bahia. Gestaõ Regionalidade, 39, 1-18.

Maurya, D. (2019). Understanding public health insurance in India: A design perspective. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 34(4), e1633-e1650.

McConnell, M. (2009). Serbia’s foreign policy capacity. Mediterranean Quarterly, 20(4), 71-82.

McDaniel, S. (2014). Post-crisis social democratic policy capacity in France and the United Kingdom: A lesson from the globalisation and social democracy debate. French Politics, 12(4), 283-309.

McGann, M., Wells, T., & Blomkamp, E. (2021). Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving. Public Management Review, 23(2), 296-316.

McKinlay, P. (2016). Bridging a strategic gap: A think tank for local government in New Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 38(2), 131-137.

Migone, A., & Howlett, M. (2023). Assessing policy analytical capacity in contemporary governments: New measures and metrics. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 82(1), 3-25.

Milligan, V., & Tiernan, A. (2011). No home for housing: The situation of the Commonwealth’s housing policy advisory function. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(4), 391-407.

Mirzamani, A., Naderi–Beni, N., & Mohammadian, H. (2022). The sustainable development goals and policy capacity: A case study of performance-based budgeting implementation in Iran. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 19, 5029-5038.

Morais de Sá e Silva, M. (2022). Policy dismantling by capacity manipulation in a context of democratic backsliding: The bureaucracy in disarray in Bolsonaro’s Brazil. International Review of Public Policy, 4(3), 272-292.

Morton, F. (1995). The effect of the Charter of Rights on Canadian federalism. Publius, 25(3), 173-188.

Mukherjee, I., & Bali, A. (2019). Policy effectiveness and capacity: Two sides of the design coin. Policy Design and Practice, 2(2), 103-114.

Mukherjee, I., Coban, M., & Bali, A. (2021). Policy capacities and effective policy design: A review. Policy Sciences, 54(2), 243-268.

Mukherjee, I., & Howlett, M. (2015). An Asian perspective on policy instruments: Policy styles, governance modes and critical capacity challenges. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 38(1), 24-42.

Mumme, S. (2015). The evolution of natural resource conservation capacity on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Bilateral and trilateral environmental agreements since La Paz. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 19-39.

Murphy, M., & Hogan, J. (2020). Reflections on post-bailout policy analysis in Ireland. Administration, 68(4), 145-160.

Nason, E., & O’Neill, M. (2015). What metrics? On the utility of measuring the performance of policy research: An illustrative case and alternative from Employment and Social Development Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 58(1), 138-160.

Nekola, M., & Kohoutek, J. (2016). Policy work at the sub-national level: Analytical styles of Canadian and Czech directors and managers. Canadian Public Administration, 59(2), 289-309.

Neves, C. (2000). Establishment of a policy analysis capability in Romania. Revista Transilvană de Ştiinţe Administrative, 3(3), 45-51.

Newman, J., Cherney, A., & Head, B. (2016). Do policy makers use academic research? Reexamining the “two communities” theory of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 24-32.

Newman, J., Cherney, A., & Head, B. (2017). Policy capacity and evidence-based policy in the public service. Public Management Review, 19(2), 157-174.

Newman, J., Patmisari, E., & Widianingsih, I. (2022). Policy analytical capacity and “Eastern” styles of policy analysis: Evidence from West Java Province, Indonesia. Policy Sciences, 55, 469-485.

Newman, J., Perl, A., Wellstead, A., & McNutt, K. (2013). Policy capacity for climate change in Canada’s transportation sector. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 19-41.

Ng, K. (2013). Social movements and policy capacity in Hong Kong: An alternative perspective. Issues and Studies, 49(2), 179-214.

O’Flynn, J., Vardon, S., Yeatman, A., & Carson, L. (2011). Perspectives on the capacity of the Australian public service and effective policy development and implementation. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(3), 309-317.

Oehmke, J., Young, S., Heinemann, A., Rukuni, M., Lyambabaje, A., & Post, L. (2022). A novel measure of developing countries’ agricultural and food policy readiness. World Development, 158, 1-14.

Oh, K., & Colón-Aguirre, M. (2019). A comparative study of perceptions and use of Google Scholar and academic library discovery systems. College & Research Libraries, 80(6), 876-891.

Oli, L. (2018). The role of policy capacity of UN country teams in the implementation of agenda 2030. [Masters thesis, University of Erfurt].

Orsini, D., Courcelle, M., & Brinkerhoff, D. (1996). Increasing private sector capacity for policy dialogue: The West African Enterprise Network. World Development, 24(9), 1453-1466.

Ouimet, M., Bédard, P., & Léon, G. (2017). Inside the black box of academic researchers–policy analysts interactions. In M. Howlett, A. Wellstead, & J. Craft (Eds.), Policy Work in Canada: Professional Practices and Analytical Capacities (pp. 183-206). University of Toronto Press.

Owen, J., Connor, J., Linger, H., McDermott, V., & Algeo, C. (2017). Developing government policy capability: Policy work, project management and knowledge practices. Project Management Institute.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and modeling processes. Integrated Assessment, 3(1), 3-14.

Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (2005a). Unpacking policy capacity: Issues and themes. In M. Painter & J. Pierre (Eds.), Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives (pp. 1-18). Palgrave Macmillan.

Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2005b). Challenges to state policy capacity: Global trends and comparative perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.

Parsons, W. (2004). Not just steering but weaving: Relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 43-57.

Patterson, T. (2015). Evaluating the oil sands reclamation process: Assessing policy capacity and stakeholder access for government and non-governmental organizations operating in Alberta’s oil sands. [Master’s thesis, Michigan Technological University].
https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etds/939

Pattyn, V., & Brans, M. (2015). Organisational analytical capacity: Policy evaluation in Belgium. Policy and Society, 34(3-4), 183-196.

Paz-Gómez, D., & Santelices Enríquez, M. (2020). Policy (in)capacity in COVID-19 times: Understanding the economic responses of Colombia and Ecuador. Análisis Político, 33(100), 72-91.

Perl, A., & Newman, J. (2012). Institutionalized inhibition: Examining constraints on climate change policy capacity in the Transport Departments of Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Political Science Review, 6(1), 87-99.

Perl, A., & White, D. (2002). The changing role of consultants in Canadian policy analysis. Policy, Organisation and Society, 21(1), 49-73.

Peters, G. (1996). The policy capacity of government. Canadian Centre for Management Development, Government of Canada.
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/SC94-61-18-1996E.pdf

Peters, G. (2015). Policy capacity in public administration. Policy and Society, 34(3-4), 219-228.

Petersen, I., & Kruss, G. (2021). Deepening evidence-based policy capability in Africa’s science granting councils. HSRC Review, 19(4), 26-27.

Petrescu, C., & Lambru, M. (2021). Using evidence in shaping disability policy in Romania: The case of sheltered workshops. Evidence & Policy, 17(2), 243-260.

Phuong, L., Biesbroek, G., & Wals, A. (2018). Barriers and enablers to climate change adaptation in hierarchical governance systems: The case of Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20(4), 518-532.

Pierce, J., Siddiki, S., Jones, M., Schumacher, K., Pattison, A., & Peterson, H. (2014). Social construction and policy design: A review of past applications. Policy Studies Journal, 42(1), 1-29.

Pirani, S., de Pinho, H., Arana, M., Bhaskar, S., Hale, B., & Murrman, M. (2022). Incorporating systems thinking approaches into practice-based training to strengthen policy-making skills. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 28(Supplement 5), S249-S253.

Polidano, C. (2000). Measuring public sector capacity. World Development, 28(5), 805-822.

Porto de Oliveira, O., & Massaco Koga, N. (2023). Policy transfer capacity: The role of individuals, organizations and systems on the adoption and internationalization of policy instruments. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 45(2), 81-99.

Press, D. (1998). Local environmental policy capacity: A framework for research. Natural Resources Journal, 38(1), 29-52.

