Explore the vast range of titles available.

The study of policy design has been of long-standing interest to policy scholars. Recent surveys of policy design scholarship acknowledge two main pathways along which it has developed; one in which the process of policy designing is emphasised and one in which the output of this policy designing process – for example, policy content – is emphasised. As part of a survey of extant research, this article discusses how scholars guided by different orientations to studying policy design are addressing and measuring common policy design concepts and themes, and offers future research opportunities. The article also provides a platform for considering how insights stemming from different orientations of policy design research can be integrated and mapped within the broader public policy process. Finally, the article raises the question of whether a framework that links different conceptualisations of policy design within the policy process might help to advance the field.

This article is a first attempt to systematically examine policy design and its influence on policy effectiveness in a comparative perspective. We begin by providing a novel concept and measure of policy design. Our Average Instrument Diversity (AID) index captures whether governments tend to reuse the same policy instruments and instrument combinations or produce policy solutions that are carefully tailored to the policy problem at hand. Second, we demonstrate that our AID index is a valid and reliable measure of policy design quality with a strong explanatory power for the outcome variables tested. Analyzing the composition of environmental policy portfolios in 21 OECD countries, we show that higher levels of AID are positively associated with a country’s policy effectiveness in environmental matters. Based on this finding, we analyze, in a third step, the factors that lead countries to adopt more or less diverse policy portfolios. We find that the policy design quality is significantly improved when policy makers are not bound by high institutional constraints and, more importantly, are backed by well-equipped bureaucracies.

Policymaking during a pandemic can be extremely challenging. As COVID-19 is a new disease and its global impacts are unprecedented, decisions are taken in a highly uncertain, complex, and rapidly changing environment. In such a context, in which human lives and the economy are at stake, we argue that using ideas and constructs from modern decision theory, even informally, will make policymaking a more responsible and transparent process.

The term “policy analysis” describes scientific evaluations of the impacts of past public policies and predictions of the outcomes of potential future policies. A prevalent practice has been to report policy analysis with incredible certitude. That is, exact predictions of policy outcomes are routine, while expressions of uncertainty are rare. However, predictions and estimates often are fragile, resting on unsupported assumptions and limited data. Therefore, the expressed certitude is not credible. This paper summarizes my work documenting incredible certitude and calling for transparent communication of uncertainty. I present a typology of practices that contribute to incredible certitude, give illustrative examples, and offer suggestions on how to communicate uncertainty.

Local food system governance increasingly occurs in collaborative venues at the local, state, and regional levels. Prominent examples of such are food policy councils (FPCs). FPCs take a systemic approach to improve local food systems by including diverse stakeholders to advise on policy development. The authors study public FPCs to understand how policies structure the stakeholder composition and goals of FPCs and how FPCs' stakeholder composition facilitates and/or impedes performance. Data come from a content analysis of policies that mandate the structure and functions of public FPCs and interviews with FPC representatives. Findings indicate that FPCs connected to a broader array of food policy actors in their communities produce more diverse policy outputs, but this outcome is tempered by whether council members represent personal or organizational interests.

Claims for evidence-based policy-making are motivated by the assumption that if practitioners and scholars want to learn about effective policy design, they also can. This paper argues that this is becoming more and more challenging with the conventional approaches due to the accumulation of national policy portfolios, characterized by (a) a growing number of different policy targets and instruments, that (b) are often interdependent and (c) reformed in an uncontrolled way. These factors undermine our ability to accurately relate outcome changes to individual components within the respective policy mix. Therefore, policy accumulation becomes an additional source of the well-known ‘attribution problem’ in evaluation research. We argue that policy accumulation poses fundamental challenges to existing approaches of evidence-based policy-making. Moreover, these challenges are very likely to create a trade-off between the need for increasing methodological sophistication on one side, and the decreasing political impact of more fine-grained and conditional findings of evaluation results on the other.

Evaluations of public programs in many fields reveal that different types of programs— or different versions of the same program—vary in their effectiveness. Moreover, a program that is effective for one group of people might not be effective for other groups, and a program that is effective in one set of circumstances may not be effective in other circumstances. This paper presents a conceptual framework for research on such variation in program effects and the sources of this variation. The framework is intended to help researchers—both those who focus mainly on studying program implementation and those who focus mainly on estimating program effects—see how their respective pieces fit together in a way that helps to identify factors that explain variation in program effects, and thereby support more systematic data collection. The ultimate goal of the framework is to enable researchers to offer better guidance to policymakers and program operators on the conditions and practices that are associated with larger and more positive effects. © 2014 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Many institutions—including American federal bureaucracies and legislatures world-wide—are characterized by one set of actors who possess the right to determine which policies will be enacted and an opposing set of actors who possess the right to delay the enactment of those policies. However, this interaction is not well understood. We provide a model that shows that a modest procedural right to delay but not veto the enactment of policies affords considerable influence over the policy agenda, so long as policymaking is time-consuming and time is scarce. In an application to the US Senate, our model exhibits properties that are consistent with common empirical claims about partisanship, polarization, and gridlock. It also justifies the considerable variation in the amount of delay imposed on the passage of various bills and the historic reluctance of the Senate to adopt reforms that would expedite the tedious cloture process.

Evidence-based policy making (EBPM) has been a key pillar of the better regulation agenda of the European Union. However, the extent to which it has genuinely impacted domestic policy making practices has remained largely unexplored. This study sets out to address this gap by focusing on EBPM adoption in settings with historically weak culture of technocratic rationality. To this end, the article proposes a novel analytical framework combining the concept of Europeanisation with insights from the scholarship on knowledge and evidence utilisation. The framework is then applied to the “least likely” case of Bulgaria and its National Climate and Energy Plan for 2021–2030. The article draws on 26 semi-structured interviews to analyse the use of different types of evidence in the Plan’s formulation. The study finds that genuine adoption of EBPM practices remains relatively low with evidence serving predominantly a perfunctory role. In contrast, instrumental and conceptual uses of evidence remain rare. Still, the findings point at the possibility, albeit limited, for gradual Europeanisation and uptake of evidence-based practices even in highly unfavourable conditions. This can be facilitated by a prolonged exposure to evidence-based practices, targeted EU pressure, the establishment of forums facilitating evidence exchange and the presence of “evidence-friendly” individuals within the civil service.

Public policy and administration debates typically assume that ICT tools, including social networking services (SNS), increase the amount of information that is communicated and thus harnessed for policymaking processes. At the same time, behavioral approaches point to the potentially detrimental effects of social media stress resulting from an overexposure to SNS. Because systematic research on the individual-level effects of SNS in policy formulation is rare, this paper explores the effect of SNS on the use of policy-relevant information and, thus, on individual political capacities. A moderated mediation analysis was performed based on survey data from central ministerial bureaucracies in Germany, Italy, and Norway, considering not only the amount of information utilized in legislative drafting but also the variability and concentration of the information sources. The results indicate that SNS positively relate to policy officials’ information use, which, in turn, increases their self-reported political capacities. However, the positive relationship between SNS and both the amount and the variability of information use was found to be diminished when levels of social media stress are high rather than low. The conclusions discuss the implications for civil servants and policymaking.