Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review

被引:0
作者
Ishani Mukherjee
M. Kerem Coban
Azad Singh Bali
机构
[1] Singapore Management University,School of Social Sciences
[2] GLODEM,The School of Politics & International Relations; The Crawford School of Public Policy
[3] Koc University,undefined
[4] The Australian National University,undefined
来源
Policy Sciences | 2021年 / 54卷
关键词
Policy capacity; Policy effectiveness; Policy design; Policy success; Policy sciences; Policy instruments; Policy tools;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Effectiveness has been understood at three levels of analysis in the scholarly study of policy design. The first is at the systemic level indicating what entails effective formulation environments or spaces making them conducive to successful design. The second reflects more program level concerns, surrounding how policy tool portfolios or mixes can be effectively constructed to address complex policy objectives. The third is a more specific instrument level, focusing on what accounts for and constitutes the effectiveness of particular types of policy tools. Undergirding these three levels of analysis are comparative research concerns that concentrate on the capacities of government and political actors to devise and implement effective designs. This paper presents a systematic review of a largely scattered yet quickly burgeoning body of knowledge in the policy sciences, which broadly asks what capacities engender effectiveness at the multiple levels of policy design? The findings bring to light lessons about design effectiveness at the level of formulation spaces, policy mixes and policy programs. Further, this review points to a future research agenda for design studies that is sensitive to the relative orders of policy capacity, temporality and complementarities between the various dimensions of policy capacity.
引用
收藏
页码:243 / 268
页数:25
相关论文
共 235 条
[51]  
Chindarkar N(2009)Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policymaking: Lessons from Canada Canadian Public Administration 47 187-182
[52]  
Howlett M(2014)From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance Policy Sciences 34 173-266
[53]  
Ramesh M(2015)Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government Policy and Society 11 245-625
[54]  
Clarke A(2018)The criteria for effective policy design: Character and context in policy instrument choice Journal of Asian Public Policy 22 612-421
[55]  
Craft J(2020)Dealing with the dark side of policy-making: Managing behavioural risk and volatility in policy designs Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 37 405-381
[56]  
Coban MK(2018)Designing for robustness: Surprise, agility and improvisation in policy design Policy and Design 45 357-42
[57]  
Coban MK(2013)Tales from the Crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design Administration and Society 38 24-87
[58]  
Considine M(2016)An Asian perspective on policy instruments: Policy styles, governance modes and critical capacity challenges Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 20 72-311
[59]  
Craft J(2018)The contribution of comparative policy analysis to policy design: Articulating principles of effectiveness and clarifying design spaces Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 43 291-327
[60]  
Daku M(2015)From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: The new design orientation towards policy formulation research Policy and Politics 33 317-313