Quinn, M. (2002). Evidence based or people based policy making?: A view From Wales. Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 29-42.

Ragasa, C., Babu, S., & Ulimwengu, J. (2014). Institutional reforms and agricultural policy process: Lessons from Democratic Republic of Congo. Agricultural and Food Economics, 2(1), 1-21.

Rahman, M. (2015). Examining policy capacity initiatives within climate change frameworks in three US and Canadian sectors using NVivo content analysis [Master’s thesis, Michigan Technological University]. https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etds/927

Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., & Saguin, K. (2016). Measuring individual-level analytical, managerial and political policy capacity: A survey instrument. Research Paper No. 16-07, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Singapore.

Rayner, J. (2012). Shifting mandates and climate change policy capacity: The forestry case. Canadian Political Science Review, 6(1), 75-85.

Rayner, J., & Howlett, M. (2009). Conclusion: Governance arrangements and policy capacity for policy integration. Policy and Society, 28(2), 165-172.

Rayner, J., McNutt, K., & Wellstead, A. (2013). Dispersed capacity and weak coordination: The challenge of climate change adaptation in Canada’s forest policy sector. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 66-90.

Regonini, G. (2017). Governmentalities without policy capacity. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 163-178.

Rispel, L., & Bruce, J. (2015). A profession in peril? Revitalising nursing in South Africa. South African Health Review, 1, 117-125.

Roberge, I. (2013). Futures construction in public management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(7), 534-542.

Robinson, J. (2003). Sustaining Jamaica's indigenous policy capacity in the social sector: The role of policy formulation styles in the bureaucracy [Thesis, New York University].

Rojas, J., & Ponce, A. (2021). Lento or presto? Subnational government capacities and the pace of implementation of contentious policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(August-December).

Rowshan, S., & Momeni, A. (2022). The impact of governance databases on improving policy-making capacity using policy-making intelligence (in Sistan and Baluchestan health department). Public Management Researches, article in press.

Roy, B., da Cunha Saddi, F., Peckham, S., & Pereira Barretos, M. (2023). Critical policy capacity factors in the implementation of the community health worker program in India. Policy and Society, 42(1), 90-103.

Rural Policy Learning Commons. (2021, October 24). Local immigration: Assessing the policy capacity of smaller communities webinar . YouTube. https://youtu.be/tcWS0cH4dg4

Saguin, K., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2018). Policy work and capacities in a developing country: Evidence from the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 40(1), 1-22.

Saguin, K., Tan, S., & Goyal, N. (2018). Mapping scientific research on policy capacity: A bibliometric analysis and qualitative framework synthesis. Paper prepared for the International Workshop on Public Policy, June 26–28, Pittsburgh, International Public Policy Association, Pittsburgh, United States.
https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/5b2bc6e22141c.pdf

Sajadi, H., & Hartley, K. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic response in Iran: A dynamic perspective on policy capacity. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 15(2), 228-249.

Salvador, M., & Sancho, D. (2021). The role of local government in the drive for sustainable development public policies. An analytical framework based on institutional capacities. Sustainability, 13(11), 1–17.

Sapeha, H., Wellstead, A., & Evans, B. (2019). Peering into the black box of government policy work: The challenge of governance and policy capacity. Canadian Political Science Review, 13(1), 1-33.

Schiavon, J., & Figueroa, B. (2019). Foreign policy capacities, state foreign services, and international influence: Brazil versus Mexico. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 30(4), 816-828.

Scott, C. (2013). Teaching policy analysis in cross-national settings: A system approach. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(3), 433-443.

Setiawan, A., Tjiptoherijanto, P., Mahi, B., & Khoirunurrofik, K. (2022). The impact of local government capacity on public service delivery: Lessons learned from decentralized Indonesia. Economies, 10(323), 1-13.

Shaffer, M. (1995). The internal dynamics of environmental organizations: Movement interest groups, communal advocacy groups, and the policy process. Review of Policy Research, 14(1-2), 183-194.

