IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v40y2021i3p295-311..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Procedural policy tools in theory and practice
[The stick, the carrot, and other strategies: A theoretical analysis of governmental intervention]

Author

Listed:
  • Azad Singh Bali
  • Michael Howlett
  • Jenny M Lewis
  • M Ramesh

Abstract

Policy tools are a critical part of policy-making, providing the ‘means’ by which policy ‘ends’ are achieved. Knowledge of their different origin, nature and capabilities is vital for understanding policy formulation and decision-making, and they have been the subject of inquiry in many policy-related disciplines and sector-specific studies. Yet many crucial aspects of policy tools remain unexplored. Existing studies on policy tools used in policy formulation tend to focus on ‘substantive’ tools – those used to directly affect policy outcomes such as regulation or subsidies – and largely neglect ‘procedural’ tools used to indirectly but significantly affect policy processes and outcomes. A key aim of this special issue is to fill this knowledge gap in the field. This article introduces the issue by establishing that procedural tools play a more determining role in public policy-making than is generally acknowledged and deserve a more systematic inquiry into their workings, their impact on the policy process and the organization and delivery of public and private goods and services.

Suggested Citation

  • Azad Singh Bali & Michael Howlett & Jenny M Lewis & M Ramesh, 2021. "Procedural policy tools in theory and practice [The stick, the carrot, and other strategies: A theoretical analysis of governmental intervention]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 295-311.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:40:y:2021:i:3:p:295-311.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14494035.2021.1965379
    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. Hennicke, P., 2004. "Scenarios for a robust policy mix: the final report of the German study commission on sustainable energy supply," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(15), pages 1673-1678, October.
    2. Alastair Stark, 2019. "Policy learning and the public inquiry," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 397-417, September.
    3. Le Grand, Julian, 1991. "The Theory of Government Failure," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 423-442, October.
    4. Graham Smith & Corinne Wales, 2000. "Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(1), pages 51-65, March.
    5. Richard F. Elmore, 1987. "Instruments And Strategy In Public Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(1), pages 174-186, September.
    6. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    7. Michael Howlett & Joanna Vince & Pablo del Río, 2017. "Policy Integration and Multi-Level Governance: Dealing with the Vertical Dimension of Policy Mix Designs," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 69-78.
    8. Sandra Burt, 1990. "Canadian Women's Groups in the 1980s: Organizational Development and Policy Influence," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 16(1), pages 17-28, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Moshe Givoni & James Macmillen & David Banister & Eran Feitelson, 2013. "From Policy Measures to Policy Packages," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Xun Wu & M. Ramesh, 2014. "Market imperfections, government imperfections, and policy mixes: policy innovations in Singapore," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 305-320, September.
    13. Bulmer, Simon J., 1993. "The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutionalist Approach," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 351-380, October.
    14. Moshe Maor, 2014. "Policy persistence, risk estimation and policy underreaction," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 425-443, December.
    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. Daniel Kefeli & Karen M. Siegel & Lucía Pittaluga & Thomas Dietz, 2023. "Environmental policy integration in a newly established natural resource-based sector: the role of advocacy coalitions and contrasting conceptions of sustainability," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 69-93, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Alastair Stark & Sophie Yates, 2021. "Public inquiries as procedural policy tools [Policy tools theory and implementation networks: understanding state enterprise zone partnerships]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 345-361.
    3. Clemente J. Navarro-Yáñez, 2021. "The Effectiveness of Integral Urban Strategies: Policy Theory and Target Scale. The European URBAN I Initiative and Employment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Anat Gofen & Adam M. Wellstead & Noa Tal, 2023. "Devil in the details? Policy settings and calibrations of national excellence-centers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 301-323, June.
    5. Astrid Molenveld & Arwin Buuren & Gerald-Jan Ellen, 2020. "Governance of climate adaptation, which mode? An exploration of stakeholder viewpoints on how to organize adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 233-254, September.
    6. Kelly Parsons & David Barling, 2022. "Identifying the Policy Instrument Interactions to Enable the Public Procurement of Sustainable Food," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.
    7. Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2016. "Achilles' heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 301-313, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Naimeh Mohammadi & Hamid Mostofi & Hans-Liudger Dienel, 2023. "Policy Chain of Energy Transition from Economic and Innovative Perspectives: Conceptual Framework and Consistency Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-27, August.
    10. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    11. Carsten Daugbjerg & Allan McConnell, 2021. "Rethinking disproportionate policy making by introducing proportionate politics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 691-706, September.
    12. Ishani Mukherjee, 2022. "Fueling green connections: Networked policy instrument choices for sustainability regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(5), pages 602-631, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Erica Reeve & Amerita Ravuvu & Anna Farmery & Senoveva Mauli & Dorah Wilson & Ellen Johnson & Anne-Marie Thow, 2022. "Strengthening Food Systems Governance to Achieve Multiple Objectives: A Comparative Instrumentation Analysis of Food Systems Policies in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Ishani Mukherjee & M. Kerem Coban & Azad Singh Bali, 2021. "Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 243-268, June.
    16. María José Dorado-Rubín & María José Guerrero-Mayo & Clemente Jesús Navarro-Yáñez, 2021. "Integrality in the Design of Urban Development Plans. Analysis of the Initiatives Promoted by the EU in Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Xin Wang & Jinfeng Wang & Chunqiu Xu & Ke Zhang & Guo Li, 2023. "Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Policy Analysis in China: A Framework of Policy Instrumentation and Industrial Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Yang, Wei & Veeneman, Wijnand & de Jong, Martin & Song, Yun, 2020. "Integrated transport management: Lessons from a Chinese city," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    19. Chohan, Usman W., 2022. "Analyzing sound COVID-19 policy responses in developing countries: the case study of Pakistan," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, August.
    20. Michael Howlett & Pablo del Rio, 2015. "The parameters of policy portfolios: verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1233-1245, October.

    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:oup:polsoc:v:40:y:2021:i:3:p:295-311.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    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.