The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories
Abstract
This chapter first describes the conceptions of policy instruments. There are presently a plethora of classifications of policy instruments. The chapter illustrates this conceptual diversity by providing a few samples from the ample smorgasbord of classifications. It then argues that a threefold classification is more fruitful. An appropriate starting point for the elaboration of a threefold classification can be found in Amitai Etzioni&s;s widely acclaimed work A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations . Having initially defined power as "an actor&s;s ability to induce or influence another actor to carry out his directives or any other norms he supports", Etzioni sets out to differentiate between three kinds of power, referred to as coercive, remunerative, and normative. The chapter also focuses on the threefold classificatory scheme. The basis of division inherent in the threefold classificatory scheme is technique of governance, or more specifically, the authoritative force involved in the governance efforts. The chapter further summarizes some implications of this in detail.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hildebrandt, J., Hagemann, N., & Thrän, D. (2017) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.06.013 · Cited by 253
A Framework for Evaluating Environmental Policy Instruments: Context and Key Concepts
Mickwitz, P. (2003) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/135638900300900404 · Cited by 249
Gebara, M., & Agrawal, A. (2017) · Forests · doi:10.3390/f8030066 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Vedung, E.
- Venue
- Carrots, Sticks & Sermons
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-07-28
- Pages
- 21-58
- OpenAlex
- W142073415
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 290.91
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781315081748-2
- The paper
- Vedung, E. (2017). Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. Carrots, Sticks & Sermons. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.