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. repec:cup:apsrev:v:98:y:2004:i:02:p:243-260_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Linder, Stephen H. & Peters, B. Guy, 1984. "From Social Theory to Policy Design," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(03), pages 237-259, August.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Ingram, Helen & Schneider, Anne, 1990. "Improving Implementation Through Framing Smarter Statutes," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(01), pages 67-88, January.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Buckman, Greg & Diesendorf, Mark, 2010. "Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3365-3376, July.
    12. 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.
    13. 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, The World Bank, number 9379, October.
    14. 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(04), pages 345-367, October.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    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. 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.
    19. Pablo Gilabert & Holly Lawford-Smith, 2012. "Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 60(4), pages 809-825, December.
    20. Hoffmann, Matthew J., 2011. "Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195390087.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    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. repec:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9273-x is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:cog:poango:v:5:y:2017:i:2:p:69-78 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-017-9301-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (António Vieira). General contact details of provider: http://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.