@article{HeinzelLiese2021,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Expert authority and support for COVID-19 measures in Germany and the UK},
  series = {West European politics},
  journal   = {West European politics},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0140-2382},
  doi       = {10.1080/01402382.2021.1873630},
  pages     = {1258 -- 1282},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {During COVID-19, various public institutions tried to shape citizens' behaviour to slow the spread of the pandemic. How did their authority affect citizens' support of public measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19? The article makes two contributions. First, it presents a novel conceptualisation of authority as a source heuristic. Second, it analyses the authority of four types of public institutions (health ministries, universities, public health agencies, the WHO) in two countries (Germany and the UK), drawing on novel data from a survey experiment conducted in May 2020. On average, institutional endorsements seem to have mattered little. However, there is an observable polarisation effect where citizens who ascribe much expertise to public institutions support COVID-19 measures more than the control group. Furthermore, those who ascribe little expertise support them less than the control group. Finally, neither perception of biases nor exposure to institutions in public debates seems consistently to affect their authority.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Daviter2017,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {Policy analysis in the face of complexity},
  series = {Public policy and administration},
  volume    = {34},
  journal   = {Public policy and administration},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0952-0767},
  doi       = {10.1177/0952076717733325},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {An ever-increasing number of policy problems have come to be interpreted as representing a particular type of intractable, ill-structured or wicked policy problem. Much of this debate is concerned with the challenges wicked problems pose for program management rather than policy analysis. This article, in contrast, argues that the key challenge in addressing this type of policy problems is in fact analytical. Wicked policy problems are difficult to identify and interpret. The knowledge base for analysing wicked policy problem is typically fragmented and contested. Available evidence is incomplete, inconclusive and incommensurable. In this situation, the evidentiary and the interpretative elements of policy analysis become increasingly indistinguishable and inseparably intertwined. The article reveals the problems this poses for policy analysis and explores the extent to which the consolidation, consensualization and contestation of evidence in policy analysis offer alternative procedural paths to resolve these problems.},
  language  = {en}
}