Siddiqi, H. (2021). Understanding the causes of variance in provincial response to COVID-19 in Pakistan by using the policy capacity framework. South Asian Survey, 28(1), 133-156.

Sleegers, P., Bergen, T., & Giesbers, J. (1994). The policy-making capacity of schools: Results of a Dutch study. Educational Management & Administration, 22(3), 147-159.

Sogie-Thomas, B., Sankofa, J., Reed, C., Mfume, K., & Doamekpor, L. (2018). Health policy responsiveness: Lessons learned from Maryland and Prince George’s County. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 5(2), 366-374.

Ssonko, D. (1997). Capacity for policy formulation and analysis: The Uganda case. African Administrative Studies, 49, 123-127.

Stănuș, C. (2022). Under construction: Local government transparency in a new democracy. Filosofija. Sociologija, 33(2), 115-125.

Stevens, C. (2023). Thirteen years of thirteen leading journals: A bibliography of research in the area of consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining behavior. The Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 36(1), 156-253.

Stipetić, D. (2013). The impact of state policy capacity on the development of energy policy in Germany: A case study of the new energy paradigm. Politička Misao : Časopis Za Politologiju, 50(3), 129-154.

Struyk, R., & Miller, C. (2004). Policy research in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The role and impact of local think tanks. Southeast European Politics, 22(1), 45-59.

Sundquist, J. (1978). A comparison of policy-making capacity in the United States and five European countries: The case of population distribution. Policy Studies Journal, 6(3), 194-200.

Tan, S. (2019). Bureaucratic autonomy and policy capacity in the implementation of capitation payment systems in primary healthcare: Comparative case studies of three districts in Central Java, Indonesia. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 12(3), 330-350.

Tan, T., & Bairner, A. (2011). Managing globalization: The case of elite basketball policy in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Sport Management, 25(5), 408-422.

Tanis, D. (2021). Corruption and policy capacity [PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge]. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.78148

Tenbensel, T., & Silwal, P. (2023). Cultivating health policy capacity through network governance in New Zealand: Learning from divergent stories of policy implementation. Policy and Society, 42(1), 49-63.

Tiernan, A. (2011). Advising Australian federal governments: Assessing the evolving capacity and role of the Australian public service. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(4), 335-346.

Tiernan, A. (2015). The dilemmas of organisational capacity. Policy and Society, 34(3-4), 209-217.

Tirandaz, A., Mahalli, A., Matoufi, A., & Tabari, M. (2021). Identifying the components of the policy capacity improvement for country’s skills training and the factors affecting them. Journal of Skill Training, 10(37), 69-94.

Uhr, J. (1996). Testing the policy capacities of budgetary agencies: Lessons from finance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 55(4), 124-134.

Ul Haque, N., & Orden, D. (2020). Developing research and a research culture: Results from a pilot project in Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 59(3), 553-570.

Uneke, C., Sombie, I., Keita, N., Lokossou, V., Johnson, E., & Ongolo-Zogo, P. (2017). An assessment of national maternal and child health policy-makers’ knowledge and capacity for evidence-informed policy-making in Nigeria. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6(6), 309-316.

Uneke, C., Ezeoha, A., Uro-Chukwu, H., Ezeonu, C., & Igboji, J. (2018). Promoting researchers and policy-makers collaboration in evidence-informed policy-making in Nigeria: Outcome of a two-way secondment model between university and health ministry. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 7(6), 522-531.

Vanhoof, J., Van Petegem, P., Verhoeven, J., & Buvens, I. (2009). Linking the policymaking capacities of schools and the quality of school self-evaluations. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 667-686.

Vilaysouk, X., Schandl, H., & Murakami, S. (2018). A comprehensive material flow account for Lao PDR to inform environmental and sustainability policy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(3), 649-662.

Vince, J., & Nursey-Bray, M. (2016). Policy capacity in oceans governance: Rio+20 and Australia’s outcomes. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 8(3), 165-179.

