The Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools

Abstract

The dominant focus in agenda setting scholarship on external factors driving governments' agenda can make us overlook that governments also have many formal tools at their disposal to steer and manage their own agenda and timetables. In this chapter we study the agendasetting potential of three such procedural tools, which have thus far only received little attention in prior research: periodic policy reviews, spending reviews, and sunset reviews. We discuss their major attributes, their underpinning rational assumptions, the way how they have been institutionalized and routinized in countries' evaluation systems, and reflect on the conditions that foster or jeopardize their agenda-setting impact. Throughout the chapter, we draw on different empirical examples from various countries. While these tools are very often strongly institutionalized, the actual impact on agenda-setting should generally not be overestimated.

Categorical and spatial interlinkages within the European migration policy mix

“…Policy mixes can develop in a conscious, intentional way or through a more haphazard process (Howlett, 2022). The patterns we have identified support the intentionality hypotheses formulated in our conceptualisation of interlinkages.…”

“…It can also help explain the policy dilemma of combining inclusive and exclusive policies, known as the liberal paradox (Hollifield, 2004). However, in contrast to environmental, economic or innovation policy, where the concept has been widely applied (Howlett, 2022), there have been few attempts to decipher the design of policy mixes within and across countries in the area of migration (Giguère, 2006;Schultz et al, 2021).…”

Complexities of policy design, institutional change, and multilevel governance

“…Contribuyendo a la investigación sobre formulación y adopción de políticas, el siguiente artículo investiga la autonomía de las actitudes hacia los instrumentos de política (APIA). Los instrumentos de política pueden entenderse como “técnicas de gobernanza que se utilizan para hacer efectivos los objetivos de política establecidos” (Howlett, 2022; p. 3). Las actitudes hacia estas “técnicas de gobernanza” se discuten como cambiantes dependiendo de los problemas y objetivos políticos relacionados (“contingentes”) o como preferencias universales por un instrumento, relativamente independientes del contexto (“instrumentalistas”).…”

“…第二篇文章对政策制定和政策采纳的研究作贡献，研究了政策工具态度（APIA）的自主性。政策工具可被理解为“用于实现既定政策目标的治理技术”（Howlett, 2022, p. 3）。对待这些“治理技术”的态度被认为会根据相关的政策问题和目标而变化（“条件主义者”），或者作为相对独立于情境的普遍工具偏好（“工具主义者”）。正如 Veselý（2021）所论证的那样，工具主义者暗示，预先存在的态度先于政策工具决策，并因此高度影响后者。为了实证检验这一论点，Nekola et al (2022) 对捷克大学的学生进行了一项横断面调查，受访者被要求评估多种政策工具在“解决五个政策领域中的问题”方面的适用性。整体上，信息工具被评估为比金融工具或监管工具更适合跨政策领域。不过，个人层面的总体政策工具态度表明，大多数学生会根据相应的政策问题和领域改变其偏好，这因此对 APIA 概念提出了挑战。…”

“…Contributing to the research on policy formulation and policy adoption, the subsequent article investigates the autonomy of policy instrument attitudes (APIA). Policy instruments can be understood as “techniques of governance that are used to give effect to stated policy objectives” (Howlett, 2022, p. 3). Attitudes toward these “techniques of governance” are discussed as changing depending on related policy problems and objectives (“contingentists”) or as universal preferences for an instrument, relatively independent of the context (“instrumentalists”).…”