Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 187–207 | Cite as

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

  • Michael HowlettEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Public policy Policy design Policy formulation Policy advice Policy instruments Policy tools 

References

  1. Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1999). Managing in network settings. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 18–41.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. W. (1971). Comparative policy analysis: The design of measures. Comparative Politics, 4(1), 117–131.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public policymaking. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, G. (1996). The new focus on the policy capacity of the federal government. Canadian Public Administration, 39(4), 469–488.Google Scholar
  6. Alexander, E. R. (1982). Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sciences, 14(3), 279–292.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Bardach, E. (1980). Implementation studies and the study of implements. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  10. Barnett, C. K., & Shore, B. (2009). Reinventing program design: Challenges in leading sustainable institutional change. Leadership & Organization, 30(1), 16–35.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Bobrow, D. B., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: Voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 346–359.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Braathen, N. A. (2007). Instrument mixes addressing non-point sources of water pollution. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Bressers, H., & Honigh, M. (1986). A comparative approach to the explanation of policy effects. International Social Science Journal, 108, 267–288.Google Scholar
  20. Bressers, H., & Klok, P. J. (1988). Fundamentals for a theory of policy instruments. International Journal of Social Economics, 15(3/4), 22–41.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Briassoulis, H. (Ed.). (2005b). Policy integration for complex environmental problems: The example of mediterranean desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Brint, S. (1990). Rethinking the policy influence of experts: From general characterizations to analysis of variation. Sociological Forum, 5(3), 361–385.Google Scholar
  26. Buckman, G., & Diesendorf, M. (2010). Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3365–3376.Google Scholar
  27. Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27(5), 377–409.Google Scholar
  28. Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 21–38.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Chadwick, A. (2000). Studying political ideas: A public political discourse approach. Political Studies, 48, 283–301.Google Scholar
  31. Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., & Wise, L. R. (2002). Transforming administrative policy. Public Administration, 80(1), 153–179.Google Scholar
  32. Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Del Río, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., & Könnölä, T. (2010). Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(4), 541–557.Google Scholar
  37. deLeon, P. (1988). The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 297–309.Google Scholar
  38. deLeon, P. (1999). The missing link revisited: Contemporary implementation research. Policy Studies Review, 16(3), 311–338.Google Scholar
  39. Dobuzinskis, L. (1987). The self-organizing polity: An epistemological analysis of political life. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  40. Dobuzinskis, L., Howlett, M., & Laycock, D. (Eds.). (2007). Policy analysis in Canada: The state of the art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  41. Doern, G. B., & Wilks, S. (1998). Changing regulatory institutions in Britain and North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  42. Donovan, M. C. (2001). Taking aim: Target populations and the wars on AIDS and drugs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 217–232.Google Scholar
  44. Dryzek, J. (1983). Don’t toss coins in garbage cans: A prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3(4), 345–367.Google Scholar
  45. Dryzek, J. S., & Ripley, B. (1988). The ambitions of policy design. Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 705–719.Google Scholar
  46. Durr, R. H. (1993). What moves policy sentiment? American Political Science Review, 87, 158–172.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Eliadis, F. P., Hill, M. M., & Howlett, M. (Eds.). (2005). Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Franchino, F., & Hoyland, B. (2009). Legislative involvement in parliamentary systems: Opportunities, conflict and institutional constraints. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 607–621.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11(4), 26–36.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Goldmann, K. (2005). Appropriateness and consequences: The logic of neo-institutionalism. Governance, 18(1), 35–52.Google Scholar
  56. Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions and political change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Gormley, W. T. (2007). Public policy analysis: Ideas and impact. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 297–313.Google Scholar
  58. Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green markets: Environmental regulation by the private sector. Law and Policy, 16(4), 419–448.Google Scholar
  59. Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23, 347–369.Google Scholar
  60. Grant, W. (2010). Policy instruments in the common agricultural policy. West European Politics, 33(1), 22–38.Google Scholar
  61. Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  62. Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law Policy, 21(1), 49–76.Google Scholar
  63. 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.
