IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v47y2014i3p187-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Howlett

Abstract

Policy design as a field of inquiry in policy studies has had a chequered history. After a promising beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, the field languished in the 1990s and 2000s as work in the policy sciences focused on the impact on policy outcomes of meta-changes in society and the international environment. Both globalization and governance studies of the period ignored traditional design concerns in arguing that changes at this level predetermined policy specifications and promoted the use of market and collaborative governance (network) instruments. However, more recent work re-asserting the role of governments both at the international and domestic levels has revitalized design studies. This special issue focuses on recent efforts in the policy sciences to reinvent, or more properly, ‘re-discover’ the policy design orientation in light of these developments. Articles in the issue address leading edge issues such as the nature of design thinking and expertise in a policy context, the temporal aspects of policy designs, the role of experimental designs, the question of policy mixes, the issue of design flexibility and resilience and the criteria for assessing superior designs. Evidence and case studies deal with design contexts and processes in Canada, China, Singapore, the UK, EU, Australia and elsewhere. Such detailed case studies are necessary for policy design studies to advance beyond some of the strictures placed in their way by the reification of, and over-emphasis upon, only a few of the many possible kinds of policy designs identified by the 1990s and early 2000s literature. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:3:p:187-207
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0?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. Johan P. Olsen & James G. March, 2004. "The logic of appropriateness," ARENA Working Papers 9, ARENA.
    2. Linder, Stephen H. & Peters, B. Guy, 1984. "From Social Theory to Policy Design," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 237-259, August.
    3. Andrew Chadwick, 2000. "Studying Political Ideas: a Public Political Discourse Approach," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(2), pages 283-301, May.
    4. Stimson, James A. & Mackuen, Michael B. & Erikson, Robert S., 1995. "Dynamic Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 543-565, September.
    5. Thelen,Kathleen, 2004. "How Institutions Evolve," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521546744.
    6. Eric S. Maskin, 2008. "Mechanism Design: How to Implement Social Goals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 567-576, June.
    7. Majone, Giandomenico, 1997. "From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 139-167, May.
    8. Peter DeLeon, 1999. "The Missing Link Revisited:," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(3‐4), pages 311-338, September.
    9. Baliga, Sandeep & Maskin, Eric, 2003. "Mechanism design for the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 305-324, Elsevier.
    10. Dryzek, John S., 1983. "Don't Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 345-367, October.
    11. Rayner, Jeremy & Howlett, Michael & Wilson, Jeremy & Cashore, Benjamin & Hoberg, George, 2001. "Privileging the sub-sector: critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3-4), pages 319-332, July.
    12. Raul Lejano & Savita Shankar, 2013. "The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 83-102, March.
    13. Suzuki, Motoshi, 1992. "Political Business Cycles in the Public Mind," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 989-996, December.
    14. Knill, Christoph, 1999. "Explaining Cross-National Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 113-139, May.
    15. Buckman, Greg & Diesendorf, Mark, 2010. "Addendum to "Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies" [Energy Policy 38 (2010), 3365-3376]," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7539-7540, November.
    16. John S. Dryzek & Brian Ripley, 1988. "The Ambitions Of Policy Design," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 705-719, June.
    17. Bressers, Hans Th. A. & Jr, Laurence J. O'Toole,, 1998. "The Selection of Policy Instruments: a Network-based Perspective," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 213-239, December.
    18. Franchino, Fabio & Høyland, Bjørn, 2009. "Legislative Involvement in Parliamentary Systems: Opportunities, Conflict, and Institutional Constraints," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(4), pages 607-621, November.
    19. Hongtao Yi & Richard C. Feiock, 2012. "Policy Tool Interactions and the Adoption of State Renewable Portfolio Standards," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(2), pages 193-206, March.
    20. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 73-89, February.
    21. Walker, Warren E. & Rahman, S. Adnan & Cave, Jonathan, 2001. "Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 282-289, January.
    22. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    23. Oecd, 2007. "Instrument Mixes Addressing Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution," OECD Papers, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(8), pages 1-100.
    24. Janet A. Weiss & Mary Tschirhart, 1994. "Public information campaigns as policy instruments," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 82-119.
    25. Ingram, Helen & Schneider, Anne, 1990. "Improving Implementation Through Framing Smarter Statutes," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 67-88, January.
    26. Boonekamp, Piet G.M., 2006. "Actual interaction effects between policy measures for energy efficiency—A qualitative matrix method and quantitative simulation results for households," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2848-2873.
    27. Trebilcock, Michael J. & Hartle, Douglas G., 1982. "The choice of governing instrument," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 29-46, June.
    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. Thelen,Kathleen, 2004. "How Institutions Evolve," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521837682.
    30. Buckman, Greg & Diesendorf, Mark, 2010. "Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3365-3376, July.
    31. Stephen H. Linder & B. Guy Peters, 1990. "An Institutional Approach to the Theory of Policy-Making: The Role of Guidance Mechanisms in Policy Formulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 59-83, January.
    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. Durr, Robert H., 1993. "What Moves Policy Sentiment?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 158-170, March.
    34. Hoffmann, Matthew J., 2011. "Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195390087.
    35. Stephen H. Linder & B. Guy Peters, 1988. "The Analysis Of Design Or The Design Of Analysis?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 738-750, June.
    36. Robert Agranoff & Michael McGuire, 1999. "Managing In Network Settings," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(1), pages 18-41, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael Howlett & Pablo del Rio, 2015. "The parameters of policy portfolios: verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1233-1245, October.
    5. Moshe Maor, 2017. "The implications of the emerging disproportionate policy perspective for the new policy design studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 383-398, September.
    6. Ishani Mukherjee & M. Kerem Coban & Azad Singh Bali, 2021. "Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 243-268, June.
    7. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    8. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    9. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    10. Ishani Mukherjee, 2021. "Rethinking the procedural in policy instrument ‘Compounds’: a renewable energy policy perspective [Introducing vertical policy coordination to comparative policy analysis: The missing link between ," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 312-332.
    11. Michael Howlett & Joanna Vince & Pablo del Río, 2017. "Policy Integration and Multi-Level Governance: Dealing with the Vertical Dimension of Policy Mix Designs," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 69-78.
    12. Giliberto Capano & Jun Jie Woo, 2017. "Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 399-426, September.
    13. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 73-89, February.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Fangxin Yi & Jun Jie Woo & Qiang Zhang, 2022. "Community Resilience and COVID-19: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Resilience Attributes in 16 Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. Shyu, Chian-Woei, 2024. "Referendum as a policy instrument to enhance energy democracy in formulating energy transition path, agenda, and policies: A case study of Taiwan's referendums in 2018 and 2021," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Matthew Retallack, 2020. "Paradigmatic policy change or unintended subordination of rural autonomy: the case of source water protection in Ontario, Canada," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 85-100, March.
    19. Malhotra, Abhishek, 2022. "Trade-offs and synergies in power sector policy mixes: The case of Uttar Pradesh, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    20. 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.

    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:47:y:2014:i:3:p:187-207. 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.