Element contents
Series: Elements in Public Policy
Understanding and Analyzing Public Policy Design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2020
Summary
There has been a surge in scholarship on policy design over the last ten years, as scholars seek to understand and develop existing concepts, theories, and methods engaged in the study of policy design in the context of modern governance. This Element adds to the current discourse on the study of policy design by (i) presenting behavioral assumptions and structural features of policy design; (ii) presenting a multi-level analytical framework for organizing policy design research; (iii) highlighting the role of policy compatibility and policy adaptability in influencing policy efficacy; and (iv) presenting future research recommendations relating to these topics.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Public PolicyOnline ISBN: 9781108666985Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 23 July 2020
References
Anderson, C. W. (1977). Statecraft: An Introduction to Political Choice and Judgement. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Basurto, X., Kingsley, G., McQueen, K., Smith, M., & Weible, C. M. (2010). A Systematic Approach to Institutional Analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammar. Political Research Quarterly 63 (3), 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beratan, K. K. (2007). A Cognition-Based View of Decision Processes in Complex Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 12 (1), 27.Google Scholar
Birkland, T. A. (2011). An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Decision Making, 3rd Edition. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Busetti, S., & Dente, B. (2016). Designing Multi-Actor Implementation: A Mechanism-Based Approach. Public Policy and Administration 33 (1): 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for “Asymmetric Paternalism. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151 (3), 1211–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, G., & Woo, J.J. (2018). Designing Policy Robustness: Outputs and Processes. Policy and Society 37 (4), 422–440.Google Scholar
Carter, David P., Weible, Christopher M., Siddiki, Saba N., and Basurto, Xavier. 2016. “integrating Core Concepts from the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework for the Systematic Analysis of Policy Designs: An Illustration from the U.S. National Organic Program Regulation.” Regulation & Governance 28 (1): 159–185.Google Scholar
Chetty, R. (2015). Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective. American Economic Review 105 (5), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, S. E., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of Institutions. The American Political Science Review 89 (3), 582–600.Google Scholar
Cushman, R. (1941). The Independent Regulatory Commission. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeCaro, D. (2018). Humanistic Rational Choice and Compliance Motivation in Complex Societal Dilemmas. In Contextualizing Compliance in the Public Sector: Individual Motivations, Social Processes, and Institutional Design, Siddiki, Saba, Espinosa, Salvador, and Heikkila, Tanya, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 126–147.Google Scholar
DeCaro, D., Chaffin, B. C., Schlager, E., Garmestani, A. S., & Ruhl, J. B. (2017). Legal and Institutional Foundations of Adaptive Environmental Governance. Ecology & Society 22 (1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doern, G. B., & Phidd, R. (1983). Canadian Public Policy: Ideas, Structure, and Process. Toronto, ON: Methuen.Google Scholar
Doremus, H. (2003). A Policy Portfolio Approach to Biodiversity Protection on Private Lands. Environmental Science & Policy 6 (3), 217–232.Google Scholar
Edelman, M. (1985). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Elmore, Richard F. (1987). Instruments and Strategy in Public Policy. Policy Studies Review 7 (1), 174–186.Google Scholar
Gibson, Clark C., Ostrom, Elinor, and Ahn, T.K.. 2000. “The Concept of Scale and the Human Dimensions of Change: A Survey.” Ecological Economics 32: 217–239.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation. Regulatory Theory: 133.Google Scholar
Neil, Gunningham and Sinclair, Darren. 1999. “Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection.” Law & Policy 21 (1): 49–76.Google Scholar
Hanlon, J., Olivier, T., & Schlager, E. (Forthcoming). Suspicious Collaborators: How Government in Polycentric Systems Monitor Behavior and Enforce Public Good Provision Against One Another. International Journal of the Commons.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual Obsolescence and Intellectual Makeovers: Reflections on the Tools of Government after Two Decades. Public Administration Review 20 (1), 127–144.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2018). Matching Policy Tools and Their Targets: Beyond Nudges and Utility Maximization in Policy Design. Policy & Politics 46 (1), 101–124.Google Scholar
Howlett, N. (2019). Procedural Policy Tools and the Temporal Dimensions of Policy Design. International Review of Public Policy 1 (1), Online.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. & Mukherjee, I. (2017). Policy Design: From Tools to Patches. Canadian Public Administration 60 (1), 140–144.CrossRefGoogle 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., 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.Google Scholar
Michael, Howlett. 2014. “From the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ Policy Design: Design Thinking Beyond Markets and Collaborative Governance.” Policy Sciences 47: 187–207.Google Scholar
Michael, Howlett and Mukherjee, Ishani. 2014. “Policy Design: From Tools to Patches.” Canadian Public Administration 60 (1); 140–144.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Overview of the Research Program. In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th Edition, Weible, C. M. and Sabatier, P. A., eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 135–172.Google Scholar
Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., Resh, W., & Siddiki, S. (Forthcoming). Microbrook, Mesobrook, and Macrobrook. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D. (2001). Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kassekert, A., & Feiock, R. C. (2009). Policy Tool Selection: Predicting the Bundling of Economic Development Policy Instruments Using Multivariate Probit Analysis. Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Kirschen, E. S. (1964). Economic Policy in Our Times. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kiser, Larry L. and Ostrom, Elinor. 1982. “The Three Worlds of Action: A Metatheoretical Synthesis of Institutional Approaches.” In Elinor Ostrom, Ed., Strategies of Political Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 179–222.Google Scholar
Laswell, H. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith Publisher.Google Scholar
Levin, S. A., & Lubchenco, J. (2008). Resilience, Robustness, and Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Bioscience 58 (1), 27–32.Google Scholar
Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts. Journal of Public Policy 9 (1), 35–58.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G., & Chater, N. (2017). Putting Nudges in Perspective. Behavioural Public Policy 1 (1), 26–53.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. J. (1964). American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory. World Politics 16 (4), 677–715.Google Scholar
Madrian, B. (2014). Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design. Annual Review of Economics 6, 663–688.Google Scholar
May, P. J., Sapotichne, J., & Workman, S. (2006). Policy Coherence and Policy Domains. Policy Studies Journal 34 (3), 381–403.Google Scholar
Mondou, M., & Montpetit, E. (2010). Policy Styles and Degenerative Politics: Poverty Policy Designs in Newfoundland and Quebec. Policy Studies Journal 38 (4), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosher, Frederick C. 1980. “The Changing Responsibilities and Tactics of the Federal Government.” Public Administration Review 40 (6): 541–548.Google Scholar
Munro, G., & Ditto, P. H. (1997). Biased Assimilation, Attitude Polarization, and Affect in Reactions to Stereotype-Relevant Scientific Information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (6), 636–653.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1962). The Water Economy and Its Organization. Natural Resources Journal 2 (1), 55–73.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1993). When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change. World Politics 45 (4), 595–628.Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist 55 (1), 68–78.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis. Policy Studies Journal.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schlager, E., & Cox, M. (2018). The IAD Framework and the SES Framework: An Introduction and Assessment of the Ostrom Workshop Frameworks. In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th Edition. Weible, C. M. and Sabatier, P. A., eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 215–252.Google Scholar
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1988). Systematically Pinching Ideas: A Comparative Approach to Policy Design. Journal of Public Policy 8 (1), 61–80.Google Scholar
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. The Journal of Politics 52 (2), 510–529.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Siddiki, S. (2014). Assessing Policy Design and Interpretation: An Institutions-Based Analysis in the Context of Aquaculture in Florida and Virginia, United States. Regulation & Governance 31 (4), 281–303.Google Scholar
Siddiki, S. (2018). Policy Design and Conflict. In Routledge Handbook of Policy Design. Howlett, M and Mukherjee, I, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 212–224.Google Scholar
Siddiki, S., Carley, S., Zirogiannis, N., Duncan, D., & Graham, J. (2018). Does Dynamic Federalism Yield Compatible Policies? A Study of the Designs of Federal and State Vehicle Policies. Policy Design and Practice 1 (3), 215–232.Google Scholar
Siddiki, S., Frey, S., Rice, D., Schlager, E., & Schweik, C.M. (2019). Research Coordination Network: Coordinating and Advancing Analytical Approaches for Policy Design. United States National Science Foundation proposal.Google Scholar
Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., Pacheco-Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., DeSlatte, A., & Bennett, A. (2019). Institutional Analysis with the Institutional Grammar. Policy Studies Journal. Online first.Google Scholar
Siddiki, S., Weible, C. M., Basurto, X., & Calanni, J. (2011). Dissecting Policy Designs: An Application of the Institutional Grammar Tool. Policy Studies Journal 39 (1), 79–103.Google Scholar
Siddiki, Saba, Tanya, Heikkila, Weible, Christopher M., Pacheco-Vega, Raul, Carter, David, Curley, Cali, DeSlatte, Aaron, and Bennett, Abby. 2019. “Institutional Analysis with the Institutional Grammar.” Policy Studies Journal. Online first.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saba, Siddiki, Basurto, Xavier, and Weible, Christopher M.. 2012. “Using the Institutional Grammar Tool to Understand Regulatory Compliance: The Case of Colorado Aquaculture.” Regulation & Governance 6: 167–188.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations. American Economic Review 69 (4), 493–513.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. 1957. Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, K. B. (2002). Typologies, Taxonomies, and the Benefits of Policy Classification. Policy Studies Journal 30 (2), 379–395.Google Scholar
Steinberger, P. J. (1980). Typologies for Public Policy: Meaning Construction and the Policy Process. Social Science Quarterly 61 (2), 185–197.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 & Social Change 77, 924–939.Google Scholar
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Weible, C. M., & Carter, D. (2015). The Composition of Policy Change: Comparing Colorado’s 1997 and 2006 Smoking Bans. Policy Sciences 48, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2011). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 5th Edition. New York, NY: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2012). Pool Tool Interactions and the Adoption of State Renewable Portfolio Standards. Review of Policy Research 29 (2), 193–206.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar