Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and

Practice

ISSN: 1387-6988 (Print) 1572-5448 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcpa20

Policy Analysis and the Migration Crisis:

Introduction

Peter Scholten & Frans van Nispen

To cite this article: Peter Scholten & Frans van Nispen (2015) Policy Analysis and the Migration
Crisis: Introduction, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17:1, 1-9,
DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2015.1006408

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1006408

Published online: 24 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2702

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fcpa20

Download by: [145.118.74.226] Date: 13 November 2017, At: 04:49

 Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2015
Vol. 17, No. 1, 19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1006408

Policy Analysis and the Migration Crisis:

Introduction
PETER SCHOLTEN & FRANS VAN NISPEN
Department of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

Besides taking policy as its object of analysis, policy analysis has always played a role in
policy processes itself. In this respect, Lasswell (1970) already dened the role of policy
analysis as producing knowledge of policy as well as knowledge for policy. The role of
policy analysis in policymaking was often described in terms of the problem-solving
model, such as Wildavskys (1979) speaking truth to power. However, as Radin already
observed, policy analysis nowadays can play a broad variety of roles in policymaking, as
a eld with multiple languages, values, and forms and the analyst has multiple indivi-
duals and groups as clients (Radin 2013: 4950). Policy analysis also clearly played a
role in the legitimization of government institutions, knowledge can add persuasion and
authority to policy stories or discourses, and knowledge can provide ammunition to the
processes of powering that continue to go hand in hand with processes of puzzling (see
also van Nispen and Scholten 2014).
This special issue focuses on the role of policy analysis in situations of crisis, mostly
referring to contested or wicked policy problems (Rittel and Webber 1973; Schn and
Rein 1994) where not only the solution, but also the basic denition or framing of the
policy problem itself is at stake.1 More specically, this special issue deals with the role of
policy analysis regarding the perceived migration crisis as not only one of the central
challenges or social questions of these times throughout Europe, but also a crisis in
which the role of policy research in general and policy analysis in particular has come to
be at stake (see also Florence and Martiniello 2005; Scholten and Timmermans 2010).
Whereas policy research traditionally played a key role in the framing of this wicked
policy problem, its role has become highly contested in the context of the erce
politicization of immigration, for instance. However, as the contributions in this issue
will show, this does not mean that the role of policy analysis has become less important.

Peter Scholten is Associate Professor Public Policy & Politics at Erasmus University Rotterdam. He is
co-director of IMISCOE, a European network in the eld of International Migration, Integration and Social
Cohesion. He has published in various journals and has published Framing Immigrant Integration in 2011
(published by AUP), and co-edited Integrating Immigrants in Europe (published by Springer in 2015).
Frans van Nispen is Associate Professor of Public Administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the
Netherlands. He has published in various journals, primarily on issues at the interface of policy analysis and
public budgeting in the European context. He served as co-editor (with Peter Scholten) of Policy Analysis in the
Netherlands: Institutionalisation and Performance, recently published by the Policy Press (2014).
Correspondence Address: Peter Scholten, Department of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Email: p.w.a.scholten@fsw.eur.nl

2015 The Editor, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice
 2 P. Scholten and F. van Nispen

A lot has been written about the developments of policy analysis as well as leadership
in times of crisis and crisis management (Boin et al. 2005), but the relation is still very
much a tabula rasa.2 The special issue constitutes a rst effort to ll that gap. A couple of
years ago APPAM dedicated its annual research conference to the challenges of assessing
effectiveness and efciency in an age of scarcity, but migration was not among the topics.
Besides, and even more importantly, scarcity is just one of the many variables that may
explain the migration crisis.
As argued previously by Thrnhardt in this journal, countries are competing for less and
for more immigration at the same time. On the one hand, they chase the brightest
specialists and the richest investors. On the other hand, they would like to keep out
those who constitute a potential burden or danger (Thrnhardt 2004: 93). As immigration
literally and guratively does not stop at the borders of countries, a national approach
Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

is doomed to fail. A transnational or even supranational approach is required to avoid

negative spill-over effects. Not surprisingly, immigration is high on the political agenda of
the European Union in an effort to coordinate migration streams.
The contributions in this special issue all focus on the role that policy analysis has
played in coping with different aspects of the migration crisis. What contribution can
policy analysis make to government (or governance) while the current crisis is rapidly
transforming or even undermining many of the institutions toward which policy analysis
was traditionally oriented? How can policy analysis accommodate the rapid and often
unpredictable transformations that are currently taking place, but also how can it accom-
modate the uncertainty of knowledge that is generally associated with these transforma-
tions? These are questions of great scientic relevance to the eld of policy analysis, as
well as great social relevance to exploring the opportunities that policy analysis provides
for policy learning at times of crisis.
All contributions follow a comparative method in the construction of a broader
theoretical argument on the role of policy analysis in the making of migration and migrant
integration policies. The papers apply conceptual heuristics to interpret practice and draw
lessons from a cross-national comparison. The different articles use material from various
European countries, including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom
as well as from the EU level3). Using the comparative method, the different articles speak
to specic aspects of the role of policy analysis in dealing with perceived crises; the role
of boundary organizations where much policy analysis is located (Boswell and Hunter),
the utilization of knowledge produced in the context of policy analysis (Caponio, Hunter
and Verbeek), the structure of the dialogues between researchers and policymakers and the
role of policy analysts therein (Geddes and Scholten) and nally the interplay between
knowledge production and utilization (Entzinger and Scholten).

A Migration Crisis?
Much later than immigration countries like Canada and the US, Europe has now also
become a continent of immigration. Besides migration from the former colonies of
some of Europes past empires, Europe has also received large numbers of labor migrants,
asylum migrants and family migrants (family reunication with migrants, or new family
formation). As a result, European countries, and in particular large cities, have become
super-diverse (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010), sometimes with immigrant populations
that comprise about 50 per cent of the city population (for instance in Berlin, London,
 Policy Analysis and the Migration Crisis 3

Paris, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. At rst, immigration was directed primarily at (the
cities in) countries in the north-west of Europe. However, since the 1990s and 2000s,
Southern European as well as East European countries have witnessed rising levels of
immigration as well.
This increase of immigration and diversication of European societies has not gone
unchallenged. In fact, especially since the early 2000s, immigration and integration have
become ercely contested and politicized issues in many European countries, especially in
the more traditional immigration countries in the north-west of Europe. Although it must
be argued that immigration levels have remained at roughly the same levels as in the
1990s, and the socio-economic position of many migrants appears to have ameliorated
rather than worsened, the 2000s saw a surge of politicization, a backlash against multi-
culturalism and a rise of anti-immigrant sentiments, and in some countries even anti-
Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

immigrant parties. Partially, this was triggered by international events like the 9/11
terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the 2004 Madrid bombings and the 2005
London bombings. More broadly, there was a growing sense of urgency in Europe that
strategies to cope with migration and diversity had failed. In 2011, the leaders of the three
largest European countries (Sarkzozy, Merkel and Cameron) all denounced multicultur-
alism as a failure.
This politicization contributed to the perception of a European migration crisis. This
crisis is often dened in a broad sense, involving concerns about levels and types of
immigration as well as concerns about the integration of migrant groups and categories.
What precisely constitutes the migration crisis, and what would have changed compared
to earlier periods, often remains rather vague and abstract. However, the narrative of a
crisis has become particularly powerful in many European countries. As Vertovec and
Wessendorf (2010) show, the perception of a crisis was one of the key drivers behind
the backlash against multiculturalism throughout Europe. In addition, in various countries,
like the Netherlands, France and the UK, the narrative of a migration crisis became linked
to rising Euroscepticism: many of the immigration policies that were now blamed for the
crisis had in fact been Europeanized over preceding decades. The sovereign debt crisis in
Europe also appears to have contributed to this perception of a migration crisis, amongst
other things by affecting attitudes toward migration and by its impact on the social
position of migrants as well as natives (see also Bevelander and Petersson 2014). As
such, the gradual recovery of the economy and, consequently, the solution of the sover-
eign debt crisis may have a mitigating effect on the rationale for migration and ultimately
the dissolution of the migration crisis.
Parallel to the development of migration and integration policies in Europe over the
past decades, migration research has evolved rapidly as a research eld as well. Some
even speak of a co-evolution of migration research and migration policies
(Scholten 2009). Indeed, scholars like Favell (2003) and Thrnhardt and Bommes
(2010) have shown that research on migration and integration in Europe has developed
a strong policy orientation in Europe over the last decades. This orientation has clearly
contributed to the growth of migration as a research eld, and in particular to the
establishment of many boundary organizations on the nexus of research and policy in
this eld. Some of these boundary organizations, like the BAMF in Germany, the High
Council for Integration in France or the Institute for Social Research in the Netherlands,
continue to play a key role in policy as well as research to this day. Recently, similar
boundary organizations have started to emerge on the EU level as well, such as the
 4 P. Scholten and F. van Nispen

Migration Policy Institute Europe and the Migration Policy Group. As such, the
development of migration research clearly reected the broader proliferation of policy
analysis that we have witnessed over the past decades in many other policy areas as well.
The perceived migration crisis has put the close relationship between research and
policy to the test. On the one hand, the politicization of migration and integration
challenged the traditional model of policy research being involved in instrumental pro-
blem solving (Scholten et al. forthcoming). In some countries, like the Netherlands,
France and the UK, the policy involvement of research even became a stake in the
politicization of migration, sometimes blaming researchers for their past involvement in
multiculturalist policies. In the Netherlands in particular, the policy involvement of
research was interpreted as a threat to political primacy and as undermining responsive-
ness of politicization to the voice from the street. On the other hand, researchers were
Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

increasingly disenchanted with the (mostly national) policy orientation of research that
had constrained the academic and theoretical development of the eld. Wimmer and Glick
Schiller (2002) speak in this respect of methodological nationalism that would have
sustained national models of integration (see also Thrnhardt and Bommes 2010;
Bertossi 2011).

Policy Analysis and Migration Policymaking

The contributions in this special issue on the role of policy analysis in the migration
crisis speak to a broader debate in the policy analysis literature on researchpolicy
relations, involving knowledge production, knowledge utilization and dialogue structures.
Paying attention to all these three elements of researchpolicy relations (See Figure 1)
involves a recognition of the strong role of policy analysis in what Jasanoff (2005)
describes as the coproduction of knowledge. Policy analysis is not only produced in
specic congurations of researchpolicy relations and subsequently utilized in the policy
process, the policy context can also have an important impact on knowledge utilization

Figure 1. A conceptual model of researchpolicy relations, involving knowledge production,

dialogue structures and knowledge utilization

Migration Research Migration Policies

Knowledge Dialogue Knowledge

Production Structures Utilization

- Knowledge paradigms - Institutional - Instrumental knowledge

- Research institutions relations utilization
- Ad hoc and - Symbolic knowledge
informal utilization
contacts

Source: Scholten and Verbeek (2014) (adapted).

 Policy Analysis and the Migration Crisis 5

itself. In fact, recognizing this co-production of knowledge is a key step beyond the
traditional model of speaking truth to power as it may imply a politicization of
science next to the scientication of politics (Weingart 1999; Hoppe 2010).
The rst concept refers to the process of knowledge production. As argued by
scholars like Gieryn (1999) and Jasanoff (1995), researchpolicy relations can affect the
process of knowledge production. Beyond the recognition that there often is a competition
in contested areas between knowledge claims, this involves a recognition that knowledge
production is in itself also to some extent a context-dependent process. For instance, there
may be specic cultures of knowledge production within specic institutional settings,
such as illustrated by the notion of national models of integration that was described
above. Also, specic knowledge claims can be encouraged in very specic ways, such as
via funding schemes or providing authority to specic knowledge producers via specic
Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

dialogue structures.
Secondly, the notion of dialogue structures refers to formal or informal congura-
tions of researchpolicy relations, or the researchpolicy nexus. Scholars like Wagner
(1991), Hoppe (2005) and Scholten (2011) have shown that there are very different ways
of conguring the researchpolicy nexus. For instance, dialogue structures can sometimes
be strongly institutionalized, which has frequently been done in countries like the
Netherlands and Germany (Wagner 1991). However, in many countries the research
policy nexus is often less institutionalized, involving multiple boundary organizations
playing different roles. For instance, the UK habit of establishing high-level expert
committees on politically contested topics is an example of a less institutionalized form
of a dialogue structure.
Last, we can expect different dialogue structures to have different implications in terms
of knowledge utilization. Traditional models of knowledge utilization often distinguish
between the technocratic model where scientists take over the roles of policymakers and
the enlightenment model where the impact of research on policy is mostly indirect
Weiss (1977) denes this as the knowledge creep. The problem-solving model made a
revival recently due to the call for more evidence-based policy which stands, as such, in
contrast to opinion-based policy which relies heavily on either selective use of evidence
or on untested views of individuals or groups, often inspired by ideological stand
points, prejudices or speculative conjecture (Davies 2004: 3). In order to generate value
for money effectiveness and efciency interventions should be tested in advance. It
should be noted though that a policy that is proven to have effect in a clinical trial
experimental setting is not necessarily effective in reality. Consequently, many scholars
and practitioners remain sceptical about the merits of evidence-based policymaking (van
Twist et al. 2014). In addition, one could point to congurations that are characterized by
a stronger political primacy, such as bureaucratic models of dialogue structures where
policy analysts merely provide data (facts) to policymakers, or engineering models
where policymakers strategically pick-and-choose from the available stock of data and
research, and research often provides a form of policy ammunition (Weiss 1977).
Knowledge can be utilized in very different ways, especially in contested policy areas
like migration. For instance, neo-institutionalists have very convincingly shown how
research can help legitimate policy institutions or substantiated specic policy discourses
(see also Boswell 2009). Speaking to the broader argumentative turn in policy analysis
(Fischer and Forester 1999), this shows the importance of studying more symbolic forms
of knowledge utilization. Argumentative policy analysis is not only limited to the
 6 P. Scholten and F. van Nispen

production of arguments, as Hoppe noted, but extends to the symbolism and rhetoric of
policy. No longer is there a search for objective information, assuming that such is at all
possible, but the pursuit is now on achieving inter-subjective agreement between all
stakeholders which bring their own often biased and partial information to the table. In
such a setting information is competing for prominence. A policy analyst functions as a
catalyst (van Nispen and Klaassen 1995) or as a facilitator to assist citizens in their
efforts to examine their own interests and to make their own decisions (Fischer 1998: 142;
van Nispen 2003). The main objective of a policy analyst is to create the conditions for
public debate.

Contributions to this Special Issue

Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

With a varying focus on knowledge production, dialogue structures or knowledge utiliza-

tion, all various contributions to this rst special issue provide a specic perspective on
the role that policy analysis has played in the migration crisis. A key observation
speaking from all these contributions is that, indeed, the traditional model of speaking
truth to power (Wildavsky 1979) no longer appears to apply to the role of policy analysis
in this politically highly contested domain. However, this does not mean that the role of
policy analysis has become less important. Rather, the role of policy analysis has become
different, but still highly relevant for understanding how European countries have
responded to the migration crisis. In particular, the case of migration and migrant
integration policies in Europe strongly supports a more argumentative or deliberative
perspective on policy analysis, where policy analysis is used in policymaking in more ad
hoc and often more symbolic ways.
The rst paper, by Boswell and Hunter The Political Functions of Independent
Commissions: Comparing UK Commissions on Migrant Integration and Cohesion
focuses on a specic type of boundary organization that has played a key role in the
response of the British government to the perceived migration crisis: ad hoc indepen-
dent commissions. A comparative study of three ad hoc independent commissions on
integration and cohesion reveals, inter alia, that they not only play an instrumental
function, which remains a powerful policy discourse, but also an important symbolic
function. First, they provide evidence or support for the governments preferred course of
action (substantiating function). Second, they help signal that the government is taking
appropriate action to address a problem (legitimizing function). Although the authors do
not discuss the external validity of their ndings, it seems plausible that the outcome of
their study will also apply to other policy domains as well as other countries.
The second paper, by Caponio, Hunter and Verbeek (De)constructing Expertise:
Comparing Knowledge Utilization in the Migrant Integration Crisis shows that
knowledge utilization has become more conict-ridden. The authors address the question
of what use, if any, is made of policy-oriented research in the aftermath of the so-called
assimilationist turn (Joppke and Morawska 2003) in response to the migration crisis.
Taking a cross-national angle, they come to the conclusion that policymakers in all three
countries under analysis Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom turned to
experts for advice following the crisis, for primarily symbolic reasons. The prevalence
of a socio-culturalist framing of immigrant integration clearly contributed to the selection
of certain types of knowledge and experts, while marginalizing alternatives. Even more
important, the advice of experts is no longer taken for granted, but increasingly contested
 Policy Analysis and the Migration Crisis 7

by information generated by competing knowledge reservoirs (Bekkers 2014). This

involves a erce competition between knowledge claims and offers ample opportunities
for selective picking-and-choosing of knowledge and information by policymakers and
politicization. Moreover, as the authors show, the context of crisis also seems to
promote efforts to deconstruct knowledge claims and challenge the authority of
researchers involved. It shows that the context of crisis may put the credibility of research
and policy analysts on the line.
The third paper, by Geddes and Scholten Policy Analysis and Europeanization: An
Analysis of EU Migrant Integration Policymaking focuses on what they call knowl-
edge infrastructures or different ways of mobilizing research with specic purposes of
knowledge utilization. The authors found various dialogue structures or infrastructures
that co-exist and sometimes even overlap. In addition, they point to a changing cong-
uration of researchpolicy infrastructures due to a shift from horizontal to more
Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

vertical Europeanization in the eld of migration, which is thus also reected in the
eld of migration. Whereas the European Union originally facilitated benchmarking and
policy learning between countries, it now increasingly mobilizes expertise to frame
migrant integration as a problem of Europe and, thus, to legitimize EU involvement.
The ndings lead to the remarkable conclusion that precisely because of the politicization
of the migration crisis on the national level, the EU mobilized specic types of research
as part of a political strategy to achieve specic policy objectives in the context of
politicization and crisis. It indicates that comparative policy research can pave the way
for true policy learning and even policy convergence in an international context.
The fourth paper, by Entzinger and Scholten The Interplay of Knowledge Production
and Policymaking: A Comparative Analysis of Research and Policymaking on Migrant
Integration in Germany and the Netherlands focuses on the relation between policy
setting and knowledge production, in particular on how the politicization of migrant
integration in two countries (Germany and the Netherlands) has altered the interplay
between knowledge production and policymaking. The analysis shows that the interaction
between both worlds not just affects policymaking, but also knowledge production. The
ndings indicate that the chances for the monopolization of specic knowledge claims (or
a paradigm) are greater in a depoliticized setting, whereas a fragmentation of knowledge
claims and knowledge conicts is more likely to occur in politicized settings. However,
the type of knowledge varies per setting: instrumental forms of research prevail in a
depoliticized setting, whereas more conceptual types of policy research appear to dom-
inate in a politicized setting. The setting also has consequences for the pattern of boundary
work. In a more politicized setting, distance is required between both worlds so as to keep
up academic authority and political primacy alike.
So, what can we learn from the papers in terms of boundary work at the interface of
migration policy and migration research? We would like to make a few points. First, we
feature a convergence of the policy frame to a similar point as many European countries
are nowadays pursuing assimilation in response to the migration crisis, which is partly due
to the shift from the horizontal to a more vertical mode of European governance. Note that
the same applies to other domains. Second, as a crisis constitutes a highly politicized
setting, expert knowledge is increasingly contested by commons knowledge
(Lievrouw 2011) or laymens knowledge (Fischer 2000) and fact free politics due
to the rise of populist groups in society. Third, the utilization of knowledge happens to be
more symbolic either substantiating or legitimizing in a politicized setting than
 8 P. Scholten and F. van Nispen

instrumental (i.e. for problem solving). What are the consequences for the role of the
policy analyst? In a highly politicized setting s/he serves more as a catalyst, facilitating a
dialogue among competing interests and pieces of information, rather than as an analyst,
generating policy-relevant information.

Notes
1. The special issue is the outcome of the 4th ICPA Comparative Research Symposium on Policy Analysis at
Times of Crisis (Rotterdam, 2224 November 2013), organized by the editors of this special issue, which
dealt with the role of policy analysis in various perceived crises in Europe, including the nancial,
ecological and welfare state crises.
2. The clear exception obviously being risk analysis as a mode of policy analysis and disaster management.
3. The papers were collected in the context of the DIAMINT project on ScienceSociety Dialogues on Migrant
Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

Integration in Europe, which is funded by the VolksWagenStiftung. For more information, see http://www.
diamint.eu.

References
Bekkers, V. J. J. M., 2014, Contested knowledge in theory driven policy analysis: Setting the Dutch Stage,
in: F. K. M. Van Nispen, P. W. A. Scholten (Eds) Policy Analysis in the Netherlands (Bristol: Policy Press).
Bertossi, C., 2011, National models of integration in Europe: A comparative and critical perspective. American
Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), pp. 15611580.
Bevelander, P. and Petersson B. (Eds), 2014, Crisis and Migration: Implications of the Eurozone Crisis for
Perceptions, Politics, and Policies of Migration (Lund: Nordic Academic Press).
Boin, R. A., T Hart, P., Stern, E., and Sundelius, B., 2005, The Politics of Crisis Management: Public
Leadership Under Pressure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Boswell, C., 2009, The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research
(Cambridge: Cambridge University press).
Davies, P., 2004, Is Evidence-Based Government Possible? Jerry Lee Lecture, 4th Annual Campbell
Collaboration Colloquium, 19 February 2004. (Washington).
Favell, A., 2003, Integration nations: The nation-state and research on immigrants in western Europe.
Comparative Social Research, 22, pp. 1342. doi:10.1016/S0195-6310(03)22001-9
Fischer, F., 1998, Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositivist perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1),
pp. 129146. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01929.x
Fischer, F., 2000, Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge (Durham and
London: Duke University Press).
Fischer, F. and Forester J. (Eds), 1999, The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (Durham: Duke
University Press).
Florence, E. and Martiniello, M., 2005, The links between academic research and public policies in the eld of
migration and ethnic relations: Selected national case studies Thematic introduction. International Journal
on Multicultural Societies, 71, pp. 310
Gieryn, T. F., 1999, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press).
Hoppe, R., 2005, Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology
studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment
and Ethics of Science, 3(3), pp. 199215. doi:10.1007/s10202-005-0074-0
Hoppe, R., 2010, The Governance of Problems. Puzzling, Powering, Participation (Bristol: Policy Press).
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.), 1995, States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).
Jasanoff, S., 2005, States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order (London:
Routledge).
Joppke, C. and Morawska E. T., 2003, Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Lasswell, H. D., 1970, The emerging conception of the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 1, pp. 314
 Policy Analysis and the Migration Crisis 9

Lievrouw, L., 2011, Alternative and Activist New Media (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Radin, B., 2013, Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press).
Rittel, H. W. and Webber M. M., 1973, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), pp.
155169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730
Scholten, P., 2009, The co-production of immigrant integration policy and research in the Netherlands: The case
of the scientic council for government policy. Science & Public Policy, 36, pp. 561573
Scholten, P., 2011, Constructing Dutch immigrant policy: Research-policy relations and immigrant integration
policy-making in the Netherlands. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 13(1), pp. 7592.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00440.x
Scholten, P. and Timmermans, A., 2010, Setting the immigrant policy agenda: Expertise and politics in France,
the UK and the Netherlands. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 12(5), pp. 527543.
Scholten, P. W. A., Entzinger, H., Penninx, R., and Verbeek, S., forthcoming, Integrating Immigrants in Europe:
Research-Policy Dialogues (Berlin: Springer).
Scholten, P. W. A. and Verbeek, S., 2014, Politicization and expertise: Changing research-policy dialogues on
Downloaded by [145.118.74.226] at 04:49 13 November 2017

migrant integration in Europe. Science & Public Policy, published online rst, pp. 121.
Schn, D. A. and Rein, M., 1994, Frame Reection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies
(New York: Basic Books).
Thrnhardt, D., 2004, Immigration policies in an independent world. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis:
Research and Practice, 6(2).
Thrnhardt, D. and Bommes M. (Eds), 2010, Introduction: National Paradigms of Migration Research
(Gttingen: V&R Unipress), pp. 9397.
Van Nispen, F. K. M., 2003, Beleidsanalyse tussen idealisme en realisme, in: V. J. J. M. Bekkers, A. B. Ringeling
(Eds) Vragen over beleid. Perspectieven op waardering (Utrecht: Lemma).
Van Nispen, F. K. M. and Scholten P. W. A. (Eds), 2014, Policy Analysis in the Netherlands (Bristol: Policy
Press).
Van Nispen Frans, K. M. and Klaassen, H. L. (1995), Drowned as Icarus or risen like Phoenix? The ight of
policy analysis. Paper deliverd to the conference on the Transformation of Valuesin a Pluriform Society: New
Steering Perspectives for Government and Public Policy? Erasmus University of Rotterdam, 2122 February.
Van Twist, M., Rouw, R., and Van Der Steen, M., 2014, Policy analysis in practice: Reinterpreting the quest for
evidence-based policy, in: F. K. M. Van Nispen, P. W. A. Scholten (Eds) Policy Analysis in the Netherlands
(Bristol: Policy Press).
Vertovec, S. and Wessendorf S. (Eds), 2010, The Multiculturalism Backlash (New York, NY: Routlege).
Wagner, P. (Ed.) 1991, Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Weingart, P., 1999, Scientic expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and
Public Policy, 263, pp. 151161
Weiss, C., 1977, Research for policys sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 34,
pp. 531545
Wildavsky A., 1979, Speaking Truth to Power; the Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (Boston, MA: Little Brown).
Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N., 2002, Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building,
migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), pp. 301334. doi:10.1111/1471-0374.00043