Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types

Abstract

Public policies are the result of efforts made by governments to alter aspects of behaviour—both that of their own agents and of society at large—in order to carry out some end or purpose. They are comprised of arrangements of policy goals and policy means matched through some decision-making process. These policy-making efforts can be more, or less, systematic in attempting to match ends and means in a logical fashion or can result from much less systematic processes. “Policy design” implies a knowledge-based process in which the choice of means or mechanisms through which policy goals are given effect follows a logical process of inference from known or learned relationships between means and outcomes. This includes both design in which means are selected in accordance with experience and knowledge and that in which principles and relationships are incorrectly or only partially articulated or understood. Policy decisions can be careful and deliberate in attempting to best resolve a problem or can be highly contingent and driven by situational logics. Decisions stemming from bargaining or opportunism can also be distinguished from those which result from careful analysis and assessment. This article considers both modes and formulates a spectrum of policy formulation types between “design” and “non-design” which helps clarify the nature of each type and the likelihood of each unfolding.

Policy Integration and Multi-Level Governance: Dealing with the Vertical Dimension of Policy Mix Designs

“…And there is also a temporal dimension to complexity as, in many cases, tools and instruments from one era have been 'layered' on top of others in an often less than rational process of matching overall policy means with goals, resulting in inconsistencies and incongruencies in tools embedded in such arrangements (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2014;Howlett & Rayner, 2004). And this complexity is augmented even further when tool choices and preferred combinations of instruments deal with ideological or even 'aesthetic' preferences in tool choices and goal articulation rather than issues around efficiency or equity, and when they involve trade-offs and bargaining between actors in choosing types of tools, goals and policies (Beland & Wadden, 2012;Williams & Balaz, 1999).…”

Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea

“…In order to bridge this ideational gap, the National Assembly should have provided clear principles to mediate and balance the conflicting notions. Instead, policy swapping took place on the basis of political patronage and partisan dealing, or what Howlett and Mukherjee (2014) identify as ''policy non-design''. 9 Since it is nearly impossible to obtain perfect policy legitimization to satisfy everyone in a pluralistic society, rather than attempting to entirely eliminate legitimacy deficits, it would be more realistic to take steps to reduce them as much as possible.…”

“…The process of policy non-design means that policy decisions are more highly contingent and driven by political bargaining and opportunism than result from careful deliberation and assessment (seeHowlett and Mukherjee 2014).Policy Sci (2015) 48:319-338 333…”

The vestiges and vanguards of policy design in a digital context

“…Design and non-design in policymaking can be distinguished according to intentionality (that is, a policy maker's willingness to engage in instrumental, rational policymaking) and capacity for policy design (that is, a policymaker's ability to collect, interpret and act on knowledge in rational, instrumental policy design processes) (Howlett and Mukherjee 2014). Intentionality can be undermined by partisan, ideological and faith-based agendas, by which policy designers displace public good considerations and a concern for sober evidence assessment with parochial self-interest and power-seeking decision rationales (Aucoin 2012;Howlett and Mukherjee 2014;Majone 1975). Capacity for policy design rests on cognitive, technical and institutional conditions, including access to, and ability to interpret, high quality information that reduces policymakers' bounded rationality and facilitates evidence-driven, instrumental and logical problem solving (Jones 2003;Simon 1991;Weyland 2006).…”