Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:10:35.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematically Pinching Ideas: A Comparative Approach to Policy Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Anne Schneider  and
Helen Ingram
Anne Schneider
Affiliation:
Political Science, Oklahoma State University
Helen Ingram
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policy design, whether conceptualized as a verb referring to the process of formulating policy ideas, or as a noun describing the logic through which policy intends to achieve its objectives, remains relatively uncharted territory. This paper reviews what we know about how policy designs emerge, and identifies the kinds of biases and weaknesses that are introduced into designs by the decision heuristics employed. Theories of policy invention and expert decision-making suggest that individuals search through large amounts of relevant information stored in memory, reason by analogies, make comparisons, and either copy or simulate patterns of information. Policy scholars may contribute to improved policy design by making more explicit the biases introduced through reliance on decision heuristics, and by suggesting a more formal, self conscious search and selection process that enables designers to be more discriminating when they pinch policy ideas from other contexts. To perform this task, comparative policy analysis is needed in which common elements that exist in virtually all policies are identified and the underlying structural logic of the policies is made explicit. In this paper we set forth generic elements found in policies, describe and compare some of the more common design patterns, and discuss the circumstances where these may be inappropriately copied or borrowed, thereby thwarting the effectiveness of the policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 61 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, Ernest R. (1982) Design in the Decision-Making Process, Policy Sciences, 14, 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, James E. (1984) Public Policy Making, Madison, Wisconsin: CBS College Publishing.Google Scholar
Bardach, Eugene (1979) The Implementation Game, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bickman, Leonard (1987) Using Program Theory in Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Davis B. and Dryzek, John S. (1987) Policy Analysis by Design, Pittsburgh: Univerisity of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, Garry D. and Peter, deLeon (1983) The Foundations of Policy Analysis, Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Dryzck, John S. (1983) Don't Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design, Journal of Public Policy, 3, 345–367.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray (1964) The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Elmore, Richard (Spring, 1978) Organizational Models of Social Program Implementation, Public Policy, 26, 185–228.Google ScholarPubMed
Fischoff, Baruch, Lichtcnstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S.L. and Keeney, R.L. (1981) Acceptable Risk, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gormlcy, William T. Jr., (1987), Bureau-Bashing: A Framework for Analysis, presented at the 1987 meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hjern, Benny, (08, 1982) Implementation Research – the Link Gone Missing, Journal of Public Policy, 2, Part 3.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I. (02, 1986) Policy Evaluation, Democratic Theory, and the Division of Scholarly Labor, Policy Studies Review, 5, 3, 511–519.Google Scholar
Hood, Christopher C. (1986) The Tools of Government, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Ingraham, Patricia (06, 1987) Toward More Systematic Consideration of Policy Design, Policy Studies Journal, 15, 4, 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, Helen (1989) Implementation: A Review and Suggested Framework, in Wildavsky, Aaron and Lynn, Naomi B. (eds.), Public Administration: The State of the Field, Chatham House, NJ: Chatham House Publisher.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen and Mann, Dean (1980) Why Policies Succeed or Fail, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen and Schneider, Anne (1988) Policy Implementation through Policy Design: Framing Smarter Statutes, Annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kahnemah, Daniel, Slovic, Paul and Tversky, Amos (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (January, 1959) The Science of Muddling Through, Public Administration Review, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, Stephen H. and Peters, B. Guy (02, 1987) A Design Perspective on Policy Implementation: The Fallacies of Misplaced Prescription, Policy Studies Review, 6, 3, 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, Stephen H. and Peters, B. Guy (1985) From Social Theory to Policy Design, Journal of Public Policy, 4, 3, 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, Duncan and Wilde, James A. (1979) Policy Analysis for Public Decisions, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, Daniel A. and Sabatier, Paul A. (1981) Effective Policy Implementation, Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company, Lexington Books.Google Scholar
McDonnell, Lorraine, The Instruments of State Education Reform, paper presented at the Western Political Science Association Annual Conference, March 26–28, 1987.Google Scholar
Mohr, Lawrence B. (1987) Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, Chicago, ILL: The Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
O'Toole, Laurence J. (1987) Policy Recommendations for Multi-Actor Implementation: An Assessment of the Field, Journal of Public Policy, 6, 2, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. (1984) Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Initiation, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quade, E.S. (1982) Analysis for Public Decisions, New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard (1988), Comparative Policy Analysis: The Programme Approach, in Dogan, Mattei (ed.), Comparing Pluralist Democracies, Boulder, Col: Westview, 219–41.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. (1986) Top Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis, Journal of Public Policy, 6, 2, 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. and Mazmanian, Daniel A. (1987) The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis, in Mazmanian, and Sabatier, (ed.), Effective Policy Implementation, Toronto: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne L. (12, 1982) Studying Policy Implementation: a Conceptual Framework, Evaluation Review, 6, 715–730.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen, Policy Tools and Their Underlying Behavioral Assumptions, paper prepared for the Western Political Science Association Annual Conference,San Francisco,CA,March 11, 1988.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. (06, 1985) Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science, American Political Science Review, 79, 2, 293–304.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. (1981) The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul (1986) Informing and Educating the Public About Risk, Risk Analysis, 6, 4, 403–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, Deborah (1988) Policy Paradox and Political Reason, Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman, and Company.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982) Belief in the Law of Small Numbers, Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack L. (09, 1969) The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States, American Political Science Review, 63, 880–899.Google Scholar
Wholey, Joseph S. (1983) Evaluation and Effective Public Management, Boston: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron (1979) Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis, Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar