Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author6, Pen_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-18T11:20:04Z
dc.date.available2013-09-17en_US
dc.date.issued2014-04-22en_US
dc.date.submitted2015-11-19T10:31:58.444Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/9928
dc.description.abstractThe vulnerability of policymaking to unintended and unanticipated consequences has been documented since Thucydides. Yet we still lack integrated conceptual and explanatory accounts of their variety and aetiology. Adequate consideration of putatively unintended and unanticipated consequences requires evidence about policymakers’ prior intentions and anticipations, the factors affecting their cognition, and the forces bearing upon responses to attempted execution of policies. This study uses archival evidence about three post-war British governments to examine hypotheses derived from neo-Durkheimian institutional theory. It compares relationships between policymakers’ informal social organization and their biases in framing anticipations and intentions in three policy fields. It shows that, contrary to widely made claims about a ‘law’ of unintended consequences, neither unintended nor unexpected consequences are random, but reflect basic patterns in variation and aetiology which the neo-Durkheimian theory explains well.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the Leverhulme Trust (grant number F01374I)en_US
dc.format.extent673 - 691 (18)en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWiley Onlineen_US
dc.relation.ispartofPublic administrationen_US
dc.rights• "This is the peer reviewed version of the following article which has been published in final form at 10.1111/padm.12081. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving."
dc.subjectpolicymakingen_US
dc.subjectvariation and aetiologyen_US
dc.subjectpolicy outcomeen_US
dc.subjectunintended consequenceen_US
dc.subjectanticipation and intentionen_US
dc.subjectneo-Durkheimian institutional theoryen_US
dc.subjecthierarchyen_US
dc.subjectenclaveen_US
dc.subjectisolateen_US
dc.titleUnintended, unanticipated or unexpected consequences of policy and surprises for government: understanding how bias and process shape causation – comparing British governments, 1959-74en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/padm.12081en_US
pubs.issue3en_US
pubs.notes24 monthsen_US
pubs.organisational-group/Queen Mary University of London
pubs.organisational-group/Queen Mary University of London/Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences & Law
pubs.organisational-group/Queen Mary University of London/Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences & Law/Business and Management - Staff
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padm.12081/pdfen_US
pubs.volume92en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2013-09-17en_US
qmul.funderMajor Research Fellowship::Leverhulme Trusten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record