This article contributes to efforts to integrate power-based, institutionalist, and constructivist perspectives on policy making. Using an analysis of policy designs for assisted reproductive technology, the authors argue that jurisdictional federations are more vulnerable to social constructions based on widely held perceptions of social groups than functional federations and, to a lesser extent, unitary states. In fact, policy makers in jurisdictional federations tend to rely on communicative discourses aimed at convincing a wide public, whereas those in functional federations need coordinative discourses to obtain the support of actors who play key roles in decision making. Where coordinative discourses prevail over communicative discourses, policy makers will more likely target advantaged groups with restrictive policies.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1961). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952.
2.
Bleich, E. (2002). Integrating ideas into policy-making analysis: Frames and race policies in Britain and France. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 1054-1076.
3.
Bleiklie, I., Goggin, M., & Rothmayr, C. (Eds.). (2004). Governing assisted reproductive technology: A cross country comparison. London: Routledge.
4.
Braun, D. (Ed.). (2000). Public policy and federalism. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
5.
Braun, D. (2003). Dezentraler und unitarischer Föderalismus: Die Schweiz und Deutschland im Vergleich. Swiss Political Science Review, 9, 57-89.
6.
Chandler, W. M. (1987). Federalism and political parties. In H. Bakvis & W. M. Chandler (Eds.), Federalism and the role of the state (pp. 149-170). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
7.
Coburn, D. (1988). Canadian medicine: Dominance or proletarianization?Milbank Quarterly, 66, 92-116.
8.
Coleman, W. D., & Montpetit, É. (2000). Multitiered systems and the organization of business interests. In J. Greenwood & H. Jacek (Eds.), Organized business and the new global order (pp. 160-176). London: Macmillan.
9.
Crettaz de Roten, F., & Leresche, J.-P. (2001). Les Suisses face à la science et à la technique. Ecublens, Switzerland: Cahiers No.3 del’ Observatoire EPFL Science, Politiqueet Société.
10.
European Commission. (2001). Eurobarometer 55.2: Europeans, science and technology. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
11.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. Brussels, Belgium: Life Science in European Society.
12.
Government of Canada. (1996). New reproductive technologies: Setting boundaries, enhancing health. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
13.
Gunning, J., & English, V. (1993). Human in vitro fertilization: A case study in the regulation of medical innovation. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.
14.
Harrison, K. (1996). Passing the buck: Federalism and Canadian environmental policy. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
15.
Hassenteufel, P. (1997). Les médecins face à l’État: Une comparaison européenne. Paris: Les Presses de Sciences.
16.
Héritier, A. (1999). Policy-making and diversity in Europe: Escape from deadlock. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Jupille, J., Caporaso, J. A., & Checkel, J. T. (2003). Integrating institutions: Rationalism, constructivism, and the study of the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 36, 7-41.
18.
Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Leather, S. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2003, from http://www.hfea.gov.uk/aboutHFEA/default.htm
20.
Lieberman, R. C. (1995). Social construction (continued). American Political Science Review, 89, 437-441.
21.
Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and markets: The world’s political economic systems. New York: Basic Books.
22.
Mettler, S. (2002). Bringing the state back in to civic engagement: Policy feedback effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II veterans. American Political Science Review, 98, 351-365.
23.
Montpetit, É. (2002). Policy networks, federal arrangements, and the development of environmental regulations: A comparison of the Canadian and American agricultural sectors. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 15, 1-20.
24.
Montpetit,É. (2004). Policy networks, federalism and managerialideas: How ART non-decision in Canada safe guards the autonomy of the medical profession. In I. Bleiklie, M. Goggin,& C. Rothmayr (Eds.), Comparative biomedical policy: Governing assisted reproductive technology (pp. 64-81). London: Routledge.
25.
Pierson, P. (1995). Fragmented welfare states: Federal institutions and the development of social policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 8, 449-478.
26.
Presse Canadienne & Léger Marketing. (2002). La perception des Canadiens à l’égard de certaines professions. Montreal, Canada: Presse Canadienne.
27.
Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb R. W. (1993). Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 21, 56-71.
28.
Rothmayr, C., & Serdült, U. (2004). Switzerland: Policy design and direct democracy. In I. Bleiklie, M. Goggin, & C. Rothmayr (Eds.), Comparative biomedical policy: Governing assisted reproductive technology (pp. 191-208). London: Routledge.
29.
Rothmayr, C., Varone, F., & Montpetit, É. (2003). Does federalism matter for biopolicies? Switzerland in comparative perspective. Swiss Political Science Review, 9, 109-136.
30.
Salter, B. (2001). Who rules? The new politics of medical regulation. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 871-883.
31.
Scharpf, F. W. (1988). The joint decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration, 66, 239-278.
32.
Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 27-53.
33.
Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview.
34.
Scharpf, F. W. (2000). Institutions in comparative policy research. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 762-790.
35.
Schiffino, N., & Varone, F. (2004). ART policy in Belgium: A bioethical paradise? In I. Bleiklie, M. Goggin, & C. Rothmayr (Eds.), Comparative biomedical policy: Governing assisted reproductive technology (pp. 21-41). London: Routledge.
36.
Schmidt, V. A. (2002). Does discourse matter in the politics of welfare state adjustment?Comparative Political Studies, 35, 168-193.
37.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social constructions and target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334-347.
38.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1995). Response. American Political Science Review, 89, 441-446.
39.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
40.
Skogstad, G. (2003). Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness? Network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 321-338.
41.
Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93, 363-380.
42.
Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (Eds.). (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton.
44.
Testard, J. (2003, April). Les dessous du clonage. Le Monde Diplomatique, pp. 2-3.
45.
Topf, R. (1993). Science, public policy and the authoritativeness of the governmental process. In A. Barker & B. G. Peters (Eds.), The politics of expert advice: Creating, using and manipulating scientific knowledge for public policy (pp. 103-117). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
46.
Tsebelis, G. (2003). Federalism and veto players. In U. Wagschal & H. Rentsch (Eds.), Der Preis des Föderalismus (pp. 295-318). Zurich, Switzerland: Orell Füssli.
