Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/271209 
Authors: 
Year of Publication: 
2023
Citation: 
[Journal:] Geography Compass [ISSN:] 1749-8198 [Volume:] 17 [Issue:] 5 [Article No.:] e12688 [Publisher:] Wiley [Place:] Hoboken, NJ [Year:] 2023 [Pages:] 1-16
Publisher: 
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Abstract: 
Geographers and urban studies scholars tend to rely on policy mobilities approaches to explain processes of policy spread, whereas political scientists and public policy scholars usually draw on either policy diffusion or policy transfer. I challenge this widespread scholarly practice of selecting approaches based on the association with a certain discipline. Instead, first and foremost, the specific research aim(s) and question(s) should shape the choice of theoretical lens. Analytical or policy outcome-oriented studies should rely on policy diffusion and policy transfer, while a policy mobilities approach is best suited for more (policy) critical analysis. The approaches can also complement each other to a certain degree. Analytical and policy outcome-oriented approaches need a stronger critical perspective while policy mobilities scholars need to underpin their critique with constructive suggestions on how to improve established practices.
Subjects: 
critical studies
policy diffusion
policy innovations
policy outcome-oriented studies
policy spread
policy transfer
urban policy mobilities
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by-nc-nd Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.