Categorization of policy ex ante evaluation by futures studies approach

Document Type : Research Article


1 Ph.D student of Futures studies, Malek Ashtar University

2 Assistant Professor, Technology Management, Malek Ashtar University

3 Associate Professor, Technology Management, Malek Ashtar University

4 Assistant Professor, Futures studies, Malek Ashtar University


  1. الف) فارسی

    1. بوشهری، علیرضا؛ باقری، ابوالفضل،  علیزاده،  داوود(1392)، « عنوان گزارش: ارزیابی سیاستهای علم و فن آوری (فازهای اول و دوم)» ، پروژه تحقیقاتی مجتمع دانشگاهی مدیریت و فن آوری نرم دانشگاه  مالک اشتر.

    2. لطیفی، میثم (1388)، «بازپردازی مفهوم نظم و انضباط در سازمان(با تاکید بر رویکرد اسلامی)»، رساله دکتری، راهنما: دکترحسن دانایی فرد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس. 

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Bailey, Kenneth D. (1994). Typologies and Taxonomies: an introduction to classification techniques, London: sage publication.

    2. Briggs, Sandra, Baiba, Petersone, and Karlis Smits.) 2006(. Handbook of methods used in planning public policies and impact appraisal [in Romanian], General Secretariat of Government: Romania, pp. 18 – 25

    3. Boardman, Greenberg, Vining, Weimer (2014), Cost Benefit Analysis –Pearson New International Edition, Pearson Education-Essex

    4. De Francesco F, Radaelli CM, and Troeger VE (2012), Implementing regulatory innovations in Europe: the case of impact assessment, Journal of European Public Policy, 19(4): 491-511.

    5. Dunlop CA, Maggetti M, Radaelli CM & Russel D (2012), The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta-analysis of EU and UK cases, Regulation & Governance 6: :pp23-45.

    6. European Commission.) (2009. Impact Assessment Guidelines, SEC (2009) 92, Brussels, p..4

    7. European Commission. (2005). “A Handbook for Impact Assessment in the Commission - How to do an Impact Assessment” Bruxelles: European Commission

    8. Foucault M (1991), On governmentality, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (eds.) The Foucault Effect, London: Harvester: Wheatsheaf.

    9. Foucault M (2007), Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78, New York: Palgrave.

    10. International Association for Impact Assessment. )2003(.“ What Is Impact Assessment? ” available online at

    11. Hoppe R (2005), Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements, Poesis Prax, 3: 199-215.

    12. Hoppe R (2009a), scientific advice and public policy: expert adviser’s and policymaker’s discourses on boundary work, Poiesis Prax, 6: 235-263.

    13. Hirkpatrick, Colin, and Parker, David.) (2007. Regulatory impact assessment: towards better regulations? UK:Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.21&20&7-1:

    14. Jasanoff, S. (1990), the Fifth Branch, Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA.

    15. Lasswell HD (1951), the Policy Orientation, in Daniel Lerner & Harold D. Lasswell (eds.), the Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    16. Lianos, Ioannis (2014) .The One and the Many: Elaborating taxonomy of Impact Assessment practices in Europe. Centre for Law, Economics and Society)CLES(Faculty of Laws, UCL, pp: 37

    17. Lianos, Ioannis (2014) .The One and the Many: Elaborating taxonomy of Impact Assessment practices in Europe. Centre for Law, Economics and Society) CLES (Faculty of Laws, UCL, pp: 37-1.

    18. Machinery of Government (2009) “METHODOLOGICAL GUIDE on ex-ante assessment of the impact of Public Policies Government of the Republic of Moldova”.

    19. Matei, Ani & Dogaru, Tatiana-Camelia (2011) .Instruments of policy analysis. The impact assessment development by public authorities in Romania. Case study. Published in: Vol. The. 1-15:pp ,19

    20. Matei, Ani & Dogaru, Tatiana-Camelia (2011) .Instruments of policy analysis. The impact  assessment development by public

    21. Netherlands Court of Audit in a report on the organization of policy assessments Parliamentary Docs. II, 1999-2000, 27 065, Nos. 1-2, p. 18.(available at its website

    22. OECD (2009), “Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems”. Paris.

    23. OECD.) (2001. “Improving Policy Instruments through Impact Assessment”, Sigma Papers, no. 31, OECD Publishing, doi: 10.1787/5kml60vnhc6h-en, p. 10.

    24. Radaelli, Claudio. (2010), Rationality, Power, Management and Symbols: Four Images of Regulatory Impact Assessment, Scandinavian Political Studies, 33 (2): pp: 164-188.

    25. Radelli, Claudio, Bruno, Dente, Scott, Jacobs, Colin, Kirkpatrick, Anne, Meuwese, and Andrea Renda. (2006) . How to perform the DIADEM data collection. Www., p.5:

    26. Renda, Andrea (2006) .Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State. CEPS Paperbacks. Brussels .

    27. Staronova, Katarina. (2007). mapping of ex-ante Policy Impact Assessment: Experiences and Tools in Europe. UNDP. Bratislava

    28. Shapiro S, Morrall JF (2012), the triumph of regulatory politics: Benefit–cost analysis   and political salience, Regulation and Governance, 6(2): pp189-206.

    29. Rissi C. Sager F (2012), Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: evidence from Swiss policymaking, Regulation & Governance, 1-17.

    30. Sager F, Rissi C (2011), The limited scope of policy appraisal in the context of referendum democracy –the case of regulatory impact assessment in Switzerland, Evaluation 17(2): 151-

    31. Wiener JB, Alemanno A (2010), 'Comparing Regulatory Oversight Bodies Across the Atlantic: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the US and the Impact Assessment Board in the EU' in Rose-Ackerman S., Lindseth P. (eds.), Comparative Administrative Law, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

    32. Weible C (2008), Expert-Based Information Systems and Policy Subsystems: A Review and Synthesis, Policy Studies Journal, 36(4): 615-635.

    33. Weingart P (1999), Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics, Science and Public Policy, 26(3): 151-161.

    34., accessed on 28 March2011.