IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v47y2014i3p187-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Howlett

    ()

Abstract

Policy design as a field of inquiry in policy studies has had a chequered history. After a promising beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, the field languished in the 1990s and 2000s as work in the policy sciences focused on the impact on policy outcomes of meta-changes in society and the international environment. Both globalization and governance studies of the period ignored traditional design concerns in arguing that changes at this level predetermined policy specifications and promoted the use of market and collaborative governance (network) instruments. However, more recent work re-asserting the role of governments both at the international and domestic levels has revitalized design studies. This special issue focuses on recent efforts in the policy sciences to reinvent, or more properly, ‘re-discover’ the policy design orientation in light of these developments. Articles in the issue address leading edge issues such as the nature of design thinking and expertise in a policy context, the temporal aspects of policy designs, the role of experimental designs, the question of policy mixes, the issue of design flexibility and resilience and the criteria for assessing superior designs. Evidence and case studies deal with design contexts and processes in Canada, China, Singapore, the UK, EU, Australia and elsewhere. Such detailed case studies are necessary for policy design studies to advance beyond some of the strictures placed in their way by the reification of, and over-emphasis upon, only a few of the many possible kinds of policy designs identified by the 1990s and early 2000s literature. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:3:p:187-207
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Knill, Christoph, 1999. "Explaining Cross-National Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(02), pages 113-139, May.
    2. Johan P. Olsen & James G. March, 2004. "The logic of appropriateness," ARENA Working Papers 9, ARENA.
    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. Janet A. Weiss & Mary Tschirhart, 1994. "Public information campaigns as policy instruments," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 82-119.
    5. 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.
    6. Eric S. Maskin, 2008. "Mechanism Design: How to Implement Social Goals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 567-576, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Buckman, Greg & Diesendorf, Mark, 2010. "Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3365-3376, July.
    10. Majone, Giandomenico, 1997. "From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(02), pages 139-167, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Bressers, Hans Th. A. & Jr, Laurence J. O'Toole,, 1998. "The Selection of Policy Instruments: a Network-based Perspective," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(03), pages 213-239, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:cup:apsrev:v:103:y:2009:i:04:p:607-621_99 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Andrew Chadwick, 2000. "Studying Political Ideas: a Public Political Discourse Approach," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(2), pages 283-301, May.
    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. Raul Lejano & Savita Shankar, 2013. "The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 83-102, March.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Hoffmann, Matthew J., 2011. "Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195390087.
    22. repec:cup:apsrev:v:89:y:1995:i:03:p:543-565_09 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. 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.
    24. Walker, Warren E. & Rahman, S. Adnan & Cave, Jonathan, 2001. "Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 282-289, January.
    25. repec:cup:apsrev:v:86:y:1992:i:04:p:989-996_09 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. 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.
    27. Robert Agranoff & Michael McGuire, 1999. "Managing In Network Settings," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(1), pages 18-41, 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:2:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9270-0 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9259-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mercier, Jean & Carrier, Mario & Duarte, Fábio & Tremblay-Racicot, Fanny, 2016. "Policy tools for sustainable transport in three cities of the Americas: Seattle, Montreal and Curitiba," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 95-105.
    4. repec:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-017-9298-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-017-9295-z is not listed on IDEAS

    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:47:y:2014:i:3:p:187-207. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.