LIST OF WORKSHOPS

SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION

Governance modes, Policy Styles and policy mixes

Public policy studies offer different typologies of governance modes and policy styles, each of which tries to theoretically order the ways in which public policies are coordinated and steered (see for all: Considine and Lewis 1999; Treib, Bahr and Falkner 2007; Howlett 2011; Capano 2011; Tollefson, Zito, and Gale 2012). All of these classifications share not only their adoption of the three fundamental, albeit differently arranged, principles of social coordination (hierarchy, market and network), but also the tendency to associate specific policy strategies -  including equivalent sets of policy instruments - with each of the designed governance modes in a long-lasting or relatively long-lasting policy styles. This refers to the basic theoretical problem whereby people select policy strategies and instruments which are congruent with a governance mode and do so in a more or less predictable way, leading to a characteristic style or manner of formulating and implementing policy.

Any selection of policy instruments is characterized by an intrinsic policy-mix trend (Howlett 2004; Bressers and O’Toole 2005), and as such should be considered the result of a miscellany of different ideas, interests and technologies, and deemed institutionalized in certain specific, recurrent contingences. In keeping with the literature, in this essay we adopt a general definition of policy mix,  that is, a policy strategy using a combination of policy instruments belonging to “different” instrument categories or pertaining to different policy paradigms/beliefs systems/ideologies (Ring and Schloeter-Schlack 2012; Howlett and Del Rio 2013).

Some mixes are thought to be better than others, but why this should be the case is unclear. For example, all studies of the “good governance” promoted by the OECD and by other international organizations, tend to focus on the best mix of policy instruments adopted in pursuit of certain specific policy goals (OECD 2007, 2010) but provide few indications why the tools chosen constitute such an optimal arrangement.And how these mixes arise and why certain long-term patterns of choices appear to be made is also unclear.

It is often argued that the best way to really grasp what a governance mode is and how it works is to focus on the set of  policy instruments through which they directly affect and address the policy-making process. For example, from this point of view, for example, it is quite normal to associate authority and law with hierarchical governance modes, or regulation with market modes, or information with network modes with mixes in such regimes favouring tools of these types.

However, as certain studies of policy instruments show, the idea of any coherence between policy instruments and a given ideational framework or goal, has been superseded (Gunningham and Sinclair 1999;  Bressers  and  O'Toole  2004;  Howlett  2005;; XXX)  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  is empirically fallacious and inconsistent with the facts. This is very often justified as an outcome of the ambiguous preferences of policy-makers.

That is, we know perfectly well that:

-    governance modes and policy styles are conceptual categories or ideal types which are difficult to pinpoint in practice and policy  makers  very  often  have clear goals (based on their electoral mandate), but  are unclear ideas  about which instruments to adopt to pursue those goals;

-    meaning very often instruments choices are not in keeping with the purported governance mode present at a specific moment; resulting in a mix which may be path dependent; while instruments are not static or predetermined, but tend to be dynamic, with a life of their own supported by constituencies of inventors and promoters, making them difficult to change

This raises the issue of theory vs practice in instrument studies and brings into sharper focus the question of what exactly is the role of governance modes and policy styles in instrument design, which is the subject of this workshop.

Background: What are policy mixes?

Policy design and implementation are mainly constituted by policy mixes. As we all know, the concept of policy mix originated in the economic literature during the 1960s, and was largely restricted to the field of economics and innovation studies until the early 1990s (Flanagan, Uyarra and Laranja 2011). It has since been adopted in other policy fields such as childcare policy (Gunningham and Young 1997; Stroick and Jenson 1999), research and technology  policy (Smith 1994), environmental policy (Sorrel and Sijm 2003), environmental economics (Braathen, 2007; Lehmann 2010), and innovation policy (de Heide 2011; Borràs and Edquist 2013).

As far as concerns the types of policy instrument adopted, scholars generally group policy instruments according to their underlying rationale. Usually there are no more than three or four possible general types of policy instrument, as clearly exemplified by the most relevant classification proposed in public policy (Hood 1983, Vedung 1998)  According to our logic, each family of policy instruments contains all those instruments characterized by a similar relationship with the given policy goals. From this point of view then, a policy mix exists when instruments belonging to different types/families of policy instrument are assembled in order to pursue specific policy goals.

Policy mixes have become a more general topic in public policy research in recent years, and empirical research has clearly shown that the majority of policy strategies are composed of complex layered policy mixes rather than single or simple tool choices (Howlett 2005; Braun 2006; Howlett and Reyner 2007; Capano, Rayner, Zito). Specialist studies offer  different definitions of policy mix, some of which are extremely sophisticated (Del Rio and Howlett 2013). Briefly speaking we assume that  a policy mix is a policy strategy using a combination of policy instruments belonging to “different” instrument categories or pertaining to different policy paradigms/beliefs systems/ideologies.

From a policy perspective, the question of such mixes is double-sided. On the one hand, scholars interested in policy design have to understand how the best policy mixes are to be formulated, and thus they are interested in understanding the kinds of interactions possible among different policy instruments – congruent, contradictory, supplemental, spillover controlling, sequencing and the like (Del Rio and Howlett 2013). Thus once it has been accepted that the policy-making norm consists in the pursuit of multiple policy goals through specific combinations of a variety of instruments, and very often within a multi-level institutional context, the theoretical challenge is to understand the potential combinations and effects of instruments in such environments in order to provide instruction to policy-makers. On the other hand, for those more interested in explaining how and why certain policy mixes are designed, implemented and changed, the research question is a radically different one. In this case, scholars need to identify frameworks capable of describing, understanding and explaining the “political” and “policy” dynamics of policy mixes as they emerge and change over time.

What we find particularly interesting are the reasons why certain mixes represent the policy-making norm, and why policy-makers continually choose their instruments in a mixed way.  

Policy instruments are very often linked to a specific policy paradigm or set of abstract policy goals pursued by governments and other actors. In this sense policy instrument preferences are very often ideological. This means that we expect to find coherence between the policy instruments adopted and the prevailing/hegemonic policy values/principles within a specific policy field. However, very often this does not happen, and we may find   substantial incongruence and incoherence between policy instruments and policy principles. Similarly, as described above, it is often argued that instrument choices flow from governance modes and policy styles. How these aspects of choices inter-relate with paradigms and if they lead to incoherence in policy mixes is another outstanding research question which will be addressed in this workshop.

The Open Questions

Raising attention to policy mixes needs to be better ordered both from atheoretical and an empirical point of view.

From the theoretical point of view we need:

1.     to better understand how the concept of governance arrangement/mode can be operationalized in term of set of policy instruments and whether the intrinsic mixed nature of those sets could make a substantially useful contribution to the better understanindg of the the concept of a governance mode itself.

2.     to better conceptualize the link between policy mixes and policy effectiveness and whether and how the most  commonly adopted criteria of assessment - like consistency, coherence, credibility or comprehensiveness (Foxon and Pearson, 2008; Howlettand Rayner, 2007; Kern and Howlett, 2009; Majone, 1997; Matthes,2010) -  can be theoretically strengthened and operationalized.

3.     to better theorize about policy mix classifications in order to simplify and thus better order  the study of the complexity of the real world of policy instrumentation

From an empirical point of view we need:

1.     to better describe the policy mixes present in different policy fields

2.     to better understand the diachronic evolution of such policy mixes to understand how and why they have evolved in the specific ways they have.

3.     To conduct comparative analysis to see whether, how, and why the same general families of policy instruments  and the same general policy principles may lead to the adoption of different types of policy mixes in the same policy fields in different circumstances.

4.     To conduct evaluative analyses capable of showing under which conditions it is possible to design (more) effective policy mixes, and

5.     To conduct more focused empirical research into understanding the role of ideas, actors and institution in influencing the diachronic evolution of policy mixes

This Workshop is directly focused on policy mixes and on their theoretical and empirical relevance for studies of policy instruments, policy formulation, implementation and design. We want to deepen the theoretical and empirical knowledge of such policy mixes and how they relate to larger entities such as governance modes and policy styles. This will help us better understand what policy mixes are, how they have shifted and how they affect policy choices and designs on the ground.

Thus the aim of the workshop is to bring  together scholars in public policy, public administration, policy design, and policy analyst working in different policy domains interested to better conceptualization and more empirical evidence on the dynamics and advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of policy mixes, governance modes, and policy styles.

The workshop will present theoretically informed empirical papers that, often from a comparative perspective, are focused on:

-       the diachronic evolution of policy mixes (and their causes and relationships to governance modes and policy styles

-       the relationship between policy mixes and policy effectiveness

-       the criteria adopted by decision-makers when they have to choose whether and how to change a policy mix, and

-       the role of ideas, institutions and policy actors in driving the evolution of policy mixes

Purely theoretical papers are also welcome if focusing on:

-       a better conceptualization of the linkage between governance modes, policy styles and policy mixes

-       the conceptual clarification of the most adopted  criteria of the assessment of policy mixes (like consistency, coherence, credibility, comprehensiveness, etc.)

-       classifications of policy mixes allowing scholars and practitioners to simplify and thus to better order  and understand the complexity of the real world of policy instrumentation

Abstract

Studies of policy instruments traditionally have focused on single instrument choices and designs. This workshop advances the work of more recent scholars who have examined the dynamics and choices of bundle or portfolios of tools – “Policy Mixes” – within the context of different modes of governance or policy styles. Empirically and theoretically grounded papers examining any aspect of the design, operation and evaluation of such mixes are welcome and will help move forward the research agenda of this new generation of policy tool studies.

Giliberto CAPANO, University of Bologna, is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy. He specializes in comparative public policy, governance arrangements and dynamic, higher education policy, policy change. He has published eight monographical studies (one in English) and edited twelve  books (two in English),  while his work in English has been published in several books and in journals such as: Higher Education, Journal of Legislative Studies, Higher Education Policy, Public Administration, Southern European Society and Politics, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Journal of European Public Policy, Comparative Education Review, Policy and Society, Policy Sciences, European Political Science.

Michael Howlett is Burnaby Mountain Chair in the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University, Canada, and Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. He specializes in public policy analysis, political economy, and resource and environmental policy. He is the author of Canadian Public Policy (2013) and Designing Public Policies (2011), and coedited Policy Work in Canada (2014). He is editor of the Annual Review of Policy Design and Policy Sciences, and is co-editor of the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis and of  Policy & Society. His articles have been published in numerous professional journals in Canada, the United States, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Australia and New Zealand.