IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v57y2024i1d10.1007_s11077-024-09520-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Craft

    (University of Toronto)

  • Reut Marciano

    (University of Toronto
    The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Abstract

Policy design approaches currently pay insufficient attention to feedback that occurs during the design process. Addressing this endogenous policy design feedback gap is pressing as policymakers can adopt ‘low-fidelity’ design approaches featuring compressed and iterative feedback-rich design cycles. We argue that within-design feedback can be oriented to the components of policy designs (instruments and objectives) and serve to reinforce or undermine them during the design process. We develop four types of low-fidelity design contingent upon the quality of feedback available to designers and their ability to integrate it into policy design processes: confident iteration and stress testing, advocacy and hacking, tinkering and shots in the dark, or coping. We illustrate the utility of the approach and variation in the types, use, and impacts of within-design feedback and low-fidelity policy design through an examination of the UK’s Universal Credit policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Craft & Reut Marciano, 2024. "Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 83-99, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:57:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09520-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-024-09520-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-024-09520-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-024-09520-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diana Pamela Villa Alvarez & Valentina Auricchio & Marzia Mortati, 2022. "Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 89-136, March.
    2. Benjamin Cashore & Michael Howlett, 2007. "Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 532-551, July.
    3. Andrew Jordan & Elah Matt, 2014. "Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 227-247, September.
    4. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    5. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    6. Anat Gofen & Adam M. Wellstead & Noa Tal, 2023. "Devil in the details? Policy settings and calibrations of national excellence-centers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 301-323, June.
    7. Bert Fraussen & Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun, 2020. "Conceptualizing consultation approaches: identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 473-493, September.
    8. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    9. Linder, Stephen H. & Peters, B. Guy, 1989. "Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 35-58, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    2. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    3. Arnošt Veselý, 2021. "Autonomy of policy instrument attitudes: concept, theory and evidence," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 441-455, June.
    4. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    5. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    6. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    7. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    8. Giliberto Capano & Benedetto Lepori, 2024. "Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 53-82, March.
    9. Jakob T. Pruess, 2023. "Unraveling the complexity of extended producer responsibility policy mix design, implementation, and transfer dynamics in the European Union," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(6), pages 1500-1520, December.
    10. Zejin Liu & Steven Van de Walle, 2022. "The role of demonstration projects as policy instruments in the development of nonprofit organizations: Beyond instrumentality," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(4), pages 233-244, October.
    11. Casula, Mattia & Toth, Federico, 2021. "The 2017 Italian reform on mandatory childhood vaccinations: Analysis of the policy process and early implementation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 7-11.
    12. Anat Gofen & Adam M. Wellstead & Noa Tal, 2023. "Devil in the details? Policy settings and calibrations of national excellence-centers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 301-323, June.
    13. Omri Carmon & Itay Fischhendler, 2021. "A friction perspective for negotiating renewable energy targets: the Israeli case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 313-344, June.
    14. Lana Ollier & Florence Metz & Alejandro Nuñez-Jimenez & Leonhard Späth & Johan Lilliestam, 2022. "The European 2030 climate and energy package: do domestic strategy adaptations precede EU policy change?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 161-184, March.
    15. Christian Adam & Yves Steinebach & Christoph Knill, 2018. "Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: the problem of policy accumulation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 269-290, September.
    16. Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
    17. Xiaotong Guo & Lingyan Li & Haiyan Xie & Wei Shi, 2020. "Improved Multi-Objective Optimization Model for Policy Design of Rental Housing Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-23, July.
    18. Sebastian Sewerin & Daniel Béland & Benjamin Cashore, 2020. "Designing policy for the long term: agency, policy feedback and policy change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 243-252, June.
    19. Ilana Shpaizman, 2020. "The end–means nexus and policy conversion: evidence from two cases in Israeli immigrant integration policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 713-733, December.
    20. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:57:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09520-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.