LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Policy instruments  research  is well established, but  a certain number of theoretical and empirical problems are still challenging  policy scholars.

Among these gaps, four main theoretical-empirical problems in understanding policy instrument dynamics require further detailed study.    

1.     Better understanding sectorial and national variations and patterns /styles in tool use including links to national traditions in administration and implementation

Sectoral variation is one of the most evident problems in policy instrument research which current research has described but failed to address theoretically or analytically. Although we have a deep knowledge of the list of substantial and procedural policy instruments in different fields, especially in environmental, climate change and innovation policy as well in social and education policy (Hannaway and Woodroffe 2003; Jensen, Arndt and Lee 2018; Capano et al 2019). Thus while much is known about instruments in different policy sectors, at the same time, this knowledge is either very descriptive or so specialized on a specific policy field that the empirical richness does not lead to theoretical generalization.

The key point which has not been systematically addressed has to do with the persistence of specific patterns of instrument preferences and adoptions either by sector or jurisdictionally, or both. The insights of Freeman (1985) concerning sectoral policy styles and patterns of instrument deployment have been under-investigated. Are there can be different types of policy instruments adopted in different policies according to the characteristics of the policy issues? Can we expect to, for example, have more incentive-driven or cooperative-based instruments in environmental policy (Bouwma et al. 2015) than in education policy (Hannaway and Woodroffe 2003)?

Similarly, we do not know much about why and how national variations develop in a comparative perspective and thus whether and how these variations are due to national policy styles, national administrative traditions, or to the characteristics of bureaucracy. We know that policy styles exist and that national traditions in administration and implementation are crucial. There is, in fact, a stimulating empirical literature showing that there are national policy styles of formulation (Howlett and Tosun 2018) and of implementation (Tosun and Treib 2018), and that these different ways of designing and implementing policies must be contextualized into the related types of politico-administrative regimes (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000). In addition, these theoretical lenses and empirical evidence only design the borders of the contexts in which policy instruments are selected over time. We know that there are particular styles and politico-administrative traditions and assume that policy instruments are handled in different ways accordingly. There is also some empirical evidence that these styles tend to become highly institutionalized and persist over time.

However, there is no significant empirical research on the instrument-based dimensions of national styles and politico-administrative regimes, although it is intuitive that these styles should influence the way instruments are designed and then implemented. Here, the most intuitive hypothesis is that the institutionalization of policy/implementation styles as well as the characteristics of politico-administrative regimes should create permanent effects and path dependency in terms of instrument adoption. However, we also know that new instruments have also been adopted in countries where they could be considered novel (as a consequence, for example, of the diffusion of New Public Management, New Environmental Tools, and Evaluation) as different methods of implementation have also been introduced.

Thus, there are many unanswered empirical questions about the relationships between policy styles and politico-administrative regimes. All in all, this means that “comparative policy instruments research” is quite undeveloped and consequently there is often a mismatch between empiricism and conceptualization and between the descriptive nature of instruments and the typologies offered by the literature, as well an under-theorization of the causes of the variations between sectors. 

2.     Temporality issues (sequencing, trajectories, critical junctures, volatility of policy mixes)

In addition to these spatial issues, the temporal aspect is obviously a constitutive dimension of policy instrument research. We know that time makes a difference in how instrument choices and patterns evolve and that temporal sequences is a crucial (Taeihagh et al. 2013; Justen et al. 2014a, 2014b) component of policy mix design and evolution. Through a specific organization of events over time, for example, policy instruments can undergo permanent effects and thus becoming highly institutionalized and/or generate positive/negative feedbacks. And policy solutions - a set of adopted policy instruments - at a given point in time may enshrine problems as well as specific tools that actors must eventually confront in the next decision-making moment.

Thus, negative and positive feedbacks of the adopted policy instrument(s) will inform the policy debate such that the adopted instruments will either be adopted or will result in a crisis at the critical juncture which could be then an occasion for a shift from the adopted set of policy instruments. Policymakers, for example, can proceed by layering, conversion and drift (Thelen 2004).

All of these terms, however, are not clearly defined or consistently employed by various authors working in the field and, in some studies, are used without an appropriate understanding of the underlying concepts or methods necessary to analyse and evaluate a policy mix.

Layering is thought to be the most commonly adopted process but layering can be done in different ways. That is, policy instruments can be assembled through processes such as  packaging, patching, stretching, and bricolage (Howlett and Rayner 2013; Capano 2018) which range in terms of coverage and deliberativeness. At the same time, related to the produced effects, layering can lead to policy instruments mixed in a consistent, counterproductive and tense way (Capano 2019) or not.

However, if we know something about these general modes and types of policy instrument design, we are missing reliable empirical knowledge about the micro-components of these different kinds of processes. There is a need to consider the effect of policy formulation processes on the character and effectiveness of complex policy mixes (Feindt and Flynn, 2009; Kay, 2007; Larsen, Taylor-Gooby, and Kananen, 2006), for example when existing mixes developed unsystematically through processes of policy layering (Thelen, 2004; Van der Heijden, 2011; Carter, 2012; Howlett and Rayner, 2007; OECD, 1996). From this point of view then, we require better empirical evidence of the foundations of design/non-design continuum. This would mean, for example, better operationalizing concepts such as package and patching, as well tense layering, in terms of instrument-based content.

There are thus many empirical gaps when the temporal dimension is considered. For example, we know very little about whether and how the speed of the sequence can make a difference in terms of choosing one instrument or another and in terms of change or persistence of the adopted of policy instruments. Furthermore, another under-investigated dimension of the temporal dimension is the composition of the sequence itself: what are the events of the sequence? What can be the relations of the actors in the different events of the sequence itself?

3.     Sectoral convergence and intersections and its impact on policy mix coherence

A related item  refers to change processes that occur in policy mixes when activities in otherwise distinct subsystems transcend old boundaries and affect the structure or behaviour of other subsystems (Dery, 1999; Lynggaard, 2001; Djelic and Quack, 2007; Kay, 2006). Instances such as those that have occurred when Internet-based computing collided with existing telecommunications regimes and when long-established natural resource policy actors find it necessary to deal with Aboriginal and claims exemplify this phenomenon (Hoberg and Morawaski, 1997; Grant and MacNamara, 1995; Rosendal, 2000; Gehring and Oberthur, 2000; Marion, 1999; Rayner et al., 2001).

This particular process of policy mix change has received almost no treatment in the literature. But a large research agenda exists here. Thus, for example, subsystem interactions can occur in specific issues without any permanent change in subsystem membership (subsystem intersection) or they can be more long-term in nature (subsystem convergence). These general processes affect policy mixes largely through the introduction of new instruments into otherwise stable regimes (Deeg, 2007; May et al., 2009). What is the impact of such changes? Which tools remain and which are removed? How does this vary between intersection and convergence? These are all key questions requiring more research.

4.     Links of tools choices to ideational paradigms and paradigm changes

Policy paradigms, belief systems, and ideas matter when policy instruments are also at stake in policy change (Hogan and Howlett 2015) and their impacts on policy tools little known. Such paradigms provide general guidance to policymakers because their normative and cognitive dimensions structure the goals they pursue. But they also affect considerations of the appropriate tools for achieving those goals. The ideational turn in political science and public policy has generated relevant attention on how paradigms, beliefs and ideas can drive the choice of policy instruments.

However, the results are quite ambiguous and not definitive. Surely the concept of paradigm is useful to analyse policymaking from a macro-meso perspective and thus to outline general trends. In fact, when policymaking is analysed from a micro-perspective, different ideas, frames, and belief systems are usually competing and confronting each other in relation to the instrument choices. In addition, this variety of ideational drivers can be one of the causes of initiating or the institutionalization of policy mixes. For example, over time new paradigms/ideas/frames can and do emerge, but the older ones are not dissolved (Lieberman 2002; Oliver and Pemberton 2004). This can lead to obvious conflicts and confrontations affecting tool choices if different instruments are pursued in each approach. Thus, existing policy mixes  can be generated by the layering of different paradigms/frames over time or by an agreement between different actors holding different cognitive and normative beliefs with respect to policy problems and the instruments chosen to deal with them.

All in all, we lack understanding of the real role of paradigms, frames, ideas, and beliefs when policy instruments are at stake; this can be considered disappointing if we recall the relevance of the “ideational turn” in public policy.

The above-listed analytical problems need to be examined more closely than has occurred in the policy sciences to date.

This workshop is open to different types of contributions (with an explicit preference for empirical and possibly comparative papers) capable of analytically enlightening, if not filling, these gaps.

References

Bouwma, Irene, Duncan Liefferink, Rob van Apeldoorn, and Bas Arts. “Following Old Paths or Shaping New Ones in Natura 2000 Implementation? Mapping Path Dependency in Instrument Choice.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 0, no. 0 (August 14, 2015): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1070334.

Capano, Giliberto, Michael Howlett, and M. Ramesh. “Designing for Robustness: Surprise, Agility and Improvisation in Policy Design.” Policy & Society 37, no. 4 (2018): 1–22.

Capano, Giliberto, and Andrea Lippi. “How Policy Instruments Are Chosen: Patterns of Decision Makers’ Choices.” Policy Sciences 50, no. 2 (June 1, 2017): 269–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9267-8.

Capano, Giliberto, and Jun Jie Woo. “Resilience and Robustness in Policy Design: A Critical Appraisal.” Policy Sciences 37, no. 4 (2018): 422–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9273-x.

Carter, Pam. “Policy as Palimpsest.” Policy & Politics 40, no. 3 (2012): 423–43. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X626613.

Deeg, Richard. “Complementarity and Institutional Change in Capitalist Systems.” Journal of European Public Policy 14, no. 4 (2007): 611–30.

Dery, D. “Policy by the Way: When Policy Is Incidental to Making Other Policies.” Journal of Public Policy 18, no. 2 (1999): 163–76.

Djelic, Marie-Lauire, and Sigrid Quack. “Overcoming Path Dependency: Path Generation in Open Systems.” Theory and Society 36 (2007): 161–86.

Feindt, Peter H, and Andrew Flynn. “Policy Stretching and Institutional Layering: British Food Policy between Security, Safety, Quality, Health and Climate Change.” British Politics 4, no. 3 (2009): 386–414. https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2009.13.

Freeman, G. P. “National Styles and Policy Sectors: Explaining Structured Variation.” Journal of Public Policy 5, no. 4 (1985): 467–96.

Gehring, T., and S. Oberthur. Exploring Regime Interaction: A Framework of Analysis. Barcelona November 9-11: Paper Presented to the Final Conference of the Eu-financed Concerted Action Programme on the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements and EU Legislation - Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2000.

Grant, W., and A. MacNamara. “When Policy Communities Intersect: The Cases of Agriculture and Banking.” Political Studies 43 (1995): 509–15.

Hannaway, Jane, and Nicola Woodroffe. “Policy Instruments in Education.” Review of Research in Education 27 (2003): 1–24.

Hoberg, G., and E. Morawaski. “Policy Change Through Sector Intersection: Forest and Aboriginal Policy in Clayoquot Sound.” Canadian Public Administration 40, no. 3 (1997): 387–414.

Hogan, John, and Michael Howlett, eds. Policy Paradigms in Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. http://www.palgrave.com%2Fpage%2Fdetail%2Fpolicy-paradigms-in-theory-and-practice-john-hogan%2F%3Fisb%3D9781137434036.

Howlett, Michael, and Jeremy Rayner. “Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design.” Politics and Governance 1, no. 2 (2013): 170–82. https://doi.org/10.12924/pag2013.01020170.

Howlett, Michael, and Jeremy Rayner. “Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements.’” Policy and Society 26, no. 4 (2007): 1–18.

Howlett, Michael, and Jale Tosun, eds. Policy Styles and Policy-Making: Exploring the Linkages. London: Routledge, 2019.

Jensen, Carsten, Christoph Arndt, Seonghui Lee, and Georg Wenzelburger. “Policy Instruments and Welfare State Reform.” Journal of European Social Policy 28, no. 2 (May 1, 2018): 161–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928717711974.

Justen, Andreas, Nils Fearnley, Moshe Givoni, and James Macmillen. “A Process for Designing Policy Packaging: Ideals and Realities.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Policy Packaging, 60 (February 2014): 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.016.

Justen, Andreas, Jens Schippl, Barbara Lenz, and Torsten Fleischer. “Assessment of Policies and Detection of Unintended Effects: Guiding Principles for the Consideration of Methods and Tools in Policy-Packaging.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 60, no. Feb. (2014): 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.015.

Kay, Adrian. “Tense Layering and Synthetic Policy Paradigms: The Politics of Health Insurance in Australia.” Australian Journal of Political Science 42, no. 4 (2007): 579–91.

Kay, Adrian.. The Dynamics of Public Policy: Theory and Evidence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006.

Larsen, T. P., P. Taylor-Gooby, and J. Kananen. “New Labour’s Policy Style: A Mix of Policy Approaches.” International Social Policy 35, no. 4 (2006): 629–49.

Lieberman, R. C. “Ideas, Institutions and Political Order: Explaining Political Change.” American Political Science Review 96, no. 4 (2002): 697–712.

Lynggaard, K. The Study of Policy Change: Constructing an Analytical Strategy. Grenoble: Paper Presented at the ECPR 29th Joint Session Workshops - April 6-11, 2001.

Marion, R. The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social Systems. London: Sage, 1999.

May, Peter J., Joshua Sapotichne, and Samuel Workman. “Widespread Policy Disruption and Interest Mobilization.” Policy Studies Journal 37, no. 4 (2009): 793–815.

Oecd. Building Policy Coherence: Tools and Tensions. Paris: Public Management Occasional Papers no. 12, 1996.

Oliver, Michael J., and Hugh Pemberton. “Learning and Change in 20th-Century British Economic Policy.” Governance 17, no. 3 (2004): 415–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00252.x.

Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, USA, 2000.

Rayner, J., M. Howlett, J. Wilson, B. Cashore, and G. Hoberg. “Privileging the Sub-Sector: Critical Sub-Sectors and Sectoral Relationships in Forest Policy-Making.” Forest Policy and Economics 2, no. 3–4 (2001): 319–32.

 Rosendal, G. K. Overlapping International Regimes: The Case of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) Between Climate Change and Biodiversity. Oslo: Fridtjof Nansen Institute Paper, 2000. http://www.fni.no.

Taeihagh, Araz, Moshe Givoni, and René Bañares-Alcántara. “Which Policy First? A Network-Centric Approach for the Analysis and Ranking of Policy Measures.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40, no. 4 (2013): 595 – 616. https://doi.org/10.1068/b38058.

Thelen, Kathleen. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Tosun, Jale, and Oliver Treib. “Linking Policy Design and Implementation Styles.” In Routledge Handbook of Policy Design, edited by Michael Howlett and Ishani Muhkerjee. New York: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351252928-21.

Heijden, Jeroen van der. “Institutional Layering: A Review of the Use of the Concept.” Politics 31, no. 1 (January 10, 2011): 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01397.x.

Many people have noted that sectoral and national variations and patterns or styles in tool use exist, including links of tool choices to national traditions in administration and implementation. This highlights the need to better understand the temporal aspects of policy-making and tool choice and the manner in which such patterns and styles emerge and evolve.

Building from earlier IWPP workshops and ICPP panels, this workshop will feature papers addressing any aspect of the issue of policy tool and mix dynamics and will cover ongoing research concerns including:

1.      The national patterns in mixing policy tools (often linked to national administrative and implementation traditions)

2.     Temporality issues (sequencing, trajectories, critical junctures, volatility of policy mixes); 

3.     Sectoral convergence and intersections and its impact on policy mix coherence;

4.     Links of tools choices to ideational paradigms and paradigm changes.

Empirical and comparative papers addressing these and the more general topic are welcome.

Building from earlier IWPP workshops and ICPP panels, this workshop will feature papers addressing any aspect of the issue of policy tool and mix dynamics and will cover ongoing research concerns including:

1.      The national patterns in mixing policy tools (often linked to national administrative and implementation traditions)

2.     Temporality issues (sequencing, trajectories, critical junctures, volatility of policy mixes); 

3.     Sectoral convergence and intersections and its impact on policy mix coherence;

4.     Links of tools choices to ideational paradigms and paradigm changes.

This workshop is open to different types of contributions capable of analytically enlightening, if not filling, these gaps. Empirical and comparative papers addressing these and the more general topic are welcome.

Michael Howlett is Burnaby Mountain Professor and Canada Research Chair (Tier 1), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC

Canada. Giliberto Capano is Professor, University of Bologna (Forli), Italy