Peak policy lab or chasing windmills? The overlooked issue of misaligned policy design

Policy innovation labs (PILs) are relatively new policy actors and are part of a larger global “labification” movement. They are touted as spaces for the novel development and testing of policy solutions. PILs have evolved into various forms–including those at different levels of government (central, sub-national, and local), sectoral (such as food, transportation, and environment), and cross-sectoral labs (social innovation and data labs). After a decade, some practitioners lament the effectiveness of their efforts and question if policy labs are indeed engines of innovation and change. We argue that the approach to policy design by PILs, in part, is an explanation for their perceived ineffectiveness. It is unclear what their role is in the policy design process. From a sample of 149 PILs worldwide, we employ Cashore and Howlett’s (2007) 3 × 3 nine-dimensional hierarchical policy classification framework characterized by policy focus (abstract goals, program objectives, and micro policy goal targets) and policy means (instrumental logic, program mechanism, and tool calibration). Our website content analysis found that key PIL characteristics, namely their broad focus and oversight, had little to no influence on their policy design activity. We develop five policy design typologies from the above policy mix framework, namely “Classic Policy Designers,” “Advisors,” “Dreamers,” “Planners,” and “Technicians.” The remaining labs' policy design foci were too broad or misaligned.