IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v3y1983i04p345-367_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Don't Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design

Author

Listed:
  • Dryzek, John S.

Abstract

Threats to effective policy-making arising from ubiquitous circumstances of complexity and uncertainty are often taken as reasons to eschew both the attacking of social problems through public policy and cogitation, such as policy analysis, in the policy process. It is suggested here that, as complexity and uncertainty increase, more cogitation is required, not less; but it is crucial that cogitation be of the appropriate sort. Greater use should be made of policy design, as opposed to methods emphasising selection among prespecified alternatives. The required design task varies with the level of difficulty – defined by complexity, uncertainty, and lack of feedback – in any case at hand. A taxonomy of levels of difficulty is developed, together with a preliminary outline of the design task required at each level.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:3:y:1983:i:04:p:345-367_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X00007510/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. Alberto Asquer & Inna Krachkovskaya, 2021. "Uncertainty, institutions and regulatory responses to emerging technologies: CRISPR Gene editing in the US and the EU (2012–2019)," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1111-1127, October.
    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. Brian Reichel & Paul Lasley & William Woodman & Mack Shelley, 1988. "Economic development and biotechnology: Public policy response to the farm crisis in Iowa," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 5(3), pages 15-25, June.
    5. Francesco Barbabella & Eralba Cela & Claudia Di Matteo & Marco Socci & Giovanni Lamura & Pietro Checcucci & Andrea Principi, 2020. "New Multilevel Partnerships and Policy Perspectives on Active Ageing in Italy: A National Plan of Action," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-17, December.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Kato, Hironori & Shiroyama, Hideaki & Nakagawa, Yoshinori, 2014. "Public policy structuring incorporating reciprocal expectation analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 171-183.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee, 2020. "Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 637-665, December.
    13. Fangxin Yi & Jun Jie Woo & Qiang Zhang, 2022. "Community Resilience and COVID-19: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Resilience Attributes in 16 Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, December.
    14. W C Baer, 1997. "Toward Design of Regulations for the Built Environment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 24(1), pages 37-57, February.

    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:3:y:1983:i:04:p:345-367_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.