Advertisement

The Policy Design Framework

  • Guillaume FontaineEmail author
  • Cecilia Medrano Caviedes
  • Iván Narváez
Chapter
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

This chapter presents the policy design framework which provided the theoretical background of our research. It builds on a typology of the foreground theories of policy design, based on different philosophical and scientific ontologies (Jackson, The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. (London: Routledge), 2016). Section 2 compares these four methodologies (coined neo-positivism, realism, analyticism and reflexivism) and their implications for the research on policy design. Section 3 explains how the four models that we coin “instrumentation”, “institutionalization”, “framing” and “emancipation” are related both to these methodologies and to middle-range theories of the policy design.

Keywords

Policy design framework Ontology Methodology Comparative policy analysis Resource nationalism Public accountability 

References

  1. Araral, E. (2014). “Policy and regulatory design for developing countries: A mechanism design and transaction cost approach”. Policy Sciences, 47: 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, D. (2018). “Multi-method research in the social sciences—A review of recent frameworks and a way forward”. ms 29 p.Google Scholar
  3. Beach, D., and Pedersen, R. B. (2016). Causal case study methods: Foundations and guidelines for comparing, matching and tracing. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Béland, D., and Cox, R. (2013). “Introduction to special issue: The politics of policy paradigms”. Governance, 26(2): 193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhaskar Roy (2008/1978). A realist theory of science. (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  6. Bobrow, D. (2006). “Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult”. In: Handbook of public policy. Edited by B. G. Peters and J. Pierre. (London: Sage), pp. 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobrow, D., and Dryzek, J. (1987). Policy analysis by design. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press).Google Scholar
  8. Boushey, G. (2013). “The punctuated equilibrium theory of agenda-setting and policy change”. In: Routledge handbook of public policy. Edited by E. Araral, S. Frizen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu. (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 138–152.Google Scholar
  9. Bresser, H., and Klok, P.-J. (1988). “Fundamentals for a theory of policy instruments”. International Journal of Social Economics, 15(3–4): 22–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breuning, C., and Ahlqvist, J. S. (2014). “Quantitative methodologies in public policy”. In: Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Edited by I. Engeli, and C. Rothmayr Allison. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chindarkar, N., Howlett, M., and Ramesh, M. (2017). “Introduction to the special issue: “Conceptualizing effective social policy design: Design spaces and capacity challenges””. Public Administration and Development, 37:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colebatch, H. K. (2017). “The idea of policy design: Intention, process, outcome, meaning and validity”. Policy and Administration, Special Issue: Questioning Policy Design. On-line version.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717709525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Considine, M. (2002). “The end of the line? Accountable governance in the age of networks, partnerships, and joined-up services”. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 15(1): 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Considine, M., Damon, A., and Lewis, J. (2014). “Policy design as craft: Teasing out policy design expertise using a semi-experimental approach”. Policy Sciences, 47: 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daigneault, P.-M. (2014). “Reassessing the concept of policy paradigm: Aligning ontology and methodology in policy studies”. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(3): 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Del Río, P., and Cerdá, E. (2017). “The missing link: The influence of instruments and design features on the interactions between climate and renewable electricity policies”. Energy Research and Social Science, 33: 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Del Río, P., and Howlett, M. (2013). “Beyond the “Tinbergen Rule” in policy design: Matching tools and goals in policy portfolios”. SSRN Electronic Journal. Working Paper LKYSPP13-01.Google Scholar
  18. Eliadis, P., Hill, M., and Howlett, M. (2005). “Introduction”. In: Designing government: From instruments to governance. Edited by P. Eliadis, M. Hill, and M. Howlett. (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press), pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
  19. Falleti, T., and Lynch, J. (2009). “Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis”. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9): 1143–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer, F. (2004). “Beyond empiricism: Policy analysis as deliberative practice”. In: Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Edited by M. Hajer Maarten, and H. Wagenaar. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 209–227.Google Scholar
  22. Fischer, F. (2007). “Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments”. In: Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. Edited by F. Fischer, G. Miller, and M. Sidney. (Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis), pp. 223–236.Google Scholar
  23. Fischer, F., and Forester, J. (1993). “Editors’ introduction”. In: The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Edited by F. Fischer and J. Forester. (London: University College London), pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fontaine, G., Fuentes, J. L., and Narváez, I. (2018). “Policy mixes against oil dependence: Resource nationalism, layering and contradictions in Ecuador’s energy transition”. Energy Research and Social Science, 47: 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. (Albany: State University of New York Press).Google Scholar
  26. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. (Frankfurt: Beacon Press).Google Scholar
  27. Hall, P. (1993). “Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain”. Comparative Politics, 25(3): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall, P. (2003). “Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative politics”. In: Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Edited by J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer. (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hogan, J., and Howlett, M. (2015). “Reflections on our understanding of policy paradigms and policy change”. In: Policy paradigms in theory and practice: Discourses, ideas and anomalies in public policy dynamics. Edited by M. Howlett, and J. Hogan. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. (London: Macmillan Press Ltd).Google Scholar
  31. Hood, C. (2007). “Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades”. Governance, 20(1): 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hood, C., and Margetts, H. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoppe, R. (2014). “Problems and policy design: Towards argumentative policy analysis”. Paper prepared for IPSA 23rd World Congress, Montreal, 19–24 July 2014.Google Scholar
  34. Hoppe, R. (2017). “Heuristics for practitioners of policy design: Rules-of thumb for structuring unstructured problems”. Policy and Administration, Special Issue: Questioning Policy Design. On-line version available at:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717709338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoppe, R., van de Graaf, H., and van Dijk, A. (1987). “Implementation research and policy design: Problem tractability, policy theory, and feasibility testing”. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 53: 581–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howlett, M. (2004). “Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles, and second generation theories of policy instrument choice”. Policy and Society, 23(2): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howlett, M. (2005). “What is a policy instrument?: Policy tools, policy mixes, and policy-implementation styles”. In: Designing government: From instruments to governance. Edited by P. Eliadis, M. Hill, and M. Howlett. (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press), pp. 31–50.Google Scholar
  38. Howlett, M. (2009a). “Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design”. Political Sciences, 42: 73–89.Google Scholar
  39. Howlett, M. (2009b). “Process sequencing policy dynamics: Beyond homeostasis and path dependency”. Journal of Public Policy, 29(3): 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies. Principles and instruments. (Oxon: Routledge).Google Scholar
  41. Howlett, M., and 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, 11(1): 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howlett, M., and Lejano, R. (2012). “Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design”. Administration and Society, 45(3): 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howlett, M., and Mukherjee, I. (2018). “The contribution of comparative policy analysis to policy design: Articulating principles of effectiveness and clarify design spaces”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 20(1): 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., and Woo, J. J. (2014). “From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: The new design orientation towards policy formulation research”. Policy and Politics, 43(2): 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., and Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (3rd edition)Google Scholar
  46. Howlett, M., and Rayner, J. (2007). “Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’ ”. Policy and Society, 26(4): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Howlett, M., and Rayner, J. (2013). “Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design”. Politics and Governance, 1(2): 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ingram, H., and Schneider, A. (2008). “Policy analysis for democracy”. In: The Oxford handbook of public policy. Edited by M. Moran, M. Rein, and R. E. Goodin. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 169–189.Google Scholar
  49. Jackson, P. T. (2016). The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. (London: Routledge). (2nd edition).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. John, P. (2003). “Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: Using evolutionary theory to explain policy change?”. Policy Studies Journal, 31(4): 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. John, P. (2012). Analyzing public policy (London and New York: Routledge). (2nd edition).Google Scholar
  52. Jones, C. O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy. (New York: Harcourt).Google Scholar
  53. Jones, B., and Baumgartner, F. (2004). “A model of choice for public policy”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3): 325–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kern, F., Kuzemko, C., and Mitchell, C. (2014). “Measuring and explaining policy paradigm change: The case of UK energy policy”. Policy and Politics, 42 (4): 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. King, G., Keohane, R., and Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. (Chicago: Chicago University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Landry, R., and Varone, F. (2005). “Choice of policy instruments: Confronting the deductive and the interactive approaches”. In: Designing government: From instruments to governance. Edited by P. Eliadis, M. Hill, and M. Howlett. (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press), pp. 106–131.Google Scholar
  58. Lascoumes, P., and Le Galès, P. (2007). “Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments: From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation”. Governance, 20(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Le Galès, P. (2010). “Policy instruments and governance”. In: The Sage handbook of governance. Edited by M. Bevir. (London: Sage), pp. 142–159.Google Scholar
  60. Linder, S., and Peters, B. G. (1984). “From social theory to policy design”. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3): 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Linder, S., and Peters, B. G. (1987). “A design perspective on policy implementation: The fallacies of misplaced prescription”. Policy Studies Review, 6(3): 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Linder, S., and Peters, B. G. (1989). “Instruments of government: Perceptions and context”. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Linder, S., and Peters, B. G. (1990a). “Policy formulation and the challenge of conscious design”. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13: 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Linder, S., and Peters, B. G. (1990b). “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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Linder, S., and Peters, B. G. (1991). “The logic of public policy design: Linking policy actors and plausible instruments”. Knowledge and Policy, 4(1–2): 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Linquist, E. (2006). “Organizing for policy implementation: The emergence and role of implementation units in policy design and oversight”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 8(4): 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mackie, J. L. (1965). “Causes and conditions”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4): 245–264.Google Scholar
  68. March, J., and Olsen, J. P. (2006). “The logic of appropriateness”. In: The Oxford handbook of public policy. Edited by M. Moran, M. Rein, and R. E. Goodin. (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 689–708.Google Scholar
  69. Marsh, D., and Furlong, P. (2010). “A skin, not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in political science”. In: Theory and methods in political science. Edited by G. Stoker and D. Marsh. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 184–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. May, P. (2005). “Policy design and implementation”. In: Handbook of public administration. Edited by B.G. Peters and J. Pierre. (London: Sage), pp. 279–291.Google Scholar
  71. Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation, Volume 1. (London: Harrison & Co Printers).Google Scholar
  72. Olsen, J. (2010). “Change and continuity: An institutional approach to institutions of democratic government”. In: Comparative administrative change and reform: Lessons learned. Edited by J. Pierre and P. Ingraham. (McGill-Queen’s University Press), pp. 15–50.Google Scholar
  73. Ostrom, E. (2011). “Background on the institutional analysis and development framework”. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1): 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). “Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and modeling processes”. Integrated Assessment, 3(1): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Peters, B. G. (2000). “Policy instruments and public management: Bridging the gaps”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1): 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy problems and policy design. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Peters, B. G., and Van Nispen, F. (Eds.) (1998). Public policy instruments. Evaluating the tools of public administration. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
  78. Pierce, J., Diddiki, S., Jones, M., Schumacher, D., Pattison, A., and Peterson, H. (2014). “Social construction and policy design: A review of past applications”. Policy Studies Journal, 42(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pierre, J. (2012). “Governance and institutional flexibility”. In: The Oxford handbook of governance. Edited by D. Levi-Faur. (London: Oxford University Press), pp. 187–200.Google Scholar
  80. Pierre, J., Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. (London: Macmillan Press).Google Scholar
  81. Przeworski, A., and Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. (Malabar: Kriegeri).Google Scholar
  82. Rayner, J. (2009). “Understanding policy change as a historical problem”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1): 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rihoux, B., Rezöhazy, I., and Bol, D. (2011). “Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in public policy analysis: An extensive review”. German Policy Studies Journal, 7(3): 9–82.Google Scholar
  84. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. (Durham and London: Duke University Press).Google Scholar
  85. Rogge, K., Kern, F., and Howlett, M. (2017). “Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transition”. Energy Research and Social Science, 33: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rosenow, J., Kern, F., and Rogge, K. (2017). “The need for comprehensive and well targeted instrument mixes to stimulate energy transitions: The case of energy efficiency policy”. Energy Research and Social Science, 33: 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Salamon, L. (2000). “The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction”. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5): 1609–1674.Google Scholar
  88. Salamon, L. (Ed.) (2005). The tools of the government: a guide to the new governance. (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  89. Sartori, G. (1970). “Concept mis-formation in comparative politics”. The American Political Science Review, 64(4): 1033–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. (London: Routledge). (2nd edition).Google Scholar
  91. Schneider, A., and Ingram, H. (1988). “Systematically pinching ideas: A comparative approach to policy design”. Journal of Public Policy, 8(1): 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schneider, A., and Ingram, H. (1990). “Behavioral assumptions of policy tools”. The Journal of Politics, 52(2): 510–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schneider, A., and Ingram, H. (1993). “Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy”. The American Political Science Review, 87(2): 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schneider, A., and Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas).Google Scholar
  95. Schneider, C., and Rohlfing, I. (2013). “Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research”. Sociological Methods and Research, 42(4): 559–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Tosun, J., and Treib, O. (2018). “Linking policy design and implementation styles”. In: The Routledge handbook of policy design. Edited by M. Howlett and I. Mukherjee. (London: Routledge), pp. 316–330.Google Scholar
  97. Turnbull, N. (2017). “Policy design: Its enduring appeal in a complex world and how to think differently”. Public Policy and Administration. On-line version available at:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717709522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Varone, F., and Aebischer, B. (2001). “Energy efficiency: The challenges of policy design”. Energy Policy, 29: 615–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Weimer, D. (1992). “The craft of policy design: Can it be more than art?”. Policy Studies Review, 11(3–4): 370–388.Google Scholar
  100. Weimer, D., and Vining, A. (2004). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
  101. Wilder, M. (2015). “What is a policy paradigm? Overcoming epistemological hurdles in cross-disciplinary conceptual adaptation”. In: Policy paradigms in theory and practice: Discourses, ideas and anomalies in public policy dynamics. Edited by M. Howlett and J. Hogan. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yanow, D. (2013). “Interpretive analysis and comparative research”. In: Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Edited by I. Engeli and C. Rothmayr Allison. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 131–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillaume Fontaine
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cecilia Medrano Caviedes
    • 2
  • Iván Narváez
    • 1
  1. 1.Latin American Faculty for Social SciencesQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Center for International StudiesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations