Aberbach, Joel D., Putnam, Robert D. and Rockmen, Bert A.. 1981. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Adler, Emanuel and Haas, Peter. 1992. ‘Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program.’ International Organization 46: 367–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albaek, Erik. 1995. ‘Between Knowledge and Power: Utilization of Social Science in Public Policy Making.’ Policy Sciences 28: 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen of Abbeydale, Lord. 1983. ‘Reflections of a Bureaucrat.’ In The Home Office: Perspectives on Policy and Administration, Bicentenary Lectures, 1982, edited by the ,Royal Institute of Public Administration. London: Royal Institute of Public Administration, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar

Amara, Nabil, Ouimet, Mathieu and Landry, Réjean. 2004. ‘New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies.’ Science Communication 26: 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anton, Thomas J. 1980. Administered Politics. Boston: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ayres, Ian and Braithwaite, John. 1992. Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bade, Klaus J. 2001. ‘Konzeptionsentwurf zur institutionellen Strukturierung des Migrationswesens unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Organisation der Migrationsforschung in Deutschland.’ Gutachten für die unabhängige Kommission Zuwanderung, Berlin.

Bailey, Leon. 1996. Critical Theory and the Sociology of Knowledge: A Comparative Study in the Theory of Ideology. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Barker, Anthony and Guy Peters, B.. 1993. ‘Introduction: Science Policy and Government.’ In The Politics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy, edited by Barker, A. and Peters, B. G.. University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Barry, Brian. 1990. Political Argument. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Barry, Brian. 1995. Justice as Impartiality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baumgartner, Frank R., Green-Pedersen, Christoffer and Jones, Bryan D.. 2006. ‘Comparative Studies of Policy Agendas.’ Journal of European Public Policy 7: 1086–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D.. 1994. ‘Attention, Boundary Effects, and Large-Scale Policy Change in Air Transportation Policy.’ In The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda, edited by Rochefort, D. A. and Cobb, R. W.. University Press of Kansas, pp. 50–66.Google Scholar

Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Beetham, David. 1996. Bureaucracy. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Berman, Sheri. 1998. The Social Democratic Movement: Ideas and Politics in the Making of Interwar Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Berman, Sheri. 2001. ‘Review Article: Ideas, Norms, and Culture in Political Analysis.’ Comparative Politics 33: 231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beyer, J. M. 1981. ‘Ideologies, Values, and Decision Making in Organizations.’ In Handbook of Organizational Design, vol. II, edited by Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H.. Oxford University Press, pp. 166–202.Google Scholar

Blau, Peter M. 1955. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bleich, Erik. 2002. ‘Integrating Ideas into Policy-Making Analysis: Frames and Race Policies in Britain and France.’ Comparative Political Studies 35: 1054–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bommes, Michael and Geddes, Andrew. 2000. ‘Introduction: Immigration and the Welfare State.’ In Immigration and Welfare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State, edited by Geddes, A. and Bommes, M.. London: Routledge, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Bonss, Wolfgang, Hohlfeld, Rainer and Kolleck, Regine. 1993. ‘Einleitung.’ In Wissenschaft als Kontext – Kontexte der Wissenschaft, edited by Bonss, W., Hohlfeld, R. and Kolleck, R.. Hamburg: Junius, pp. 7–23.Google Scholar

Born, Asmund W. and Goldschmidt, Lars B.. 1997. ‘Legal Regulation and Communicative Couplings.’ Law and Policy 19: 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, Christina. 2003. European Migration Policies in Flux. Changing Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell with RIIA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, Christina. 2007a. ‘Migration Control in Europe after 9/11: Explaining the Absence of Securitization.’ Journal of Common Market Studies 45: 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, Christina. 2007b. ‘Theorizing Migration Policy: Is There A Third Way?’ International Migration Review 41: 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, Christina. 2008a. ‘Evasion, Reinterpretation and Decoupling: European Commission Responses to the “External Dimension” of Immigration and Asylum.’ West European Politics 31: 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, Christina. 2008b. ‘The Political Functions of Expert Knowledge: Knowledge and Legitimation in European Union Immigration Policy.’ Journal of European Public Policy 15: 471–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, Christina. 2009 ‘Knowledge, Legitimation and the Politics of Risk: The Functions of Research in Public Debates on Migration.’ Political Studies 57: 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bovens, Mark and 'tHart, Paul. 1996. Understanding Policy Fiascoes. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar

Brannen, Peter. 1986. ‘Research and Social Policy: Political, Organizational and Cultural Constraints.’ In The Use and Abuse of Social Science, edited by Heller, F.. London: Sage, pp. 157–70.Google Scholar

Brunsson, Nils. 1985. The Irrational Organization: Irrationality as a Basis for Organizational Action and Change. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Brunsson, Nils. 2002. The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen: Abstrakt and Liber.Google Scholar

Callaghan, James. 1983. ‘Cumber and Variableness.’ In The Home Office: Perspectives on Policy and Administration. London: Royal Institute of Public Administration, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar

Caplan, Nathan. 1978. ‘A Minimal Set of Conditions Necessary for the Utilization of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Formulation at National Level.’ In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, edited by Weiss, C. H.. Lexington, MA: Lexington, pp. 183–97.Google Scholar

Caplan, Nathan. 1983. ‘Knowledge Conversion and Utilization.’ In Realizing Social Science Knowledge. The Political Realization of Social Science Knowledge and Research: Toward New Scenarios, edited by Holzner, B., Knorr, K. D. and Strasser, H.. Vienna: Physica Verlag, pp. 255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Centeno, Miguel Angel. 1993. ‘The New Leviathan: The Dynamics and Limits of Technocracy.’ Theory and Society 22: 307–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Checkel, J. T. 1997. Ideas and International Political Change: Soviet/Russian Behavior and the End of the Cold War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Cini, Michelle. 1995. ‘Administrative Culture in the European Commission: The Case of Competition and Environment.’ Paper presented at the 4th EUSA Biennial International Conference, Charleston, SC, 11–14 May.

Cini, Michelle. 1996. The European Commission: Leadership, Organisation and Culture in the European Union Administration. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, W. C. and Majone, G.. 1985. ‘The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications.’ Science, Technology and Human Values 10: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, Timothy E. 1998. Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cram, Laura. 1994. ‘The European Commission as a Multi-Organization: Social Policy and IT Policy in the EU.’ Journal of European Public Policy 1: 195–217.Google Scholar

Cram, Laura. 1997. Policy-Making in the European Union: Conceptual Lenses and the Integration Process. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G.. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

D'Amato, Gianni. 2005. ‘Einleitung.’ In Die Bedeutung des Wissenstransfers bei Migrationspolitischen Fragen, no. 39/2005. Neuchâtel: Swiss Forum for Migration, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar

Davis, Huw T. O. and Nutley, Sandra M.. 2002. ‘Evidence-based Policy and Practice: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality.’ Research Unit For Research Utilisation, University of St Andrews.

Dery, David. 1986. ‘Knowledge and Organizations.’ Policy Studies Review 6: 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DiMaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter W.. 1983. ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.’ American Sociological Review 48: 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DiMaggio, Paul J., and Powell, Walter W.. 1991. ‘Introduction.’ In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J.. University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

Dobson, Janet, Koser, Khalid, McLaughlan, Gail and Salt, John. 2001. ‘International Migration and the United Kingdom: Recent Patterns and Trends.’ Home Office, London.

Douglas, Mary. 1992. ‘Risk and Blame.’ In Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory, edited by Douglas, M.. London: Routledge, pp. 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Douglas, Mary and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Dustmann, Christian, Casanova, Maria, Fertig, Michael, Preston, Ian and Schmidt, Christoph M.. 2003. ‘The Impact of EU Enlargement on Migration Flows.’ Home Office, London.

Easton, David. 1956. The Political System. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Eckstein, H. 1997. ‘Social Science as Cultural Science, Rational Choice as Metaphysics.’ In Culture Matters, edited by Ellis, R. and Thompson, M.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 221–44.Google Scholar

Edelman, Lauren B. 1992. ‘Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law.’ American Journal of Sociology 97: 1531–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edelman, Murray. 1977. Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Edelman, Murray. 1999. The Politics of Misinformation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda. 1985 (eds.). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Favell, Adrian. 2001. Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, Martha S. and March, James G.. 1981. ‘Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol.’ Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 171–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Flyvbjerg, Bent. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–77, edited by Gordon, C.. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 1991. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, translated by Sheridan, A.. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 1994. ‘Governmentality.’ In Power Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. III, edited by Foucault, M.. New York: New Press, pp. 201–22.Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 2006. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar

Freeman, Gary P. 1985. ‘National Styles and Policy Sectors: Explaining Structured Variation.’ Journal of Public Policy 5: 467–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freeman, Gary P. 1995. ‘Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States.’ International Migration Review 24: 881–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freeman, Richard. 2006. ‘Learning in Public Policy.’ In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, edited by Rein, M., Moran, M. and Goodin, R. E.. Oxford University Press, pp. 365–86.Google Scholar

Fuchs, Lawrence H. 1992. ‘Migration Research and Immigration Policy.’ International Migration Review 26: 1069–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gans, Herbert J. 1971. ‘Social Science for Social Policy.’ In The Use and Abuse of Social Science: Behavioral Research and Policy Making, edited by Horowitz, I. L.. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar

Gaster, Lucy and Squires, Amanda. 2003. Providing Quality in the Public Sector: A Practical Approach to Improving Public Services. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Geddes, Andrew. 2003. The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geuss, Raymond. 2001. History and Illusion in Politics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Geva-May, Iris. 2002. ‘Cultural Theory: The Neglected Variable in the Craft of Policy Analysis.’ Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 4: 243–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giddens, Anthony. 1994a. ‘Living in a Post-Traditional Society.’ In Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, edited by Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S.. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 56–109.Google Scholar

Giddens, Anthony. 1994b. Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Gieryn, Thomas F. 1995. ‘Boundaries of Science.’ In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C. and Pinch, T.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 393–443.Google Scholar

Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gill, John. 1986. ‘Research as Action: An Experiment in Utilizing the Social Sciences.’ In The Use and Abuse of Social Science, edited by Heller, F.. London: Sage, pp. 99–122.Google Scholar

Glazer, Nathan. 1988. The Limits of Social Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Glover, Stephen, Gott, Ceri, Loizillon, Anaïs, Portes, Jonathan, Price, Richard, Spencer, Sarah, Srinivasan, Vasanthi and Willis, Carole. 2001. ‘Migration: An Economic and Social Analysis.’ Home Office, London.

Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R. A.. 1993 (eds.). Ideas in Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Gormley, William T. 1986. ‘Regulatory Issue Networks in a Federal System.’ Polity 18: 595–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gott, C. and Johnston, K.. 2002. ‘The Migrant Population in the UK: Fiscal Effects.’ Home Office, London.

Green, Simon. 2004. The Politics of Exclusion: Institutions and Immigration Policy in Contemporary Germany. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Gusfield, Joseph R. 1981. The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Guston, David H. 2000. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guston, David H., Jones, Megan and Branscomb, Lewis M.. 1997. ‘The Demand for and Supply of Technical Information and Analysis in State Legislatures.’ Policy Studies Journal 25: 451–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haas, Peter M. 1992. ‘Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.’ International Organization 46: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen. 1966. ‘Verwissenschaftlichte Politik in demokratischer Gesellschaft.’ In Forschungsplanung, edited by Krauch, H., Kunz, W. and Rittel, H.. Vienna: Oldenbourg, pp. 130–44.Google Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics, translated by Shapiro, J. A.. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen. 1976. ‘Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung.’ In Technik und Wissenschaft als ‘Ideologie’, edited by Habermas, J.. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Halffman, Willem. 2005. ‘Science–Policy Boundaries: National Styles?’ Science and Public Policy 32: 457–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halffman, Willem and Hoppe, Robert. 2005. ‘Science/Policy Boundaries: A Changing Division of Labour in Dutch Expert Policy Advice.’ In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook), edited by Maasen, S. and Weingart, P.. The Hague: Kluwer, pp. 135–52.Google Scholar

Hall, John A. 1993. ‘Ideas and the Social Sciences.’ In Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, edited by Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R. A.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar

Hall, P. A. 1982. ‘Economic Planning and the State: The Evolution of Economic Challenge and Political Response in France.’ In Political Power and Social Theory, vol. III, edited by Esping-Andersen, G., Friedland, R. and Zeitlin, M.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 175–214.Google Scholar

Hall, P. A. 1993. ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain.’ Comparative Politics 25: 275–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hammar, T. 1985. European Immigration Policy: A Comparative Study. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hampshire, James. 2005. Citizenship and Belonging: Immigration and the Politics of Demographic Governance in Post-war Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Handel, Michael J. 2003. The Sociology of Organizations: Classic, Contemporary, and Critical Readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Haque, Russell, Dustmann, Christian, Fabbri, Francesca, Preston, Ian, Wadsworth, Jonathan, Shields, Michael and Price, Stephen Wheatley. 2002. ‘Migrants in the UK: Their Characteristics and Labour Market Outcomes and Impacts.’ Home Office, London.

Harste, Gorm. 2003. ‘The Emergence of Autopoietic Organization.’ In Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's Social Systems Perspective, edited by T. a. Bakken, T. H.. Copenhagen: Abstrakt, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar

Heclo, Hugh. 1974. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Hedberg, Bo. 1981. ‘How Organizations Learn and Unlearn.’ In Handbook of Organizational Design, vol. I, edited by Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H.. Oxford University Press, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Hellström, Tomas. 2000. ‘Technoscientific Expertise and the Significance of Policy Cultures.’ Technology in Society 22: 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herbst, Susan. 2003. ‘Political Authority in a Mediated Age.’ Theory and Society 32: 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilgartner, Stephen and Bosk, Charles L.. 1988. ‘The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model.’ American Journal of Sociology 94: 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hollifield, J. F. 1992. Immigrants, Markets and States: The Political Economy of Postwar Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Holzner, B., Knorr, K. D. and Strasser, H.. 1983 (eds.). Realizing Social Science Knowledge. The Political Realization of Social Science Knowledge and Research: Toward New Scenarios. Vienna: Physica Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hood, C., Scott, C., James, O. and Travers, T.. 1999. Regulation Inside Government: Waste-Watchers, Quality Police and Sleaze-Busters. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hooghe, Liesbet and Nugent, Neill. 2006. ‘The Commission's Services.’ In The Institutions of the European Union, edited by Peterson, J. and Shackleton, M.. Oxford University Press, pp. 147–68.Google Scholar

Hoppe, Robert. 2002. ‘Cultures of Public Policy Problems.’ Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 4: 305–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoppe, Robert. 2005. ‘Rethinking the Science–Policy Nexus: From Knowledge Utilization and Science Technology Studies to Types of Boundary Arrangements.’ Poiesis and Praxis 3: 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1969. ‘The Academy and the Polity: Interaction Between Social Scientists and Federal Administrators.’ Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 5: 309–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hummel, Ralph R. 1994. ‘Stories Managers Tell: Why They Are as Valid as Science.’ In Research in Public Administration: Reflections on Theory and Practice, edited by White, J. D. and Adams, G. B.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 225–45.Google Scholar

Ikenberry, G. John. 1993. ‘Creating Yesterday's New World Order: Keynesian “New Thinking” and the Anglo-American Postwar Settlement.’ In Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, edited by Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R. O.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 57–86.Google Scholar

Jann, Werner. 2003. ‘State, Administration and Governance in Germany: Competing Traditions and Dominant Narratives.’ Public Administration 81: 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila S. 1987. ‘Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science.’ Social Studies of Sciences 17: 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila S. 1994. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila S. 1995a. ‘Product, Process, or Programme: Three Cultures and the Regulation of Biotechology.’ In Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, edited by Bauer, M.. Cambridge University Press, pp. 311–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila S. 1995b. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila S. 2004a. ‘The Idiom of Co-Production.’ In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, edited by Jasanoff, S.. London: Routledge, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila S. 2004b. ‘Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society.’ In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, edited by Jasanoff, S.. London: Routledge, pp. 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila S. 2006. ‘Transparency in Public Science: Purposes, Reasons, Limits.’ Law and Contemporary Problems 69: 21–45.Google Scholar

Kingdon, J. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Klausner, S. Z. 1983. ‘Social Knowledge for Social Policy.’ In Realizing Social Science Knowledge. The Political Realization of Social Science Knowledge and Research: Toward New Scenarios, edited by Holzner, B., Knorr, K. D. and Strasser, H.. Vienna: Physica Verlag, pp. 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

König, Klaus. 2000. ‘The Administrative State in Germany.’ In Comparing Public Sector Reform in Britain and Germany: Key Traditions and Trends of Modernisation, edited by Wollmann, H. and Schröter, E.. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar

Koopmans, Ruud. 2004. ‘Movements and the Media: Selection Processes and Evolutionary Dynamics in the Public Sphere.’ Theory and Society 33: 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lacey, Michael J. and Furner, Mary O.. 1993. ‘Social Investigation, Social Knowledge, and the State: An Introduction.’ In The State and Social Investigation in Britain and the United States, edited by Lacey, M. J. and Furner, M. O.. Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–62.Google Scholar

Lavenex, Sandra. 2006. ‘Shifting Up and Out: The Foreign Policy of European Immigration Control.’ West European Politics 29: 329–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levy, David J. 1990. ‘Politics, Technology and the Responsibility of Intellectuals.’ In The Political Responsibility of Intellectuals, edited by Maclean, I., Montefiore, A. and Winch, P.. Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–42.Google Scholar

Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. ‘The Science of “Muddling Through”.’ Public Administration Review 19: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lodge, Martin and Hood, Christopher. 2003. ‘Competency and Bureaucracy: Diffusion, Application and Appropriate Response?’ West European Politics 26: 131–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lowi, Theodore J. 1964. ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory.’ World Politics 16: 677–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lowi, Theodore J. 1973. ‘Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.’ Public Administration Review 32: 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 1981. Political Theory in the Welfare State, translated by Bednarz, J.. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 1982. ‘Ends, Domination, and System: Fundamental Concepts and Premises in the Work of Max Weber.’ In The Differentiation of Society, edited by Luhmann, N.. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 20–46.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 1986. ‘The Self-Reproduction of Law and Its Limits.’ In Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State, edited by Teubner, G.. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 111–24.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 1991. Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 2000. The Reality of the Mass Media, translated by Cross, K.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 2003. ‘Organization.’ In Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's Social Systems Perspective, edited by Bakken, T. and Hernes, T.. Oslo: Abstrakt, pp. 31–52.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 2005. ‘The Autopoiesis of Social Systems.’ In Niklas Luhmann and Organizational Studies, edited by Seidl, D. and Becker, K. H.. Copenhagen: Liber, pp. 64–82.Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas. 2007. ‘Limits of Steering.’ Theory, Culture and Society 14: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lundgreen, Peter. 1997. ‘Handling Risk: Expertise and Regulatory Politics in Germany, 1870–1913.’ IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Spring: 16–22.Google Scholar

Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Majone, G. 1992. ‘Ideas, Interests and Policy Change.’ European University Institute, Florence.

March, James G. 1988. Decisions and Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

March, James G. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

March, James G. and Johan, P. Olsen. 1976. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar

March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A.. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Mayntz, Renate. 1987. ‘Politische Steuerung und gesellschaftliche Steuerungsprobleme – Anmerkungen zu einem theoretischen Paradigma.’ Jahrbuch zu Staats- und Verwaltungswissenschaft 1: 89–110.Google Scholar

McLaughlan, Gail and Salt, John. 2002. ‘Migration Policies towards Highly Skilled Foreign Workers.’ Home Office, London.

