Policy Sciences

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 73–89 | Cite as

Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design

Article

Abstract

Policy goals and means exist at different levels of abstraction and application and policies can be seen to be comprised of a number of components or elements, not all of which are as amenable to (re)design as others. Defining and thinking about polices and policy-making in this way is very useful because it highlights how policy design is all about the effort to match goals and instruments both within and across categories. That is, successful policy design requires (1) that policy aims, objectives, and targets be coherent; (2) that implementation preferences, policy tools and tool calibrations should also be consistent; and (3) that policy aims and implementation preferences; policy objectives, and policy tools; and policy targets and tool calibrations, should also be congruent and convergent. Policy instrument choices can thus be seen to result from a nested or embedded relationship within a larger framework of established governance modes and policy regime logics. In this contextual model, the range of choices left at the level of concrete targeted policy instrument calibrations—the typical subject of policy tool analysis—is restricted by the kinds of decisions made about policy objectives and the appropriate tools to attain them, and both of these, in turn, by the kind of choices made at the highest level setting out general policy aims and implementation preferences.

Keywords

Public policy Policy tools Governing instruments Policy design 

References

  1. Anderson, C. W. (1977). Statecraft: An introduction to political choice and judgement. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Bator, F. M. (1958). The anatomy of market failure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72(3), 351–379. doi:10.2307/1882231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L. (1998). Introduction: Policy instrument choice and evaluation. In M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Bobrow, D. B., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bovens, M., & ‘t Hart, P. (1996). Understanding policy fiascoes. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.Google Scholar
  7. Braun, D. (1999). Interests or ideas? An overview of ideational concepts in public policy research. In D. Braun & A. Busch (Eds.), Public policy and political ideas (pp. 11–29). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. 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. doi:10.1017/S0143814X98000117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Cashore, B., & Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3). doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00266.x.
  11. Considine, M. (2001). Enterprising states: The public management of welfare-to-work. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. de Bruijn, J. A., & Hufen, H. A. M. (1998). The traditional approach to policy instruments. In B. G. Peters & F. K. M. V. Nispen (Eds.), Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration (pp. 11–32). New York: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. de Bruijn, H., & Porter, A. L. (2004). The education of a technology policy analyst—to process management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 16(2), 261–274. doi:10.1080/09537320410001682919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dollery, B., & Wallis, J. (1999). Market failure, government failure, leadership and public policy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Donovan, M. C. (2001). Taking aim: Target populations and the wars on aids and drugs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dunsire, A. (1993). Modes of governance. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance (pp. 21–34). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Eliadis, P., Hill, M., & Howlett, M. (2005). Designing government: from instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  18. English, L. M., & Skellern, M. (2005). Public-private partnerships and public sector management reform; a comparative analysis. International Journal of Public Policy, 1(1/2), 1–21. doi:10.1504/IJPP.2005.009089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feiock, R. C., Tavares, A. F., & Lubell, M. (2008). Policy instrument choices for growth management and land use regulation. Policy Studies Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 36(3), 461–480. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00277.x.Google Scholar
  20. Grand, L. Julian. (1991). The theory of government failure. British Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grin, J., & Graaf, H. V. D. (1996). Implementation as communicative action: An interpretative understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups. Policy Sciences, 29(1996), 291–319. doi:10.1007/BF00138406.Google Scholar
  22. Hargrove, E. C. (1975). The missing link: The study of the implementation of social policy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Heritier, A., Knill, C., & Mingers, S. (1996). Ringing the changes in Europe: Regulatory competition and the transformation of the state. Britain, France, Germany. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Hood, C. (1983). Using bureaucracy sparingly. Public Administration, 61(2), 197–208. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1983.tb00513.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Hood, C., & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2*), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howlett, M. (2000a). Beyond legalism? Policy ideas, implementation styles and emulation-based convergence in Canadian and US environmental policy. Journal of Public Policy, 20(3), 305–329. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00000866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howlett, M. (2000b). Managing the “Hollow State”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412–431. doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2000.tb01152.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howlett, M. (2002). Policy instruments and implementation styles: The evolution of instrument choice in Canadian environmental policy. In D. L. Van Nijnatten & R. Boardman (Eds.), Canadian environmental policy: Context and cases (pp. 25–45). Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Policy tools, policy mixes and policy implementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 31–50). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press (book, whole vols).Google Scholar
  33. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18. doi:10.1016/S1449-4035(07)70118-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huitt, R. K. (1968). Political feasibility. In A. Rannay (Ed.), Political science and public policy (pp. 263–276). Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  35. Kagan, R. A. (1991). Adversarial legalism and American government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(3), 369–406. doi:10.2307/3325322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kagan, R. A. (1996). The political construction of American adversarial legalism. In A. Ranney (Ed.), Courts, the political process (pp. 19–39). Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kagan, R. A. (1997). Should Europe worry about adversarial legalism? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 17(2), 165–183. doi:10.1093/ojls/17.2.165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kagan, R. A., & Axelrad, L. (1997). Adversarial legalism. An international perspective. In P. S. Nivola (Ed.), Comparative disadvantages? Social regulations and the global economy (pp. 146–202). Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  39. Keohane, N. O., Revesz, R. L., & Stavins, R. N. (1998). The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 22, 313–367.Google Scholar
  40. Kickert, W. J. M., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997). Public management and network management: An overview. In W. J. M. Kickert, E. -H. Klijn, & J. F. M. Koppenjan (Eds.), Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector (pp. 35–61). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Kleiman, M. A. R., & Teles, S. M. (2006). Market and non-market failures. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 624–650). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Knill, C. (2001). The Europeanization of national administrations: Patterns of institutional change and persistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kooiman, J. (1993). Governance and governability: Using complexity, dynamics and diversity. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance (pp. 35–50). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal governance: Levels, models, and orders of social-political interaction. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance (pp. 138–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kooiman, J. (2008). Exploring the concept of governability. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10(2), 171–190. doi:10.1080/13876980802028107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lester, J. P., & Goggin, M. L. (1998). Back to the future: The rediscovery of implementation studies. Policy Currents, 8(3), 1–9.Google Scholar
  48. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1988). The analysis of design or the design of analysis? Policy Studies Review, 7, 738–750. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1988.tb00892.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perception and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35–58. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00007960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1990a). Policy formulation and the challenge of conscious design. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 303–311. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(90)90061-Z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  53. Linder, S. H., & 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
  54. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B.G. (1991) The logic of public policy design: Linking policy actors and plausible instruments. Knowledge in Society 4, 125–51.Google Scholar
  55. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1992). A metatheoretic analysis of policy design. In W. N. Dunn & R. M. Kelly (Eds.), Advances in policy studies since 1950 (pp. 201–238). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  56. Lodge, M. (2008). Regulation, the regulatory state and European politics. West European Politics, 31(1–2), 280–301. doi:10.1080/01402380701835074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lowi, T. J. (1969). The end of liberalism: Ideology, policy and the crisis of public authority. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  58. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.Google Scholar
  59. Majone, G. (1975). On the notion of political feasibility. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 259–274. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1975.tb00780.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mandell, S. (2008). Optimal mix of emissions taxes and cap-and-trade. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56, 131–140. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2007.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Markoff, J., & Montecinos, V. (1993). The ubiquitous rise of economists. Journal of Public Policy, 13(1), 37–68. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00000933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McMillin, W. D., & Fackler, J. S. (1984). Monetary vs. credit aggregates: An evaluation of monetary policy targets. Southern Economic Journal, 50(3), 711–723. doi:10.2307/1057986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moore, M. H. (1988). What sort of ideas become public ideas? In R. B. Reich (Ed.), The power of public ideas (pp. 55–83). Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  64. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. 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. doi:10.2307/2658250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Peters, B. G., & Van Nispen, F. K. M. (Eds.). (1998). Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration. New York: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  67. Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  68. Pollitt, C. (2001). Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review, 4(1), 471–492. doi:10.1080/14616670110071847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652–667. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Salamon, L. (2001). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. The Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5), 1611–1674.Google Scholar
  71. Salamon, L. C. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram H. (1990a). Behavioural assumptions of policy tools Journal of Politics, 52 (2), 511–529 (at pp. 513–514).Google Scholar
  73. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990b). 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
  74. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. doi:10.2307/2939044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1994). Social constructions and policy design: Implications for public administration. Research in Public Administration, 3, 137–173.Google Scholar
  76. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  77. Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new American state: The expansion of national administrative capacities 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Spicker, P. (2005). Targeting, residual welfare and related concepts: Modes of operation in public policy. Public Administration, 83(2), 345–365. doi:10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00453.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stavins, R. N. (2008). A meaningful U.S. cap-and-trade system to address climate change. The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 32, 293–364.Google Scholar
  80. Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. A. (1978). Primer for policy analysis. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  81. Tenbensel, T. (2005). Multiple modes of governance: Disentangling the alternatives to hierarchies and markets. Public Management Review, 7(2), 267–288. doi:10.1080/14719030500091566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thompson, G. F. (2003). Between hierarchies and markets: The logic and limits of network forms of organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Thorelli, H. B. (1986). Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 37–51. doi:10.1002/smj.4250070105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Trebilcock, M., & Hartle, D. G. (1982). The choice of governing instrument. International Review of Law and Economics, 2, 29–46. doi:10.1016/0144-8188(82)90012-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Veggeland, N. (2008). Path dependence and public sector innovation in regulatory regimes. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(3), 268–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00206.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Webb, K. (2005). Sustainable governance in the twenty-first century: Moving beyond instrument choice. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Webber, D. J. (1986). Analyzing political feasibility: Political scientists’ unique contribution to policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 14(4), 545–554. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1986.tb00360.x.Google Scholar
  88. Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2004). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  89. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  90. Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wolf, C., Jr. (1979). A theory of nonmarket failure: Framework for implementation analysis. The Journal of Law & Economics, 22(1), 107–139. doi:10.1086/466935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wolf, C. J. (1987). Markets and non-market failures: Comparison and assessment. Journal of Public Policy, 7, 43–70. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00004347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wolf, C. J. (1988). Markets or governments: Choosing between imperfect alternatives. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. Zeckhauser, R. (1981). Preferred policies when there is a concern for probability of adoption. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 8, 215–237. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(81)90038-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations