Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 317–338 | Cite as

Network-centric policy design

  • Araz TaeihaghEmail author
RESEARCH NOTES
First Online:

Abstract

Two important challenges in policy design are better understanding of the design space and consideration of the temporal factors. Moreover, in recent years it has been demonstrated that understanding the complex interactions of policy measures can play an important role in policy design and analysis. In this paper, the advances made in conceptualization and application of networks to policy design in the past decade are highlighted. Specifically, the use of a network-centric policy design approach in better understanding the design space and temporal consequences of design choices are presented. Network-centric policy design approach has been used in classification, visualization, and analysis of the relations among policy measures as well as ranking of policy measures using their internal properties and interactions, and conducting sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations. Furthermore, through use of a decision support system, network-centric approach facilitates ranking, visualization, and selection of policies using different sets of criteria, and exploring the potential for compromise in policy formulation. The advantage of the network-centric approach is providing the ability to go beyond visualizations and analysis of policies and piecemeal use of network concepts as a tool for different policy design tasks to moving to a more integrated bottom–up approach to design. Furthermore, the computational advantages of the network-centric policy design in considering temporal factors such as policy sequencing and addressing issues such as layering, drift, policy failure, and delay are presented. Finally, some of the current challenges of network-centric design are discussed, and some potential avenues of exploration in policy design through use of computational methodologies, as well as possible integration with approaches from other disciplines, are highlighted.

Keywords

Policy design Networks Policy patching Policy packaging Policy mixes Visualization Virtual environment Decision support system Computer-aided design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of the anonymous reviewers in improving the quality of this manuscript.

References

  1. Aitamurto, T. (2012). Crowdsourcing for democracy: New era in policy-making. In Publications of the Committee for the Future, Parliament of Finland. 1/2012. Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  2. Aldea, A., Bañares-Alcántara, R., & Skrzypczak, S. (2012). Managing information to support the decision making process. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 11(03), 1250016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banister, D., Stead, D., Steen, P., Åkerman, J., Dreborg, K., Nijkamp, P., et al. (2000). European transport policy and sustainable mobility. London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bicquelet, A., & Weale, A. (2011). Coping with the cornucopia: Can text mining help handle the data deluge in public policy analysis? Policy & Internet, 3(4), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobrow, D. B. (2006). Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 75–96). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M., & Hwang, D. U. (2006). Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports, 424(4–5), 175–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision making groups: The effects of prediscussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt, R. S. (1980). Models of network structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 79–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camagni, R. (1995). Global network and local milieu: Towards a theory of economic space. In S. Conti, E. Malecki, & P. Oinas (Eds.), The industrial enterprise and its environment: spatial perspectives (pp. 195–214). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  10. Carter, P. (2012). Policy as palimpsest. Policy & Politics, 40(3), 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Champalle, C., Ford, J. D., & Sherman, M. (2015). Prioritizing climate change adaptations in Canadian Arctic communities. Sustainability, 7(7), 9268–9292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Craft, J., Howlett, M., Crawford, M., & McNutt, K. (2013). Assessing policy capacity for climate change adaptation: Governance arrangements, resource deployments, and analytical skills in Canadian infrastructure policy making. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dowding, K. (1995). Model or metaphor? A critical review of the policy network approach. Political Studies, 43(1), 136–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feitelson, E. (2003). Packaging policies to address environmental concerns. In D. A. Hensher & K. J. Button (Eds.), Handbook of transport and the environment (pp. 757–769). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fenton, N., & Neil, M. (2001). Making decisions: Using Bayesian nets and MCDA. Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(7), 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, L., Borgatti, S., & White, D. (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Givoni, M. (2014). Addressing transport policy challenges through policy-packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Givoni M, Macmillen J, Banister D (2010) From individual policies to policy packaging. In European transport conference (ETC), Scotland.Google Scholar
  21. Givoni, M., Macmillen, J., Banister, D., & Feitelson, E. (2013). From policy measures to policy packages. Transport Reviews, 33(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive Regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23(1995), 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law and Policy, 21(1), 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Hanne, T. (2001). Intelligent strategies for meta multiple. Criteria Decision Making. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hermans, L. M. (2011). An approach to support learning from international experience with water policy. Water Resources Management, 25(1), 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hermans, L. M., & Cunningham, S. W. (2013). Actor models for policy analysis. In W. A. H. Thissen & W. E. Walker (Eds.), Public policy analysis (pp. 185–213). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hou, Y., & Brewer, G. A. (2010). Substitution and supplementation between co-functional policy instruments: Evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 914–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howlett, M. (2010). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  32. Howlett, M. (2014). From the “old” to the “new” policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207. doi: 10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howlett, M., & del Rio, P. (2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: Verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1233–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Howlett, M., & Goetz, K. H. (2014). Introduction: time, temporality and timescapes in administration and policy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(3), 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Howlett, M., Kim, J., & Weaver, P. (2006). Assessing instrument mixes through program-and agency-level data: Methodological issues in contemporary implementation research. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. P. (2013). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration & Society, 45(3), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Rayner, J. (2014). The elements of effective program design: A two-level analysis. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 1–12. doi: 10.17645/pag.v2i2.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. J. (2015). From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: The new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy & Politics, 43(2), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hunt, J. D., Bañares-Alcántara, R., & Hanbury, D. (2013). A new integrated tool for complex decision making: Application to the UK energy sector. Decision Support Systems, 54(3), 1427–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  43. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  44. John, P. (1998). Analysing public policy. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  45. Jones, P., Kelly, C., May, A., & Cinderby, S. (2009). Innovative approaches to option generation. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 9(3), 237–258.Google Scholar
  46. Justen, A., Fearnley, N., Givoni, M., & Macmillen, J. (2014). A process for designing policy packaging: Ideals and realities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60, 9–18.Google Scholar
  47. Kao, A., & Poteet, S. R. (2007). Overview. In A. Kao & S. R. Poteet (Eds.), Natural language processing and text mining (pp. 1–7). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kelly, C., May, A., & Jopson, A. (2008). The development of an option generation tool to identify potential transport policy packages. Transport Policy, 15(6), 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krishen, A. S., Raschke, R. L., Kachroo, P., Mejza, M., & Khan, A. (2014). Interpretation of public feedback to transportation policy: A qualitative perspective. Transportation journal, 53(1), 26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Larson, J. R., Jr., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Majone, G. (2006). Agenda setting. In M. Moran et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 228–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Marsh, D., & McConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration, 88(2), 564–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Matt, E., Givoni, M., & Epstein, B. (2013). A procedure to develop synergetic policy packages and assessing their political acceptability. http://www.spreeproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Deliverable-3.2-_website.pdf.
  55. May, P. J. (1981). Hints for crafting alternative policies. Policy Analysis, 7(2), 227–244.Google Scholar
  56. May, A. D., & Roberts, M. (1995). The design of integrated transport strategies. Transport Policy, 2(2), 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McKee, T. E. (2003). Rough sets bankruptcy prediction models versus auditor signalling rates. Journal of Forecasting, 22, 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McPherson, A. F., & Raab, C. D. (1988). Governing education: A sociology of policy since 1945. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Middlemist, G., Butz, E., Carter, D., & Leech, N. (2013). Towards a better understanding of organizational policy related activity on the internet, University of Colorado at Denver Report. http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA/PhD/phdstudentprofiles/carter/Documents/MJ%20Policy%20Internet%20Analysis.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2016.
  60. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy and organization. American Economic Review, 80(3), 511–528.Google Scholar
  61. Milo, R., Shen-Orr, S., Itzkovitz, S., Kashtan, N., Chklovskii, D., & Alon, U. (2002). Network motifs: Simple building blocks of complex networks. Science, 298, 824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 530–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Montibeller, G., Belton, V., Ackermann, F., & Ensslin, L. (2008). Reasoning maps for decision aid: An integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(5), 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nair, S., & Howlett, M. P. (2016). Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: Adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. Policy & Politics. doi: 10.1332/030557316X14788776017743.
  65. Nash, A. (2009). Web 2.0 applications for improving public participation in transport planning. In Paper presented at the transportation research board 89th annual meeting, January 10–14, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  66. Newman, M. E. J., Barabasi, A. L., & Watts, D. J. (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. OPTIC (2010) Inventory of measures, typology of non-intentional effects and a framework for policy packaging, Optimal Policies for Transport in Combination, Seventh Framework Programme: Theme 7 Transport, Retrieved 14/01/2016, http://optic.toi.no/getfile.php/Optic/Bilder%20og%20dokumenter%20internett/OPTIC%20D1%20-%20FINAL%20AND%20APPROVED.pdf.
  68. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Instrument mixes for environmental policy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (2005). Unpacking policy capacity: Issues and themes. In M. Painter & J. Pierre (Eds.), Challenges to state policy capacity (pp. 1–18). Palgrave: Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peters, G. (1998). Policy networks: Myth, metaphor and reality, comparing policy networks. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2014a). Crowdsourcing the policy cycle. Collective Intelligence 2014, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 10–12, 2014 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2398191.
  73. Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2014b). A Framework for policy crowdsourcing. In Oxford internet policy and politics conference (IPP 2014), University of Oxford, 26–28 September 2014. http://ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/sites/ipp/files/documents/IPP2014_Taeihagh%20%282%29.pdf.
  74. Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2014c). Experiments on crowdsourcing policy assessment. In Oxford internet policy and politics conference (IPP 2014), University of Oxford, 26–28 September 2014. http://ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/sites/ipp/files/documents/IPP2014_Taeihagh.pdf.
  75. Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2015). The fundamentals of policy crowdsourcing. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 340–361. doi: 10.1002/poi3.102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rayner, J., Howlett, M., Wilson, J., Cashore, B., & Hoberg, G. (2001). Privileging the subsector: Critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(3), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rhodes, R., & Marsh, D. (1992). Policy networks in British politics (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  78. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, P., Connor, D., Murray, A., Sampson, B., et al. (2006). Climate change and sustainable development: Realizing the opportunity. Ambio, 35(1), 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  82. Sawyer, J. E. (1997). Information sharing and integration in multifunctional decision-making groups. In Presented at annual meeting of the society of judgment and decision making, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  83. Schneider. V. (2005). Policy-networks in a complex systems perspective. A new look on an old data set. University of Constance, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. http://www.unikonstanz.de/FuF/Verwiss/Schneider/ePapers/ChemicalSys5Dez.pdf.
  84. Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013) Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sheffey, S., Tindale, R. S., & Scott, L. A. (1989). Information sharing and group decision-making. In Presented at midwestern psychological association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  86. Shum, S. J. B., Selvin, A. M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C. B., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In A. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 111–132). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stirling, A. (2003). Renewables, sustainability and precaution: Beyond environmental cost-benefit and risk analysis. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 19, 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Taeihagh, A. (2011). A novel approach for the development of policies for socio-technical systems. Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  89. Taeihagh A., Bañares-Alcántara R. (2014). Towards proactive and flexible agent-based generation of policy packages for active transportation. In 47th International conference on system sciences (HICSS 47), 4–9 January 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.118.
  90. Taeihagh, A., Bañares-Alcántara, R., & Givoni, M. (2014). A virtual environment for formulation of policy packages. Transportation Research Part A, 60, 53–68. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.017.Google Scholar
  91. Taeihagh, A., Bañares-Alcántara, R., & Millican, C. (2009a). Development of a novel framework for the design of transport policies to achieve environmental targets. Computers & Chemical Engineering. doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2009.01.010.Google Scholar
  92. Taeihagh, A., Wang, Z., & Bañares-Alcántara, R. (2009b). Why conceptual design matters in policy formulation: A case for an integrated use of complexity science and engineering design. In European conference on complex systems (ECCS2009), UK, September 2009.Google Scholar
  93. Taeihagh, A., Givoni, M., & Bañares-Alcántara, R. (2013). Which policy first? A network-centric approach for the analysis and ranking of policy measures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(4), 595–616. doi: 10.1068/b38058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Taleb, N. N. (2007). Black swans and the domains of statistics. The American Statistician, 61(3), 198–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Thelen, Kathleen. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States And Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), 93–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Van der Heijden, J. (2011). Institutional layering: A review of the use of the concept. Politics, 31(1), 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Van der Lei, T. E., Enserink, B., Thissen, W. A., & Bekebrede, G. (2011). How to use a systems diagram to analyse and structure complex problems for policy issue papers. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(7), 1391–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. van Waarden, F. (1992). Dimensions and types of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Walker, W. E. (2000). Uncertainty: The challenge for policy analysis in the 21st century. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.Google Scholar
  101. Walker, W. E., Lempert, R. J., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2013). Deep uncertainty. Encyclopedia of operations research and management science (pp. 395–402). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Watthayu, W., & Peng, Y. (2004). A Bayesian network-based framework for multi-criteria decision making. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on multiple criteria decision analysis.Google Scholar
  104. Wittenbaum, G. M. (2000). The bias toward discussing shared information: Why are high status group members immune? Communication Research, 27(3), 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3), 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesSingapore Management UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options