IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v2y2014i2p57-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Howlett

    (Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, 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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:2:y:2014:i:2:p:57-71
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/149
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Dryzek, John S., 1983. "Don't Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 345-367, October.
    4. Richard Schmalensee & Paul L. Joskow & A. Denny Ellerman & Juan Pablo Montero & Elizabeth M. Bailey, 1998. "An Interim Evaluation of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 53-68, Summer.
    5. Buckman, Greg & Diesendorf, Mark, 2010. "Addendum to "Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies" [Energy Policy 38 (2010), 3365-3376]," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7539-7540, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Thelen,Kathleen, 2004. "How Institutions Evolve," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521837682.
    9. Daniel Béland, 2007. "Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security: Conversion, Layering, and Policy Drift," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 88(1), pages 20-38, March.
    10. Stephen H. Linder & B. Guy Peters, 1990. "An Institutional Approach to the Theory of Policy-Making: The Role of Guidance Mechanisms in Policy Formulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 59-83, January.
    11. Stephen H. Linder & B. Guy Peters, 1988. "The Analysis Of Design Or The Design Of Analysis?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 738-750, June.
    12. Bendor Jonathan Brodie & Kumar Sunil & Siegel David A, 2009. "Satisficing: A 'Pretty Good' Heuristic," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-38, March.
    13. Hacker, Jacob S., 2004. "Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 243-260, May.
    14. Johan P. Olsen & James G. March, 2004. "The logic of appropriateness," ARENA Working Papers 9, ARENA.
    15. Michael Greenstone, 2001. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 & 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures," NBER Working Papers 8484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Thelen,Kathleen, 2004. "How Institutions Evolve," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521546744.
    17. Rayner, Jeremy & Howlett, Michael & Wilson, Jeremy & Cashore, Benjamin & Hoberg, George, 2001. "Privileging the sub-sector: critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3-4), pages 319-332, July.
    18. Pablo Gilabert & Holly Lawford-Smith, 2012. "Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 60(4), pages 809-825, December.
    19. Timothy Frye & John Reuter & David Szakonyi, 2012. "Political Machines at Work: Voter Mobilization and Electoral Subversion in the Workplace," HSE Working papers WP BRP 08/PS/2012, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    20. Claude Menard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), 2005. "Handbook of New Institutional Economics," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-0-387-25092-2, September.
    21. John S. Dryzek & Brian Ripley, 1988. "The Ambitions Of Policy Design," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 705-719, June.
    22. Franchino, Fabio & Hã˜Yland, Bjã˜Rn, 2009. "Legislative Involvement in Parliamentary Systems: Opportunities, Conflict, and Institutional Constraints," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(4), pages 607-621, November.
    23. Hongtao Yi & Richard C. Feiock, 2012. "Policy Tool Interactions and the Adoption of State Renewable Portfolio Standards," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(2), pages 193-206, March.
    24. 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.
    25. Ingram, Helen & Schneider, Anne, 1990. "Improving Implementation Through Framing Smarter Statutes," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 67-88, January.
    26. 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.
    27. Florian Kern & Michael Howlett, 2009. "Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 391-408, November.
    28. Buckman, Greg & Diesendorf, Mark, 2010. "Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3365-3376, July.
    29. Bas Arts & Jan Tatenhove, 2004. "Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 339-356, December.
    30. Gabriela Elizondo Azuela & Luiz Augusto Barroso, 2012. "Design and Performance of Policy Instruments to Promote the Development of Renewable Energy : Emerging Experience in Selected Developing Countries," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 9379, December.
    31. 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.
    32. Hoffmann, Matthew J., 2011. "Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195390087.
    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. Claudia Petrescu & Bogdan Voicu & Christin Heinz-Fischer & Jale Tosun, 2024. "Conceiving of and politically responding to NEETs in Europe: a scoping review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Moshe Maor, 2020. "Policy over- and under-design: an information quality perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 395-411, September.
    4. 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).
    5. 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).
    6. Ching Leong, 2017. "Hajer’s institutional void and legitimacy without polity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 573-583, December.
    7. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee & Changho Chung, 2015. "Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 319-338, September.
    8. Heiner Lüpke & Lucas Leopold & Jale Tosun, 2023. "Institutional coordination arrangements as elements of policy design spaces: insights from climate policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 49-68, March.
    9. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    10. Michael Howlett & Joanna Vince & Pablo del Río, 2017. "Policy Integration and Multi-Level Governance: Dealing with the Vertical Dimension of Policy Mix Designs," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 69-78.
    11. Diana Pamela Villa Alvarez & Valentina Auricchio & Marzia Mortati, 2022. "Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 89-136, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Pahle, Michael & Schaeffer, Roberto & Pachauri, Shonali & Eom, Jiyong & Awasthy, Aayushi & Chen, Wenying & Di Maria, Corrado & Jiang, Kejun & He, Chenmin & Portugal-Pereira, Joana & Safonov, George & , 2021. "The crucial role of complementarity, transparency and adaptability for designing energy policies for sustainable development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    14. Y. Feng & C. Marek & J. Tosun, 2022. "Fighting Food Waste by Law: Making Sense of the Chinese Approach," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 457-479, September.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    8. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    9. Matthew Retallack, 2020. "Paradigmatic policy change or unintended subordination of rural autonomy: the case of source water protection in Ontario, Canada," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 85-100, March.
    10. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Sewerin, Sebastian, 2019. "Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes – An empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    11. 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.
    12. Karen S Palmer & Adalsteinn D Brown & Jenna M Evans & Husayn Marani & Kirstie K Russell & Danielle Martin & Noah M Ivers, 2018. "Qualitative analysis of the dynamics of policy design and implementation in hospital funding reform," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, January.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:zbw:bofitp:2018_007 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Ron Martin, 2010. "Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography—Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to Evolution," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 86(1), pages 1-27, January.
    17. Pierson, Paul, 2011. "The welfare state over the very long run," Working papers of the ZeS 02/2011, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
    18. Israel Marques, 2014. "Firms And Social Policy In The Post-Communist Bloc: Evidence From Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 87/EC/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    19. Eric Schickler, 2020. "Causal inference and American political development: common challenges and opportunities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 501-511, December.
    20. 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.
    21. Florian Kern & Michael Howlett, 2009. "Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 391-408, November.

    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:cog:poango:v:2:y:2014:i:2:p:57-71. 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: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.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.