IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v53y2020i2d10.1007_s11077-019-09365-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output

Author

Listed:
  • Leonore Haelg

    (ETH Zurich)

  • Sebastian Sewerin

    (ETH Zurich)

  • Tobias S. Schmidt

    (ETH Zurich)

Abstract

Despite a renaissance of policy design thinking in public policy literature and a renewed interest in agency in the policy process literature, agency in the policy design process has, so far, not received systematic attention. Understanding the agency at play when designing policy, however, is crucial for better comprehension of policy design choices and variation in policy design across cases. Here, we build on the hierarchical structure of design elements that constitute each policy and analyse how actors position themselves during a policy design process in relation to individual design elements. Our aim is to establish different actors’ roles in shaping the policy output in an inductive, single-case study using the empirical case of the Swiss renewable energy feed-in tariff. Notably, we find agency in the form of coalitions which emerge around particular design elements. Based on our representative analysis, we derive the generalisable concept of design coalitions that we define as relational structures of actors who gather around and advocate for specific policy design elements during the policy design process. Policy design coalitions are dynamic throughout the design process and strategic and constitute the determinants in translating policy problems into final policy designs during policy designing. Our approach allows us to shed light on the role of agency in the policy design process in general.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:53:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-019-09365-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-019-09365-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-019-09365-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-019-09365-z?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. Hacker, Jacob S., 2004. "Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 243-260, May.
    2. Stokes, Leah C., 2013. "The politics of renewable energy policies: The case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 490-500.
    3. Jenner, Steffen & Groba, Felix & Indvik, Joe, 2013. "Assessing the strength and effectiveness of renewable electricity feed-in tariffs in European Union countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 385-401.
    4. 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.
    5. Ian Bache & Louise Reardon & Ian Bartle & Matthew Flinders & Greg Marsden, 2015. "Symbolic Meta-Policy: (Not) Tackling Climate Change in the Transport Sector," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63(4), pages 830-851, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lauber, Volkmar, 2006. "The politics and policy of energy system transformation--explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 256-276, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    10. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Jan-Peter Voß & Adrian Smith & John Grin, 2009. "Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 275-302, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Stavins, Robert N., 1996. "Correlated Uncertainty and Policy Instrument Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 218-232, March.
    16. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1988. "Systematically Pinching Ideas: A Comparative Approach to Policy Design," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 61-80, January.
    17. Mark Considine & Damon Alexander & Jenny Lewis, 2014. "Policy design as craft: teasing out policy design expertise using a semi-experimental approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 209-225, September.
    18. Ishani Mukherjee & Michael Howlett, 2015. "Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 65-75.
    19. 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.
    20. Kelly Levin & Benjamin Cashore & Steven Bernstein & Graeme Auld, 2012. "Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(2), pages 123-152, June.
    21. Craft, Jonathan & Howlett, Michael, 2012. "Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 79-98, August.
    22. Gerring, John, 2004. "What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 341-354, May.
    23. Cameron Hepburn, 2006. "Regulation by Prices, Quantities, or Both: A Review of Instrument Choice," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 226-247, Summer.
    24. 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.
    25. Kemp, René & Pontoglio, Serena, 2011. "The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments — A typical case of the blind men and the elephant?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 28-36.
    26. Bowers, John, 2005. "Instrument choice for sustainable development: an application to the forestry sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 97-107, January.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Vasiliki Geropanta & Elia Margarita Cornelio-Marí, 2022. "Inclusiveness and Participation in the Design of Public Spaces: Her City and the Challenge of the Post-Pandemic Scenario," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Richard C. Feiock & Soyoung Kim, 2021. "The Political Market and Sustainability Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Naimeh Mohammadi & Mohammad M. Khabbazan, 2022. "The Influential Mechanisms of Power Actor Groups on Policy Mix Adoption: Lessons Learned from Feed-In Tariffs in the Renewable Energy Transition in Iran and Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-27, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    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. Matsuo, Tyeler & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2019. "Managing tradeoffs in green industrial policies: The role of renewable energy policy design," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 11-26.
    2. 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.
    3. Polzin, Friedemann & Egli, Florian & Steffen, Bjarne & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2019. "How do policies mobilize private finance for renewable energy?—A systematic review with an investor perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1249-1268.
    4. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Sewerin, Sebastian, 2019. "Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes – An empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    5. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    6. Grace Skogstad, 2020. "Mixed feedback dynamics and the USA renewable fuel standard: the roles of policy design and administrative agency," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 349-369, June.
    7. Malhotra, Abhishek, 2022. "Trade-offs and synergies in power sector policy mixes: The case of Uttar Pradesh, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Steven Bernstein & Matthew Hoffmann, 2018. "The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(2), pages 189-211, June.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Fleck, Ann-Katrin & Anatolitis, Vasilios, 2023. "Achieving the objectives of renewable energy policy – Insights from renewable energy auction design in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    15. Carol Hager & Nicole Hamagami, 2020. "Local Renewable Energy Initiatives in Germany and Japan in a Changing National Policy Environment," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 386-411, May.
    16. Rik L. Rozendaal & Herman R. J. Vollebergh, 2021. "Policy-Induced Innovation in Clean Technologies: Evidence from the Car Market," CESifo Working Paper Series 9422, CESifo.
    17. Botor, Benjamin & Böcker, Benjamin & Kallabis, Thomas & Weber, Christoph, 2021. "Information shocks and profitability risks for power plant investments – impacts of policy instruments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    18. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Jonas Meckling, 2019. "Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(2), pages 317-338, March.

    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:53:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-019-09365-z. 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.