Walter, J., Tiernan, A., Head, B., & Edwards, M. (2020). Policy capacity in disruptive times. Australian Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 72-85.

Washington, S. (2023). Series: Building policy capability. Apolitical. https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/series-building-policy-capability

Washington, S., & Mintrom, M. (2018). Strengthening policy capability: New Zealand’s Policy Project. Annual Review of Policy Design, 6(1), 30-46.

Waugh, W., & Hy, R. (1988). The administrative, fiscal, and policymaking capacities of county governments. State & Local Government Review, 20(1), 28-31.

Weinrib, J., & Jones, G. (2014). Largely a matter of degrees: Quality assurance and Canadian universities. Policy and Society, 33(3), 225-236.

Wellstead, A. (2019). From Fellegi to Fonberg: Canada’s policy capacity groundhog day? Canadian Public Administration, 62(1), 166-172.

Wellstead, A., & Stedman, R. (2010). Policy capacity and incapacity in Canada’s federal government: The intersection of policy analysis and street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 12(6), 893-910.

Wellstead, A., & Stedman, R. (2011). Climate change policy capacity at the sub-national government level. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13(5), 461-478.

Wellstead, A., Stedman, R., & Howlett, M. (2011). Policy analytical capacity in changing governance contexts: A structural equation model (SEM) study of contemporary Canadian policy work. Public Policy and Administration, 26(3), 353-373.

Wellstead, A., Stedman, R., & Lindquist, E. (2009). The nature of regional policy work in Canada’s public service. Canadian Political Science Review, 3(1), 34-56.

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553.

Williams, F. (1999). Policy management capacity for sustainable development: Future options. African Journal of Public Administration and Management, 11(2), 71-82.

Williams, R. (2012). Operationalizing “policy capacity”: A case study of climate change adaptation in Canadian finance agencies. Canadian Political Science Review, 6(1), 65-74.

Willison, C. (2017). Shelter from the storm: Roles, responsibilities, and challenges in United States housing policy governance. Health Policy, 121(11), 1113-1123.

Wilson, R. (2016). Trust but verify: Ministerial policy advisors and public servants in the Government of Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 59(3), 337-356.

Woo, J. (2020). Policy capacity and Singapore’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy and Society, 39(3), 345-362.

Wu, X., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (Eds.). (2018). Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015a). Blending skill and resources across multiple levels of activity: Competences, capabilities and the policy capacities of government. Paper presented at the International Conference on Public Policy II, International Public Policy Association, July 2, Milan, Italy.
https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/1432788077.pdf

Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015b). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3-4), 165-171.

Wurtzebach, Z., Casse, T., Meilby, H., Nielsen, M., & Milhøj, A. (2019). REDD+ policy design and policy learning: The emergence of an integrated landscape approach in Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics, 101, 129-139.

Yambesi, G. (1997). Tanzania’s experience in public policy analysis. African Administrative Studies, 49, 109-121.

Zhu, S., Feng, S., Ning, X., & Zhou, Y. (2022). Analysis of China’s fight against COVID-19 from the perspective of policy tools—policy capacity. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1-13.

Top of page

List of illustrations

Credits Source: the Authors
URL http://journals.openedition.org/irpp/docannexe/image/4058/img-1.png
File image/png, 13k
Top of page

References

Bibliographical reference

Bobby Thomas Cameron and Bryan Evans, Policy capacity research: An overview and bibliography of the international literature, 1978 to 2023International Review of Public Policy, 6:1 | 2024, 110-141.

Electronic reference

Bobby Thomas Cameron and Bryan Evans, Policy capacity research: An overview and bibliography of the international literature, 1978 to 2023International Review of Public Policy [Online], 6:1 | 2024, Online since 01 April 2024, connection on 08 November 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/irpp/4058; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/11whl

Top of page

About the authors

Bobby Thomas Cameron

University of Prince Edward Island, Canada
trcameron@upei.ca
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3669-2956

Bryan Evans

Toronto Metropolitan University, Canada
b1evans@torontomu.ca

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be subject to specific use terms.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search