IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v23y2006i1p129-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Instrument Mixes through Program‐ and Agency‐Level Data: Methodological Issues in Contemporary Implementation Research

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Howlett
  • Jonathan Kim
  • Paul Weaver

Abstract

Theories of policy instrument choice have gone through several “generations” as theorists have moved from the analysis of individual instruments to comparative studies of instrument selection and the development of theories of instrument choice within implementation “mixes” or “governance strategies.” Current “next generation” theory on policy instruments centers on the question of the optimality of instrument choices. However, empirically assessing the nature of instrument mixes is quite a complex affair, involving considerable methodological difficulties and conceptual ambiguities related to the definition and measurement of policy sector and instruments and their interrelationships. Using materials generated by Canadian governments, this article examines the practical utility and drawbacks of three techniques used in the literature to inventory instruments and identify instrument ecologies and mixes: the conventional “policy domain” approach suggested by Burstein (1991); the “program” approach developed by Rose (1988a); and the “legislative” approach used by Hosseus and Pal (1997). This article suggests that all three approaches must be used in order to develop even a modest inventory of policy instruments, but that additional problems exist with availability and accessibility of data, both in general and in terms of reconciling materials developed using these different approaches, which makes the analysis of instrument mixes a time‐consuming and expensive affair.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Howlett & Jonathan Kim & Paul Weaver, 2006. "Assessing Instrument Mixes through Program‐ and Agency‐Level Data: Methodological Issues in Contemporary Implementation Research," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(1), pages 129-151, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:23:y:2006:i:1:p:129-151
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00189.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00189.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00189.x?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    2. Michael Howlett & Pablo del Rio, 2015. "The parameters of policy portfolios: verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1233-1245, October.
    3. Inwon Kang & Hae Seok Jee & Matthew Minsuk Shin, 2018. "Affective Policy Performance Evaluation Model: A Case of an International Trade Policy Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Li, Lili & Taeihagh, Araz, 2020. "An in-depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable energy transition in China from 1981 to 2020," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    5. Fischer, Richard & Lippe, Melvin & Dolom, Priscilla & Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe & Tamayo, Fabian & Torres, Bolier, 2023. "Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – Stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    6. Jenny Lieu & Niki Artemis Spyridaki & Rocio Alvarez-Tinoco & Wytze Van der Gaast & Andreas Tuerk & Oscar Van Vliet, 2018. "Evaluating Consistency in Environmental Policy Mixes through Policy, Stakeholder, and Contextual Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    7. Barbanente, Angela & Grassini, Laura, 2022. "Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    8. Fritz Sager, 2009. "Governance and Coercion," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(3), pages 537-558, October.
    9. Leïla Messaoudène & Solange Hernandez, 2014. "La politique alimentaire française (2000-2013): une analyse de la combinaison des instruments publics, entre coopération et concurrence des acteurs publics et privés," Post-Print hal-01309471, HAL.
    10. Ossenbrink, Jan & Finnsson, Sveinbjoern & Bening, Catharina R. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2019. "Delineating policy mixes: Contrasting top-down and bottom-up approaches to the case of energy-storage policy in California," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).

    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:bla:revpol:v:23:y:2006:i:1:p:129-151. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.