Skip to main content
Designing for Policy Effectiveness
This Element is free online for a limited period and available for sale in print.
  • Access
Designing for Policy Effectiveness

The field of policy studies has always been interested in analyzing and improving the sets of policy tools adopted by governments to correct policy problems, and better understanding and improving processes of policy analysis and policy formulation in order to do so. Past studies have helped clarify the role of historical processes, policy capacities and design intentions in affecting policy formulation processes, and more recently in understanding how the bundling of multiple policy elements together to meet policy goals can be better understood and done. While this work has progressed, however, the discussion of what goals policy designs should serve remains disjointed. Here it is argued that a central goal, in fact, 'the' central goal, of policy design is effectiveness. Effectiveness serves as the basic goal of any design, upon which is built other goals such as efficiency or equity.

  • View HTML
    • Send element to Kindle

      To send this element to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Designing for Policy Effectiveness
      Available formats
      Send element to Dropbox

      To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Designing for Policy Effectiveness
      Available formats
      Send element to Google Drive

      To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Designing for Policy Effectiveness
      Available formats
  • Export citation
  • Buy the print element
  • Copyright
  • COPYRIGHT: © Giliberto Capano, Ishani Mukherjee, Meng-Hsuan Chou, Michael Howlett, B. Guy Peters, and Pauline Ravinet 2018
Alexander, E. (1982). Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sciences, 14, 279–92.
Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public Policymaking, New York, NY: Praeger.
Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(4), 543–71.
Banfield, E. C. (1977). Policy science as metaphysical madness. In Goldwin, R. A., ed., Statesmanship and Bureaucracy. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, pp. 135.
Barker, A. & Peter, B. G. eds. (1993). The Politics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Barnett, C. K. & Shore, B. (2009). Reinventing program design: challenges in leading sustainable institutional change. Leadership & Organization, 30(1), 1635.
Barzelay, M. (2001). The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bason, C. (2014). Design for Policy. Burlington, VT: Gower.
Baumgartner, F. & Jones, B. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–74.
Beland, D. (2007) Ideas and institutional change in social security: conversion, layering and policy drift. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 2038.
Blonz, J. A., Vajjhala, S. P. & Safirova, E. (2008). Growing complexities: a cross-sector review of US biofuels policies and their interactions. Resources for the Future (RFF) Discussion Paper No. RFF DP 08–47. Available at–47_final.pdf (last accessed 30 September 2017).
Bobrow, D. B. (2006). Policy design: ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J., eds., Handbook of Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 7596.
Bobrow, D. B. & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy Analysis by Design, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
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), 2848–73.
Boswell, C. (2012). The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Botterill, L. C. & Hindmoor, A. (2012). Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an evidence-based age. Policy Studies, 33, 367–79.
Bovens, M., ’t Hart, P. & Kuipers, S. (2008). The politics of policy evaluation. In Goodin, R. E., Moran, M., & Rein, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 319–35.
Braathen, N. A. (2007). Instrument mixes for environmental policy: how many stones should be used to kill a bird? International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 1(2), 185235.
Braathen, N. A. & Croci, E. (2005). Environmental agreements used in combination with other policy instruments. In Croci, E., ed., The Handbook of Environmental Voluntary Agreements: Design, Implementation and Evaluation Issues. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 335–64.
Briassoulis, H. (2005). Policy Integration for Complex Environmental Problems. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Buckman, G. & Diesendorf, M. (2010). Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3365–76.
Bullock, H., Mountford, J. & Stanley, R. (2001). Better Policy-Making. London: Centre for Management and Policy Studies, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom.
Capano, G., Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (forthcoming). Designing for robustness: surprise, agility and improvisation in policy design. Policy & Society.
Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2017). Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 399426.
Caplan, N., & Weiss, C. H. (1977). A Minimal Set of Conditions Necessary for the Utilization of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Formulation at the National Level. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
Cashore, B. & Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating what equilibrium? Institutional rigidities and thermostatic properties in Pacific Northwest forest policy dynamics. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 532–51.
Cerna, L. & Chou, M.-H. (2014). The regional dimension in the global competition for talent: lessons from framing the European Scientific Visa and Blue Card. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 7695.
Chou, M.-H. & Ravinet, P. (forthcoming). Designing global public policies in the 21st century. In Moloney, K. & Stone, D., eds., Handbook on Global Policy and Transnational Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, T., Laegreid, P. & Wise, L. R.. (2002). Transforming administrative policy. Public Administration, 80(1), 153–79.
Coen, D. & Pegram, T. (2015). Wanted: a third generation of global governance and research. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 28(4), 417–20.
Colebatch, H. K. (2017). The idea of policy design: intention, process, outcome, meaning and validity. Public Policy and Administration, publishing online: May 18, 2017. (last accessed 11 December 11 2017).
Considine, M. (2012). Thinking outside the box? Applying design theory to public policy. Politics & Policy, 40(4), 704–24.
Considine, M., Alexander, D. & Lewis, J. M. (2009). Networks, Innovation and Public Policy: Politicians, Bureaucrats and Pathways to Change Inside Government. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Considine, M., Alexander, D. & Lewis, J. M. (2014). Policy design as craft: design expertise using a semi-experimental approach. Policy Sciences, 47, 209–25.
Craft, J. & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy 32(2), 7998.
Daviter, F. (2007). Policy framing in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(4), 654–66.
de Leon, P. (1997). Democracy and the Policy Sciences, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
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), 4978–89.
del Río, P. & Howlett, M. (2013). “Beyond the ‘Tinbergen Rule’ in Policy Design: Matching Tools and Goals in Policy Portfolios.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Available at (last accessed 30 September 2017).
del Río, P., Silvosa, A. C. & Gómez, G. I. (2011). Policies and design elements for the repowering of wind farms: a qualitative analysis of different options. Energy Policy, 39(4), 18971908.
Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 217–32.
Dryzek, J. S. (1983). Don’t toss coins into garbage cans: a prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3, 345–67.
Dryzek, J. S. & Ripley, B. (1988). The ambitions of policy design. Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 705–19.
Dudley, G. & Richardson, J. (1999). Competing advocacy coalitions and the process of “frame reflection”: a longitudinal analysis of EU steel policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 225–48.
Dunlop, C. A. (2010). The temporal dimension of knowledge and the limits of policy appraisal: biofuels policy in the UK. Policy Sciences, 43(4), 343–63.
Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and backward mapping: reversible logic in the analysis of public policy. In Hanf, K. & Toonen, T. A. J., eds., Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary States, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 7698.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–8.
Estlund, D. (2003). Why not epistocracy? In Reshotko, N., ed., Desire, Identity and Existence: Essays in Honor of T. M. Penner. Kelowna, BC: Academic Printing and Publishing, pp.5369.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–67.
Funke, J. (1991). Solving complex problems: exploration and control of complex systems. In Sternberg, R. & Frensch, P., eds., Complex Problem Solving – Principles and Methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Association.
Geddes, A. & Guiraudon, V. (2004). Britain, France, and EU anti-discrimination policy: the emergence of an EU policy paradigm. West European Politics, 27(2), 334–53.
Gibson, R. B., ed. (1999). Voluntary Initiatives: The New Politics of Corporate Greening. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
Gilabert, P. & Lawford-Smith, H. (2012). Political feasibility: a conceptual exploration. Political Studies, 60(4), 809–25.
Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green markets: environmental regulation by the private sector. Law and Policy, 16(4), 419–48.
Grant, W. (2010). Policy instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy. West European Politics, 33(1), 2238.
Guiraudon, V. (2000). European integration and migration policy: vertical policy-making as venue shopping. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), 251–71.
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. N. & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485–98.
Hallerberg, M. & Wehner, J. (2013). “The Technical Competence of Economic Policy-Makers in Developed Democracies.” SSRN Scholarly Paper, July 29, 2013. Available at (last accessed 15 December 15, 2017).
Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public sector. In Peters, B. G. & Savoie, D. T., eds., Governance in a Changing Environment. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 138–72.
Harcourt, A. J. (1998). EU media ownership regulation: conflict over the definition of alternatives. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(3), 369–89.
Hawkesworth, M. (1992). Epistemology and policy analysis. In Dunn, W. & Kelly, R. M., eds., Advances in Policy Studies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 291329.
Hay, C. & Smith, N. J.-A. (2010). How policy-makers (really) understand globalization: the internal architecture of Anglophone globalization discourse in Europe. Public Administration, 88(4), 903–27.
Hayes, M. T. (2006). Incrementalism and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Head, B. W. (2016). Toward more “evidence-informed” policy making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472–84.
Hisschemöller, M. & Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with intractable controversies: the case of problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge and Policy, 8, 4060.
Hjern, B. & Porter, D. O. (1981). Implementation structures: a new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2(3), 211–27.
Hoffman, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response for Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hood, C. (1983). Using bureaucracy sparingly. Public Administration, 61(2), 197208.
Hood, C. (2002). The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition, 37(1), 1554.
Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–44.
Hood, C. & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hou, Y. & Brewer, G. (2010). Substitution and supplementation between co-functional policy instruments: evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 914–24.
Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: instrument mixes, implementation styles and second-generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy and Society, 23(2), 117.
Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: a multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 7389.
Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York, NY: Routledge.
Howlett, M. (2013). Policy work, policy advisory systems and politicization. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 47.
Howlett, M. (2014a). From the “old” to the “new” policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative agreements. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187207.
Howlett, M. (2014b). Policy design: what, who, how and why? In Halpern, C., Lascoumes, P. & Le Gales, P., eds., L’instrumentation de l’action publique. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, pp. 281316.
Howlett, M. & Lejano, R. P. (2012). Tales from the crypt: the rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration & Society, 45(3), 357–81.
Howlett, M. & Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 5771.
Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I. & Woo, J. J. (2015). The new design orientation in policy formulation research: from tools to toolkits in policy instrument studies. Policy and Politics, 43(2), 291311.
Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2015). The two orders of governance failure: design mismatches and policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 317–27.
Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2016). Achilles’ heels of governance: critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance, 10(4), 301–13.
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: cohesion and coherence in “new governance arrangements.” Policy and Society, 26(4), 118.
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs. packaging in policy formulation: assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–82.
Howlett, M., Vince, J. & del Río, P. (2017). Policy integration and multi-level governance: dealing with the vertical dimension of policy mix designs. Politics and Governance, 5(2), 6978.
Jarvis, D. S. L. (2011). Infrastructure Regulation: What Works, Why and How Do We Know? Lessons from Asia and Beyond. Singapore: World Scientific.
Jordan, A., Benson, D., Wurzel, R. & Zito, A. (2011). Policy instruments in practice. In Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. & Schlosberg, D., eds., Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 537–49.
Jordan, A., Benson, D., Wurzel, R. & Zito, A. (2012). Environmental policy: governing by multiple policy instruments? In Richardson, J. J., ed., Constructing a Policy State? Policy Dynamics in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–24.
Jordan, A. & Lenschow, A. (2010). Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), 147–58.
Jordan, A. & Turnpenny, J. R. (2016). The Tools of Policy Formulation: Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Keast, R., Mandell, M. & Brown, K. (2006). Mixing state, market and network governance modes: the role of government in “crowded” policy domains. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9(1), 2750.
Kern, F. & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Science, 42(4), 391408.
Kiss, B., Manchón, C. G. & Neij, L. (2013). The role of policy instruments in supporting the development of mineral wool insulation in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 187–99.
Klijn, E.-H. & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2006). Institutional design: changing institutional features of networks. Public Management Review, 8(1), 141–60.
Klijn, E.-H. & Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: past, present and future. Policy & Politics, 40(4), 587606.
Klijn, E. H., Koppenjan, J. & Termeer, K. (1995). Managing networks in the public sector: a theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks. Public Administration, 73, 437–54.
Koch, P. (2013). Overestimating the shift from government to governance: evidence from Swiss metropolitan areas. Governance, 26(3), 397423
Lang, A. (2016). “Collaborative Governance in Health and Technology Policy the Use and Effects of Procedural Policy Instruments.” Administration & Society, published online 10 August 2016. Available at (last accessed 12 December, 2017.
Lascoumes, P. & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: understanding public policy through its instruments – from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 121.
Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In Lerner, D. & Lasswell, H. D., eds., The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 315.
Latour, B. (2008). “A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design,” Keynote Address, Networks of Design Conference, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom.
Lecuyer, O. & Quirion, P. (2013). Can uncertainty justify overlapping policy instruments to mitigate emissions? Ecological Economics, 93, 177–91.
Lee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 3150.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S. & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 121–52.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 7988.
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–59.
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1987). A design perspective on policy implementation: the fallacy of misplaced precision. Review of Policy Research, 6(3), 459–75.
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1990). Policy formulation and the challenge of conscious design. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13(3), 303–11.
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1991). The logic of public policy design: linking policy actors and plausible instruments. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 4(1), 125–51.
Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of politics, policy and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298310.
Mahoney, J. (2012). The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods and Research, 41(4), 566–90.
Majone, G. (1975). On the Notion of Political Feasibility. European Journal of Political Research, 3(2), 259–74.
May, P. J. (2003). Policy design and implementation. In Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J., eds., Handbook of Public Administration. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp.223–33.
May, P. J. (2005). Regulation and compliance motivations: examining different approaches. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 3144.
May, P. J. & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspective: policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–52.
Mayntz, R. (1983). The conditions of effective public policy: a new challenge for policy analysis. Policy and Politics, 11(2), 123–43.
Mazey, S. & Richardson, J. (1997). Policy framing: interest groups and the lead up to 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. West European Politics, 20(3), 111–33.
Menahem, G. & Stein, R. (2013). High-capacity and low-capacity governance networks in welfare services delivery: a typology and empirical examination of the case of Israeli municipalities. Public Administration, 91(1), 211–31.
Mesequer, C. (2006). Policy learning, policy diffusion, and the making of a new order. Annals of the American Academy, 598, 6782.
Meuleman, L. (2009a). The cultural dimension of metagovernance: why governance doctrines may fail. Public Organization Review, 10(1), 4970.
Meuleman, L. (2009b). “Metagoverning Governance Styles: Increasing the Public Manager’s Toolbox.” Paper presented at the ECPR general conference, Potsdam.
Mintrom, M. & Luetjens, J. (2017). Creating public value: tightening connections between policy design and public management. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 170–90.
Moloney, K. & Stone, D., eds. (2018). Handbook on Global Policy and Transnational Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mörth, U. (2000). Competing frames in the European Commission: the case of the defence of EU industry and equipment issue. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(2), 173–89.
Nair, S. & Howlett, M. (2017). Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. Policy & Politics, 45(1), 103–18.
Newman, J. & Head, B. W. (2017). Wicked tendencies in policy problems: rethinking the distinction between social and technical problems. Policy and Society, 36(3), 414–29.
O’Toole, L. J. (2014). Globalization, global governance and public administration. In Kim, S., Ashley, S., & Lambright, W. H., eds., Public Administration in the Context of Global Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 38.
Page, E. C. (2012). Policy without Politicians: Bureaucratic Influence in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: Sage.
Pestoff, V. A., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2012). New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-Production. New York, NY: Routledge.
Peters, B. G. (1988). Comparing Public Bureaucracies: Problems of Theory and Method. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Peters, B. G. (2014). Implementation structures as institutions. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 131–44.
Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385–96.
Peters, B. G., Eliadis, P., Hill, M. M. & Howlett, M. (2005). Conclusion: the future of instruments research. In Eliadis, P., Hill, M. M., & Howlett, M. J., eds., Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 353–63.
Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (1998). Institutions and time: problems of conceptualization and explanation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(4), 565–84.
Peters, B. G. & Tarpley, M. M. (2016). “Are Wicked Problems Really So Wicked?: Perceptions of Policy Problems.” Paper presented at conference on the Governance of Wicked Problems, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 27–28 October 2016.
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pritchett, L. & Woolcock, M. (2004). Solutions when the solution is the problem: arraying the disarray in development. World Development (special issue: Island Studies), 32(2), 191212.
Raadschelders, J., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Kirsner, M., eds. (2014). Global Dimensions of Public Administration and Governance: A Comparative Voyage. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Rayner, J., McNutt, K., & Wellstead, A. (2013). Dispersed capacity and weak coordination: the challenge of climate change adaptation in Canada’s forest policy sector. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 6690.
Redström, J. (2006). Persuasive design: fringes and foundations. In Wijnand, A., Jsselsteijn, I., de Kort, Y. A. W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., & van den Hoven, E., eds., Persuasive Technology (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3962). Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 112–22.
Rein, M. & Schön, D. A. (1991). Frame-reflective policy discourse. In Wagner, P., Weiss, C.H., Wittrock, B., & Wollman, H., eds., Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 262–89.
Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–69.
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.
Rogge, K. S. & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–35.
Room, G. (2011). Complexity, Institutions and Public Policy: Agile Decision-Making in a Turbulent World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Rotberg, R. I. (2014) Good Governance Means Performance and Results. Governance 27, 511–18.
Sackett, D., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–2.
Salamon, L. M. (1981). Rethinking public management: third party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255–75.
Salamon, L. M. (1989). The tools approach: basic analytics. In Salamon, L. M. & Lund, M.S., eds., Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, pp. 2350.
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–53.
Schneider, A. L. & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Schneider, A. & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37(1): 103–19.
Schön, D. A. & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Solving Intractable Policy Disputes. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Seymour-Ure, C. (1987). Institutionalization and informality in advisory systems. In Plowden, W., ed., Advising the Rulers. London: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 175–84.
Shore, C., Wright, S., & Pero, D., eds. (2011). Policy Worlds: Anthropology and Analysis of Contemporary Power. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy formulation: design and tools. In Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., & Sidney, M. S., eds., Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods. New Brunswick, NJ: CRC Taylor & Francis, pp. 7987.
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181201.
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), 854–73.
Sterner, T. (2003). Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future Press.
Stone, D. (2013). Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance: The Private-Public Policy Nexus in the Global Agora. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stone, D. & Ladi, S. (2015). Global public policy and transnational administration. Public Administration, 93(4), 839–55.
Swanson, D., Barg, S., Tyler, S., Venema, H., Tomar, S., Bhadwal, S., Nair, S., Roy, D., & Drexhage, J. (2010). Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 924–39.
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., Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). How institutions evolve: insights from comparative historical analysis. In Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D., eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 208–40.
Thompson, J. D. & Tuden, A. (1959). Strategy, Structure and Process in Organizational Design (Comparative Studies in Administration). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Administrative Studies Center.
Tiernan, A. & Wanna, J. (2006). “Competence, Capacity, Capability: Towards Conceptual Clarity in the Discourse of Declining Policy Skills.” Paper presented at the Govnet International Conference, Australian National University, Canberra.
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, Illinois.
Tollefson, C., Zito, A. R., & Gale, F. (2012). Symposium overview: conceptualizing new governance arrangements. Public Administration, 90(1), 318.
Trebilcock, M. J., Tuohy, C. J., & Wolfson, A. D. (1979). “Professional regulation: a staff study of accountancy, architecture, engineering, and law in Ontario prepared for the Professional Organizations Committee.” Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.
Tribe, L. H. (1972). Policy science: analysis or ideology? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(1), 66110.
Turnbull, N. (2017). Policy design: its enduring appeal in a complex world and how to think it differently. Public Policy and Administration. Published online 31 May 2017. Available at (last accessed 12 December 2017).
Tunzelmann, N. (2010). Technology and technology policy in the postwar UK: market failure or “network failure?Revue d’économie industrielle, 129–130, 237–58.
Verweij, M. (2011). Clumsy Solutions for a Wicked World: How to Improve Global Governance. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
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), 917–23.
Warfield, J. N. & Perino, G.H. Jr. (1999). The problematique: evolution of an idea. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(3), 221–6.
Weaver, K. (2009a). “If You Build It, Will They Come? Overcoming Unforeseen Obstacles to Program Effectiveness.” The Tansley Lecture, University of Saskatchewan.
Weaver, K. (2009b). Target Compliance: The Final Frontier of Policy Implementation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Weimer, D. L. (1992). The craft of policy design: can it be more than art? Policy Studies Review, 11(3/4), 370–88.
Weimer, D. L. (1993). The current state of design craft: borrowing, tinkering, and problem solving. Public Administration Review, 53(2), 110–20.
Weimer, D. L. & Vining, A. (2011). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Weiss, C. H. (1976). Policy research in the university: practical aid or academic exercise? Policy Studies Journal, 4(3): 224–8.
Whiteman, D. (1985a). The fate of policy analysis in congressional decision making: three types of use in committees.” Western Political Quarterly, 38(2), 294311.
Whiteman, D. (1985b). Reaffirming the importance of strategic use: a two-dimensional perspective on policy analysis in congress. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 6(3), 203–24.
Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775–93.
Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Blending skill and resources across multiple levels of activity: competences, capabilities and the policy capacities of government. Policy & Society, 34(3–4), 165–71.
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), 193206.


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed