<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01613nam a2200157   4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">510109</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">510109</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">190724b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Baldwin, Elizabeth</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">7506</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Exploring how institutional arrangements shape stakeholder influence on policy decisions: a comparative analysis in the energy sector</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2019</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.246-255.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">In recent years, there has been an expansion of efforts to include stakeholders in administrative policy making. Despite significant potential to improve policy decisions, empirical evidence suggests that not all participatory processes provide meaningful opportunities for stakeholders to shape policy and may even give the most powerful stakeholder groups disproportionate influence over policy decisions. This article argues that the institutional arrangements for stakeholder engagement&#x2014;the rules and norms that determine which stakeholders can participate and how&#x2014;affect stakeholders&#x2019; influence on policy decisions. This article uses state energy efficiency policy making as a context in which to compare how different institutional arrangements shape the ways in which stakeholders engage in and influence the policy process across two states, Connecticut and Maryland. Findings highlight that institutional arrangements can be used to increase participation, mitigate undue influence of industrial stakeholders, and increase the influence of public interest stakeholder organizations. - Reproduced.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Energy P[olicy</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">7453</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Public Administration Review</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Policy making</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">384054</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2019-07-24</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">79(2), Mar/Apr, 2019: p.246-255.</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR120465</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2019-07-24</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
