Ishani Mukherjee

From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research

A roadmap for ‘new policy design’ studies now exists in the orientation which has emerged in recent years towards the formulation of complex policy mixes. The new design orientation focuses on bundles or portfolios of tools and the interactive effects which occur when multiple tools are used over time in policy packages designed to address multiple goals, and upon more complex multi-policy and multi-level design contexts. This review article examines the differences between the ‘old’ instrument orientation and the ‘new’ design one, setting out the current research agenda in this field and its rationale.

An Asian perspective on policy instruments: policy styles, governance modes and critical capacity challenges

Does Asia have a distinct policy style? If so, what does it look like, and why does it take the shape it does? This article argues that in the newly reinvigorated emphasis of policy studies on policy instruments and their design lies the basis of an analysis of a dominant policy style in the Asian region, with significant implications for understanding the roles played by specific kinds of policy capacities. There is a distinctly Asian policy style based on a specific pattern of policy capacities and governance modes. In this style, a failure to garner initial policy legitimacy in the articulation of instrument norms often results in later mismatches between instrument objectives and specific mechanisms for their achievement. The formulation of payments for ecosystem services policy is used to illustrate the capacities required for policy designs and action to meet policy goals effectively.

Policy learning and policy networks in theory and practice: the role of policy brokers in the Indonesian biodiesel policy network

Abstract This paper examines how learning has been treated, generally, in policy network theories and what questions have been posed, and answered, about this phenomenon to date. We examine to what extent network characteristics and especially the presence of various types of brokers impede or facilitate policy learning. Next, a case study of the policy network surrounding the sustainability of palm oil biodiesel in Indonesia over the past two decades is presented using social network analysis. This case study focuses on sustainability-oriented policy learning in the Indonesian biodiesel governance network and illustrates how network features and especially forms of brokerage influence learning.

Instrument constituencies and public policy-making: An introduction

Abstract For many years, policy-making has been envisioned as a process in which subsets of policy actors engage in specific types of interactions involved in the definition of policy problems, the articulation of solutions and their matching or enactment. This activity involves the definition of policy goals (both broad and specific), the creation or identification of the means and mechanisms that need to be implemented to realize these goals, and the set of bureaucratic, partisan, electoral and other political struggles involved in their acceptance and transformation into action. While past research on policy subsystems has often assumed or implied that these tasks could be undertaken by any actor, more recent research argues that distinct sets of actors are involved in these three tasks: epistemic communities that are engaged in discussions about policy dilemmas and problems; instrument constituencies that define and promote policy instruments and alternatives; and advocacy coalitions which compete to have their choice of policy alternative and problem frames adopted. Two of these three sets of actors are quite well known and, indeed, have their own literature about what it takes to be a member of an epistemic community or advocacy coalition, although interactions between the two are rarely discussed. The third subset, the instrument constituency, is much less known but has from the outset been considered in relation to these other policy actors. The articles in this special issue focus on better understanding the nature of actor interactions undertaken by instrument constituencies and how these relate to the other kinds of actors involved in policy-making.

Policy analysis: a rich array of country and comparative insights

The International Library of Policy Analysis (ILPA) series, edited by Iris Geva-May and Michael Howlett, is a collection of books assessing the state of the discipline of policy analysis in eight countries. The books address the academic development of policy analysis, its practical applications, the diverse range of actors involved, and pertinent academic instruction. Alhough the state of policy analysis – and, importantly, the state of policy analysis scholarship – varies considerably in the countries studied, the series is able to sythesise existing knowledge through empirical research and institutional analyses of the governmental and non-governmental organisations that provide policy advice and analysis. This review considers the individual and collective contributions of the books to theory and practice.

Designing for sustainable outcomes: espousing behavioural change into co-production programmes

Abstract This paper uses a policy design perspective with which to examine the formulation of programmes that are based on the concept of co-production. In doing so, the paper reviews essential literature on policy design and co-production to identify that a limited focus on outcomes and specifically how behavioural change can make these outcomes sustainable represents a major gap in the current discussion of co-production. We firstly argue that in designing programmes involving co-production, outcomes need to be considered at the initial design stages where broad policy objectives are being defined. Secondly, we argue that for these outcomes to be sustainable, behavioural change on the part of policy targets needs to be an important objective of a coproduction programme. To illustrate our point, we use the example of rural sanitation programmes from three developing countries to specifically demonstrate how the absence or inclusion of behavioural change considerations in the early phases of policy design can elicit different levels of success in achieving desired policy outcomes.

Policy Design for Sustainability at Multiple Scales: The Case of Transboundary Haze Pollution in Southeast Asia

What the case of haze pollution in Southeast Asia reveals is an opportunity to coordinate policy efforts for addressing a complex, multi-layered environmental sustainability conundrum. It is one that illustrates how policies to foster low-carbon development and policies to mitigate against the ill effects of fire-led or slash and burn deforestation are inextricably linked and warrant regional cooperation enabling local agreements that complement global climate policy ambitions.

The Contribution of Comparative Policy Analysis to Policy Design: Articulating Principles of Effectiveness and Clarifying Design Spaces

ABSTRACT Policy analysis has always been interested in better understanding and improving the sets of policy tools adopted by governments to correct policy problems. Comparative policy studies have contributed much towards clarifying the nature of the processes of policy analysis and policy formulation which result in the construction of these policy portfolios. Past studies have helped clarify the role of historical processes, policy capacities and design intentions in affecting policy formulation processes – from “design” to “non-design” ones – and more recently have begun to articulate basic principles for better policy designs. Effectiveness in this work has been evaluated at three levels of consideration: that of the analysis of effective formulation environments or spaces that are conducive to the design of effective policies; through studies of how effective policy tool portfolios or mixes can be constructed to effectively address complex policy goals; and through a more specific and traditional focus upon what constitutes the effectiveness of particular types of policy tools within a mix. Each of these contributions is examined in this article.

Policy formulation: where knowledge meets power in the policy process

Public policies emanate from societies’ efforts to affect changes in their own institutional or public behaviour in order to achieve some end goal key policy actors consider to be important. Such policies are determined by governments but involve other actors and institutions – private, commercial, family and others – in often complex governance and governing arrangements and relationships (Howlett & Ramesh, 2016). Policy formulation is part of the process of developing public policies and involves governments and other policy actors asking and answering questions about how societies can deal with various kinds of problems and conditions affecting citizens and organizations in the pursuit of their goals. These questions vary in range and scope, but addressing them typically involves deliberations among a wide range of actors about what kinds of activities governments can undertake, and what kinds of policy instruments or levers they can employ, in crafting solutions for the public and private dilemmas they identify, or consider to be, policy problems. Some problems may defy solution, such as poverty or homelessness in many countries and jurisdictions, and others may be more easily resolvable. But whatever solutions emerge from formulation activity are the basis of what, once adopted, becomes a public policy. The exercise of matching policy goals and means is thus central to the tasks and activities of policy formulation. This is not a neutral or ‘objective’ or technical process, of course, although it may sometimes be viewed in this way. As one of the earliest proponents of the policy sciences, Harold Lasswell, stated in 1936, it is a political activity thoroughly immersed and grounded in questions about ‘who gets what, when and how’ in society (Lasswell, 1936). In this light, the formulation of policies, or the matching, and often mismatching, of goals and means, or policy aims and instruments, occurs through the interplay of knowledgebased analytics of problems and solutions with powerbased political considerations. It emerges through the interaction of technical analyses of goals and instruments and the political assessment of the costs and benefits to particular actors, the partisan and electoral concerns of governments, and the realm of ideas and beliefs held by political actors as governments attempt to articulate feasible policy options capable of resolving problems and meeting social goals with at least a modicum of social and political support. That is, all of this activity occurs within the context of the need to meet and placate the diverse interests of the public, social actors and their administrations. As a result, this process often ends in complex assemblages or mixes of policy aims and policy tools that are somewhat unique to each jurisdiction and may or may not embody much in the way of ‘technical’ merit (Howlett & Cashore, 2009). However, in this formulation process