McNamara, Kathleen. 1998. The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics in the European Union. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Meyer, John W. and Rowan, Brian. 1991. ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.’ In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J.. University of Chicago Press, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar

Meyer, Thomas. 2002. Media Democracy: How the Media Colonize Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Mingers, John. 2003. ‘Observing Organizations: An Evaluation of Luhmann's Organization Theory.’ In Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's Social Systems Perspective, edited by Bakken, T. and Hernes, T.. Oslo: Abstrakt, pp. 103–22.Google Scholar

Moran, Michael. 2002. ‘Review Article: Understanding the Regulatory State.’ British Journal of Political Science 32: 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mörth, U. 2000. ‘Competing Frames in the European Commission – The Case of the Defence Industry and Equipment Issue.’ Journal of European Public Policy 7: 173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mueller, Claus. 1973. The Politics of Communication: A Study in the Political Sociology of Language, Socialization, and Legitimation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nagel, Stuart S. 1990. Policy Theory and Evaluation: Concepts, Knowledge, Causes, and Norms. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar

Naughton, Michael. 2005. ‘“Evidence-Based Policy” and the Government of the Criminal Justice System – Only If the Evidence Fits!’ Critical Social Policy 25: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neal, Andrew. 2008. ‘Michel Foucault.’ In Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Edkins, Jenny and Vaughan-Williams, Nick. London: Routledge, pp. 149–58.Google Scholar

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1975. ‘The Political Impact of Technical Expertise.’ Social Studies of Science 5: 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nordlinger, Eric A. 1981. On the Autonomy of the Democratic State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Nutley, Sandra M., Walters, Isabel and Davies, Huw T. O.. 2007. Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O'Connor, Alice. 2001. Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century US History. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olsen, Johan P. 1994. ‘Choice in an Organized Anarchy.’ In Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, edited by March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P.. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 82–139.Google Scholar

Owens, Susan. 2005. ‘Commentary. Making a Difference? Some Perspectives on Environmental Research and Policy.’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30: 287–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Wayne. 2002. ‘From Muddling Through To Muddling Up: Evidence Based Policy Making and the Modernization of British Government.’ Public Policy and Administration 17: 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peters, B. Guy. 1995. The Politics of Bureaucracy. White Plains, NY: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peters, B. Guy. 2003. ‘Administrative Traditions and the Anglo-American Democracies.’ In Civil Service Systems in Anglo-American Countries, edited by Halligan, J.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 10–26.Google Scholar

Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, Jon. 2001. ‘Civil Servants and Politicians: The Changing Balance.’ In Politicians, Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform, edited by Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J.. London: Routledge, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Peterson, John. 2006. ‘The College of Commissioners.’ In The Institutions of the European Union, edited by Peterson, J. and Shackleton, M.. Oxford University Press, pp. 81–103.Google Scholar

Peterson, Richard T. 1996. Democratic Philosophy and the Politics of Knowledge. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1981. Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1984. ‘The Micropolitics of Organizations.’ In Environments and Organizations, edited by Meyer, M. W.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Pickering, Andrew. 1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poggi, Gianfranco. 1990. The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Pollard, S. 2005. David Blunkett. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar

Radaelli, Claudio M. 1995. ‘The Role of Knowledge in the Policy Process.’ Journal of European Public Policy 2: 159–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radaelli, Claudio M. 1999a. ‘The Public Policy of the European Union: Whither Politics of Expertise?’ Journal of European Public Policy 6: 757–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radaelli, Claudio M. 1999b. Technocracy in the European Union. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Radaelli, Claudio M. 2007. ‘Does Regulatory Impact Assessment “Make Institutions Think”?’ Paper Presented at the European Union Studies Association Conference, 17–19 May.

Renn, O. 1995. ‘Style of Using Scientific Expertise: A Comparative Framework.’ Science and Public Policy 22: 147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rich, Robert F. and Oh, Cheol H.. 1994. ‘The Utilization of Policy Research.’ In Encyclopedia of Policy Studies, edited by Nagel, S. S.. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar

Robinson, Vaughan and Segrott, Jeremy. 2002. ‘Understanding the Decision-Making of Asylum Seekers.’ Home Office, London.

Rohe, Karl. 1993. ‘The State Tradition in Germany: Continuities and Changes.’ In Political Culture in Germany, edited by Berg-Schlosser, D. and Rytlewski, R.. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 215–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rüdig, Wolfgang. 1993. ‘Sources of Technological Controversy: Proximity To or Alienation From Technology?’ In The Politics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy, edited by Barker, A. and Peters, B. G.. University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar

Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda. 1996. ‘Conclusion.’ In States, Social Knowledge, and the Origins of Modern Social Policies, edited by Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T.. Princeton University Press, pp. 296–312.Google Scholar

Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Rossem, Ronan. 1996. ‘The Verein für Sozialpolitik and the Fabian Society: A Study in the Sociology of Policy-Relevant Knowledge.’ In States, Social Knowledge, and the Origins of Modern Social Policies, edited by Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T.. Princeton University Press, pp. 117–53.Google Scholar

Rule, James B. 1997. Theory and Progress in Social Science. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sabatier, Paul A. 1978. ‘The Acquisition and Utilization of Technical Information by Administrative Agencies.’ Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 396–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sanderson, Ian. 2002. ‘Making Sense of “What Works”: Evidence Based Policy Making as Instrumental Rationality?’ Public Policy and Administration 17: 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Schmidt, Vivian A. and Radaelli, Claudio. 2004. ‘Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.’ West European Politics 27: 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scholten, Peter. 2007. Constructing Immigrant Policies: Research–Policy Relations and Immigrant Integration in the Netherlands (1970–2004). Enschede: Printpartners Ipskamp.Google Scholar

Schön, D. A. 1973. Beyond the Stable State: Public and Private Learning in a Changing Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Sciortino, Giuseppe. 2000. ‘Towards a Political Sociology of Entry Policies: Conceptual Problems and Theoretical Proposals.’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 26: 213–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sciortino, Guiseppe and Pastore, Ferruccio. 2004. ‘Immigration and European Immigration Policy: Myths and Realities.’ In Justice and Home Affairs in the EU: Liberty and Security Issues After Enlargement, edited by Apap, J.. Brussels: Centre for European Studies, pp. 191–209.Google Scholar

Scott, Richard W. 1995. Institutes and Organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Scott, W. R. and Meyer, J. W.. 1991. ‘The Organization of Societal Sectors.’ In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 108–40.Google Scholar

Seibel, Wolfgang. 1996. ‘Administrative Science as Reform: German Public Administration.’ Public Administration Review 56: 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapin, S. 1992. ‘Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen through the Externalism–Internalism Debate.’ History of Science 30: 333–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sinclair, Timothy. 2000. ‘Reinventing Authority: Embedded Knowledge Networks and the New Global Finance.’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18: 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skocpol, Theda. 1985. ‘Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research.’ In Bringing the State Back In, edited by Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T.. Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Gavin. 2002. ‘Effecting Reality: Intellectuals and Politics in the Current Conjuncture.’ Focaal – European Journal of Anthropology 40: 165–77.Google Scholar

Stehr, N. and Baldamus, W.. 1983. ‘Accounts and Action: The Logic(s) of Social Science and Pragmatic Knowledge.’ In Realizing Social Science Knowledge. The Political Realization of Social Science Knowledge and Research: Toward New Scenarios, edited by Holzner, B., Knorr, K. D. and Strasser, H.. Vienna: Physica Verlag, pp. 73–8.Google Scholar

Stevens, Anne and Stevens, Handley. 2001. Brussels Bureaucrats? The Administration of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Stone, D. 2002. ‘Getting Research into Policy.’ Paper presented at the Global Development Network, Rio de Janeiro, December 2001.

Teubner, Gunter. 1984. ‘Autopoiesis in Law and Society: A Rejoinder to Blankenburg.’ Law and Society Review 18: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, John B. 2000. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, Michael and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1986. ‘A Cultural Theory of Information Bias in Organizations.’ Journal of Management Studies 23: 273–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Topf, Richard. 1993a. ‘Advice to Governments – Some Theoretical and Practical Issues.’ In Advising West European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public Policy, edited by Peters, B. G. and Barker, A.. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Topf, Richard. 1993b. ‘Science, Public Policy and the Authoritativeness of the Governmental Process.’ In The Politics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy, edited by Barker, A. and Peters, B. G.. University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 103–17.Google Scholar

Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R.. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wagner, Peter and Wittrock, Bjorn. 1990. ‘States, Institutions, and Discourses: A Comparative Perspective on the Structuration of the Social Sciences.’ In Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines, edited by Wagner, P., Wittrock, B. and Whitley, R.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 331–58.Google Scholar

Walsh, James I. 2000. ‘When Do Ideas Matter? Explaining the Successes and Failures of Thatcherite Ideas.’ Comparative Political Studies 33: 483–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, vol. II, edited by G.‘R. a. Wittich, C.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Weick, Karl E. and Bougon, Michel G.. 1986. ‘Organizations as Cognitive Maps: Charting Ways to Success and Failure.’ In The Thinking Organization, edited by Sims, H. P. and Gioia, Dennis A.. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass, pp. 102–35.Google Scholar

Weingart, Peter. 1995. ‘Die Einheit der Wissenschaft: Mythos und Wunder.’ In Grenzüberschreitungen in der Wissenschaft, edited by Weingart, P.. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 11–28.Google Scholar

Weingart, Peter. 1998. ‘Science and the Media.’ Research Policy 27: 869–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weingart, Peter. 1999. ‘Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability: Paradoxes of Science in Politics.’ Science and Public Policy 26: 151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weir, Margaret and Skocpol, Theda. 1985. ‘State Structures and the Possibilities for “Keynesian” Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States.’ In Bringing the State Back In, edited by Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T.. Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiss, Carol H. 1978. ‘Introduction.’ In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, edited by Weiss, C. H.. Lexington, MA: Lexington, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Weiss, Carol H. 1979. ‘The Many Meanings of Research Utilization.’ Public Administration Review 39: 426–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiss, Carol H. 1986. ‘Research and Policy-Making: A Limited Partnership.’ In The Use and Abuse of Social Science, edited by Heller, F.. London: Sage, pp. 214–35.Google Scholar

Weiss, Carol H. and Michael, J. Bucuvalas. 1980. Social Science Research and Decision-Making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, Robin, Faulkner, Wendy and Fleck, James. 1998. Exploring Expertise: Issues and Perspectives. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Willke, Helmut. 1985. ‘Three Types of Legal Structure: The Conditional, the Purposive and the Relational Program.’ In Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State, edited by Teubner, G.. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 280–98.Google Scholar

Wilson, J. Q. 1980. The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Wittrock, Bjorn and Wagner, Peter. 1996. ‘Social Science and the Building of the Early Welfare State: Toward A Comparison of Statist and Non-statist Western Societies.’ In States, Social Knowledge, and the Origins of Modern Social Policies, edited by Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T.. Princeton University Press, pp. 90–113.Google Scholar

Wollmann, Hellmut. 2000. ‘Comparing Institutional Development in Britain and Germany: (Persistent) Divergence or (Progressing) Convergence?’ In Comparing Public Sector Reform in Britain and Germany: Key Traditions and Trends of Modernisation, edited by Wollmann, H. and Schroeter, E.. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Yearley, Steven. 1988. Science, Technology and Social Change. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar

Zaltman, G. 1983. ‘Construing Knowledge Use.’ In Realizing Social Science Knowledge. The Political Realization of Social Science Knowledge and Research: Toward New Scenarios, edited by Holzner, B., Knorr, K. D. and Strasser, H.. Vienna: Physica Verlag, pp. 236–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar