Element contents
Series: Elements in Public Policy
Designing for Policy Effectiveness
Defining and Understanding a Concept
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2018
Summary
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.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Public PolicyOnline ISBN: 9781108555081Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 22 March 2018
References
Alexander, E. (1982). Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sciences, 14, 279–92.Google Scholar
Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–71.Google Scholar
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. 1–35.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Barnett, C. K. & Shore, B. (2009). Reinventing program design: challenges in leading sustainable institutional change. Leadership & Organization, 30(1), 16–35.Google Scholar
Barzelay, M. (2001). The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. & Jones, B. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–74.Google Scholar
Beland, D. (2007) Ideas and institutional change in social security: conversion, layering and policy drift. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 20–38.Google Scholar
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 www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-08–47_final.pdf (last accessed 30 September 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobrow, D. B. & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy Analysis by Design, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Boswell, C. (2012). The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Botterill, L. C. & Hindmoor, A. (2012). Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an evidence-based age. Policy Studies, 33, 367–79.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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), 185–235.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Briassoulis, H. (2005). Policy Integration for Complex Environmental Problems. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Buckman, G. & Diesendorf, M. (2010). Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3365–76.Google Scholar
Bullock, H., Mountford, J. & Stanley, R. (2001). Better Policy-Making. London: Centre for Management and Policy Studies, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Capano, G., Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (forthcoming). Designing for robustness: surprise, agility and improvisation in policy design. Policy & Society.Google Scholar
Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2017). Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 399–426.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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), 76–95.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Christensen, T., Laegreid, P. & Wise, L. R.. (2002). Transforming administrative policy. Public Administration, 80(1), 153–79.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Colebatch, H. K. (2017). The idea of policy design: intention, process, outcome, meaning and validity. Public Policy and Administration, publishing online: May 18, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717709525 (last accessed 11 December 11 2017).Google Scholar
Considine, M. (2012). Thinking outside the box? Applying design theory to public policy. Politics & Policy, 40(4), 704–24.Google Scholar
Considine, M., Alexander, D. & Lewis, J. M. (2009). Networks, Innovation and Public Policy: Politicians, Bureaucrats and Pathways to Change Inside Government. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Considine, M., Alexander, D. & Lewis, J. M. (2014). Policy design as craft: design expertise using a semi-experimental approach. Policy Sciences, 47, 209–25.Google Scholar
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), 79–98.Google Scholar
Daviter, F. (2007). Policy framing in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(4), 654–66.Google Scholar
de Leon, P. (1997). Democracy and the Policy Sciences, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247238 (last accessed 30 September 2017).Google Scholar
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), 1897–1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (1983). Don’t toss coins into garbage cans: a prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3, 345–67.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. & Ripley, B. (1988). The ambitions of policy design. Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 705–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. 76–98.Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–67.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. B., ed. (1999). Voluntary Initiatives: The New Politics of Corporate Greening. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, P. & Lawford-Smith, H. (2012). Political feasibility: a conceptual exploration. Political Studies, 60(4), 809–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green markets: environmental regulation by the private sector. Law and Policy, 16(4), 419–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, W. (2010). Policy instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy. West European Politics, 33(1), 22–38.Google Scholar
Guiraudon, V. (2000). European integration and migration policy: vertical policy-making as venue shopping. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), 251–71.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. N. & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hallerberg, M. & Wehner, J. (2013). “The Technical Competence of Economic Policy-Makers in Developed Democracies.” SSRN Scholarly Paper, July 29, 2013. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2191490 (last accessed 15 December 15, 2017).Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Harcourt, A. J. (1998). EU media ownership regulation: conflict over the definition of alternatives. Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(3), 369–89.Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, M. (1992). Epistemology and policy analysis. In Dunn, W. & Kelly, R. M., eds., Advances in Policy Studies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 291–329.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hayes, M. T. (2006). Incrementalism and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Head, B. W. (2016). Toward more “evidence-informed” policy making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472–84.Google Scholar
Hisschemöller, M. & Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with intractable controversies: the case of problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge and Policy, 8, 40–60.Google Scholar
Hjern, B. & Porter, D. O. (1981). Implementation structures: a new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2(3), 211–27.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response for Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2002). The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition, 37(1), 15–54.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–44.Google Scholar
Hood, C. & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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), 1–17.Google Scholar
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), 73–89.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2013). Policy work, policy advisory systems and politicization. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 4–7.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2014a). From the “old” to the “new” policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative agreements. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.Google Scholar
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. 281–316.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. & Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71.Google Scholar
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), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2016). Achilles’ heels of governance: critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance, 10(4), 301–13.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: cohesion and coherence in “new governance arrangements.” Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs. packaging in policy formulation: assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–82.Google Scholar
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), 69–78.Google Scholar
Jarvis, D. S. L. (2011). Infrastructure Regulation: What Works, Why and How Do We Know? Lessons from Asia and Beyond. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. & Lenschow, A. (2010). Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), 147–58.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. & Turnpenny, J. R. (2016). The Tools of Policy Formulation: Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
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), 27–50.Google Scholar
Kern, F. & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Science, 42(4), 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Klijn, E.-H. & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2006). Institutional design: changing institutional features of networks. Public Management Review, 8(1), 141–60.Google Scholar
Klijn, E.-H. & Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: past, present and future. Policy & Politics, 40(4), 587–606.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Koch, P. (2013). Overestimating the shift from government to governance: evidence from Swiss metropolitan areas. Governance, 26(3), 397–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716664163 (last accessed 12 December, 2017.Google Scholar
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), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 3–15.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2008). “A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design,” Keynote Address, Networks of Design Conference, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Lecuyer, O. & Quirion, P. (2013). Can uncertainty justify overlapping policy instruments to mitigate emissions? Ecological Economics, 93, 177–91.Google Scholar
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), 31–50.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.Google Scholar
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–59.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1990). Policy formulation and the challenge of conscious design. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13(3), 303–11.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of politics, policy and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2012). The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods and Research, 41(4), 566–90.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (1975). On the Notion of Political Feasibility. European Journal of Political Research, 3(2), 259–74.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
May, P. J. (2005). Regulation and compliance motivations: examining different approaches. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 31–44.Google Scholar
May, P. J. & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspective: policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–52.Google Scholar
Mayntz, R. (1983). The conditions of effective public policy: a new challenge for policy analysis. Policy and Politics, 11(2), 123–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazey, S. & Richardson, J. (1997). Policy framing: interest groups and the lead up to 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. West European Politics, 20(3), 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mesequer, C. (2006). Policy learning, policy diffusion, and the making of a new order. Annals of the American Academy, 598, 67–82.Google Scholar
Meuleman, L. (2009a). The cultural dimension of metagovernance: why governance doctrines may fail. Public Organization Review, 10(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
Meuleman, L. (2009b). “Metagoverning Governance Styles: Increasing the Public Manager’s Toolbox.” Paper presented at the ECPR general conference, Potsdam.Google Scholar
Mintrom, M. & Luetjens, J. (2017). Creating public value: tightening connections between policy design and public management. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 170–90.Google Scholar
Moloney, K. & Stone, D., eds. (2018). Handbook on Global Policy and Transnational Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. 3–8.Google Scholar
Page, E. C. (2012). Policy without Politicians: Bureaucratic Influence in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestoff, V. A., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2012). New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-Production. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (1988). Comparing Public Bureaucracies: Problems of Theory and Method. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (2014). Implementation structures as institutions. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 131–44.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
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), 191–212.Google Scholar
Raadschelders, J., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Kirsner, M., eds. (2014). Global Dimensions of Public Administration and Governance: A Comparative Voyage. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
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), 66–90.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–69.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rogge, K. S. & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–35.Google Scholar
Room, G. (2011). Complexity, Institutions and Public Policy: Agile Decision-Making in a Turbulent World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Rotberg, R. I. (2014) Good Governance Means Performance and Results. Governance 27, 511–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1981). Rethinking public management: third party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255–75.Google Scholar
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. 23–50.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–53.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. L. & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37(1): 103–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Solving Intractable Policy Disputes. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Seymour-Ure, C. (1987). Institutionalization and informality in advisory systems. In Plowden, W., ed., Advising the Rulers. London: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 175–84.Google Scholar
Shore, C., Wright, S., & Pero, D., eds. (2011). Policy Worlds: Anthropology and Analysis of Contemporary Power. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
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. 79–87.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sterner, T. (2003). Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future Press.Google Scholar
Stone, D. (2013). Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance: The Private-Public Policy Nexus in the Global Agora. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stone, D. & Ladi, S. (2015). Global public policy and transnational administration. Public Administration, 93(4), 839–55.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Tollefson, C., Zito, A. R., & Gale, F. (2012). Symposium overview: conceptualizing new governance arrangements. Public Administration, 90(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Tribe, L. H. (1972). Policy science: analysis or ideology? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(1), 66–110.Google Scholar
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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717709522 (last accessed 12 December 2017).Google Scholar
Tunzelmann, N. (2010). Technology and technology policy in the postwar UK: market failure or “network failure?” Revue d’économie industrielle, 129–130, 237–58.Google Scholar
Verweij, M. (2011). Clumsy Solutions for a Wicked World: How to Improve Global Governance. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Warfield, J. N. & Perino, G.H. Jr. (1999). The problematique: evolution of an idea. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(3), 221–6.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, K. (2009a). “If You Build It, Will They Come? Overcoming Unforeseen Obstacles to Program Effectiveness.” The Tansley Lecture, University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
Weaver, K. (2009b). Target Compliance: The Final Frontier of Policy Implementation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Weimer, D. L. (1992). The craft of policy design: can it be more than art? Policy Studies Review, 11(3/4), 370–88.Google Scholar
Weimer, D. L. (1993). The current state of design craft: borrowing, tinkering, and problem solving. Public Administration Review, 53(2), 110–20.Google Scholar
Weimer, D. L. & Vining, A. (2011). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1976). Policy research in the university: practical aid or academic exercise? Policy Studies Journal, 4(3): 224–8.Google Scholar
Whiteman, D. (1985a). The fate of policy analysis in congressional decision making: three types of use in committees.” Western Political Quarterly, 38(2), 294–311.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775–93.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., & Fritzen, S. (2010). The Public Policy Primer: Managing Public Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
- 78
- Cited by