IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v57y2024i1d10.1007_s11077-024-09520-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Craft

    (University of Toronto)

  • Reut Marciano

    (University of Toronto
    The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Abstract

Policy design approaches currently pay insufficient attention to feedback that occurs during the design process. Addressing this endogenous policy design feedback gap is pressing as policymakers can adopt ‘low-fidelity’ design approaches featuring compressed and iterative feedback-rich design cycles. We argue that within-design feedback can be oriented to the components of policy designs (instruments and objectives) and serve to reinforce or undermine them during the design process. We develop four types of low-fidelity design contingent upon the quality of feedback available to designers and their ability to integrate it into policy design processes: confident iteration and stress testing, advocacy and hacking, tinkering and shots in the dark, or coping. We illustrate the utility of the approach and variation in the types, use, and impacts of within-design feedback and low-fidelity policy design through an examination of the UK’s Universal Credit policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Craft & Reut Marciano, 2024. "Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 83-99, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:57:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09520-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-024-09520-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-024-09520-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-024-09520-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:57:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09520-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.