IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v4y1984i03p237-259_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Social Theory to Policy Design

Author

Listed:
  • Linder, Stephen H.
  • Peters, B. Guy

Abstract

Little attention has been given in policy analysis to the creative process of designing solutions to public policy problems. There are a number of difficulties in applying macro-level theories – whether from economics, sociology, philosophy or macro-systems theory – in the policy process. Any macro-level theory will tend to provide inadequate guidance in one or more of three aspects of policy-making: a model of causation, a model for evaluating alternatives and outcomes, and a model of how interventions operate. Our current knowledge about which policy strategies work best under which conditions is at best rudimentary. Academic disciplinary perspectives focus on a narrow repertoire of policy instruments. What is required is a design focus which draws on instruments associated with a range of disciplines and professions. A design perspective involves both a systematic process for generating basic strategies and a framework for comparing them. Such an approach will require at least the following elements: (1) the characteristics of problems (scale, collectiveness, certainty, predictability, independence); (2) characteristics of goals (value-laden, operational, process of goal-setting); (3) characteristics of instruments (suitability of different instruments).

Suggested Citation

  • Linder, Stephen H. & Peters, B. Guy, 1984. "From Social Theory to Policy Design," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 237-259, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:4:y:1984:i:03:p:237-259_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X0000221X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nathalie Mendez, 2021. "Do social constructions and gender mainstreaming in policy design affect the evaluation of the policy process? An analysis of a policy intervention in a postconflict society," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1699-1718, July.
    2. Mark Considine & Damon Alexander & Jenny Lewis, 2014. "Policy design as craft: teasing out policy design expertise using a semi-experimental approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 209-225, September.
    3. Thierry Balzacq, 2008. "The Policy Tools of Securitization: Information Exchange, EU Foreign and Interior Policies," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46, pages 75-100, January.
    4. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    5. Irene Pluchinotta & Akin O. Kazakçi & Raffaele Giordano & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2019. "Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 341-375, April.
    6. Christopher Weible & David Carter, 2015. "The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 207-231, June.
    7. Russell Marshall & Steve Summerskill & Keith Case & Amjad Hussain & Diane Gyi & Ruth Sims & Andrew Morris & Jo Barnes, 2016. "Supporting a Design Driven Approach to Social Inclusion and Accessibility in Transport," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 7-23.
    8. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    9. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    10. Raphael Wasserbaur & Tomohiko Sakao, 2020. "Conceptualising Design Fixation and Design Limitation and Quantifying Their Impacts on Resource Use and Carbon Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Ali Marjovi & Behrouz Zarei, 2023. "Design-oriented policy interventions: The case of technology-based international entrepreneurship in emerging context," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 111-142, March.
    12. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 73-89, February.
    13. Iychettira, Kaveri K. & Hakvoort, Rudi A. & Linares, Pedro, 2017. "Towards a comprehensive policy for electricity from renewable energy: An approach for policy design," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 169-182.
    14. Ishani Mukherjee & M. Kerem Coban & Azad Singh Bali, 2021. "Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 243-268, June.
    15. Nicole Lemke & Philipp Trein & Frédéric Varone, 2023. "Agenda-setting in nascent policy subsystems: issue and instrument priorities across venues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 633-655, December.
    16. V. Rodriguez & A. Soeparwata, 2015. "The Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation in ASEAN and Its Member States," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(2), pages 228-249, June.
    17. Sylvie Occelli & Simone Landini, 2021. "Thinking Together and Governance in Transport Planning: Can We Strengthen the Connections?," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 10(4), pages 39-62, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:4:y:1984:i:03:p:237-259_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.