  64. 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.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Hamelin, F. (2010). Renewal of public policy via instrumental innovation: Implementing automated speed enforcement in France. Governance, 23(3), 509–530.Google Scholar
  68. Hawkins, K., & Thomas, J. M. (1989). Making regulatory policy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  69. 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.Google Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. 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.Google Scholar
  72. Hippes, G. (1988). New instruments for environmental policy: A perspective. International Journal of Social Economics, 15(3/4), 42–51.Google Scholar
  73. Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Hargrove, E. L. (1975). The missing link: The study of the implementation of social policy. Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  75. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  76. Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(Spring), 3–19.Google Scholar
  77. Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144.Google Scholar
  78. 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.Google Scholar
  79. Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. 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.Google Scholar
  82. Howlett, M. (2009b). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153–175.Google Scholar
  83. Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. 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.Google Scholar
  85. 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.Google Scholar
  86. 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.Google Scholar
  87. 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.Google Scholar
  88. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009a). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (3rd ed.). Canada: OUP.Google Scholar
  89. 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.Google Scholar
  90. 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
  91. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.Google Scholar
  92. 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.Google Scholar
  93. Huitt, R. K. (1968). Political Feasibility. In A. Rannay (Ed.), Political science and public policy (pp. 263–276). Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  94. Ingraham, P. (1987). Toward more systematic considerations of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 15(4), 611–628.Google Scholar
  95. Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1990). Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10(1), 67–88.Google Scholar
  96. Jacobsen, J. K. (1995). Much ado about ideas: The cognitive factor in economic policy. World Politics, 47, 283–310.Google Scholar
  97. 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.Google Scholar
  98. 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.Google Scholar
  99. Kannengiesser, U., & Gero, J. S. (2012). A process framework of affordances in design. Design Issues, 28(1), 50–62.Google Scholar
  100. 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.Google Scholar
  101. 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.Google Scholar
  102. Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  104. 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.
  105. Kiviniemi, M. (1986). Public Policies and Their Targets: A Typology of the Concept of Implementation. International Social Science Journal, 38(108), 251–266.Google Scholar
  106. 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.Google Scholar
  107. Knill, C. (1999). Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 113–139.Google Scholar
  108. Kooiman, J. (1993). Governance and governability: Using complexity, dynamics and diversity. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance (pp. 35–50). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  109. 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.Google Scholar
  110. Kooiman, J. (2008). Exploring the concept of governability. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10(2), 171–190.Google Scholar
  111. 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.Google Scholar
  112. 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.Google Scholar
  113. 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.Google Scholar
  114. 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.Google Scholar
  115. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.Google Scholar
  116. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1988). The analysis of design or the design of analysis? Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 738–750.Google Scholar
  117. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990a). Policy Formulation and the Challenge of Conscious Design. Eval. Program Plann., 13, 303–311.Google Scholar
  118. 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.Google Scholar
  119. 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.Google Scholar
  120. 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.Google Scholar
  121. Linder, S., & Peters, B. (1991). The logic of public policy design: Linking policy actors and plausible instruments. Knowledge. Technology & Policy, 4(1), 125–151.Google Scholar
  122. Lindvall, J. (2009). The real but limited influence of expert ideas. World Politics, 61(4), 703–730.Google Scholar
  123. 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.Google Scholar
  124. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.Google Scholar
  125. 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.Google Scholar
  126. MacRae, D., & Whittington, D. (1997). Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis and discourse. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  127. Majone, G. (1975). On the notion of political feasibility. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 259–274.Google Scholar
  128. 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.Google Scholar
  129. 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.Google Scholar
  130. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.Google Scholar
  131. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1996). Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance, 9(3), 247–264.Google Scholar
  132. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2004). The Logic of Appropriateness. Oslo: ARENA Working Paper.Google Scholar
  133. Maskin, E. S. (2008). Mechanism design: How to implement social goals. The American Economic Review, 98(3), 567–576. doi: 10.2307/29730086.Google Scholar
  134. May, P. J. (1981). Hints for crafting alternative policies. Policy Analysis, 7(2), 227–244.Google Scholar
