Governmentality (gouvernmentalité) is a key concept in the lesser known late work of Michel Foucault. The main source is a course taught at the Collège de France, published recently, after Foucault' passing away:

An interesting publication might be:

Walters, W. (2012). Governmentality: Critical encounters. Critical issues in global politics: Vol. 3. Abingdon, Oxon, New York: Routledge.

I took the folowing quote from Walters: "…. to equip its practitioners and readers for political engagement. Governmentality doesn’t tell us what to struggle for or against. But it does teach us that nothing is worth fighting for, no form of political life is gained or sustained without practice."

The following piece constructs an interesting link between life long learning and governmentality, I found this inspiring:

Tuschling, A., & Engemann, C. (2006). From Education to Lifelong Learning: The emerging regime of learning in the European Union. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(4), 451–469.

Enorth makes a subtle difference between governance and governmentality. Though this is obviously necessary, I did not found his views convincing:

Enroth, H. (2014). Governance: The art of governing after governmentality. European Journal of Social Theory, 17(1), 60–76. doi:10.1177/1368431013491818

D. Poli wrote an M.A. thesis on governmentality, it's available, unfortunately in German:

Poli, D. (2007). Michel Foucaults Begriff der Gouvernementalité. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH.

Concerning the youth sector and its specificity I would look into:

Milmeister, M., Williamson, H., (2006). Dialogues and networks: Organising exchanges between youth field actors (English ed). Youth research monographs: vol. 2. Esch/Alzette, Luxemburg: Phi; CESIJE; Université du Luxembourg.

Good luck with your research, Charles

Two essential authors are: Aristotle (Rhetoric and Politics) and Foucault (discipline and Punishment) . Good luck

Many thanks fo you both for your answers. I look forward to reading the Enroth article, of which I wasn't previously aware. And I now have a good excuse for improving my German,

If you want Foucault in a nutshell (and also about improving your foreign languages) have a look at Frédéric Gros: Michel Foucault. The small booklet is marvelously well structured: 1) L'archéologie des savoirs 2) Pouvoir et gouvernementalité 3) Les pratiques de subjectivation. To see the question on governance as intermediate between a sociology of knowledge and a sociology of subjectivity  makes it an attractive and essential topic.

There is a literature on agenda setting, and some literature on what gets attention in public policy. See for example:

Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. Baumgartner (2005). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Johnsen, Åge (2012). Why does poor performance get so much attention in public policy? Financial Accountability and Management, 28(2): 121–142.

You can also look at the papers of

Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(2), 289-325.

Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

STILGLITZ, Joseph. The price of inequality: how today´s divided society endangers our f uture. 1 st ed. 2012. ISBN: 978.0.393.08869-4.

A current work about discourse analysis of the elites. "The underling thesis is that we are paying a high price for our inequality – an economic system that is less stable and less efficient, with less growth, and a democracy that has been put into peril. But even more is at stake: as our economic system is seen to fail for most citizens, and as our political system seems to be captured by moneyed interests , confidence in our democracy and in our market economy will erode along with our global influence. As the reality sinks in that we are longer a country of opportunity and that even our long-vaunted rule of law and system of justice have been compromised, even our sense of national identity may be put into jeopardy". 

"In the United States and Europe, thinks seemed more fair, but only superficially so. Those who graduated from the beste schools with the best grades had a better chance at the good jobs. But the system was stacked because wealthy parents sent their children to the best kinder-gartens, grade schools, and high schools, and those students had a far better chance of getting into the elite universities". (p. XIV).

Thank you professors Johnsen, Forberger and Benso. The answer to this question obviously starts at kindergarten level.

I agree very strongly with Luisa. You might not have a single good place to cite them, but a lack of exposure to the ideas contained in these books virtually guarantees that you will fail to consider some basic points/problematics with regard to the relationship between the state, power, ideology, knowledge, etc., more especially with regard to the individual and how the individual can thrive or at least survive (by insisting defining oneself even when called upon to play specific roles) within these often troublingly incenstuous relationships between power and ideology.

The Archaeology of Knowledge is a gem, and imo one of the most understudied pieces of work of the 20th century. It will not satisfy you, but it will open your mind. I would hesitate to use any sort of Coles notes. The confusion in trying to make sense of deep philosophy is part of the learning process, and it is your RESPONSE to this confusion and their particular ways of framing issues that will drive your learning, not the fact of being able to propose concise definitions or explanations with regard to any of the content.

A glossary might help, and there are a few online. I think "docile bodies" and forms of specialization which infantrymen and musician alike could easily identify with is particularly worthy of dreaming up whatever analogies you might see around you, whether in formal policy or in the systems which have managed to transmit themselves over the ages as a part of "the system".

Knowledge is power. There is nothing more attributable to Foucault. If you understand the system you work within, it is possible to be free while working within it (that is the value I personally ascribe to Foucault).

The choice of social indicators is one way ideology becomes embedded and objectivized in public policy. Understanding the myths or beliefs drawn on is also important. Both subjects are discussed in Judith Innes, Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators (Second Expanded Edition, 1990). See also the attached article on myths in the definition of policy problems, although the case studies are American.

Article Myths and the Definition of Policy Problems

About empirical research in politic ideologies and actions of government in public politics, I recommend the work of Manifesto Project (https://manifestoproject.wzb.eu/). Also, this huge research about United States: GINSBERG, Benjamin. Elections and Public Policy. American Political Science Review, v. 70, n. 1, mar. 1976, p. 41-49. And this other: ELLING, Richard C. State Party Platforms and State Legislative Performance: A Comparative Analysis. American Journal of Political Science, v. 23, n. 2, may. 1979, p. 383-405. These contributions are more methodological, and are very specifics, into the field of political science.