Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts

  • Stephen H. Linder (a1) and B. Guy Peters (a2)

Government uses a wide variety of instruments to reach its policy goals, ranging from indirect methods, such as moral suasion and cash inducements, to more direct ones involving government provision of services. Although there has been a fair amount of writing on the nature and use of various policy instruments, there is very little work on either the meaning ascribed to these instruments by the decisionmakers who use them (or the experts who design them) or the processes by which some come to be favored over others. Characteristics of the political system, such as national policy style, the organizational setting of the decisionmaker, and the problem situation are all likely to have some influence over the choice of instruments. The relative impact of these variables, however, is likely to be mediated by subjective factors linked to cognition. Perceptions of the proper ‘tool to do the job’ intervenes between context and choice in a complex way. Efforts to account for variation in instrument choice, then, must focus not only on macro level variables but on micro ones as well.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. Campbell (1989). Afterward on Policy Communities: A Framework for Comparative Research. Governance 2: 8694.

M. Cohen , J. March and J. Olsen (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 125.

C. Diver (1983). The Optimal Precision of Administrative Rules. The Yale Law Journal 93: 65109.

R. Elmore (1985). Forward and Backward Mapping: Reversible Logic in the Analysis of Public Policy. In Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary Systems, K. Hanf and T. Toonen , eds. Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

G. D. Greenberg (1977). Developing Public Policy Theory: Perspectives from Empirical Research. American Political Science Review 71: 1532–43.

C. Hood , A. Dunsire and S. Thompson (1988). Thatcherism, Fraserism and the Bureaucracy, Governance 1: 243270.

R. Hoppe , H. van de Graaf and A. van Dijk (1987). Implementation Research and Policy Design. International Review of Administrative Sciences 53: 581604.

P. Ingraham (1987). Toward More Systematic Consideration of Policy Design. Policy Studies Journal 15: 611628.

T. J. Lowi (1972). Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice. Public Administration Review 32: 298310.

G. Majone (1975) The Feasibility of Social Policies. Policy Sciences 6: 4969.

F. Mosher (1980). The Changing Responsibilities and Tactics of the Federal Government. Public Administration Review 40: 541548.

B. G. Peters (1986). American Public Policy: Promise and Performance. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

R. Spitzer (1987). Promoting Policy Theory. Policy Studies journal 15: 675689.

D. Torgerson (1985). Contextual Orientation in Policy Analysis. Policy Sciences 18: 241261.

J. Walker (1989). Introduction: Policy Communities as Global Phenomena. Governance 2: 14.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Public Policy
  • ISSN: 0143-814X
  • EISSN: 1469-7815
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-public-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 50 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 379 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.