As teorias do processo político na avaliação das políticas públicas brasileiras
aplicações e agenda de pesquisa
Palavras-chave:
Políticas Públicas, Teorias do Processo Político, Revisão Sistemática, Periódicos NacionaisResumo
Este estudo se propõe a atingir duplo intento. Primeiro, objetiva apresentar uma súmula das teorias, abordagens e modelos do processo de políticas públicas dominantes. Segundo, propõe-se a realização de uma revisão sistemática para que se conheça o estado da arte da aplicação dessas teorias nas publicações das principais revistas brasileiras. Por meio da revisão, identificaram-se 45 artigos (n=45) publicados entre o período de 2000 a 2016. Os resultados mostram que o número de artigos publicados tem aumentado significativamente. A maioria desses estudos se centra na subárea das políticas setoriais (n=34) e faz uso das teorias para explicação dos estudos de caso realizados. Conclui-se, contudo, pela necessidade de desenvolvimento de uma agenda de pesquisa na qual estudos assumam uma maior predominância teórica-empírica; somando-se um maior rigor e maturidade metodológicos.
Downloads
Referências
ANDERSON, J. Public policy-making. New York: Praeger, 1975.
ARAUJO, L.; RODRIGUES, M. L. Modelos de análise das políticas públicas. Sociologia, Problemas e práticas, Lisboa, n. 83, p. 11-35, jan. 2017. DOI: 10.7458/SPP2017839969.
BAUMGARTNER, F.; JONES, B. Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, Chicago, v. 53, Disponível em: http://bit.ly/2Mgrpvv. Acesso em: 19 dez. 2018.
BAUMGARTNER, F.; JONES, B. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
BAUMGARTNER, F.; JONES, B.; MORTENSEN, P. Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014. p. 59-103.
BAUMGARTNER, F. R. et al. Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science, [s. l.], v. 53, n. 3, p. 603-620, 2009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00389.x.
BERRY, F. S.; BERRY, W. Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014.
BERRY, F. S.; BERRY, W. State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: an event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, New York, v. 84, n. 2, p. 395-415, 1990. DOI: 10.2307/1963526.
BIRKLAND, T. After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1997.
BIRKLAND, T. An introduction to the policy process. 3. ed. Armonk: Sharpe, 2010.
BLACK, N. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ, v. 17, n. 323, p. 275-279, 2001. DOI: 10.1136/ bmj.323.7307.275.
BLAIKIE, N. Designing social research. 2. ed. Cambridge: Polity, 2009.
BLATTER, J.; BLUME, T. Co-variation and causal process tracing revisited: clarifying new directions for causal inference and generalization in case study methodology. Qualitative Methods, Alberta, v. 6, n. 1, p. 29-34, 2008a.
BLATTER, J.; BLUME, T. In search of co-variance, causal mechanisms or congruence? Towards a plural understanding of case studies. Swiss Political Science Review, Hoboken, v. 14, n. 2, p. 315-356, 2008b.
BOYNE, G.; ASHWORTH, R.; POWELL, M. Testing the limits of incrementalism: an empirical analysis of expenditure decisions by English local authorities, 1981-1996. Public Administration, Danvers, v. 78, n. 1, p. 51-73, 2000. DOI:10.1111/1467-9299.00192.
BREUNIG, C.; KOSKI, C.; MORTENSEN, P. Stability and punctuations in public spending: a comparative study of budget functions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Oxford, v. 20, n. 3, p. 703-722, 2010. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mup028.
BREWER, G. The policy sciences emerge: to nurture and structure a discipline. Policy Sciences, Amsterdam, v. 5, n. 3, p. 229-244, 1974.
BREWER, G.; DELEON, P. The foundations of policy analysis. Monterey: Dorsey Press, 1983.
CAIRNEY, P. Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Studies Review, Thousand Oaks, v. 10, n. 3, p. 346-358, 2012. DOI:10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00270.x.
CAIRNEY, P. How can policy theory have an impact on policymaking? The role of theory-led academic practitioner discussions. Teaching Public Administration, Thousand Oaks, v. 33, n. 1, p. 22-39, 2015. DOI: 10.1177/0144739414532284.
CAIRNEY, P.; HEIKKILA, T. A comparison of theories of the policy process. In: SABATIER; P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014.
CAIRNEY, P.; JONES, M. Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: what is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies, Hoboken, v. 44, n. 1, p. 37-58, 2016. DOI:10.1111/psj.12111.
CAMÕES, P. S. O design de investigação. In: SILVESTRE, H. C.; ARAÚJO, J. F. (Eds.). Metodologia para a investigação social. Lisboa: Escolar, 2012. p. 103-119.
CAPELLA, A. C. N. Perspectivas teóricas sobre o processo de formulação de políticas públicas. Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, n. 61, p. 25-52, 2006.
CAREY, G.; CRAMMOND, B. Systems change for the social determinants of health. BMC public health, London, v. 15, n. 1, p. 1-10, 2015. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1979-8.
COCHRAN, C. et al. American public policy: an introduction. 10. ed. Boston: Cengage Learning Wadsworth, 2011.
COÊLHO, D. B. Political competition and the diffusion of conditional cash transfers in Brazil. Brazilian Political Science Review, São Paulo, v. 6, n. 2, p. 56-87, 2012. DOI: 10.1590/S1981-38212012000200003.
COÊLHO, D. B.; CAVALCANTE, P.; TURGEON, M. Mecanismos de difusão de políticas sociais no Brasil: uma análise do programa Saúde da Família. Revista de Sociologia e Política, Curitiba, v. 24, n. 58, p. 145-165, 2016.
COHEN, M.; MARCH, J.; OLSEN, J. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, Newcastle, v. 17, n. 1, p. 1-25, 1972. DOI: 10.2307/2392088.
CRAWFORD, S.; OSTRÖM, E. A grammar of institutions. In: OSTRÖM, E. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. p. 137-174.
CRAWFORD, S.; OSTRÖM, E. A grammar of institutions. The American Political Science Review, New York, v. 89, n. 3, p. 582-600, 1995. DOI:10.2307/2082975.
CROW, D. Policy punctuations in Colorado water law: the breakdown of a monopoly. Review of Policy Research, Hoboken, v. 27, n. 2, p. 147-166, 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00435.x.
DE-LA-TORRE-UGARTE-GUANILO, M. C.; TAKAHASHI, R. F.; BERTOLOZZI, M. R. Revisão sistemática: noções gerais. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, São Paulo, v. 45, n. 5, p. 1260-1266, 2011. DOI: 10.1590/ S0080-62342011000500033.
DUDLEY.G. New theories and policy process discontinuities: theories of the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, London, v. 7, p. 122-26, 2000.
FARAH, M. F. S. A contribuição da administração pública para a constituição do campo de estudos de políticas públicas. In: MARQUES, E.; FARIA, C. A. P. de (Eds.). A política pública como campo multidisciplinar. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2013.
FARIA, C. A. P. de. A multidisciplinaridade no estudo das políticas públicas. In: MARQUES, E.; FARIA, C. A. P. (Orgs.). A política pública como campo multidisciplinar. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2013.
FARIA, C. A. P. de. Ideias, conhecimento e políticas públicas: um inventário sucinto das principais vertentes analíticas recentes. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, v. 18, n. 51, p. 21-30, 2003. DOI: 10.1590/ S0102-69092003000100004.
GERIG, R.; EGIDI, G. Cognitive psychological foundations of narrative experiences. In: HERMAN, D. (Ed.). Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences. Stanford, CSLI Publications, 2003.
GRAY, V. Innovation in the States: a diffusion study. American Political Science Review, New York, v. 67, n. 4, p. 1174- 1185, 1973. DOI: 10.2307/1956539.
GREENBERG, G. et al. Developing public policy theory: perspectives from empirical research. The American Political Science Review, New York, v. 71, n. 4, p. 1532-1543, 1977. DOI:10.2307/1961494.
HOFFERBERT, R. The study of public policy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1974.
HOWLETT, M. A dialética da opinião pública: efeitos recíprocos da política pública e da opinião pública em sociedades democráticas contemporâneas. Opinião Pública, Campinas, v. 6, n. 2, p. 167-186, 2000. DOI: 10.1590/ S0104-62762000000200001.
HOWLETT, M. ; RAMESH, M. ; PERL, A. Política pública: seus ciclos e subsistemas: uma abordagem integral. Tradução técnica de Francisco G. Heidemann. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2013.
