Top

Policy Sciences

Published in:

01-09-2014

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

Author: Michael Howlett

Published in: Policy Sciences | Issue 3/2014

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

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.

next article Policy design as craft: teasing out policy design expertise using a semi-experimental approach

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

A movement towards the development of more networked societies, it was argued, reduced government capacity for independent action and limited design choices and alternatives (Dobuzinskis 1987; Lehmbruch 1991). As networkization increased, it was argued, many countries placed an increasing emphasis on public information and other similar types of tools, replacing or supplementing other forms of government activity such as regulation or public enterprises (Hawkins and Thomas 1989; Woodside 1986; Howlett and Ramesh 1993; Hood 1991; Doern and Wilks 1998; Weiss and Tschirhart 1994).

It has been argued in many circles that in response to the increased complexity of society and the international environment, governments in many countries (particularly in Western Europe) turned away from the use of a relatively limited number of traditional, often command-and-control oriented, policy tools such as public enterprises, regulatory agencies, subsidies and exhortation, and began to increasingly use their organizational resources to support a different set of substantive and procedural tools (Majone 1997; Peters 1998; Klijn and Teisman 1991). And some policy designs invoking new tools such as government reorganizations, reviews and inquiries, government–NGO partnerships and stakeholder consultations which act to guide or steer policy processes in the direction government wishes through the manipulation of policy actors and their interrelationships are indeed more frequent and common (Bingham et al. 2005). However other trends exist in other sectors featuring other kinds of governance activities and preferences and continue to challenge public administrators, managers and scholars (Peters and Pierre 1998; Peters 1996; Knill 1999).

It is important to note, however, that policy instruments exist at all stages of the policy process—with specific tools such as stakeholder consultations and government reviews intricately linked to agenda-setting activities, ones like legislative rules and norms linked to decision-making behaviour and outcomes, and others linked to policy evaluation, such as the use of ex-post, or after-the-fact, cost–benefit analyses Although policy instruments appear in all stages of the policy process, those affecting the agenda-setting, decision-making and evaluation stages of the policy process, while very significant and important in public management (Wu et al. 2010), are less so with respect to policy design activities. This is because policy design largely takes place at the formulation stage of the policy cycle and deals with plans for the implementation stage. Thus the key sets of policy instruments of concern to policy designers are those linked to policy implementation, in the first instance, and to policy formulation, in the second. In the first category we would find examples of many well-known governing tools such as public enterprises, financial subsidies and regulatory agencies which are expected to alter or affect the delivery of goods and services to the public and government (Salamon 2002a, b), while in the second we would find instruments such as regulatory impact or environmental impact appraisals which are designed to alter and affect some aspect of the nature of policy deliberations and the consideration and assessment of alternatives (Turnpenny et al. 2009).

In such studies attention has also been focused on the design criteria for policy success and studies have argued for the importance of designers aiming to achieve criteria such as ‘coherence, consistency and congruence’ or ‘integration’ in any new design (Howlett and Rayner 2007; Kern and Howlett 2009; Meijers et al. 2004; Briassoulis 2005a, b; Meijers and Stead 2004; Stead et al. 2004). That is, designers should ensure that any new design elements are coherent in the sense that they are logically related to overall policy aims and objectives; that they be consistent in that they work together to support a policy goal; and that both policy goals and means should be congruent, rather than working at cross-purposes.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1999). Managing in network settings. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 18–41.

Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Nkwenti, D. I. (2002). Visualizing decision-making: Perspectives on collaborative and participative approach to sustainable urban planning and management. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 513–531.

Anderson, C. W. (1971). Comparative policy analysis: The design of measures. Comparative Politics, 4(1), 117–131.

Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public policymaking. New York: Praeger.

Anderson, G. (1996). The new focus on the policy capacity of the federal government. Canadian Public Administration, 39(4), 469–488.

Alexander, E. R. (1982). Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sciences, 14(3), 279–292.

Arellano-Gault, D., & Vera-Cortes, G. (2005). Institutional design and organisation of the civil protection national system in Mexico: The case for a decentralised and participative policy Network. Public Administration and Development, 25, 185–192.

Baliga, S., & Maskin, E. (2003). Mechanism design for the environment. In K.-G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics (Vol. 1, pp. 305–324). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bardach, E. (1980). Implementation studies and the study of implements. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association.

Barnett, C. K., & Shore, B. (2009). Reinventing program design: Challenges in leading sustainable institutional change. Leadership & Organization, 30(1), 16–35.

Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.

Blonz, J. A., Vajjhala, S. P., & Safirova, E. (2008). Growing complexities: A cross-sector review of U.S. biofuels policies and their interactions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Bobrow, D. (2006). Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 75–96). Thousand Oak: Sage.

Bobrow, D. B., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: Voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 346–359.

Boonekamp, P. G. M. (2006). Actual interaction effects between policy measures for energy efficiency—A qualitative matrix method and quantitative simulation results for households. Energy, 31(14), 2848–2873. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.004.

Braathen, N. A. (2007). Instrument mixes addressing non-point sources of water pollution. Paris: OECD.

Braathen, N. A. (2005). Environmental agreements used in combination with other policy instruments. In E. Croci (Ed.), The handbook of environmental voluntary agreements (Vol. 43, pp. 335–364). Dodrecht: Springer.

Bressers, H., & Honigh, M. (1986). A comparative approach to the explanation of policy effects. International Social Science Journal, 108, 267–288.

Bressers, H., & Klok, P. J. (1988). Fundamentals for a theory of policy instruments. International Journal of Social Economics, 15(3/4), 22–41.

Bressers, H. T. A., & O’Toole, L. J. (1998). The selection of policy instruments: A network-based perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 213–239.

Bressers, H. T. A., & O’Toole, L. J. (2005). Instrument Selection and Implementation in a Networked Context. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 132–153). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Briassoulis, H. (2005a). Analysis of policy integration: Conceptual and methodological considerations. In H. Briassoulis (Ed.), Policy integration for complex environmental problems: The example of mediterranean desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Briassoulis, H. (Ed.). (2005b). Policy integration for complex environmental problems: The example of mediterranean desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Brint, S. (1990). Rethinking the policy influence of experts: From general characterizations to analysis of variation. Sociological Forum, 5(3), 361–385.

Buckman, G., & Diesendorf, M. (2010). Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3365–3376.

Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27(5), 377–409.

Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 21–38.

Capano, G. (2011). Government continues to do its job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622–1642.

Chadwick, A. (2000). Studying political ideas: A public political discourse approach. Political Studies, 48, 283–301.

Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., & Wise, L. R. (2002). Transforming administrative policy. Public Administration, 80(1), 153–179.

Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.

Cohen, M. D. (1979). People, problems, solutions and the ambiguity of relevance. In J. G. March & J. P. Olsen Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations (pp. 24–37). Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Considine, M. (2012). Thinking outside the box? Applying design theory to public policy. Politics & Policy, 40(4), 704–724. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00372.x.

Del Río, P. (2010). Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and energy efficiency support schemes: The impact of different instruments and design elements. Energy Policy, 38(9), 4978–4989. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.003.

Del Río, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., & Könnölä, T. (2010). Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(4), 541–557.

deLeon, P. (1988). The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 297–309.

deLeon, P. (1999). The missing link revisited: Contemporary implementation research. Policy Studies Review, 16(3), 311–338.

Dobuzinskis, L. (1987). The self-organizing polity: An epistemological analysis of political life. Boulder: Westview.

Dobuzinskis, L., Howlett, M., & Laycock, D. (Eds.). (2007). Policy analysis in Canada: The state of the art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Doern, G. B., & Wilks, S. (1998). Changing regulatory institutions in Britain and North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Donovan, M. C. (2001). Taking aim: Target populations and the wars on AIDS and drugs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 217–232.

Dryzek, J. (1983). Don’t toss coins in garbage cans: A prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3(4), 345–367.

Dryzek, J. S., & Ripley, B. (1988). The ambitions of policy design. Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 705–719.

Durr, R. H. (1993). What moves policy sentiment? American Political Science Review, 87, 158–172.

Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2007). Ministerial advisers and the politics of policy-making: Bureaucratic permanence and popular control. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 453–467.

Eijlander, P. (2005). Possibilities and constraints in the use of self-regulation and co-regulation in legislative policy: Experiences in the Netherlands—Lessons to be learned for the EU. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 9(1), 1–8.

Eliadis, F. P., Hill, M. M., & Howlett, M. (Eds.). (2005). Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill Queens University Press.

Franchino, F., & Hoyland, B. (2009). Legislative involvement in parliamentary systems: Opportunities, conflict and institutional constraints. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 607–621.

George, A. L. (1969). The “operational code”: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. International Studies Quarterly, 13, 190–222.

Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11(4), 26–36.

Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2008). An ontological account of Donald Schon’s reflection in designing. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technologies, 15(2), 77–90.

Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A. O. M., Lester, J. P., & O’Toole, L. J. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown.

Goldmann, K. (2005). Appropriateness and consequences: The logic of neo-institutionalism. Governance, 18(1), 35–52.

Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions and political change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Gormley, W. T. (2007). Public policy analysis: Ideas and impact. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 297–313.

Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green markets: Environmental regulation by the private sector. Law and Policy, 16(4), 419–448.

Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23, 347–369.

Grant, W. (2010). Policy instruments in the common agricultural policy. West European Politics, 33(1), 22–38.

Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law Policy, 21(1), 49–76.

Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006.

Hacker, J. S. (2005). Policy drift: The hidden politics of US welfare state retrenchment. In W. Streek & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 40–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic policy making in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.

Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public sector. In B. G. Peters & D. T. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Hamelin, F. (2010). Renewal of public policy via instrumental innovation: Implementing automated speed enforcement in France. Governance, 23(3), 509–530.

Hawkins, K., & Thomas, J. M. (1989). Making regulatory policy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Heinrichs, H. (2005). Advisory systems in pluralistic knowledge societies: A criteria-based typology to assess and optimize environmental policy advice. In S. Maasen & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (pp. 41–61). Dordrecht: Springer.

Hillier, B., & Leaman, A. (1974). How is design possible: A sketch for a theory. DMG-DRS Journal: Design Research and Methods, 8(1), 40–50.

Hillier, B., Musgrave, J., & O’Sullivan, P. (1972). Knowledge and design. In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice (pp. 29.3.1–29.3.14). Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles.

Hippes, G. (1988). New instruments for environmental policy: A perspective. International Journal of Social Economics, 15(3/4), 42–51.

Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hargrove, E. L. (1975). The missing link: The study of the implementation of social policy. Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.

Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(Spring), 3–19.

Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144.

Hou, Y., & Brewer, G. (2010). Substitution and supplementation between co-functional policy instruments: Evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 914–924.

Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.

Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy & Society, 23(2), 1–17.

Howlett, M. (2009a). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89.

Howlett, M. (2009b). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153–175.

Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.

Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–46.

Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. (2013). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and re-birth?) of policy design studies. Administration & Society, 45(3), 356–380.

Howlett, M., & Newman, J. (2010). Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multi-level governance systems. Policy and Society, 29(1), 123–136.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1993). Patterns of policy instrument choice: Policy styles, policy learning and the privatization experience. Policy Studies Review, 12(1), 3–24.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009a). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (3rd ed.). Canada: OUP.

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (1995). Do ideas matter? Policy subsystem configurations and the continuing conflict over Canadian forest policy. Canadian Public Administration, 38(3), 382–410.

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.

Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Tollefson, C. (2009b). From government to governance in forest planning? Lesson from the case of the British Columbia great bear rainforest initiative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 383–391.

Huitt, R. K. (1968). Political Feasibility. In A. Rannay (Ed.), Political science and public policy (pp. 263–276). Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.

Ingraham, P. (1987). Toward more systematic considerations of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 15(4), 611–628.

Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1990). Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10(1), 67–88.

Jacobsen, J. K. (1995). Much ado about ideas: The cognitive factor in economic policy. World Politics, 47, 283–310.

Jordan, A., Benson, D., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A. (2011). Policy Instruments in Practice. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 536–549). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jordan, A., Benson, D., Zito, A., & Wurzel, R. (2012). Environmental Policy: Governing by Multiple Policy Instruments? In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a policy state? Policy dynamics in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kannengiesser, U., & Gero, J. S. (2012). A process framework of affordances in design. Design Issues, 28(1), 50–62.

Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 391–408.

Keyes, J. M. (1996). Power tools: The form and function of legal instruments for government action. Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice, 10, 133–174.

Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage.

Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Kiss, B., Manchón, C. G., & Neij, L. (2012). The role of policy instruments in supporting the development of mineral wool insulation in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.016.

Kiviniemi, M. (1986). Public Policies and Their Targets: A Typology of the Concept of Implementation. International Social Science Journal, 38(108), 251–266.

Klijn, E. H., & Teisman, G. R. (1991). Effective Policymaking in a Multi-Actor Setting: Networks and Steering. In R. J. Veld, L. Schaap, C. J. A. M. Termeer, & M. J. W. Van Twist (Eds.), Autopoiesis and configuration theory: New approaches to societal steering (pp. 99–111). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Knill, C. (1999). Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 113–139.

Kooiman, J. (1993). Governance and governability: Using complexity, dynamics and diversity. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance (pp. 35–50). London: Sage.

Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal governance: Levels, models, and orders of social-political interaction. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating Governance (pp. 138–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kooiman, J. (2008). Exploring the concept of governability. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10(2), 171–190.

Landry, R., Varone, F., & Goggin, M. L. (1998). The determinants of policy design: The state of the theoretical literature. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Lasswell, H. (1954). Key Symbols, Signs and Icons. In L. Bryson, L. Finkelstein, R. M. MacIver, & R. McKean (Eds.), Symbols and values: An initial study (pp. 77–94). New York: Harper & Bros.

Lehmbruch, G. (1991). The organization of society, administrative strategies, and policy Networks. In R. M. Czada & A. Windhoff-Heritier (Eds.), Political choice: Institutions, rules, and the limits of rationality (pp. 121–155). Boulder: Westview.

Lejano, R. P., & Shankar, S. (2013). The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India. Policy Sciences, 46(1), 83–102. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9163-9.

Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.

Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1988). The analysis of design or the design of analysis? Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 738–750.

Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990a). Policy Formulation and the Challenge of Conscious Design. Eval. Program Plann., 13, 303–311.

Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990b). Research perspectives on the design of public policy: Implementation, formulation, and design. In D. J. Palumbo & D. J. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box (pp. 51–66). New York: Greenwood Press.

Linder, S., & Peters, B. G. (1990c). The design of instruments for public policy. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Policy theory and policy evaluation: Concepts, knowledge, causes, and norms (pp. 103–119). New York: Greenwood Press.

Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990d). An institutional approach to the theory of policy-making: The role of guidance mechanisms in policy formulation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(1), 59–83.

Linder, S., & Peters, B. (1991). The logic of public policy design: Linking policy actors and plausible instruments. Knowledge. Technology & Policy, 4(1), 125–151.

Lindvall, J. (2009). The real but limited influence of expert ideas. World Politics, 61(4), 703–730.

Lowi, T. J. (1966). Distribution, regulation, redistribution: The functions of government. In R. B. Ripley (Ed.), Public policies and their politics: Techniques of government control (pp. 27–40). New York: W.W. Norton.

Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.

Lowi, T. J. (1985). The state in politics: The relation between policy and administration. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Regulatory policy and the social sciences (pp. 67–105). Berkeley: University of California Press.

MacRae, D., & Whittington, D. (1997). Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis and discourse. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Majone, G. (1975). On the notion of political feasibility. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 259–274.

Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139–167.

Maley, M. (2000). Conceptualising advisers’ policy work: The distinctive policy roles of ministerial advisers in the Keating government, 1991–96. Australian Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 449.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1996). Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance, 9(3), 247–264.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2004). The Logic of Appropriateness. Oslo: ARENA Working Paper.

Maskin, E. S. (2008). Mechanism design: How to implement social goals. The American Economic Review, 98(3), 567–576. doi:10.2307/29730086.

May, P. J. (1981). Hints for crafting alternative policies. Policy Analysis, 7(2), 227–244.

May, P. (2003). Policy design and implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 223–233). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Mayntz, R. (1979). Public bureaucracies and policy implementation. International Social Science Journal, 31(4), 633–645.

Mayntz, R. (1983). The conditions of effective public policy: A new challenge for policy analysis. Policy & Politics, 11, 123–143.

Mayntz, R. (1993). Modernization and the Logic of Interorganizational Networks. In J. Child, M. Crozier, & R. Mayntz (Eds.), Societal change between market and organization (pp. 3–18). Aldershot: Avebury.

Meijers, E., & Stead, D., & Geerlings, H. (2004). Policy integration: A Literature Review. In Policy integration in practice: The integration of land use planning, transport and environmental policy-making in Denmark, England and Germany (pp. 9–24). Delft: Delft University Press.

Meijers, E., & Stead, D. (2004). Policy Integration: What does it mean and how can it be achieved? A multi-disciplinary review. In 2004 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Greening of Policies - Interlinkages and Policy Integration, Berlin, 1–15, 2004.

Meltsner, A. J. (1976). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Meuleman, L. (2009). Metagoverning governance styles: Increasing the public manager’s toolbox. Paper presented at the ECPR general conference, Potsdam.

Meuleman, L. (2009b). The cultural dimension of metagovernance: Why governance doctrines may fail. Public Organization Review, 10(1), 49–70.

Montpetit, E. (2003). Misplaced distrust: Policy networks and the environment in France, the United States, and Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.

O’Toole, L. J. (2000). Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263–288.

Offe, C. (2006). Political institutions and social power: Conceptual explorations. In I. Shapiro, S. Skowronek, & D. Galvin (Eds.), Rethinking political institutions: The art of the state (pp. 9–31). New York: New York University Press.

Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (1998). Regimes and regime building in American government: A review of literature on the 1940s. Political Science Quarterly, 113(4), 689–702.

Page, E. C. (2010). Bureaucrats and expertise: Elucidating a problematic relationship in three tableaux and six jurisdictions. Sociologie du Travail, 52(2), 255–273.

Peled, A. (2002). Why style matters: A comparison of two administrative reform initiatives in the Israeli public sector, 1989–1998. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 217–240.

Peters, B. G. (1996). The future of governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Peters, B. G. (1998). The experimenting society and policy design. In W. N. Dunn (Ed.), The experimenting society: Essays in honour of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 125–139). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Peters, B. G. (2005). Conclusion: The future of instruments research. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 353–363). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–244.

Potoski, M. (2002). Designing bureaucratic responsiveness: Administrative procedures and agency choice in state environmental policy. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2(1), 1–23.

Rayner, J., Howlett, M., Wilson, J., Cashore, B., & Hoberg, G. (2001). Privileging the sub-sector: Critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(3), 319–332.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652–667.

Roch, C., Pitts, D., & Navarro, I. (2010). Representative bureaucracy and policy tools: Ethnicity, student discipline, and representation in public schools. Administration & Society, 42(1), 38–65.

Salamon, L. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255–275.

Salamon, L. M. (1989). The tools approach: Basic analytics. In L. S. Salamon & M. S. Lund (Eds.), Beyond privatization: The tools of government action (pp. 23–50). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Salamon, L. M. (2002a). The new governance and the tools of public action. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 1–47). New York: Oxford University Press.

Salamon, L. M. (2002b). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Scharpf, F. W. (1991). Political institutions, decision styles, and policy choices. In R. M. Czada & A. Windhoff-Heritier (Eds.), Political choice: Institutions, rules and the limits of rationality (pp. 53–86). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990a). Policy Design: Elements, Premises and Strategies. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Policy theory and policy evaluation: Concepts, knowledge, causes and norms (pp. 77–102). New York: Greenwood.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990b). Behavioural assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 511–529.

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1994). Social constructions and policy design: Implications for public administration. Research in Public Administration, 3, 137–173.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.

Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.

Skodvin, T., Gullberg, A. T., & Aakre, S. (2010). Target-group influence and political feasibility: The case of climate policy design in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 854. doi:10.1080/13501763.2010.486991.

Stead, D., Geerlings, H., & Meijers, E. (2004). Policy integration in practice: The integration of land use planning, transport and environmental policy-making in Denmark, England and Germany. Delft: Delft University Press.

Sterner, T. (2003). Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future Press.

Stimson, J. A. (1991). Public opinion in America: Moods cycles and swings. Boulder: Westview Press.

Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89, 543–565.

Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A primer for policy analysis. New York: Norton.

Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.

Surel, Y. (2000). The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(4), 495–512.

Suzuki, M. (1992). Political business cycles in the public mind. American Political Science Review, 86, 989–996.

Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 208–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Timmermans, A., Rothmayr, C., Serduelt, U., & Varone, F. (1998). The design of policy instruments: Perspectives and concepts. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Tollefson, C., Zito, A. R., & Gale, F. (2012). Symposium overview: Conceptualizing new governance arrangements. Public Administration, 90(1), 3–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02003.x.

Torenvlied, R., & Akkerman, A. (2004). Theory of ‘soft’ policy implementation in multilevel systems with an application to social partnership in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 39, 31–58.

Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual orientation in policy analysis: The contribution of Harold D. Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 18, 240–252.

Torgerson, D. (1990). Origins of the policy orientation: The aesthetic dimension in Lasswell’s political vision. History of Political Thought, 11(Summer), 340–344.

Trebilcock, M., & Hartle, D. G. (1982). The choice of governing instrument. International Review of Law and Economics, 2, 29–46.

Trebilcock, M. J., & Prichard, J. R. S. (1983). Crown corporations: The calculus of instrument choice. In J. R. S. Prichard (Ed.), Crown corporations in canada: the calculus of instrument choice (pp. 1–50). Toronto: Butterworths.

Tupper, A., & Doern, G. B. (1981). Public corporations and public policy in Canada. In A. Tupper & G. B. Doern (Eds.), Public corporations and public policy in Canada (pp. 1–50). Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Turnpenny, J., Radaelli, C. M., Jordan, A., & Jacob, K. (2009). The policy and politics of policy appraisal: Emerging trends and new directions. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(4), 640–653.

Van der Heijden, J. (2011). Institutional layering: A review of the use of the concept. Politics, 31(1), 9–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01397.x.

Vedung, E., Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., & Rist, R. C. (1997). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In E. Vedung, M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, & R. C. Rist (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Walker, W. E., Adnan Rahman, S., & Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 282–289.

Walker, W. E., Marchau, V. A. W. J., & Swanson, D. (2010). Addressing deep uncertainty using adaptive policies: Introduction to section 2. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 917–923. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.004.

Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B. A. (1993). Assessing the effects of institutions. In R. K. Weaver & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the united states and abroad (pp. 1–41). Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions.

Weimer, D. L. (1992). The craft of policy design: Can it be more than art? Policy Studies Review, 11(3), 370–388.

Weimer, D. L. (1993). The current state of design craft: Borrowing, tinkering, and problem solving. Public Administration Review, 53(2), 110–120.

Weiss, J. A., & Tschirhart, M. (1994). Public information campaigns as policy instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(1), 82–119.

Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775–793.

Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., & Fritzen, S. (2010). The public policy primer: Managing public policy. London: Routledge.

Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2012). Policy tool interactions and the adoption of state renewable portfolio standards. Review of Policy Research, 29(2), 193–206. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00548.x.

Title: From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance
Author: Michael Howlett
Publication date: 01-09-2014
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Policy Sciences / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

On evaluating success in complex policy mixes: the case of renewable energy support schemes

Experimentation in policy design: insights from the building sector

Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate

Policy and regulatory design for developing countries: a mechanism design and transaction cost approach

Market imperfections, government imperfections, and policy mixes: policy innovations in Singapore

Experiment-based policy making or conscious policy design? The case of urban housing reform in China

Premium Partner