IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v49y2016i4d10.1007_s11077-016-9250-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to build models for government: criteria driving model acceptance in policymaking

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Antony Kolkman

    (University of Surrey)

  • Paolo Campo

    (University of Surrey)

  • Tina Balke-Visser

    (University of Surrey)

  • Nigel Gilbert

    (University of Surrey)

Abstract

Models are used to inform policymaking and underpin large amounts of government expenditure. Several authors have observed a discrepancy between the actual and potential use of models in government. While there have been several studies investigating model acceptance in government, it remains unclear under what conditions models are accepted. In this paper, we address the question “What criteria affect model acceptance in policymaking?”, the answer to which will contribute to the wider understanding of model use in government. We employ a thematic coding approach to identify the acceptance criteria for the eight models in our sample. Subsequently, we compare our findings with existing literature and use qualitative comparative analysis to explore what configurations of the criteria are observed in instances of model acceptance. We conclude that model acceptance is affected by a combination of the model’s characteristics, the supporting infrastructure and organizational factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Antony Kolkman & Paolo Campo & Tina Balke-Visser & Nigel Gilbert, 2016. "How to build models for government: criteria driving model acceptance in policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 489-504, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:49:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9250-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-016-9250-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-016-9250-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-016-9250-4?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. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2007. "A SWOT Analysis of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(7), pages 1699-1714, July.
    2. Ragin, Charles C., 2006. "Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 291-310, July.
    3. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    4. Goodwin, Paul & Fildes, Robert & Lawrence, Michael & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2007. "The process of using a forecasting support system," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 391-404.
    5. Boulanger, Paul-Marie & Brechet, Thierry, 2005. "Models for policy-making in sustainable development: The state of the art and perspectives for research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 337-350, November.
    6. Happe, Kathrin & Balmann, Alfons, 2008. "Doing Policy In The Lab! Options For The Future Use Of Model-Based Policy Analysis For Complex Decision-Making," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6588, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. B Baesens & C Mues & D Martens & J Vanthienen, 2009. "50 years of data mining and OR: upcoming trends and challenges," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 16-23, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Darren Nel & Araz Taeihagh, 2024. "The soft underbelly of complexity science adoption in policymaking: towards addressing frequently overlooked non-technical challenges," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 403-436, June.
    2. Süsser, Diana & Gaschnig, Hannes & Ceglarz, Andrzej & Stavrakas, Vassilis & Flamos, Alexandros & Lilliestam, Johan, 2022. "Better suited or just more complex? On the fit between user needs and modeller-driven improvements of energy system models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PB).
    3. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    4. Veale, Michael & Van Kleek, Max & Binns, Reuben, 2018. "Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making," SocArXiv 8kvf4, Center for Open Science.
    5. Mitoko, Jeremiah, 2021. "Economics of Microcredit-From current crisis to new possibilities," MPRA Paper 108392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Kolkman, Daan, 2020. "The usefulness of algorithmic models in policy making," SocArXiv hpma8, Center for Open Science.

    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. Kolkman, Daan, 2020. "The usefulness of algorithmic models in policy making," SocArXiv hpma8, Center for Open Science.
    2. Claire A. Dunlop & Martino Maggetti & Claudio M. Radaelli & Duncan Russel, 2012. "The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta‐analysis of EU and UK cases," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 23-45, March.
    3. Mirjat, Nayyar Hussain & Uqaili, Mohammad Aslam & Harijan, Khanji & Valasai, Gordhan Das & Shaikh, Faheemullah & Waris, M., 2017. "A review of energy and power planning and policies of Pakistan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 110-127.
    4. Prosman, Ernst Johannes & Cagliano, Raffaella, 2022. "A contingency perspective on manufacturing configurations for the circular economy: Insights from successful start-ups," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 249(C).
    5. Grohs, Reinhard & Raies, Karine & Koll, Oliver & Mühlbacher, Hans, 2016. "One pie, many recipes: Alternative paths to high brand strength," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2244-2251.
    6. Barry Cooper & Judith Glaesser, 2016. "Analysing necessity and sufficiency with Qualitative Comparative Analysis: how do results vary as case weights change?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 327-346, January.
    7. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    8. Metin Türkay & Öztürk Saraçoğlu & Mehmet Can Arslan, 2016. "Sustainability in Supply Chain Management: Aggregate Planning from Sustainability Perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Yu-Li Lin & Hsiu-Wen Liu & Fengzeng Xu & Hao Wang, 2016. "Environmental Conditions, Entrepreneur Alertness and Social Capital on Performance," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    10. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Julien Lefevre, 2018. "Modeling the Socioeconomic Impacts of the Adoption of a Carbon Pricing Instrument – Literature review," CIRED Working Papers hal-03128619, HAL.
    12. Thomas Mellewigt & Glenn Hoetker & Martina Lütkewitte, 2018. "Avoiding High Opportunism Is Easy, Achieving Low Opportunism Is Not: A QCA Study on Curbing Opportunism in Buyer–Supplier Relationships," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1208-1208, December.
    13. Federica Nieri & Luciano Ciravegna & Ruth V. Aguilera & Elisa Giuliani, 2019. "Larger, more internationalized, better behaved? A configurational study of em erging market multinational enterprises' involvement in corporate wrongdoing," Discussion Papers 2019/255, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Christof Rissi & Fritz Sager, 2013. "Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 348-364, September.
    15. Muñoz, Pablo & Kibler, Ewald, 2016. "Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1314-1318.
    16. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Policy Advice in Multi-Level Governance Systems: Sub-National Policy Analysts and Analysis," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    17. He, Wei & Prentice, Catherine & Wang, Xuequn, 2024. "Symmetrical and asymmetrical approaches to brand loyalty– The case of intelligent voice assistants," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    18. Ferguson, Graham & Megehee, Carol M. & Woodside, Arch G., 2017. "Culture, religiosity, and economic configural models explaining tipping-behavior prevalence across nations," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 218-233.
    19. Ming Zhang & Ruoran Cheng & Jiabao Fei & Ribesh Khanal, 2024. "Enhancing Digital Innovation Ecosystem Resilience through the Interplay of Organizational, Technological, and Environmental Factors: A Study of 31 Provinces in China Using NCA and fsQCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, February.
    20. Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot & Delphine Manceau & Celine Abecassis-Moedas, 2019. "Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing-External Design Relationship," Post-Print hal-01883760, HAL.

    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:49:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9250-4. 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.