IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v57y2024i1d10.1007_s11077-024-09521-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector

Author

Listed:
  • Giliberto Capano

    (University of Bologna)

  • Benedetto Lepori

    (Università Della Svizzera Italiana)

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to contribute toward bridging the gap between policy design and implementation by focusing on domains, such as education, healthcare and community services, where policy implementation is largely left to the autonomous decision of public service providers, which are strategic actors themselves. More specifically, we suggest that two characteristics of policy design spaces in which policies are designed, i.e., the level of ideational coherence and the prevailing function of the adopted policy instruments, generate systematic patterns of responses in terms of the extent of compliance with policy goals, the presence of strategic gaming and possible defiance. We illustrate our model through a contrastive case study of the introduction of performance-based funding in the higher education sector in four European countries (France, Italy, Norway, and the United Kingdom). Our analysis displays that policy designs chosen by governments to steer public systems have different trade-offs in terms of responses of the public organizations involved that are essential to effectively implement governmental policies. The model we are proposing provides therefore a framework to understand how these interactions unfold in specific contexts, what are their effects on the achievement of policy goals and how policymakers could exploit their degrees of freedom in policy design to reduce unwanted effects.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:57:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-024-09521-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-024-09521-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-024-09521-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-024-09521-0?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. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2011. "Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration—Theoretical and Empirical Challenges," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 407-423, December.
    2. Brian A. Jacob & Steven D. Levitt, 2003. "Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 843-877.
    3. Beth Parkinson & Rachel Meacock & Matt Sutton, 2019. "How do hospitals respond to price changes in emergency departments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(7), pages 830-842, July.
    4. Gigliola Mathisen Nyhagen, 2015. "Between Slow and Comprehensive Reformers: Comparing Government’s Funding Policies of Universities in Three European Countries," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 533-543, July.
    5. Gianluca Andresani & Ewan Ferlie, 2006. "Studying governance within the British public sector and without," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 415-431, September.
    6. Katharine Barker, 2007. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 3-12, March.
    7. Smith, Simon & Ward, Vicky & House, Allan, 2011. "‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1369-1379.
    8. May, Peter J., 1991. "Reconsidering Policy Design: Policies and Publics," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 187-206, April.
    9. Mattia Cattaneo & Michele Meoli & Andrea Signori, 2016. "Performance-based funding and university research productivity: the moderating effect of university legitimacy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 85-104, February.
    10. Geuna, Aldo & Piolatto, Matteo, 2016. "Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 260-271.
    11. 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.
    12. Sara Giovanna Mauro & Lino Cinquini & Giuseppe Grossi, 2017. "Insights into performance-based budgeting in the public sector: a literature review and a research agenda," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 911-931, August.
    13. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    14. Camil Demetrescu & Andrea Ribichini & Marco Schaerf, 2020. "Are Italian research assessment exercises size-biased?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 533-549, October.
    15. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.
    16. Mehmet Pinar & Timothy J Horne, 2022. "Assessing research excellence: Evaluating the Research Excellence Framework," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 173-187.
    17. Pedro Teixeira & Ricardo Biscaia & Vera Rocha, 2022. "Competition for Funding or Funding for Competition? Analysing the Dissemination of Performance-based Funding in European Higher Education and its Institutional Effects," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 94-106, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Arlette Jappe & Thomas Heinze, 2023. "Research funding in the context of high institutional stratification: policy scenarios for Europe based on insights from the United States," Chapters, in: Benedetto Lepori & Ben Jongbloed & Diana Hicks (ed.), Handbook of Public Funding of Research, chapter 13, pages 203-220, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Jussi Kivistö & Charles Mathies, 2023. "Incentives, rationales, and expected impact: linking performance-based research funding to internal funding distributions of universities," Chapters, in: Benedetto Lepori & Ben Jongbloed & Diana Hicks (ed.), Handbook of Public Funding of Research, chapter 12, pages 186-202, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Ingo Bode & Johannes Lange & Markus Märker, 2017. "Caught in organized ambivalence: institutional complexity and its implications in the German hospital sector," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 501-517, April.
    22. Colin Talbot, 2004. "Executive Agencies: Have They Improved Management in Government?," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 104-112, April.
    23. Ben R Martin, 2011. "The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 247-254, September.
    24. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    25. Daniele Checchi & Irene Mazzotta & Sandro Momigliano & Francesco Olivanti, 2020. "Convergence or polarisation? The impact of research assessment exercises in the Italian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1439-1455, August.
    26. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2021. "The different responses of universities to introduction of performance-based research funding [How Incentives Trickle down: Local Use of a National Bibliometric Indicator System]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 514-528.
    27. Peter Dahler-Larsen, 2014. "Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 969-986, October.
    28. Florian Kern & Michael Howlett, 2009. "Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 391-408, November.
    29. Breton, Mylaine & Smithman, Mélanie Ann & Sasseville, Martin & Kreindler, Sara A. & Sutherland, Jason M. & Beauséjour, Marie & Green, Michael & Marshall, Emily Gard & Jbilou, Jalila & Shaw, Jay & Brou, 2020. "How the design and implementation of centralized waiting lists influence their use and effect on access to healthcare - A realist review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(8), pages 787-795.
    30. Marco Seeber & Benedetto Lepori & Martina Montauti & Jürgen Enders & Harry de Boer & Elke Weyer & Ivar Bleiklie & Kristin Hope & Svein Michelsen & Gigliola Nyhagen Mathisen & Nicoline Frølich & Lisa S, 2015. "European Universities as Complete Organizations? Understanding Identity, Hierarchy and Rationality in Public Organizations," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1444-1474, November.
    31. Federico Toth, 2021. "How policy tools evolve in the healthcare sector. Five countries compared," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 232-251, May.
    32. Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 1993. "Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice: Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 12(1‐2), pages 3-24, March.
    33. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    34. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11402 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2022. "Methods to evaluate institutional responses to performance‐based research funding systems," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 615-634, September.
    2. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    3. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    4. Mehmet Pinar, 2023. "Do research performances of universities and disciplines in England converge or diverge? An assessment of the progress between research excellence frameworks in 2014 and 2021," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5731-5766, October.
    5. Richard McManus & Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2022. "Measuring research excellence amongst economics lecturers in the UK," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 386-404, April.
    6. Salter, Ammon & Salandra, Rossella & Walker, James, 2017. "Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1769-1782.
    7. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    8. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 21104, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    9. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    10. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Norman Gemmell, 2022. "Sources of convergence and divergence in university research quality: evidence from the performance-based research funding system in New Zealand," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3021-3047, June.
    11. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    12. Civera, Alice & Lehmann, Erik E. & Paleari, Stefano & Stockinger, Sarah A.E., 2020. "Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    13. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Ashley Ball, 2021. "Fifteen Years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and Outcomes," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 208-230, June.
    14. Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela Anna & Torrini, Roberto, 2017. "Gender effects in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 911-924.
    15. Biancardi, Daniele & Bratti, Massimiliano, 2019. "The effect of introducing a Research Evaluation Exercise on student enrolment: Evidence from Italy," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 73-93.
    16. 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.
    17. Richard McManus & Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2017. "The Selection of Economics Lecturers into the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework Exercise: Outputs and Gender," Discussion Papers 17/16, Department of Economics, University of York.
    18. 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).
    19. Yu, Nannan & Dong, Yueyan & de Jong, Martin, 2022. "A helping hand from the government? How public research funding affects academic output in less-prestigious universities in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    20. Alessandra Scandura & Simona Iammarino, 2022. "Academic engagement with industry: the role of research quality and experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1000-1036, August.

    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_s11077-024-09521-0. 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.