IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v40y2013i4p595-616.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which Policy First? A Network-Centric Approach for the Analysis and Ranking of Policy Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Araz Taeihagh

    (Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, England)

  • Moshe Givoni

    (Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, England)

  • René Bañares-Alcántara

    (Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, England)

Abstract

In addressing various policy problems, deciding which policy measure to start with given the range of measures available is challenging and essentially involves a process of ranking the alternatives, commonly done using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques. In this paper a new methodology for analysis and ranking of policy measures is introduced which combines network analysis and MCDA tools. This methodology not only considers the internal properties of the measures but also their interactions with other potential measures. Consideration of such interactions provides additional insights into the process of policy formulation and can help domain experts and policy makers to better assess the policy measures and to understand the complexities involved. This new methodology is applied in this paper to the formulation of a policy to increase walking and cycling.

Suggested Citation

  • Araz Taeihagh & Moshe Givoni & René Bañares-Alcántara, 2013. "Which Policy First? A Network-Centric Approach for the Analysis and Ranking of Policy Measures," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 40(4), pages 595-616, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:40:y:2013:i:4:p:595-616
    DOI: 10.1068/b38058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b38058
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b38058?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G Montibeller & V Belton & F Ackermann & L Ensslin, 2008. "Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(5), pages 575-589, May.
    2. Kelly, Charlotte & May, Anthony D. & Jopson, Ann, 2008. "The development of an option generation tool to identify potential transport policy packages," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 361-371, November.
    3. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
    4. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    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. Mylène van der Koogh & Emile Chappin & Renée Heller & Zofia Lukszo, 2021. "Are We Satisfying the Right Conditions for the Mobility Transition? A Review and Evaluation of the Dutch Urban Mobility Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Li, Lili & Taeihagh, Araz, 2020. "An in-depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the sustainable energy transition in China from 1981 to 2020," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    4. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin De Jong, 2018. "The Governance of Risks in Ridesharing: A Revelatory Case from Singapore," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Justen, Andreas & Schippl, Jens & Lenz, Barbara & Fleischer, Torsten, 2014. "Assessment of policies and detection of unintended effects: Guiding principles for the consideration of methods and tools in policy-packaging," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 19-30.
    6. Marc Dijk & Moshe Givoni & Karen Diederiks, 2018. "Piling up or Packaging Policies? An Ex-Post Analysis of Modal Shift in Four Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Jenny Lieu & Niki Artemis Spyridaki & Rocio Alvarez-Tinoco & Wytze Van der Gaast & Andreas Tuerk & Oscar Van Vliet, 2018. "Evaluating Consistency in Environmental Policy Mixes through Policy, Stakeholder, and Contextual Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    10. Ricard Esparza-Masana, 2022. "Towards Smart Specialisation 2.0. Main Challenges When Updating Strategies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 635-655, March.
    11. Shqipe Buzuku & Javier Farfan & Kari Harmaa & Andrzej Kraslawski & Tuomo Kässi, 2019. "A Case Study of Complex Policy Design: The Systems Engineering Approach," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-23, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Taeihagh, Araz & Bañares-Alcántara, René & Givoni, Moshe, 2014. "A virtual environment for the formulation of policy packages," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 53-68.
    14. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Cynthia L. Michel, 2021. "Instruments for Policy Integration: How Policy Mixes Work Together," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    15. Clara Champalle & James D. Ford & Mya Sherman, 2015. "Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptations in Canadian Arctic Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-25, July.
    16. Justen, Andreas & Fearnley, Nils & Givoni, Moshe & Macmillen, James, 2014. "A process for designing policy packaging: Ideals and realities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 9-18.
    17. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee & Jeremy Rayner, 2014. "The Elements of Effective Program Design: A Two-Level Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-12.

    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. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    2. Xu, Xiaozhan, 2004. "A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 530-532, July.
    3. Sharon Novak & Scott Stern, 2009. "Complementarity Among Vertical Integration Decisions: Evidence from Automobile Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(2), pages 311-332, February.
    4. Yunhee Kim & Jae Young Choi & Yeonbae Kim, 2009. "Complementarity and Contextuality in the Adoption of Information Systems in Korean Firms," TEMEP Discussion Papers 200919, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Oct 2009.
    5. López, Alberto, 2012. "Productivity effects of ICTs and organizational change: A test of the complementarity hypothesis in Spain," MPRA Paper 40400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Jenner, RA, 1998. "Dissipative Enterprises, Chaos, and the Principles of Lean Organizations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 397-407, June.
    7. Randall S. Kroszner & Philip E. Strahan, 1999. "Bankers on Boards: Monitoring, Conflicts of Interest, and Lender Liability," NBER Working Papers 7319, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Laura Alfaro & Nick Bloom & Paola Conconi & Harald Fadinger & Patrick Legros & Andrew F Newman & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2024. "Come Together: Firm Boundaries and Delegation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 34-72.
    9. DeCanio, Stephen J. & Watkins, William E., 1998. "Information processing and organizational structure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 275-294, August.
    10. Nicholas Bloom & Luis Garicano & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2014. "The Distinct Effects of Information Technology and Communication Technology on Firm Organization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 2859-2885, December.
    11. Oyer, Paul & Schaefer, Scott, 2011. "Personnel Economics: Hiring and Incentives," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 20, pages 1769-1823, Elsevier.
    12. Mundaca, Gabriela, 2015. "Multi-product firms, exports and exchange rate policies. Evidence from an emerging economy," MPRA Paper 65751, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Da Rin, Marco & Hellmann, Thomas, 2002. "Banks as Catalysts for Industrialization," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 366-397, October.
    14. Dennis L. Gärtner, 2010. "Monopolistic screening under learning by doing," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 574-597, September.
    15. Zand, Fardad & Van Beers, Cees & Van Leeuwen, George, 2011. "Information technology, organizational change and firm productivity: A panel study of complementarity effects and clustering patterns in Manufacturing and Services," MPRA Paper 46469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Nti, Kofi O. & Dompere, Kofi K., 1997. "Technological progress and optimal factor demand," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 117-130, April.
    17. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    18. Eichhorst, Werner & Kendzia, Michael Jan & Schneider, Hilmar & Buhlmann, Florian, 2013. "Neue Anforderungen durch den Wandel der Arbeitswelt," IZA Research Reports 51, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    20. Fibla Gasparín, Ma. Teresa, 2010. "Productivity in southern European small firms: When and how work organization complements process innovation," Working Papers 2072/179600, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.

    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:sae:envirb:v:40:y:2013:i:4:p:595-616. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.