  135. May, P. (2003). Policy design and implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 223–233). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  136. Mayntz, R. (1979). Public bureaucracies and policy implementation. International Social Science Journal, 31(4), 633–645.Google Scholar
  137. Mayntz, R. (1983). The conditions of effective public policy: A new challenge for policy analysis. Policy & Politics, 11, 123–143.Google Scholar
  138. 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.Google Scholar
  139. 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.Google Scholar
  140. 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.Google Scholar
  141. Meltsner, A. J. (1976). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  142. Meuleman, L. (2009). Metagoverning governance styles: Increasing the public manager’s toolbox. Paper presented at the ECPR general conference, Potsdam.Google Scholar
  143. Meuleman, L. (2009b). The cultural dimension of metagovernance: Why governance doctrines may fail. Public Organization Review, 10(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
  144. Montpetit, E. (2003). Misplaced distrust: Policy networks and the environment in France, the United States, and Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  145. O’Toole, L. J. (2000). Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263–288.Google Scholar
  146. 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.Google Scholar
  147. 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.Google Scholar
  148. Page, E. C. (2010). Bureaucrats and expertise: Elucidating a problematic relationship in three tableaux and six jurisdictions. Sociologie du Travail, 52(2), 255–273.Google Scholar
  149. 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.Google Scholar
  150. Peters, B. G. (1996). The future of governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  151. 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.Google Scholar
  152. 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.Google Scholar
  153. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–244.Google Scholar
  154. Potoski, M. (2002). Designing bureaucratic responsiveness: Administrative procedures and agency choice in state environmental policy. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  155. 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.Google Scholar
  156. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652–667.Google Scholar
  157. 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
  158. Salamon, L. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255–275.Google Scholar
  159. 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.Google Scholar
  160. 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.Google Scholar
  161. Salamon, L. M. (2002b). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  162. 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.Google Scholar
  163. 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.Google Scholar
  164. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990b). Behavioural assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 511–529.Google Scholar
  165. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1994). Social constructions and policy design: Implications for public administration. Research in Public Administration, 3, 137–173.Google Scholar
  166. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  167. Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.Google Scholar
  168. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  169. 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.Google Scholar
  170. 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.Google Scholar
  171. Sterner, T. (2003). Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future Press.Google Scholar
  172. Stimson, J. A. (1991). Public opinion in America: Moods cycles and swings. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  173. Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89, 543–565.Google Scholar
  174. Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A primer for policy analysis. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  175. Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.Google Scholar
  176. Surel, Y. (2000). The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(4), 495–512.Google Scholar
  177. Suzuki, M. (1992). Political business cycles in the public mind. American Political Science Review, 86, 989–996.Google Scholar
  178. 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
  179. 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.Google Scholar
  180. 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.Google Scholar
  181. 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.Google Scholar
  182. 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.Google Scholar
  183. Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual orientation in policy analysis: The contribution of Harold D. Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 18, 240–252.Google Scholar
  184. Torgerson, D. (1990). Origins of the policy orientation: The aesthetic dimension in Lasswell’s political vision. History of Political Thought, 11(Summer), 340–344.Google Scholar
  185. Trebilcock, M., & Hartle, D. G. (1982). The choice of governing instrument. International Review of Law and Economics, 2, 29–46.Google Scholar
  186. 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.Google Scholar
  187. 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.Google Scholar
  188. 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.Google Scholar
  189. 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.Google Scholar
  190. 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.Google Scholar
  191. 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.Google Scholar
  192. 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.Google Scholar
  193. 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.Google Scholar
  194. Weimer, D. L. (1992). The craft of policy design: Can it be more than art? Policy Studies Review, 11(3), 370–388.Google Scholar
  195. Weimer, D. L. (1993). The current state of design craft: Borrowing, tinkering, and problem solving. Public Administration Review, 53(2), 110–120.Google Scholar
  196. Weiss, J. A., & Tschirhart, M. (1994). Public information campaigns as policy instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(1), 82–119.Google Scholar
  197. Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775–793.Google Scholar
  198. Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., & Fritzen, S. (2010). The public policy primer: Managing public policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  199. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Lee Kuan Yew School of Public PolicyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations