IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v56y2023i2d10.1007_s11077-023-09493-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Causality is good for practice: policy design and reverse engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Simone Busetti

    (Università degli Studi di Teramo)

Abstract

Relevance to practice is an open issue for scholars in public policy and public administration. One major problem is the need to produce knowledge that can guide practitioners designing and implementing public interventions in specific contexts. This article claims that investigating the causal mechanisms of policy programs—i.e., modeling why and how they produce outcomes—can contribute to such knowledge. In this regard, mechanisms offer essential information to guide practitioners when replicating, adjusting, and designing interventions. Unfortunately, not all models of mechanisms can inform practice. The article proposes a strategy for design research and practice inspired by reverse engineering: selecting successful programs, causal modeling, assessing the target context, and designing. Scholars should model mechanisms by identifying the program and non-program elements that contribute to the outcome of interest and abstracting their causal powers. Practitioners can use these models, diagnose their target context, and adjust designs to deal with context-specific problems. The proposed research agenda may enhance orientation to practice and offer a middle ground between the search for abstract, general relationships, and single-case analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Simone Busetti, 2023. "Causality is good for practice: policy design and reverse engineering," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 419-438, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:56:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-023-09493-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-023-09493-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-023-09493-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-023-09493-7?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. Roger Pielke, 2004. "What future for the policy sciences?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 209-225, December.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Dana Suskind, 2019. "The science of using science: Towards an understanding of the threats to scaling experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00670, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Ronald Brunner, 2006. "A Paradigm for Practice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(2), pages 135-167, June.
    4. Donald P. Green & Shang E. Ha & John G. Bullock, 2010. "Enough Already about “Black Box†Experiments: Studying Mediation Is More Difficult than Most Scholars Suppose," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 200-208, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Eugene Bardach, 2004. "Presidential address-The extrapolation problem: How can we learn from the experience of others?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 205-220.
    7. Gerring, John, 2008. "The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking Inside the Box," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 161-179, January.
    8. May, Peter J., 1992. "Policy Learning and Failure," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 331-354, October.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.
    4. Marco Giulio & Giancarlo Vecchi, 2019. "Multilevel policy implementation and the where of learning: the case of the information system for school buildings in Italy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 119-135, March.
    5. Susan Clark & Toddi Steelman, 2013. "Interviewing for an interdisciplinary job: principled goals, pragmatic outcomes, and finding the right fit in academia," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(1), pages 21-29, March.
    6. Agostinelli,Francesco & Avitabile,Ciro & Bobba,Matteo, 2021. "Enhancing Human Capital in Children : A Case Study on Scaling," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9647, The World Bank.
    7. Oliver Bakewell, 2013. "Re-launching migration systems," Norface Discussion Paper Series 2013011, Norface Research Programme on Migration, Department of Economics, University College London.
    8. Ekaterina Domorenok & Anthony R. Zito, 2021. "Engines of learning? Policy instruments, cities and climate governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 507-528, September.
    9. Hutchinson-Quillian, Jessan & Reiley, David & Samek, Anya, 2021. "Hassle costs and workplace charitable giving: Field experiments with Google employees," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 679-685.
    10. Peter Wilshusen, 2009. "Social process as everyday practice: the micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 137-162, May.
    11. Justin Longo & Alan Rodney Dobell, 2018. "The Limits of Policy Analytics: Early Examples and the Emerging Boundary of Possibilities," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 5-17.
    12. Damir Popović & Iva Slivar & Marli Gonan Božac, 2022. "Accessible Tourism and Formal Planning: Current State of Istria County in Croatia," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Riener, Gerhard & Schneider, Sebastian & Wagner, Valentin, 2020. "Addressing validity and generalizability concerns in field experiments," DICE Discussion Papers 345, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    14. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.
    15. Tansu Demir & Christopher Reddick & Renée Nank, 2015. "The Relationship Between Public Service Values and Administrative Involvement in Policymaking," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 79-98, March.
    16. Reale, Filippo, 2019. "Governing innovation systems: A Parsonian social systems perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    17. Hartlapp, Miriam & Metz, Julia & Rauh, Christian, 2010. "How external interests enter the European Commission: Mechanisms at play in legislative position formation," Discussion Papers, Schumpeter Junior Research Group Position Formation in the EU Commission SP IV 2010-501, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    18. Vahid Javidroozi & Hanifa Shah & Gerald Feldman, 2022. "Facilitating Smart City Development through Adaption of the Learnings from Enterprise Systems Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
    19. Hezri, Adnan A. & Dovers, Stephen R., 2006. "Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 86-99, November.
    20. Eliot Abrams & Jonathan Libgober & John A. List, 2020. "Research Registries: Facts, Myths, and Possible Improvements," NBER Working Papers 27250, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:56:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-023-09493-7. 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.