Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T08:07:58.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attention, content and measurement: rejoinder to Adams and Jones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2015

Keith Dowding ,
Andrew Hindmoor  and
Aaron Martin
Keith Dowding
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Australia E-mail: keith.dowding@anu.edu.au
Andrew Hindmoor
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, UK E-mail: a.hindmoor@sheffield.ac.uk
Aaron Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Melbourne, Australia E-mail: aaron.martin@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 46 - 50
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. (2015) On the Relationship Between (Parties’ and Voters’) Issue Attention and Their Issue Positions: Response to Dowding, Hindmoor and Martin. Journal of Public Policy, doi:10.1017/S0143814X1500015X.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. et al. (2009) Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective. American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 602–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D. and Mortensen, P. B. (2014) Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. In Sabatier P. A. and Weible C. M. (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 59–104.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. (2012) Understanding Public Policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dowding, K., Hindmoor, A. and Martin, A. (2013) Australian Public Policy: Attention, Content and Style. Australian Journal of Public Administration 72(2): 82–88.Google Scholar
Dowding, K. et al. (2010) Policy Agendas in Australian Politics: The Governor-General’s Speeches, 1945–2008. Australian Journal of Political Science 45(4): 533–557.Google Scholar
Dowding, K. et al. (2012) Change and Continuity in the Ideology of Australian Prime Ministers: The Governor-General’s Speeches, 1946–2010. Australian Journal of Political Science 47(3): 455–472.Google Scholar
John, P. (1998) Analysing Public Policy. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D. (2015) The Comparative Policy Agendas Project: Theory, Measurement and Findings. Journal of Public Policy, doi:10.1017/S0143814X15000161.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D. et al. (2009) A General Empirical Law of Public Budgets: A Comparative Analysis. American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 855–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar