Politics and Governance

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types


Affiliations
1 Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
2 Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore
 

Public policies are the result of efforts made by governments to alter aspects of behaviour - both that of their own agents and of society at large - in order to carry out some end or purpose. They are comprised of arrangements of policy goals and policy means matched through some decision-making process. These policy-making efforts can be more, or less, systematic in attempting to match ends and means in a logical fashion or can result from much less systematic processes. "Policy design" implies a knowledge-based process in which the choice of means or mechanisms through which policy goals are given effect follows a logical process of inference from known or learned relationships between means and outcomes. This includes both design in which means are selected in accordance with experience and knowledge and that in which principles and relationships are incorrectly or only partially articulated or understood. Policy decisions can be careful and deliberate in attempting to best resolve a problem or can be highly contingent and driven by situational logics. Decisions stemming from bargaining or opportunism can also be distinguished from those which result from careful analysis and assessment. This article considers both modes and formulates a spectrum of policy formulation types between "design" and "non-design" which helps clarify the nature of each type and the likelihood of each unfolding.

Keywords

Non-Design, Policy Design, Public Policy.
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Ackerman, B. (1981). Clean Coal/Dirty Air: Or How the Clean Air Act Became a Multibillion-Dollar Bail-Out for High-Sulfur Coal Producers (Vol. 23). New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Arts, B., & Van Tatenhove, J. (2004). Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the "old" and "new" policy idioms. Policy Sciences, 37, 339-356.

  • Azuela, G. E., & Barroso, L. A. (2012). Design and Performance of Policy Instruments to Promote the Development of Renewable Energy: Emerging Experience in Selected Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications.

  • Bardach, E. (1980). Implementation studies and the study of implements. Paper presented to the Amer-ican Political Science Association.

  • Barnett, C. K., & Shore, B. (2009). Reinventing program design: Challenges in leading sustainable institutional change. Leadership & Organization, 30(1), 16-35.

  • Beland, D. (2007). Ideas and institutional change in social security: Conversion, layering, and policy drift. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 20-38.

  • Beland, D., & Hacker, J. (2004). Ideas, private institu-tions, and American welfare state "exceptionalism". International Journal of Social Welfare, 13(1), 42-54.

  • Bendor, J., Kumar, S., & Siegel, D. A. (2009). Satisficing: A "pretty good" heuristic. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 9(1). doi:10.2202/1935-1704.1478.

  • Bhatta, G. (2002). Evidence-based analysis and the work of policy shops. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(3), 98-105.

  • Blonz, J. A., Vajjhala, S. P., & Safirova, E. (2008). Growing Complexities: A Cross-Sector Review of U.S. Biofuels Policies and Their Interactions. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

  • Bobrow, D. B., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Bobrow, D. (2006). Policy Design: Ubiquitous, Necessary and Difficult. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 75-96). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

  • Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: Voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 346-359.

  • Bressers, H., & Honigh, M. (1986). A comparative approach to the explanation of policy effects. International Social Science Journal, 108, 267-288.

  • Bressers, H., & Klok, P. J. (1988). Fundamentals for a theory of policy instruments. International Journal of Social Economics, 15(3-4), 22-41.

  • Buckman, G., & Diesendorf, M. (2010). Design limita-tions in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3365-3376.

  • Carter, P. (2012). Policy as palimpsest. Policy & Politics, 40(3), 423-443.

  • Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441-466.

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1979). People, Problems, Solutions and the Ambiguity of Rele-vance. In Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations (pp. 24-37). Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

  • Cohn, D. (2004). The best of intentions, potentially harmful policies: A comparative study of scholarly complexity and failure. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6(1), 39-56.

  • Colebatch, H. K. (1998). Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, Economics and Welfare: Planning and Politico-economic Systems Resolved into Basic Social Processes. New York: Harper and Row.

  • Davies, P. (2004). Is Evidence-Based Government Possible? London: Cabinet Office.

  • De Bruijn, J. A., & ten Heuvelhof, E. F. (1997). Instruments for Network Management. In W. J. M. Kickert, E. H. Klijn, & J. F. M. Koppenjan (Eds.), Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

  • Del Río, P. (2010). Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and energy efficiency support schemes: The impact of different instru-ments and design elements. Energy Policy, 38(9), 4978-4989. Del Rio, P., & Howlett, M. P. (2013). Beyond the "tinbergen rule" in policy design: Matching tools and goals in policy portfolios. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=224 7238

  • deLeon, P. (1988). The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 297-309.

  • Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 217-232.

  • Dror, Y. (1964). Muddling through: "Science" or inertia. Public Administration Review, 24(3), 154-157.

  • Dryzek, J. (1983). Don't toss coins in garbage cans: A prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3(4), 345-367.

  • Dryzek, J. S., & Ripley, B. (1988). The ambitions of policy design. Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 705-719.

  • Dunlop, C. A. (2009). The temporal dimension of knowledge and the limits of policy appraisal: Biofuels policy in the UK. Policy Sciences, 43(4), 343-363. doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9101-7.

  • Eijlander, P. (2005). Possibilities and constraints in the use of self-regulation and co-regulation in legislative policy: Experiences in the Netherlands-lessons to be learned for the EU. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 9(1), 1-8.

  • Eliadis, F. P., Hill, M. M., & Howlett, M. (Eds.) (2005). Designing Government: From Instruments To Governance. Montreal: McGill Queens University Press.

  • Feindt, P., & Flynn, A. (2009). Policy stretching and institutional layering: british food policy between security, safety, quality, health and climate change. British Politics, 4(3), 386-414.

  • Franchino, F., & Hoyland, B. (2009). Legislative involvement in parliamentary systems: Opportunities, conflict and institutional constraints. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 607-621.

  • Frye, T., Reuter, O. J., & Szakonyi, D. (2012). Political machines at work: voter mobilization and electoral subversion in the workplace. Social Science Re-search Network. Retrieved from http://papers. ssrn.com/abstract=2110201

  • Gans-Morse, J., Mazzuca, S., & Nichter, S. (2014). Varie-ties of clientelism: Machine politics during elections. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 415-432. doi:10.1111/ajps.12058.

  • Gero, J. S. (1990). Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design. AI Magazine, 11(4), 26-36.

  • Gilabert, P., & Lawford-Smith, H. (2012). Political feasibility: A conceptual exploration. Political Studies, 60(4), 809-825.

  • Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A. O. M., Lester, J. P., & O'Toole, L. J. (1990). Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward A Third Generation. Glenview: Scott Foresman/Little Brown.

  • Goldmann, K. (2005). Appropriateness and consequences: The logic of neo-institutionalism. Governance, 18(1), 35-52.

  • Goodin, R. E. (1980). Manipulatory Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green markets: Environmental regulation by the private sector. Law and Policy, 16(4), 419-448.

  • Greenstone, M. (2001). The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 & 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures (No. w8484). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, N. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999a). New generation environmental policy: Environmental management systems and regulatory reform. Melbourne University Law Review, 22(3), 592-616.

  • Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999b). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law Policy, 21(1), 49-76.

  • Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485-498.

  • Hacker, J. (2004). Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 243-260.

  • Hillier, B., & Leaman, A. (1974). How is design possible: A sketch for a theory. DMG-DRS Journal: Design Re-search and Methods, 8(1), 40-50.

  • Hillier, B., Musgrave, J., & O'Sullivan, P. (1972). Knowledge and Design. In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental Design: Research and Practice. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Hippes, G. (1988). New instruments for environmental policy: A perspective. International Journal of Social Economics, 15(3-4), 42-51.

  • Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (2012). Good Govern-ment: The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.

  • Hood, C. (1986). The Tools of Government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.

  • Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellec-tual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127-144.

  • Hood, C. (2010). The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Hood, C., &. Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Hou, Y., & Brewer, G. (2010). Substitution and supple-mentation between co-functional policy instruments: Evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 914-924.

  • Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1-21.

  • Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the "hollow state": Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412-431.

  • Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy & Society, 23(2), 1-17.

  • Howlett, M. (2009a). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42, 73-89.

  • Howlett, M. (2009b). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153-175. Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York: Routledge.

  • Howlett, M. (2012). The lessons of failure: Learning and blame avoidance in public policy-making. International Political Science Review, 33(5), 539-555.

  • Howlett, M. (2014). Policy Design: What, Who, How and Why? In C. Halpern, P. Lascoumes, & P. Le Gales (Eds.), L'Instrumentation et Ses Effets. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

  • Howlett, M. (2014b). From the "old" to the "new" policy design: Beyond globalization and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, forthcoming.

  • Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. (2013). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design studies. Administration & Society, 45(3), 356-380.

  • Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. J. (2014). The new design orientation in policy formulation re-search: From tools to toolkits in policy instrument studies. Policy and Politics, forthcoming.

  • Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1993). Patterns of policy instrument choice: Policy styles, policy learning and the privatization experience. Policy Studies Review, 12(1), 3-24.

  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy. Canada: Oxford University Press Canada.

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (1995). Do ideas matter? Policy subsystem configurations and the continuing conflict over Canadian forest policy. Canadian Public Administration, 38(3), 382-410.

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in "new governance arrangements". Policy and Society, 26(4), 1-18.

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs. packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170-182.

  • Howlett, M., Tan, S. L., Migone, A., Wellstead, A., & Evans, B. (2014). The distribution of analytical techniques in policy advisory systems: Policy formulation and the tools of policy appraisal. Public Policy and Administration, 29(4), 271-291. doi:10.1177/ 0952076714524810.

  • Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1990). Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10(1), 67-88.

  • Jordan, A., Benson, D., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A. (2011). Policy Instruments in Practice. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (pp. 536-549). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Jordan, A., Benson, D., Zito, A., Wurzel, R. (2012). Environmental Policy: Governing by Multiple Policy Instruments? In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a Policy State? Policy Dynamics in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Junginger, S. (2013). Design and innovation in the public sector: Matters of design in policy-making and policy implementation. 10th European Academy of Design Conference-Crafting the Future.

  • Kay, A. (2007). Tense layering and synthetic policy paradigms: The politics of health insurance in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 579-591.

  • Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Science, 42(4), 391-408.

  • Keyes, J. M. (1996). Power tools: The form and function of legal instruments for government action. Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice, 10, 133-174.

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown.

  • Kirschen, E. S., Benard, J., Besters, H., Blackaby, F., Eckstein, O., Faaland, J., Hartog, F., Morissens, L., & Tosco, E. (1964). Economic Policy in Our Time. Chicago: Rand McNally.

  • Landry, R., Varone, F., & Goggin, M. L. (1998). The determinants of policy design: The state of the theoretical literature. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

  • Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments-From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1-21.

  • Lasswell, H. (1954). Key Symbols, Signs and Icons. In L. Bryson, L. Finkelstein, R. M. MacIver, & Richard McKean (Eds.), Symbols and Values: An Initial Study (pp. 77-94). New York: Harper & Bros.

  • Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Meridian.

  • Lasswell, H. D., & Lerner, D. (1951). The Policy Orientation. In The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method (pp. 3-15). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Libecap, G. D. (2005). State Regulations of Open-Access, Common-Pool Resources. In C. Menard & M. M Shirley (Eds.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics (pp. 545-572). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237-259.

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1988). The analysis of design or the design of analysis? Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 738-750.

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990a). Policy formulation and the challenge of conscious design. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 303-311.

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990b). Research Perspec-tives on the Design of Public Policy: Implementa-tion, Formulation, and Design. In D. J. Palumbo & D. J. Calisto (Eds.), Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening up the Black Box (pp. 51-66). New York: Greenwood Press.

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990c). The Design of Instruments for Public Policy. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation: Concepts, Knowledge, Causes, and Norms (pp. 103-119). New York: Greenwood Press.

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990d). An institutional approach to the theory of policy-making: The role of guidance mechanisms in policy formulation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(1), 59-83.

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1991). The logic of public policy design: Linking policy actors and plausible instruments. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 4(1), 125-151.

  • Locke, W. (2009). Reconnecting the research-policy-practice nexus in higher education: "Evidence-based policy" in practice in national and international contexts. Higher Education Policy, 22, 119-140.

  • Lowi, T. J. (1966). Distribution, Regulation, Redistribu-tion: The Functions of Government. In R. B. Ripley (Ed.), Public Policies and Their Politics: Techniques of Government Control (pp. 27-40). New York: W.W. Norton.

  • Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298-310.

  • Lowi, T. J. (1985). The State in Politics: The Relation between Policy and Administration. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences (pp. 67-105). Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Majone, G. (1975). On the notion of political feasibility. European Journal of Political Research, 3(2), 259-274.

  • Majone, G. (1976). Choice among policy instruments for pollution control. Policy Analysis, 2(4), 589-613.

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2004). The logic of appropriateness. Martin Rein, Michael Moran and Robert E. Goodin (eds.), Handbook of Public Policy, Oxford University Press.

  • May, P. (2003). Policy Design and Implementation. In B. Guy Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 223-233). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

  • Mayntz, R. (1979). Public bureaucracies and policy implementation. International Social Science Journal, 31(4), 633-645.

  • Meijers, E. (2004). Policy Integration: A Literature Review. In D. Stead, H. Geerlings & E. Meijers (Eds.), Policy Integration in Practice: The Integration of Land Use Planning, Transport and Environmental Policy-Making in Denmark, England and Germany (pp. 9-24). Delft: Delft University Press.

  • Mintrom, M. (2007). The Policy Analysis Movement. In L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, & D. Laycock (Eds.), Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art (pp. 71-84). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Mondou, M., & Montpetit, E. (2010). Policy styles and degenerative politics: Poverty policy designs in Newfoundland and Quebec. Policy Studies Journal, 38(4), 703-722. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00380.x.

  • Montpetit, E. (2003). Misplaced Distrust: Policy Networks and the Environment in France, the United States, and Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.

  • Moseley, A., & Tierney, S. (2004). Evidence-based prac-tice in the real world. Evidence & Policy, 1(1), 113-119.

  • Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.

  • O'Toole, L. J. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263-288.

  • Oliphant, S., & Howlett, M. (2010). Assessing policy analytical capacity: Comparative insights from a study of the Canadian environmental policy advice system. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Re-search and Practice, 12(4), 439.

  • Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (1998). Regimes and regime building in American government: A review of literature on the 1940s. Political Science Quarterly, 113(4), 689-702.

  • Parsons, W. (1995). Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Aldershot Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  • Parsons, W. (2001). Modernising policy-making for the twenty first century: The professional model. Public Policy and Administration, 16(3), 93-110.

  • Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223-244.

  • Radaelli, C. M., & Dunlop, C. A. (2013). Learning in the European Union: Theoretical lenses and meta-theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 923-940. doi:10.1080/13501763.2013.781832.

  • Rayner, J. (2013). On smart layering as policy design: Tackling the biofuels policy mess in Canada and the United Kingdom. Policy Sciences, forthcoming.

  • Rayner, J., Howlett, M., Wilson, J., Cashore, B., & Hoberg, G. (2001). Privileging the sub-sector: Critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(3), 319-332.

  • Roch, C., Pitts, D., & Navarro, I. (2010). Representative bureaucracy and policy tools: Ethnicity, student discipline, and representation in public schools. Administration & Society, 42(1), 38-65.

  • Rotberg, R. I. (2014). Good governance means performance and results. Governance, 27(3), 511-518. doi:10.1111/gove.12084.

  • Sager, F., & Rielle, Y. (2013). Sorting through the garbage can: Under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs? Policy Sciences, 46(1), 1-21. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9165-7.

  • Salamon, L. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255-275.

  • Salamon, L. M. (1989). The Tools Approach: Basic Analytics. In L. S. Salamon & M. S. Lund (Eds.), Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action (pp. 23-50). Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

  • Salamon, L. M. (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Saward, M. (1992). Co-Optive Politics and State Legitimacy. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

  • Schmalensee, R., Joskow, P. L., Ellerman, A. D., Montero, J. P., & Bailey, E. M. (1998). An interim evaluation of sulfur dioxide emissions trading. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 53-68.

  • Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990a). Policy Design: Elements, Premises and Strategies. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation: Concepts, Knowledge, Causes and Norms (pp. 77-102). New York: Greenwood.

  • Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990b). Behavioural assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 511-529.

  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1994). Social constructions and policy design: Implications for public administration. Research in Public Administration, 3, 137-173.

  • Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

  • Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9(3), 181-190.

  • Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3-14.

  • Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy Formulation: Design and Tools. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods (pp. 79-87). New Brunswick, N. J.: CRC Taylor & Francis.

  • Stead, D., & Meijers, E. (2004). Policy integration in practice: Some experiences of integrating transport, land-use planning and environmental policies in local government. 2004 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Greening of Policies-Interlinkages and Policy Integration.

  • Sterner, T. (2003). Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Resource for the Future Press.

  • Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: Norton.

  • Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.

  • Swanson, D., Barg, S., Tyler, S., Venema, H., Tomar, S., Bhadwal, S., Nair, S., Roy, D., & Drexhage, J. (2010). Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 924-939.

  • Thelen, K., Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (pp. 208-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Thelen, K. (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Timmermans, A., Rothmayr, C., Serduelt, U. & Varone, F. (1998). The design of policy instruments: Perspectives and concepts. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

  • Tinbergen, J. (1952). On the Theory of Economic Policy. North-Holland Pub. Co.

  • Torenvlied, R., & Akkerman, A. (2004). Theory of "soft" policy implementation in multilevel systems with an application to social partnership in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 39, 31-58.

  • Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual orientation in policy analysis: The contribution of Harold D. Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 18, 240-252.

  • Torgerson, D. (1990). Origins of the policy orientation: The aesthetic dimension in Lasswell's political vision. History of Political Thought, 11, 340-344.

  • Trebilcock, M., & Hartle, D. G. (1982). The choice of governing instrument. International Review of Law and Economics, 2, 29-46.

  • Trebilcock, M. J., & Prichard, J. R. S. (1983). Crown Corporations: The Calculus of Instrument Choice. In J. R. S. Prichard (Ed.), Crown Corporations in Canada: The Calculus of Instrument Choice (pp.1-50). Toronto: Butterworths.

  • Tribe, L. H. (1972). Policy science: analysis or ideology? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2, 66-110.

  • Tupper, A., & Doern, G. B. (1981). Public Corporations and Public Policy in Canada. In A. Tupper & G. B. Doern (Eds.), Public Corporations and Public Policy in Canada (pp. 1-50). Montreal: Institute for Re-search on Public Policy.

  • Van der Heijden, J. (2011). Institutional layering: A re-view of the use of the concept. Politics, 31(1), 9-18.

  • Vedung, E., Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., & Rist, R. C. (1997). Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In E. Vedung, M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, & R. C. Rist (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation (pp. 21-58). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

  • Walker, W. E., Marchau, V. A. W. J., & Swanson, D. (2010). Addressing deep uncertainty using adaptive policies: Introduction to Section 2. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 917-923.

  • Weaver, K. (2009). Target Compliance: The Final Frontier of Policy Implementation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www. brookings.edu/research/papers/2009/09/30-compliance-weaver

  • Weaver, K. (2010). But Will It Work? Implementation Analysis to Improve Government Performance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/ 2010/02/implementation-analysis-weaver

  • Wildavsky, A. B. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little-Brown.

  • Williams, R. A. (2012). The limits of policy analytical capacity-Canadian financial regulatory reform. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(6-7), 455-463.

  • Wintges, R. (2007). Monitoring and Analysis of Policies and Public Financing Instruments Conducive to Higher Levels of R&D Investments: The "Policy Mix" Project-Case Study: The Netherlands. Maastricht: UNU-MERIT.

  • Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775-793.

  • Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2012). Policy tool interactions and the adoption of state renewable portfolio standards. Review of Policy Research, 29(2), 193-206.


Abstract Views: 434

PDF Views: 179




  • Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types

Abstract Views: 434  |  PDF Views: 179

Authors

Michael Howlett
Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
Ishani Mukherjee
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Abstract


Public policies are the result of efforts made by governments to alter aspects of behaviour - both that of their own agents and of society at large - in order to carry out some end or purpose. They are comprised of arrangements of policy goals and policy means matched through some decision-making process. These policy-making efforts can be more, or less, systematic in attempting to match ends and means in a logical fashion or can result from much less systematic processes. "Policy design" implies a knowledge-based process in which the choice of means or mechanisms through which policy goals are given effect follows a logical process of inference from known or learned relationships between means and outcomes. This includes both design in which means are selected in accordance with experience and knowledge and that in which principles and relationships are incorrectly or only partially articulated or understood. Policy decisions can be careful and deliberate in attempting to best resolve a problem or can be highly contingent and driven by situational logics. Decisions stemming from bargaining or opportunism can also be distinguished from those which result from careful analysis and assessment. This article considers both modes and formulates a spectrum of policy formulation types between "design" and "non-design" which helps clarify the nature of each type and the likelihood of each unfolding.

Keywords


Non-Design, Policy Design, Public Policy.

References