INGRAM, H.; SCHNEIDER, A. Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy, New York, v. 10, n. 1, p. 67-88, 1990. Disponível em: http://bit.ly/2FKPQ2D. Acesso em: 17 dez. 2018.
INGRAM, H.; SCHNEIDER, A. The choice of target populations. Administration and Society, Blacksburg, v. 23, n. 3, p. 333-356, 1991. DOI: 10.1177/009539979102300304.
INGRAM, H.; SCHNEIDER, A.; DELEON, P. Social construction and policy design. In: SABATIER, P. A. (Ed). Theories of the political process. 2. ed. Boulder: Westview, 2007. p. 93-126.
INGRAM, H. M.; SCHNEIDER, A. L.; LEON, P. Social construction and policy design. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 2. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2007. p. 169-189.
JANN, W.; WEGRICH, K. Theories of the policy cycle. In: FISCHER, F.; MILLER, G. J.; SIDNEY, M. (Eds.). Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics and methods. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2007.
JENKINS-SMITH, H. et al. The advocacy coalition framework: foundations, evolution. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014.
JONES, M.; MCBETH, M. A narrative policy framework: clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, Hoboken, v. 38, n. 2, p. 329-353, 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.x.
JONES, M. D.; MCBETH, M. K.; SHANAHAN, E. A. Introducing the narrative policy framework. In: JONES,
M. D.; SHANAHAN, E. A.; MCBETH, M. K. (Eds.), The science of stories: applications of the narrative policy framework in public policy analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2014. p. 1-25.
JONES, M. et al. A river runs through it: a multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal, Hoboken, v. 44, n. 1, p. 13-36, 2015. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12115.
KAUFMAN, H. Are government organization immortal? Washington: Brookings Institution, 1976.
KINGDON, J. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little-Brown, 1984.
KISER, L.; OSTRÖM, E. The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional arrangements. In: OSTRÖM, E. (Ed.). Strategies of political inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.
KRAFT, M.; FURLONG, S. Public policy: politics, analysis, and alternatives. 5. ed. Washington: Sage Publications, 2015.
LAKATOS, I. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: LAKATOS, I.; MUSGRAVE, A. (Eds.). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
LASSWELL, H. The decision process: seven categories of functional analysis. College Park: University of Maryland Press, 1956.
LASSWELL, H. Who gets what, when, and how? New York: McGraw Hill, 1936.
LELOUP, L. The myth of incrementalism: analytical choices in budgetary theory. Polity, Chicago, v. 10, n. 4, p. 488- 509, 1978. DOI: 10.2307/3234402.
LIBERATI, A. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, San Francisco, v. 6, n. 7, p. 2009. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
LINDBLOM, C. The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, Hoboken, v. 19, n. 2, p. 79-88, 1959. DOI:10.2307/973677.
MARQUES, E. As políticas públicas na ciência política. In: MARQUES, E.; FARIA, C. A. P. de (Orgs.). A política pública como campo multidisciplinar. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2013.
MATTILA, A.; WIRTZ, J. The role of preconsumption affect in postpurchase evaluation of services. Psychology and Marketing, Hoboken, v. 17, n. 17, p. 587-605, 2000. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200007).
MAZMANIAN, D.; SABATIER, P. Implementation and public policy. Glenview: Scott Foresman, 1983.
MCBETH, M.; JONES, M.; SHANAHAN, E. The narrative policy framework. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014.
MCBETH, M . et al. The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. Policy Studies Journal, Hoboken, v. 35, n. 1, p. 87-108, 2007. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00208.x.
MCCOMAS, K.; SHANAHAN, J. Telling stories about global climate change. Communication Research, v. 26, n. 1, p. 30-57, 1990. DOI: 10.1177/009365099026001003.
MEDEIROS, M. de A.; MEUNIER, I.; COCKLES, M. Processos de difusão política e legitimidade no Mercosul: mimetismo institucional e mecanismos de internalização de normas comunitárias. Contexto Internacional, Rio de Janeiro, v. 3, n. 2, p. 537-570, 2015.
MELO, M. A. Estado, governo e políticas públicas. In: MICELI, S. (Org.). O que ler na Ciência Social brasileira. São Paulo: Sumaré; Brasília: Capes, 1999.
MINTROM, M. Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, New York, v. 41, n. 3, p. 738-770, 1997. DOI:10.2307/2111674.
