IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v50y2017i2d10.1007_s11077-016-9267-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices

Author

Listed:
  • Giliberto Capano

    (Scuola Normale Superiore)

  • Andrea Lippi

    (Università di Firenze)

Abstract

Policy instruments are a fundamental component of public policies. Policy instruments are often a result of mediation within the policy design process, whenever decision makers reshape existing instruments without introducing any real innovation. This results in imitation, layering and ambiguity in tool choice selection, and raises the theoretical problem of the logic according to which decision makers choose certain specific policy instruments rather than others. Decision makers may have different reasons for choosing certain specific instruments, although these reasons should be connected to the two main purposes of decision-making, that is, the search for effectiveness and the construction of a shared sense, a common acceptance. Thus, the choice of instruments is a question of potentially conflicting drivers that decision makers have to cope with within a specific decisional situation, when asked to solve those problems that have arisen. This paper examines this question and offers an analytical framework based on the two main factors in terms of which the selection of instruments is channelled and assessed: legitimacy and instrumentality. The boundaries created by how decision makers perceive these two dimensions mean that only four selection patterns can be chosen by decision makers: hybridization, stratification, contamination or routinization.

Suggested Citation

  • Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9267-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-016-9267-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-016-9267-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-016-9267-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Andrew Macintosh & Anita Foerster & Jan McDonald, 2015. "Policy design, spatial planning and climate change adaptation: a case study from Australia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1432-1453, August.
    3. Giuliano Bonoli, 2010. "The Political Economy of Active Labor-Market Policy," Politics & Society, , vol. 38(4), pages 435-457, December.
    4. Burkard Eberlein & Dieter Kerwer, 2004. "New Governance in the European Union: A Theoretical Perspective," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 121-142, February.
    5. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    6. Katri Kosonen & Gaëtan Nicodème, 2009. "The role of fiscal instruments in environmental policy," Working Papers CEB 09-026.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Fabrizio Gilardi, 2010. "Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 650-666, July.
    8. -, 2012. "Decentralization and reform in Latin America: improving intergovernmental relations," Copublicaciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 2028 edited by Edward Elgar.
    9. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    10. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    11. Daniela A. Miteva & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Paul J. Ferraro, 2012. "Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 69-92, Spring.
    12. Bulmer, Simon & Padgett, Stephen, 2005. "Policy Transfer in the European Union: An Institutionalist Perspective," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 103-126, January.
    13. John P Martin, 1998. "What Works Among Active Labour Market Policies: Evidence from OECD Countries' Experiences," RBA Annual Conference Volume (Discontinued), in: Guy Debelle & Jeff Borland (ed.),Unemployment and the Australian Labour Market, Reserve Bank of Australia.
    14. Ann Langley & Henry Mintzberg & Patricia Pitcher & Elizabeth Posada & Jan Saint-Macary, 1995. "Opening up Decision Making: The View from the Black Stool," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 260-279, June.
    15. Trebilcock, Michael J. & Hartle, Douglas G., 1982. "The choice of governing instrument," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 29-46, June.
    16. Andrew Jordan & Elah Matt, 2014. "Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 227-247, September.
    17. Andrew Jordan & Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel & Anthony Zito, 2005. "The Rise of 'New' Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53, pages 477-496, October.
    18. Simmons, Beth A. & Elkins, Zachary, 2004. "The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(1), pages 171-189, February.
    19. Kruseman, Gideon & Bade, Jan, 1998. "Agrarian policies for sustainable land use: bio-economic modelling to assess the effectiveness of policy instruments," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 465-481, November.
    20. John Blomquist, 2003. "Impact Evaluation of Social Programs : A Policy Perspective," World Bank Publications - Reports 11827, The World Bank Group.
    21. Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 1993. "Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice: Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 12(1‐2), pages 3-24, March.
    22. Linder, Stephen H. & Peters, B. Guy, 1989. "Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 35-58, January.
    23. Jeremy Richardson, 2000. "Government, Interest Groups and Policy Change," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(5), pages 1006-1025, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ilana Shpaizman, 2020. "The end–means nexus and policy conversion: evidence from two cases in Israeli immigrant integration policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 713-733, December.
    2. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    3. Christian Adam & Yves Steinebach & Christoph Knill, 2018. "Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: the problem of policy accumulation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 269-290, September.
    4. Thomas Bolognesi & Florence Metz & Stéphane Nahrath, 2021. "Institutional complexity traps in policy integration processes: a long-term perspective on Swiss flood risk management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 911-941, December.
    5. Casula, Mattia & Toth, Federico, 2021. "The 2017 Italian reform on mandatory childhood vaccinations: Analysis of the policy process and early implementation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 7-11.
    6. Arnošt Veselý, 2021. "Autonomy of policy instrument attitudes: concept, theory and evidence," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 441-455, June.
    7. Stefania Profeti & Federico Toth, 2023. "Climbing the 'ladder of intrusiveness': the Italian government's strategy to push the Covid-19 vaccination coverage further," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 709-731, December.
    8. Xiaotong Guo & Lingyan Li & Haiyan Xie & Wei Shi, 2020. "Improved Multi-Objective Optimization Model for Policy Design of Rental Housing Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Azad Bali & Darren Halpin, 2021. "Agenda-setting instruments: means and strategies for the management of policy demands [Mayflies and old bulls: Organization persistence in state interest communities]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 333-344.
    10. Kris Hartley & Michael Howlett, 2021. "Policy Assemblages and Policy Resilience: Lessons for Non-Design from Evolutionary Governance Theory," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 451-459.
    11. Ulybina, Olga, 2022. "Policy instrument choice under globalization: Do authoritarian states choose differently?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    12. Carsten Daugbjerg, 2022. "Against the odds: How policy capacity can compensate for weak instruments in promoting sustainable food," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 451-467, September.
    13. Marini, Michele & Caro, Dario & Thomsen, Marianne, 2023. "Investigating local policy instruments for different types of urban agriculture in four European cities: A case study analysis on the use and effectiveness of the applied policy instruments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    14. Jannes J. Willems & Astrid Molenveld & William Voorberg & Geert Brinkman, 2020. "Diverging Ambitions and Instruments for Citizen Participation across Different Stages in Green Infrastructure Projects," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 22-32.
    15. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    16. Zejin Liu & Steven Van de Walle, 2022. "The role of demonstration projects as policy instruments in the development of nonprofit organizations: Beyond instrumentality," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(4), pages 233-244, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    2. Citi, Manuele & Rhodes, Martin, 2007. "New Modes of Governance in the EU: Common Objectives versus National Preferences," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 1, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    3. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    4. Giliberto Capano & Jun Jie Woo, 2017. "Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 399-426, September.
    5. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    6. 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.
    7. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee & Jeremy Rayner, 2014. "The Elements of Effective Program Design: A Two-Level Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-12.
    8. Roman Senninger & Daniel Bischof, 2018. "Working in unison: Political parties and policy issue transfer in the multilevel space," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 140-162, March.
    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. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    11. Biyun Zhu, 2023. "Tool selection for public diplomacy flagships: toward an adaptive model," Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(1), pages 42-53, March.
    12. Arbolino, Roberta & Carlucci, Fabio & Cirà, Andrea & De Simone, Luisa & Ioppolo, Giuseppe & Yigitcanlar, Tan, 2018. "Factors affecting transport privatization: An empirical analysis of the EU," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 149-160.
    13. Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
    14. Simon Fink, 2013. "Policy Convergence with or without the European Union: The Interaction of Policy Success, EU Membership and Policy Convergence," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 631-648, July.
    15. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    16. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    17. Peter Egger & Doina Radulescu & Nora Strecker, 2017. "On the spread of social protection systems," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(4), pages 550-574, August.
    18. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    19. Michael Mintrom & Jacqui True, 2022. "COVID-19 as a policy window: policy entrepreneurs responding to violence against women [The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID-19 on domestic violence]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(1), pages 143-154.
    20. Sophie Perrin & Thomas Bernauer, 2010. "International regime formation revisited: Explaining ratification behaviour with respect to long-range transboundary air pollution agreements in Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 405-426, September.

    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:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9267-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.