Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
Journals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Rayner, Jeremy
- The Elements of Effective Program Design: A Two-Level Analysis
Abstract Views :256 |
PDF Views:121
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, CA
2 Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, SG
3 Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CA
1 Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, CA
2 Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, SG
3 Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CA
Source
Politics and Governance, Vol 2, No 2 (2014), Pagination: 1–12Abstract
Policy and program design is a major theme of contemporary policy research, aimed at improving the understanding of how the processes, methods and tools of policy-making are employed to better formulate effective policies and programs, and to understand the reasons why such designs are not forthcoming. However while many efforts have been made to evaluate policy design, less work has focused on program designs. This article sets out to fill this gap in knowledge of design practices in policy-making. It outlines the nature of the study of policy design with a particular focus on the nature of programs and the lessons derived from empirical experience regarding the conditions that enhance program effectiveness.Keywords
Policy Design, Program Design, Public Policy.Full Text
References
- Arts, B., Leroy, P, & van Tatenhove, J. (2006). Political Modernisation and Policy Arrangements: A Framework for Understanding Environmental Policy Change. Public Organization Review, 2006, 6(2), 93-106.
- Barnett, C. K. and Shore, B. (2009), Reinventing Program Design: Challenges in Leading Sustainable Institutional Change. Leadership & Organization, 30(1), 16-35.
- Ben-Zadok, E. (2013). Policy Change through Policy Design: Florida Concurrency, 1985-2010. Planning Practice and Research, 28(5), 589-611.
- Bobrow, D. B., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Bobrow, D. B. (2006). Policy Design: Ubiquitous, Necessary and Difficult. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy. New York: SAGE.
- Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized Welfare Mixes: Voluntary Agencies and New Governance Regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 346-359.
- Boonekamp, P. G. M. Actual Interaction Effects between Policy Measures for Energy Efficiency - A Qualitative Matrix Method and Quantitative Simulation Results for Households. Energy, 31(14), 2848-2873.
- Braathen, N. A. (2005). Environmental Agreements Used in Combination with Other Policy Instruments. In E. Croci (Ed.), The Handbook of Environmental Voluntary Agreements (Volume 43, pp. 335-364). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Braathen, N. A. (2007). Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy: How Many Stones Should Be Used to Kill a Bird? International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 1(2), 185-235.
- Briassoulis, H. (2005). Analysis of Policy Integration: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. In H. Briassoulis (Ed.), Policy Integration for Complex Environmental Problems: The Example of Mediterranean Desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate.
- Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., & Wise, L. R. (2002). Transforming Administrative Policy. Public Administration, 80(1), 153-178.
- Considine, M., & Lewis, J. M. (2003). Bureaucracy, Network, or Enterprise? Comparing Models of Governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 131-140.
- Daugbjerg, C, & Sonderskov, K. M. (2012). Environmental Policy Performance Revisited: Designing Effective Policies for Green Markets. Political Studies, 60(2), 399-418.
- David, P. A. (2005). Path Dependence in Economic Processes: Implications for Policy Analysis in Dynamical System Contexts. In K. Dopfer (Ed.), The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics (pp. 151-194). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
- Del Rio, P., & Howlett, M. P. (2013). Beyond the "Tinbergen Rule" in Policy Design: Matching Tools and Goals in Policy Portfolios. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2247238
- Del Rio, P., Silvosa, A. C., & Gomez, G. I. (2011). Policies and Design Elements for the Repowering of Wind Farms: A Qualitative Analysis of Different Options. Energy Policy, 39(4), 1897-1908.
- Doern, G. B., & Phidd, R. W. (1983). Canadian Public Policy: Ideas, Structure, Process. Toronto: Methuen.
- Doern, G. B., & Wilson, V. S. (Eds.) (1974). Issues in Canadian Public Policy. Toronto: Macmillan.
- Dorst, K. (2011). The Core of 'design Thinking' and Its Application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.
- Freeman, G. P. (1985). National Styles and Policy Sectors: Explaining Structured Variation. Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), 467-496.
- Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive Regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23(1995), 347-369.
- Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Guy, K., Boekholt, P., Cunningham, P., Hofer, R., Nauwelaers, C., Rammer, C. (2008) Designing Policy Mixes: Enhancing Innovation System Performance and R&D Investment Levels. Final Report. Brussels: European Commission.
- Hacker, J. S. (2005). Policy Drift: The Hidden Politics of US Welfare State Retrenchment. In W. Streek & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275-296.
- Hou, Y., & Brewer, G. (2010). Substitution and Supplementation between Co-Functional Policy Instruments: Evidence from State Budget Stabilization Practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 914-924.
- Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York: Routledge.
- Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2007). Re-Visiting the New Orthodoxy of Policy Dynamics: The Dependent Variable and Re-Aggregation Problems in the Study of Policy Change. Canadian Political Science Review, 1(2), 50-62.
- Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33-46.
- 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., & Lejano, R. P. (2013). Tales from the Crypt The Rise and Fall (and Rebirth?) of Policy Design. Administration & Society, 45(3), 357-381.
- Howlett, M., & Migone, A. (2011). Charles Lindblom Is Alive and Well and Living in Punctuated Equilibrium Land. Policy and Society, 30(1), 53-62.
- Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. J. (2014). The New Design Orientation in Policy Formulation Research: From Tools to Toolkits in Policy Instrument Studies. Policy and Politics, forthcoming.
- Howlett, M., & del Rio, P. (2014). The Parameters of Policy Portfolios: Verticality and Horizontality in Design Spaces and Their Consequences for Policy Mix Formulation. Environment and Planning, forthcoming.
- Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. (2005). The Rise of 'New Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government? Political Studies, 53(3), 477-496.
- Justen, A., Schippl, J., Lenz, B., & Fleischer, T. (2014). Assessment of Policies and Detection of Unintended Effects: Guiding Principles for the Consideration of Methods and Tools in Policy-Packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60, 19-30.
- Justen, A., Fearnley, N., Givoni, M., & Macmillen, J. (2014). A Process for Designing Policy Packaging: Ideals and Realities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60, 9-18.
- Kiss, B., & Neij, L. (2011). The Importance of Learning When Supporting Emergent Technologies for Energy efficiency - A Case Study on Policy Intervention for Learning for the Development of Energy Efficient Windows in Sweden. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6514-6524.
- Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
- Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in
- the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Meijers, E., & Stead, D. (2004). Policy Integration: What Does It Mean and How Can It Be Achieved? A Multi-Disciplinary Review. In 2004 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Greening of Policies-Interlinkages and Policy Integration, Berlin, Germany.
- Meltsner, A. (1972). Political Feasibility and Policy Analysis. Public Administration Review, 32(6), 859-867.
- Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7-27.
- Ostrom, E., & Basurto, X. (2011). Crafting Analytical Tools to Study Institutional Change. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(3), 317-343.
- Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251-267.
- Rayner, J., & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing Integrated Land Management in Western Canada: Policy Reform and the Resilience of Clientelism. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 1(4), 321-334.
- Richardson, J., Gustafsson, G., & Jordan, G. (1982). The Concept of Policy Style. In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy Styles in Western Europe (pp. 1-16). London: George Allen and Unwin.
- Sovacool, B. K. (2012). Design Principles for Renewable Energy Programs in Developing Countries. Energy and Environmental Science, 2012(5), 9157-9162.
- Stanton, D., & Herscovitch, A. (2013). Social Policy and Program: From Principles to Design. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2258899
- Taeihagh, A., Givoni, M., & Banares-Alcantara, R. (2013). Which Policy First? A Network-Centric Approach for the Analysis and Ranking of Policy Measures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(4), 595-616.
- Thelen, K. (2003). How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (pp. 208-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Tinbergen, J. (1952). On the Theory of Economic Policy. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co.
- USDA (2013). USDA Issues Conservation Reserve Program Rental Payments, Direct Payments and ACRE Payments. USDA FSA News Release, 21/10/2013. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture.
- Van der Heijden, J. (2011). Institutional Layering: A Review of the Use of the Concept. Politics, 31(1), 9-18.
- Weiss, C. (1970). The Politicization of Evaluation Research. Journal of Social Issues, 26(4), 57-68.
- Woodside, K. (1986). Policy Instruments and the Study of Public Policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775-793.
- Wunder, S. (2007). The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 48-58.
- Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design
Abstract Views :90 |
PDF Views:82
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, CA
2 Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B8, CA
1 Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, CA
2 Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B8, CA
Source
Politics and Governance, Vol 1, No 2 (2013), Pagination: 170–182Abstract
Thinking about policy mixes is at the forefront of current research work in the policy sciences and raises many significant questions with respect to policy tools and instruments, processes of policy formulation, and the evolution of tool choices over time. Not least among these is how to assess the potential for multiple policy tools to achieve policy goals in an efficient and effective way. Previous conceptual work on policy mixes has highlighted evaluative criteria such as "consistency" (the ability of multiple policy tools to reinforce rather than undermine each other in the pursuit of individual policy goals), "coherence" (or the ability of multiple policy goals to co-exist with each other in a logical fashion), and "congruence" (or the ability of multiple goals and instruments to work together in a uni-directional or mutually supportive fashion) as important design principles and measures of optimality in policy mixes. And previous empirical work on the evolution of existing policy mixes has highlighted how these three criteria are often lacking in mixes which have evolved over time as well as those which have otherwise been consciously designed. This article revisits this early design work in order to more clearly assess the reasons why many existing policy mixes are sub-optimal and the consequences this has for thinking about policy formulation processes and the practices of policy design.Keywords
Planning, Policy Design, Policy Instruments, Policy Layering, Policy Mixes, Policy Portfolios.Full Text