MORTENSEN, P. Policy punctuations in Danish local budgeting. Public Administration, Danvers, v. 83, n. 4, p. 931- 950, 2005. DOI:10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00484.x.
NAKAMURA, R. The textbook policy process and implementation research. Review of Policy Research, Hoboken, v. 7, n. 1, p.142-154, 1987. DOI:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1987.tb00034.x.
NATCHEZ, P.; BUPP, I. Policy and priority in the budgetary process. The American Political Science Review, New York, v. 67, n. 3, p. 951-963, 1973. DOI:10.2307/1958637.
NUTLEY, S.; WALTER, I.; DAVIES, H. Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Bristol: Policy Press at the University of Bristol, 2007. Disponível em: http://bit.ly/2W2tHCI. Acesso em: 14 nov. 2018.
OSTRÖM, E. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, Hoboken, v. 39, n. 1, p. 7-27, 2011. DOI:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x.
OSTRÖM, E. Designing complexity to govern complexity. In: HANNA, S.; MUNASINGHE, M. (Eds.). Property rights and the environment: social and ecological issues. Stockholm: The Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and The World Bank, 1995. p. 33-45.
OSTRÖM, E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
OSTRÖM, E. Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In:
SABATIER, P. (Ed.). Theories of the policy process. 2. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2007. p. 21-64.
OSTRÖM, E. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
OSTRÖM, E.; COX, M.; SCHLAGER, E. An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework and introduction of the social-ecological system framework. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014.
PADGETT, J. Bounded rationality in budgetary research. The American Political Science Review, New York, v. 74, n. 2, p. 354-372, 1980. DOI:10.2307/1960632.
PARSONS, W. When dogs don’t bark. News theories and policy process symposium: theories of the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, London, v. 7, p. 126-30, 2000.
PEREIRA, M. C. G.; TEIXEIRA, M. A. C. A inclusão de catadores em programas de coleta seletiva: da agenda local à nacional. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 9, n. 3, p. 895-913, 2011. DOI: 10.1590/S1679-39512011000300011.
PETRIDOU, E. Theories of the policy process: contemporary scholarship and future directions. Policy Studies Journal, Hoboken, v. 42, n. 1, p. 12-32, 2014. DOI:10.1111/psj.12054.
POPPER, K. Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Springer, 1935.
RAGIN, C. Turning the tables: how case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. Comparative Social Research, Bingley, v. 16, p. 27-42, 1997.
REIS, E. P. Reflexões leigas para a formulação de uma agenda de pesquisa em políticas públicas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, v. 18, n. 51, p. 11-14, 2003. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-69092003000100002.
REPETTO, R. Punctuated equilibrium and the dynamics of US environmental policy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
ROSENBLOOM, D. Public administration theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, Hoboken, v. 43, p. 219-227, 1983.
SABATIER, P. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy sciences, Amsterdam, v. 21, n. 2-3, p. 129-168, 1988.
SABATIER, P. The need for better theories. In: SABATIER, P. A. (Ed). Theories of the political process. 2. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2007.
SABATIER, P. Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.
SABATIER, P. Toward better theories of the policy process. Political Science & Politics, New York, v. 24, n. 2, p. 47-156, 1991. DOI: 10.2307/419923.
SABATIER, P.; JENKINS-SMITH, H. Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview, 1993.
SABATIER, P. A.; JENKINS-SMITH, H. C. The advocacy framework coalition: an assessment. In: SABATIER, P. (Eds.) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999. p. 117-166.
SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. The advocacy coalition: innovations and clarifications. In: SABATIER, P. (Ed.) Theories of the policy process. 2. Ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2007. p. 189-220.
SABATIER, P. A.; WEIBLE, C. The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In: SABATIER, P. A. (Ed.). Theories of the political process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014.
SCHLAGER, E.; WEIBLE, C. New theories of the policy process. Policy Study Journal, Hoboken, v. 41, n. 3, p. 389- 396, 2013. DOI:10.1111/psj.12030.
SCHNEIDER, A.; INGRAM, H. Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, New York, v. 87, n. 2, p. 334-347, 1993. DOI: 10.2307/2939044
SCHNEIDER, A.; INGRAM, H. Systematically pinching ideas: a comparative approach to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, v. 8, n. 1, p. 61-80, 1988. DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X00006851
SCHNEIDER, A.; INGRAM, H.; DELEON, P. Democratic policy design: social construction of target populations. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the Policy Process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014.
SCHNEIDER, A.; SIDNEY, M. What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, Hoboken, v. 37, n. 1, p. 103-119, 2009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00298.x.
SHANAHAN, E.; JONES, M.; MCBETH, M. How to conduct a narrative policy framework study. The Social Science Journal, Amsterdam, v. 55, n. 3, p. 332-345, 2018.
SHANAHAN, E., MCBETH, M.; HATHAWAY, P. Narrativa quadro de política: a influência da política de mídia narrativas na opinião pública. Politics & Policy, Hoboken, v. 39, n. 3, p. 373-400, 2011. DOI: 1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00295.x.
SHIPAN, C.; VOLDEN, C. The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, New York, v. 52, n. 4, p. 840-857, 2008.
SILVESTRE, H. C.; ARAÚJO, J. F. F. E. de. Teoria do equilíbrio pontuado nas políticas públicas brasileiras: o caso do Ceará. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, Rio de Janeiro, v. 19, n. 6, p. 696-711, 2015. DOI: 10.1590/1982-rac20151721. Disponível em: <https://bit.ly/2M1K4Lf>. Acesso em: 29 ago. 2017.
SILVESTRE, H. M. C.; PEDROZO, E. Á. O modelo de difusão regional no processo político: variáveis explicativas do produto nos governos locais cearenses. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e Desenvolvimento Regional, Taubaté, v. 12, n. 3, p. 397-418, 2016.
SIMMONS, B.; DOBBIN, F.; GARRETT, G. Introduction: the international diffusion of liberalism. International Organization, New York, v. 60, n. 4, p. 781-810, 2006. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818306060267.
SMITH, K.; LARIMER, C. The public policy theory primer. 3. ed. Colorado: Westview Press, 2016.
SOUZA, C. “Estado do campo” da pesquisa em políticas públicas no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, v. 18, n. 51, p. 15-20, 2003. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-69092003000100003.
SOUZA, C. Políticas públicas: uma revisão da literatura. Sociologias, Porto Alegre, v. 16, p. 20-45, 2006. DOI: 10.1590/ S1517-45222006000200003.
SOUZA, L. R.; SECCHI, L. A política científica e tecnológica de Santa Catarina: análise a partir do modelo de coalizões de defesa. Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 48, n. 4, p. 939-960, 2014. DOI: 10.1590/0034-76121557.
SOWA, J.; LU, J. Policy and management: considering public management and its relationship to policy studies. Policy Studies Journal, Hoboken v. 45, p. 74-100, 2017. DOI:10.1111/psj.12193.
SUCHMAN, E. Evaluative research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967.
THORNBORROW, J.; COATES, J. The sociolinguistics of narrative: identity, performance, culture. In:
THORNBORROW, J.; COATES, J. (Eds.). The sociolinguistics of narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005.
TRUE, J.; JONES, B.; BAUMGARTNER, F. Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public
policymaking. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. Colorado: Westview Press, 2007.
VOORBERG, W.; BEKKERS, V.; TUMMERS, L. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, Armonk, v. 17, n. 9, p. 1333-1357, 2015. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
WALDO, D. Development of theory of democratic administration. The American Political Science Review, New York, v. 46, n. 1, p. 81-103, 1952.
WALKER, J. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, New York, v. 63, n. 3, p. 880-899, 1969. DOI: 10.2307/1954434.
WEIBLE, C. Advancing policy process research. In: SABATIER, P. A.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014b.
WEIBLE, C. Introducing the scope and focus of policy process research and theory. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014a.
WEIBLE, C.; JENKINS-SMITH. H. C. The advocacy coalition framework: an approach for the comparative analysis of contentious policy issues. In: PETERS, G.; ZITTOUN, P. (Eds.). Contemporary Approaches to Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan: London, 2016.
WEIBLE, C. M. et al. A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: an introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal, [s. l.], v. 39, n. 3, p. 349-360, 2011. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00412.x.
YIN, R. Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6. ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2017.
ZAHARIADIS, N. The multiple streams framework: structure, limitations, prospects. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 2. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2007.
ZAHARIADIS, N. The multiple streams framework: structure, limitations, prospects. In: SABATIER, P.; WEIBLE, C. (Eds.). Theories of the policy process. 3. ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014.
