EURO Journal on Decision Processes 9 (2021) 100002

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

EURO Journal on Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejdp

The politics of policy design

Paul Cairney
Division of History, Heritage, and Politics, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, United Kingdom

a b s t r a c t

This article highlights a major disconnect between the theory and practice of policy design. It provides a contrast between two ways to envisage design in political
science. The first focuses on functional requirements and techniques, highlighting what policymakers need to do and the steps they use. The second focuses on
theories and empirical studies that situate policy design within the wider study of policy processes, highlighting a major gap between requirements and outcomes.
These approaches should complement and inform each other, but rarely do. Most policy theories treat classic descriptions of policy design (such as making policy
via series of steps or stages) as divorced from reality, and only useful as ideal-types to contrast with what actually happens. Policy theories may be more accurate,
but very few provide equivalent practical lessons (and most do not try). If so, what are the prospects of bringing together these literatures? The article examines two
kinds of theory-informed policy design: theories at the service of analysis or sources of critical analysis and cautionary tales.

Introduction Howlett et al (2014) argue that new policy design could help overcome
these obstacles. They seek to combine practice and theory: identifying
‘Policy design’ is an umbrella term to describe the act of defining pol- key elements of policy design (defining problems, designing policy tools,
icy aims and the policy tools to deliver them (Howlett et al, 2014: 291). and connecting tools to a ‘theory of change’ to predict their effects) and
However, many different disciplinary approaches, methods, perspec- using policy process research to anticipate how new policies interact
tives, and actors shelter under this umbrella, and it is not clear if they with a complex policy context (2014: 294). As such, it recognises the
complement or contradict each other. In that context, this article iden- value of a discreet process of design (backed by well-established models
tifies an initial contrast between two ways to envisage policy design and techniques) but warns against prioritising the design methods that
in political science. The first – arising from policy analysis - focuses produce abstract outputs divorced from policymaking reality. Yet, the
on functional requirements and analytical techniques, highlighting (1) story of new policy design is easier to tell than achieve, since key dif-
what policy actors need to do to identify their aims, and (2) the steps ferences between policy analysis and process approaches remain. If so,
they need to take, and ‘policy tools’ they need to use, to achieve them. what are the prospects of bringing together both literatures in a mean-
The second – arising from policy theories and empirical studies - situ- ingful way, and what would be the practical payoff?
ates policy design within the wider study of policymaking, highlighting In that context, the first section of this article asks: what is old and
a major gap between functional requirements and actual policy process new policy design? It examines the meaning of policy design from the
and outcomes. Governments use policy tools, and tools contribute to perspective of policy analysis and process scholars, focusing on the in-
outcomes, but their origins and effects can rarely be traced to a clearly- tersection between design as (1) something to do, or (2) contributing
defined act of policy design. (somewhat) to something to explain.
These approaches should be complementary and mutually informa- The second section examines two different roles of policy theory
tive. Indeed, Harold Lasswell’s foundational aim for a multi-method in policy design. One option is to use theory in service to analysis:
and interdisciplinary ‘policy sciences’ was to produce policy analysis identifying context and processes to help refine new policy design (see
informed by studies of policymaking context: ‘The policy sciences may Howlett and Leong, 2021 in this special issue). Another is to treat theory
be conceived as knowledge of the policy process and of the relevance of as a source of cautionary tales, identifying the need to engage critically
knowledge in the process’ (Lasswell, 1971: 3; Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950; with policy design dilemmas and incorporate the lack of designer impact into
Lasswell, 1951; Lasswell 1971; Dunn, 2019). the policy design process. I describe two categories of dilemma through-
Yet, there is generally a gulf between both endeavours following out the article. The first relates to classic trade-offs in policy design, in-
decades of separate specialist study. Their separate academic focus – cluding: what if they seek the benefits of national uniform policies (e.g.
what do we need to do versus what actually happens – and negative per- to foster equitable outcomes) and local policymaking autonomy (e.g. to
spectives on each other’s field get in the way of theory-informed pol- foster collaboration and creativity)? In such cases, designers may clarify
icy analysis (Cairney, 2021a). Policy analysis remains largely atheoreti- rather than solve the need for political choices. While this role may be
cal, and theory remains largely unpractical (Cairney and Weible, 2017; taken for granted in policy design studies, it is crucial for practitioners
Weible and Cairney, 2021). new to the field. The second relates to the limited power of policy de-

E-mail address: p.a.cairney@stir.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejdp.2021.100002
Received 12 February 2021; Received in revised form 6 August 2021; Accepted 15 November 2021
2193-9438/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO). This is an open access
article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
P. Cairney EURO Journal on Decision Processes 9 (2021) 100002

signers: what if they accept the policy theory story that their actions are changes are unusual. Second, there are major limits to information pro-
constrained by their policymaking environments? Some analysts may cessing: ‘bounded rationality’ (Simon, 1976) describes (partly) the in-
respond by drawing practical lessons from policy theories to maximise ability of analysts and policymakers to gather and process all policy rel-
their influence, but this approach raises more problems than it solves. evant evidence. Rather, they use cognitive and organisational shortcuts
to gather enough information to inform choices. Third, there are major
What exactly is (old and new) policy design? limits to central government power: policymakers operate within a pol-
icymaking environment out of their full understanding or control. That
Broadly speaking, policy design is ‘an activity conducted by groups environment can be summed up by six concepts: there are many policy
of actors’ to pursue ‘improved policy processes for better outcomes for actors (policy makers, influencers, analysts) spread across many venues
society’ (Pluchinotta and Steenmans, 2021), ‘through the accurate antic- (levels and types of government); each venue has its own institutions (for-
ipation of the consequences of government actions and the articulation mal and informal rules), networks (relationships between policymakers
of specific courses of action to be followed’ (Howlett and Lejano, 2012: and influencers), and ideas (ways to understand the world and interpret
358). its policy problems); and, actors respond to context (including the socio-
Policy design is difficult to define precisely, partly because: it can economic conditions relevant to policy) and events (such as the crisis
be something to do and/or explain. Definitions rely on a metaphor – prompting policymaker attention to lurch to a policy problem, or the
relating to architecture – to distinguish between the on-paper design election of new policymakers).
and the actual output. Designers face a messy world of ‘multiple, un- In this context, the responsibility for policy tools is spread across po-
clear, and conflicting values, complex problems, dispersed control, and litical systems, and the relationship between each tool and policy out-
the surprises that human agents are capable of springing’ (Bobrow and comes is unclear. Classic accounts of implementation stress the need for
Dryzek, 1987: 19). central governments to recognise inevitable gaps between the intended
Such difficulties prompt scholars to quote Bobrow’s (2006) ‘Policy and actual outcomes of tools (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1973). Modern
Design: Ubiquitous, Necessary and Difficult’ and Bobrow (2006: 77) to accounts of complexity theory stress the need to let go entirely of the
use simple definitions and images of design mostly as a foil for a messier idea of central government control. Policy outcomes ‘emerge’ locally
reality (in the same way that scholars only partly answer the question: from complex policymaking systems (Cairney et al, 2019).
what is policy? Cairney, 2020: 17-19). The process seems particularly
messy when descriptions identify the iteration between action and re- The benefits of combining policy analysis and process research for policy
flection: identify what needs to be done and why, relate that necessity design
to what is likely to happen, reflect on the implications for the act of
design, gauge the real world impact of refined policy designs, and so on These approaches could be complementary and mutually informa-
(2006: 85). Integrated studies of policy design are sensible if they recog- tive: policy analysis steps are akin to functional requirements (what
nise contingency in relation to context and the benefits of ‘channeling analysts need to do to fulfil their role), and policy process research
the energies of disparate actors toward agreement in working toward helps relate requirements to actual capacity (what analysts can reason-
similar goals’ (Howlett and Lejano, 2012: 359-60). However, they are ably expect to achieve). Indeed, this combination helps tell a stylised
also difficult to pin down, and they do not resolve uncertainty about story of old and new policy analysis in which policy process research
the relationship between abstract design processes and concrete policy has informed a new understanding of the role of analysts (Radin, 2019;
outputs. Brans et al., 2021; Cairney, 2021a: 34).
The old story suggests that policymaking is centralized and analysis
Policy design as a verb/noun: comparisons with policy analysis and process is rationalist. If we assume the existence of a powerful centre of gov-
research ernment, able to harness science and the state to deliver its aims, we
can assign to policy analysts the role of giving technical advice, about
To reduce that confusion somewhat, we can make clearer distinc- policy formulation, to identify the optimal policy tools to solve policy
tions between policy analysis as the activity to perform (informed by problems.
guidebooks for students or models for civil servants) and policy process If so, policy design is an activity (to use the best methods to generate
research as the study of all policymaking activity, including the impact the optimal policy tools to solve a defined problem) and an outcome (the
of policy analysts in the real world (informed by theories and empirical selection and impact of the tool will be determined by the government).
studies). The new story suggests that policymaking is distributed across many
Policy analysis guidebooks help students envisage a manageable pro- authoritative venues (Cairney et al, 2019) and analysis - to generate
cess to help a client design a solution to a policy problem: ‘Define a interest in problem definitions and solutions - is contested. The over-
policy problem identified by your client; Identify technically and po- all responsibility for all relevant policy tools, and the impact of multiple
litically feasible solutions; Use value-based criteria and political goals tools on outcomes, is unclear. Research shifts from the rationalist idea of
to compare solutions; Predict the outcome of each feasible solution; a single ‘optimal’ solution to a political process in which many perspec-
and, Make a recommendation to your client’ (Cairney’s 2021a: 12 sum- tives matter, the optimality of particular methods and tools is contested,
mary of Bardach and Patashnik, 2020; Meltzer and Schwartz, 2019; and the overall outcome is indeterminate.
Mintrom, 2012; Weimer and Vining, 2017; Dunn, 2017). If so, analysts may still see policy design as an activity, but the na-
In this context, ‘solutions’ are ‘policy tools’ (or more specific ‘policy ture and outcomes of policy tools relate weakly to analysis. Further, the
instruments’): categorised by Hood and Margetts (2007: 5-6) as nodality required skills of analysts has shifted to reflect this new environment.
(sharing information), authority (using laws and regulations), treasure The old narrow focus on ‘hard’, quantitative, technical skills (such as
(allocating resources), and organization (allocating staff); also including for cost-benefit analysis) compares to a wider focus on skills to foster
behavioural or psychological tools (John, 2018); and, including tools widespread participation and collaboration (Cairney, 2021a: 35). While
that combine information processing and ‘co-production’ methods to aid described pejoratively as ‘soft’ skills, they are indispensable to actors
the act of policy formulation (Jordan and Turnpenny, 2015; Durose and seeking to engage in modern governance (Carey and Crammond, 2015).
Richardson, 2015; Peters et al, 2018). Further, this attention to widening skills is not restricted to analysts. It
Policy process research describes the policymaking context in which also helps academic researchers and scientists jettison their misplaced
analysis takes place (Heikkila and Cairney, 2018; Cairney, 2020; 2021a), belief that the best evidence speaks for itself, or that policymakers will
highlighting three key constraints. First, there are practical limits to share their belief that there is a hierarchy of evidence quality based
policymaker ambitions: most policy change is minor and major policy on research methods (Cairney, 2016). Rather, scientific evidence is one

2
P. Cairney EURO Journal on Decision Processes 9 (2021) 100002

of many sources of policy-relevant knowledge (alongside stakeholder, measure? (compare with del Rio, 2014 on evaluating ‘complex policy
community, and service user knowledge), prompting initiatives to im- mixes’).
prove the legitimacy of scientific evidence by connecting it to participa- Incorporate deliberative democracy. Dryzek (1983: 362-4) acknowl-
tory processes (Cairney and Oliver, 2017; Topp et al, 2018). edged the folly of treating policymakers and analysts as god-like ac-
tors ‘capable of rational-synoptic problem-solving’, but argued that the
The obstacles to integration existence of policy and policymaking complexity ‘is no excuse to es-
chew cogitation’. Rather, as the difficulty of connecting policy tools
This potential for integration remains ill-fulfilled because there is a to their environments increases, ‘one must think harder about how to
gulf between both approaches. From the perspective of policy theory, pol- achieve it’, drawing on multiple methods to ensure deliberation. This ap-
icy analysis relates to notions of policymaking that are divorced from proach should recognise the ethics of policy analysis and choice, rather
reality, and only useful as ideal-types (Cairney, 2020). Indeed, Dunn than pretending that analysis could simply be technical (Bobrow and
(2019: 32) and Weible and Cairney (2019) suggest that the classic focus Dryzek, 1987: 8; see also Schneider and Sidney, 2009 and Sidney, 2007:
on stages in a policy cycle (e.g. define the problem, formulate solutions, 81 on the ‘conscious inclusion of marginalized populations in the design
make and legitimize your choice of solution, implement, and evaluate) process’).
arose from a misunderstanding. Lasswell (1956) identified categories of Don’t leave design to the biases of policymakers. Schneider and In-
decision functions as functional requirements, or what analysts and pol- gram (1988) argued that the absence of a clearly defined and system-
icymakers need from policy processes: Intelligence – Recommending - atic policy design process ensures that tool-production is driven by the
Prescribing - Invoking - Applying – Appraisal - Termination. However, heuristics (or cognitive biases) of policymakers. If so, it will lack proper
stories of his work morphed into a tale in which policymaking actually attention to the technical issues informed by research and the normative
operates via a series of stages (e.g. see Wu et al, 2017). Although helpful issues that require debate, resulting in a tendency to mimic other gov-
when viewed through the lens of functional requirements, this approach ernment’s policies rather than design tools appropriate for their own tar-
is incomplete without imagining the interaction between (1) many ac- get populations. This argument preceded the more profound ‘social con-
tions taking place out of sequence (when compared to the well-ordered struction and policy design’ (SCPD) approach which describes ‘degen-
sequence described by a policy cycle), and (2) many ‘cycles’ overseen erative’ political systems: policymakers draw (emotionally and strategi-
by multiple venues. cally) on social stereotypes to assign praise or blame to target popula-
From the perspective of policy analysis, policy theory has become tions, these judgements are reproduced in policy design, designs endure
too divorced from practice, developing an esoteric technical language for years or decades and produce cumulative effects, and they privi-
with impractical lessons (Cairney and Weible, 2017; Weible and Cair- lege some citizens while alienating already marginalised populations
ney, 2021). This inability to translate research into models for action can (Schneider and Ingram, 1997; 2005). Further, SCPD development is ac-
obstruct theory-informed policy analysis and design, providing minimal companied by a more expansive account of policy design in practice:
incentive for policy analysts to learn the jargon (Cairney, 2021a). ‘Policy designs are observable phenomena found in statutes, admin-
istrative guidelines, court decrees, programs, and even the practices and
The old policy design: the unsuccessful pursuit of integrated policy analysis procedures of street level bureaucrats … [they] contain specific observ-
and process research able elements such as target populations (the recipients of policy benefits
or burdens), goals or problems to be solved (the values to be distributed),
These tensions help explain the strange academic history of policy rules (that guide or constrain action), rationales (that explain or legiti-
design in which policy process research contributed to its diminished mate the policy), and assumptions (logical connections that tie the other
status in political science. First, Howlett (2014: 187) and Howlett and elements together)’ (Schneider and Ingram, 1997: 2).
Lejano (2012: 357) describe promising conceptual development from Relate policy design to political context. Linder and Peters (1984: 242;
the 1970s. Classic accounts addressed the policy analysis versus research drawing on Richardson, 1982) argue that policy processes are conducive
issue by distinguishing between policy design as (1) a puzzle-solving to puzzle-solving policy design: few issues are highly politicised; and,
activity (‘verb’) and (2) an output such as a policy instrument (‘noun’), most are delegated to fairly stable policy communities of like-minded
deeming both to be worthy of research (akin to the study, in architec- civil servants and interest groups operating out of the public spotlight.
ture, of making blueprints or buildings). Pro-design scholars engaged May (1991: 192) describes the latter as ‘Policies With Publics’, in which
directly with policy theories, including the idea that policymaking re- interest groups are integral to design. Design challenges include: to gen-
sembled the ‘garbage can’ model of policymaking (Cohen et al, 1972), erate support for proposed measures, and limit the ability of dissatisfied
or Lindblom’s (1959; 1979) ‘muddling through’, rather than an orderly groups to thwart implementation, by designing a package of measures
cycle of stages conducive to purposive policy design. Although this was with technical and political feasibility (1991: 197). In contrast, ‘Policies
not a uniform field (see May, 1991: 189), the underlying argument was Without Publics’ describes the processes that emerge when participa-
that a fatalistic (nothing can be done) or complacent (the policy pro- tion is ‘usually limited to technical and scientific communities’. Design
cess is good enough) argument contributes to poor policy design which challenges include: anticipating opposition, generating momentum, and
diminishes democracy. Key messages include: compensating for an initial lack of participation.
Focus on government capacity and feasible policy tools. Salamon (1981:
256; 2002 in Howlett and Lejano, 2012: 362) encouraged scholars to The surprising decline of policy design
improve implementation research from a different perspective: focus
less on the type of problem to solve and more on the types and effec- Overall, these ideas present some optimism for the pragmatic role of
tiveness of tools available to governments. This focus includes research policy design and a complementary relationship between policy analysis
on the tools that governments see as technically and politically feasible and process research. First, design helps participants anticipate imple-
(Lowi, 1964; 1972; see also May, 2003: 225 on how many and which mentation problems (May, 2003: 223). Sidney (2007: 80) argues that
categories of tools or instruments to include). the design literature ‘emerged in response to implementation studies
Don’t restrict training to evaluation. Linder and Peters (1984: 240; 253) of the 1970s’. Most of the problems associated with ‘top-down’ imple-
highlighted a wealth of evaluation training but dearth of design training mentation could be addressed with policy design, including the lack
in policy analysis programmes, contributing to the sense that design of: goal clarity and consistency, knowledge if a policy tool will work
is a matter of individual creativity and judgement with few rules and as intended if implemented, attention to delivery chains and how to
undermining evaluation (compare with Considine et al, 2014). In other maintain bureaucratic and interest group support, and anticipation of
words, how can we evaluate success in the absence of a clearly designed socio-economic context (May, 2003: 224; Cairney, 2020: 28-9). Further,

3
P. Cairney EURO Journal on Decision Processes 9 (2021) 100002

intergovernmental and nongovernmental cooperation could be fostered – Jordan and Matt, 2014), without starting again (akin to a software
via the ‘inclusion of capacity- and commitment-building mechanisms in ‘patch’).
the policy design’ (2003: 225).
Howlett (2014: 194-7) relates these questions of policy design to
Second, a combination of design principles and policy theories
those of modern policy analysts:
helps anticipate policymaking dynamics. For example, Polski and Os-
trom (1999: 2-3) show how the Institutional Analysis and Development 1 ‘Who are the designers?’. They include policymakers and analysts,
framework (IAD) can help policy analysts combine welfare economics but advice also comes from official advisory systems and unofficial
(a key driver of cost-benefit analysis) with political science by incorpo- channels.
rating the role of policymaking institutions. They define an institution 2 ‘Why do they design what they do?’ and ‘How do they design?’. De-
as the ‘rule, norm, or strategy that creates incentives for behavior’, not- sign may reflect the goals of policymakers, but also their skills in an-
ing that some rules are formal and written but many are unwritten and ticipating political feasibility (Considine et al, 2014), feedback from
‘invisible, shared concepts that exist in the minds and routines of partic- trial-and-error experiments (van der Heijden, 2014), and reactions
ipants in policy situations’, prompting the possibility that the rules-in- to market or policy failure (Wu and Ramesh, 2014).
use contradict the rules on paper (1999: 3; 15). A key aspect of policy Further, Peters et al (2018: 8-12) show how modern policy design
design is to examine carefully ‘how participants actually do things and thinking often responds to ‘the growing interest in how difficult it is to
why they do them one way rather than another’ (1999: 3). They reject a introduce effective policy interventions’: taking into account the role of
‘blueprint’ approach, since each context is different and designs will not ‘path dependence’; expressing scepticism about (a) a successful solution
work without anticipating the rules, ‘physical and material conditions’, in one context having the same success in another, and (b) the idea of
and ‘patterns of interaction’ of each setting (1999: 4; 10; 23; see also ‘evidence based policymaking’; downplaying the influence of technical
Araral, 2014). policy analysts in relation to elected policymakers; and, using terms such
Regardless of these developments, policy theories contributed to the as ‘wicked problems’ to reduce expectations for policy design success.
decline of policy design studies from the 1990s, generating the sense
that the outputs of central government policy design relate very weakly What is the role of policy theory in new policy design?
to the outputs or outcomes of policy processes. Policy research found
increasingly that the choice of policy tools and instruments was largely This new agenda offers a way to produce academic research for pol-
outside of the influence of policy designers (the buildings did not result icymakers and designers (to support ambitious ‘evidence-informed’ pol-
from the blueprints), to the extent that the latter merited little attention icy change) while being grounded by policy theory (highlighting the lim-
(Howlett et al, 2014: 293). While Dryzek (1983) treated new governance its to evidence processing and policy change). However, there is more
developments as a challenge to which policy designers should engage, than one way to define this relationship. The role for policy research
governance scholars saw them as undermining the importance of policy can be:
designers (Howlett and Lejano, 2012: 366). Put simply, if (1) central
1 In the service of policy design, supporting the functional require-
government control is being replaced by complex networks and insti-
ments perspective (e.g. Howlett and Leong, 2021 on anticipating
tutions of governance in which there are many ‘centres’ (exacerbated
risk, and Peters et al, 2018: 18-26 on ‘effective instrument mixes’).
by the reduction of national autonomy by ‘globalisation’ and interna-
2 A source of critical analysis, warning against a narrow focus on de-
tional organisations), then (2) do not privilege the study of one of many
sign blueprints, and using a focus on policymaking environments to
contributors to governance and policy outcomes (2012: 367). Such de-
challenge agency-centred accounts of policy analysis.
velopments took place in the context of plummeting confidence in the
old story of policy analysis: ‘a wave of optimism [at least in the Anglo- For example, both roles can be found in ‘systems thinking’. This ap-
American World] concerning the potential contribution of government proach shows promise as a way to foster new policy design, rejecting
action to collective well-being has been replaced by general scepticism .. a too-narrow focus on self-contained policy problems and solutions and
toward the very idea of public sector action’ (Bobrow and Dryzek, 1997: identifying the importance of policy mixes to addressing complex policy
3). problems (Cairney, 2021a: 130). As Dunn (2017: 73) describes:
‘Subjectively experienced problems - crime, poverty, unemployment,
The new policy design inflation, energy, pollution, health, security - cannot be decomposed
into independent subsets without running the risk of producing an ap-
Howlett and Lejano (2012: 369) argue that such developments proximately right solution to the wrong problem. A key characteristic
should have prompted the study of new policy design skills, since to of systems of problems is that the whole is greater - that is, qualitatively
describe a new policymaking reality is not to show how it helps solve different - than the simple sum of its parts’.
policy problems. It would be a mistake to forget that policies ‘do not However, while there is some agreement on the need to apply sys-
design themselves’ (2012: 370). Rather, there remains a role for de- tems thinking to policy, there remains confusion on how it applies to
signers ‘to base their analyses on logic, knowledge and experience policymaking. Rather, the general literature contains two broad, con-
rather than, for example, purely political calculations or bargaining’ tradictory ways to understand and address complex policymaking sys-
(Howlett et al, 2014: 292). tems. The first emphasises the ability of central governments to use pol-
Howlett et al (2014: 297-300) relate new policy design to the - thriv- icy levers to make order from chaos: ‘if we engage in systems thinking
ing - study of policy tools in theory and practice, culminating in the mod- effectively, we can understand systems well enough to control, man-
ern study of ‘complex policy mixes’ (see also Peters et al, 2018). They age, or influence them’ (Cairney, 2021a: 130). The second emphasises
identify three interconected foci, considering how each instrument con- a tendency for policy outcomes to ‘emerge’ from complex policymak-
nects to a ‘policy mix’: ing systems in the absence of central government control: “we need to
acknowledge these limitations properly, to accept our limitations, and
1 How one group of designers proposes multiple tools to address the avoid the mechanistic language of ‘policy levers’” (2021: 130). Indeed,
same problem (and the trade-offs between key measures). the absence of control, combined with a tendency for the same tools to
2 How new tools interact with existing measures, and the extent to have minimal or maximal effects in different contexts, may prompt the
which incremental policy changes contribute to a coherent or con- greater use of trial-and-error experimentation, aided by local discretion
tradictory agenda (e.g. Mei and Liu, 2014). to monitor their effects (Cairney, 2021a: 131).
3 If new policy designs can solve the unintended developments of In that context, I provide three illustrative examples of interdisci-
policies over time (often described in relation to ‘policy feedback’ plinary and intersectoral research to highlight the role of cautionary

4
P. Cairney EURO Journal on Decision Processes 9 (2021) 100002

tales, particularly across sectors where policy problems are complex and to secure energy system transformation without identifying how to se-
focused on long-term change, and where the role of government-led pol- cure it. Policy theories identify the low likelihood that governments can
icy change is unclear. intervene in the required manner, particularly when: the policy prob-
lem seems too complex to define simply, the policy mix to address it
The future of energy policy: contrasting approaches to ‘whole systems’ will have non-linear effects, and policy design takes place in a complex
thinking policymaking system in which outcomes emerge in the absence of cen-
tral government control. While approaches such as the IAD could help
Contrasting accounts of systems thinking - assuming high versus low improve such energy system analysis, they do not yet inform ‘whole
government control - exacerbate conceptual confusion in policy sectors systems’ energy thinking (Munro and Cairney, 2020: 7-8).
such as energy, in which the role of government is already unclear. There
is a growing academic and practitioner consensus on the policy design The future of global public health: policy theories at the service of policy
problem: the transformation of global domestic and industrial energy use design?
is fundamental to addressing climate change. Researchers also describe
the value of ‘whole systems thinking’ to encourage a transformation in Some applied public health research attempts to use policy theories
energy systems from high to low carbon (Munro and Cairney, 2020: 1). in the service of policy design. They are clear on the policy problem
However, we can also find contrasting visions of the role of (govern- and broad strategic response, but face continuous advocacy and imple-
ment) policy design in that transformation. First, there is a tendency mentation problems (Cairney et al., 2021a: 7-10). A key focus of global
for governments to use the language of energy systems loosely and public health policy is on health promotion and improvement to reduce
metaphorically to project a sense of central government influence (2020: non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cancers, heart disease, obe-
4). In comparison, when Chilvers et al., (2017) bring together ‘engi- sity, and diabetes. There is high academic and practitioner consensus on
neers, social scientists and policy analysts’ to apply systems thinking to the appropriate response, summed up by the World Health Organisation
the transition to a ‘low-carbon energy’, central government coordina- (WHO) led strategy ‘Health in All Policies’ (HiAP):
tion is only one of three possible pathways, including market and civil
1 Treat health as a human right and health inequalities as ‘unfair and
society led pathways. Second, energy systems researchers present more
avoidable’ (Helsinki Statement on Health in All Policies, 2013).
or less confidence in state action, prompting Munro and Cairney (2020:
2 Identify evidence of the ‘social determinants’ of health inequalities. The
4-8) to describe two well-established stories of systems thinking, each
cause relates to social, economic, and political inequalities (in rela-
with contrasting implications for policy design:
tion to income and wealth, education, housing, services, and safety,
1 The ‘multi-level perspective’ (Geels, 2004) suggests that energy sys- which are distributed unequally in relation to characteristics includ-
tems are path dependent and require a major impetus to change di- ing gender and race) rather than biological factors (Whitehead and
rection radically. This impetus comes from technological innovation, Dahlgren, 2006: 4; Solar and Urwin, 2010: 6; Corburn et al, 2014:
initially protected from market forces (such as via government sub- 627).
sidy) in a ‘niche’ to aid policy learning and expansion, and supported 3 Identify evidence-based ‘upstream’ solutions. Select policy instruments
by the social and political environment (albeit with no reliable way to improve the social and economic environment (rather than fo-
to ‘pick winners’, Rhodes et al, 2014). Rogge et al (2018: 1) describe cusing on individual lifestyles or healthcare), supported by analyt-
a process - akin to policy design - to that end: identify your goals ical tools - including health impact assessments (HIAs) – to mon-
(meet climate change targets by changing energy supply and de- itor the health impact of non-health policies (Storm et al, 2011;
mand), encourage public deliberation on how best to meet them (via Gottlieb et al, 2012).
centralized or decentralized energy systems), then specify the policy 4 Promote intersectoral action and collaborative governance. Most powers
mixes and practices to support that transition. Yet, such accounts are to affect population health – to redistribute income, improve public
under-informed by policy theories, prompting them to focus primar- services, reduce discrimination, and improve environments - are dis-
ily on the functional requirements of energy system change without tributed across government departments and levels of government.
relating them to the high likelihood of contestation (undermining Implementation requires governmental and non-governmental coop-
collaboration) or the dynamics of policymaking (Munro and Cair- eration (Carey and Friel, 2015: 796; Tosun and Lang, 2017: 555).
ney, 2020: 8).
There is also a ‘playbook’ to aid HiAP adoption and implementa-
2 Complex systems theories suggest that policy designers or govern-
tion via collaboration, including advice to: raise awareness and connect
ments may propose an energy transition, ‘but policy outcomes are
HiAP to government priorities, focus on ‘win-win’ solutions with part-
not in their control and there is too much uncertainty to predict the
ners, identify policy ‘champions’ and seek new ways to justify HiAP (tra-
effect of their actions’ (Munro and Cairney, 2020: 6). The need to
ditional cost-benefit analyses do not capture its value) (Cairney et al.,
avoid ‘illusory, control-based approaches’ extends to political and
2021a: 11-16). Yet, the ‘implementation gap’ remains a dominant theme
technical feasibility: public debate may be necessary but govern-
in HiAP research, even in best-case scenarios in which a government
ments are unable to ensure public support for the radical reforms
has made a sincere commitment to HiAP (South Australia) or the social
that they seek (Butler et al, 2015: 667). Further, energy policy in-
and political conditions are conducive to success (Nordic welfare states)
struments are ‘characterized by high complexity levels’ and high un-
(2021: 20-27).
certainty about cause-and-effect, and the effect of policy mixes is
In that context, HiAP researchers draw on policy theories to improve
‘non-linear’, with little ability to predict (1) if the energy transfor-
their ‘programme logic’ models, which identify a multi-step theory of
mation will come from a new policy mix, or (2) its distributional
change. For example, Baum et al’s (2019: 6) diagram exhibits a clear
consequences (Spyridaki and Flamos, 2014: 1091-2; 1096-7). This
discussion of the causal links: better relationships and collaborations,
uncertainty is exacerbated by the interconnected nature of policy,
aided by a HiAP unit, policy champions, and a government mandate,
in which the policy tools employed in many other sectors (and mul-
help improve policy processes; better processes facilitate better policy;
tiple levels of government) contribute to energy system outcomes
and better policy helps reduce health inequalities. However, the actual
(Cox et al, 2016: 3-4).
outcomes contradict this story, suggesting that other government poli-
In this case, policy theories help tell a cautionary tale about the con- cies (reducing welfare funding or prioritising healthcare) undermined
sequence of insufficient analysis of the connection between functional HiAP, while HiAP’s pragmatism-playbook helps a government ‘use the
requirements and policymaking dynamics. When describing policy de- language of radical change in policy processes as an alternative to radical
sign, researchers highlight what they need from publics and governments changes in policy instruments’ (Cairney et al., 2021a: 24).

5
P. Cairney EURO Journal on Decision Processes 9 (2021) 100002

Table 1
Agency- and context-centred policy learning.

Issues Practical lessons Unresolved issues

There are many authoritative venues Identify the key venues It is difficult to know (a) from which venues to learn, and (b)
which venues will seek to learn
Each venue has its own ‘institutions’ Learn the written/ unwritten rules of each venue Learning rules is a long term (often infeasible) process, not
conducive to timely policy learning
Each venue has its own networks Build trust and form alliances within networks Trust formation is a lengthy commitment. Network informality
increases uncertainty about who seeks lessons
Each venue is guided by dominant ideas on Learn the language that actors use to frame Dominant beliefs and language rule out many lessons as
problems and solutions problems and solutions politically or technically infeasible
Attention is driven by changes in events and Present solutions during windows of opportunity Analysts do not influence the events that create opportunities.
socioeconomic factors
Source: adapted from Cairney et al (2018; 2022).

While policy theories provide ‘practical lessons’ (Weible and Cair- signers, and it may be impossible to create windows of opportunity
ney, 2021), they aid the critical analysis of dilemmas and policymaking to act (in other words, a window of opportunity to influence an in-
constraints rather than instrumental goals. First, a key aspect of the ‘im- dividual is not the same as a window for policy change in a system,
plementation gap’ should be viewed more usefully as a design dilemma (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017)). Overall, Table 1 creates the impres-
in which there are clear trade-offs between aims: national direction and sion that learning-informed policy design is a continuous long-term com-
the adoption of formal regulations and uniform interventions might aid mitment rather than the self-contained process described in policy anal-
the pursuit of uniform outcomes (more equitable population health), but ysis texts.
also stifle the local collaboration and creativity required to make sense In that context, Cairney et al. (2021b; 2022) apply three guiding
of HiAP in context (and cause variations in outcomes) (Cairney et al., questions to foster and reflect on policy learning – comparing policy
2021a: 45). Second, theories help manage expectations in relation to the analysis and process insights - to reduce inequalities:
limited coordinative capacity of governments. While public administra-
1 What is the evidence for one government’s success, and from where does
tion studies identify the factors that aid ‘joined-up’ government, policy
it come?
theories explain why ‘silo’ working in policy communities has a con-
• Policy analysis: seek multiple independent sources of evidence.
vincing rationale and will remain pervasive (2021a: 40). The practical
• Policy process: political actors compete to define good evi-
lesson is to revisit key assumptions and reduce the expectations associ-
dence and its implications, and governance choices (on the ex-
ated with functional requirements.
tent to which policy is centralised) influence evidence choices
(Cairney and Oliver, 2017).
The future of equalities policies: the prospects for policy learning and
2 What story do exporters/ importers of policy tell about the problem they
transfer
seek to solve?
• Policy analysis: improve comparability by establishing how each
Policy learning is the use of new information to update policy-
government defines the policy problem, establishes the feasibil-
relevant knowledge, and policy transfer is the use of knowledge
ity of solutions, and measures success.
about policy and policymaking in one government to inform another
• Policy process: it is often not possible to determine a policy-
(Dunlop and Radaelli, 2013; Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996). Both are key
maker’s motivation, especially when many venues or levels of
features of policy design, and the contrast between agent-based and
government contribute.
context-based stories of the process resembles the verb/noun distinction
3 Do they have comparable political and policymaking systems?
in design (Cairney et al., 2022):
• Policy analysis: identify the comparable features of each political

• Agent-based learning is part of: (1) a functionalist analysis to iden- system (e.g. federal/ unitary).
tify the steps required to turn comparative analysis into policy • Policy process: identify the comparable features of policymaking

(Rose, 2005), or (2) a toolkit to manage stages of the policy process systems (e.g. actors, institutions, networks, ideas, socioeconomic
(Wu et al, 2017: 132). context).
• Context-based approaches treat learning as something to be: prob-
While this task appears feasible in the abstract, Cairney et al (2022)
lematised, to recognise that learning can relate primarily to ex-
highlight key issues when applied to complex problems. First, inequal-
perts (‘epistemic’), deliberation (‘reflective’), politics and con-
ities and inequalities policies are unusually ambiguous; it is difficult
testation (‘bargaining’), and power (‘hierarchy’); and explained,
to tell how each government defines the problem or prioritises cat-
since epistemic learning is one of many possibilities (Dunlop and
egories (e.g. economic, spatial, racial, gender-based) and measures
Radaelli, 2018) and ‘transfer’ takes many forms (Stone, 2012).
of inequality (e.g. regional GDP, access to public services). Second,
The comparison presents a dilemma: what if policy designers accept policy-mapping exercises highlight the spread of responsibility, for rel-
the context-based story but seek radical policy change? Can they use evant policy instruments, across multiple levels and types of govern-
policy theories to inform their functional requirements? ment. Third, government initiatives focus on functional requirements
While policy theories can be translated somewhat into practical guid- rather than policymaking context. Overall, policy process research helps
ance, this focus can be misleading without also focusing on unresolved explain the impressive absence of policy change informed by learning
issues. For example, Table 1 summarises key elements of policymak- (Moyson et al, 2017).
ing environments to identify issues for learning and design, and the
practical lessons from theories, but also the unresolved issues that arise Conclusion
when we provide general advice. Each practical response may be more
akin to a Herculean task. Identifying and engaging with key venues in The new policy design agenda suggests that we can combine two in-
a multi-centric system could take months, while learning the unwrit- dispensable aspects of design: the methods and steps to produce policy
ten rules of organisations could take years. The ability to build trust design, and the theories and studies to describe and explain its role in
and a common language in networks may not be in the gift of de- policy and policymaking. Yet, Howlett and colleagues’ story of the de-

6
P. Cairney EURO Journal on Decision Processes 9 (2021) 100002

cline of old policy design still serves as a cautionary tale, since it was not The energy research was part of the UK Energy Research Centre UK-
caused by a lack of sophistication among designers (indeed, the study of ERC) Phase 3 (EP/L024756/1) project ‘The impact of multi-level poli-
design in political science fell as practical knowledge rose). Rather, they cymaking on the UK energy system’.
relate this trend to the message from policy studies that design was pe-
ripheral to policy outputs and outcomes. Crucially, that message can still References
be extracted from modern policy theories and empirical studies to warn
Araral, E., 2014. Policy and regulatory design for developing countries: a mechanism de-
designers that the old problems are not remedied simply by advances in
sign and transaction cost approach. Policy Sci. 47 (3), 289–303.
science, methods, and design techniques (Botterill and Hindmoor, 2012 Bardach, E., Patashnik, E., 2020. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis, 6th edition Sage,
provide the same warning for ‘evidence-based policymaking’). London.
Baum, F., Delany-Crowe, T., MacDougall, C., van Eyk, H., Lawless, A., Williams, C., Mar-
Policy theories can serve different positive roles for policy design.
mot, M., 2019. To what extent can the activities of the South Australian Health in All
Howlett and Leong (2021) take forward its role in the service of de- Policies initiative be linked to population health outcomes using a program theory-
sign: identifying how theories and concepts, applied to policy context, based evaluation? BMC Public Health 19 (1), 88. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6408-y.
help understand and overcome design hurdles. Alternatively, this article Bobrow, D, 2006. Policy design: ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In: Peters, B.G.,
Pierre, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy. Sage, London, pp. 75–96.
explores its role as a source of critical analysis and cautionary tales, fo- Bobrow, D., Dryzek, J., 1987. Policy Analysis by Design. University of Pittsburgh Press,
cusing on policymaking environments to challenge agency-centred ac- Pittsburgh, PA.
counts of policy analysis and learning. Illustrative examples highlight Botterill, L., Hindmoor, A., 2012. Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an
evidence-based age. Policy Stud. 33 (5), 367–379.
several key points. Brans, M., Geva-May, I., Howlett, M., 2021. Routledge Handbook of Comparative Policy
First, beware the insufficient analysis of the connection between Analysis. Routledge, London.
functional requirements and policymaking dynamics. Too often, re- Butler, C., Demski, C., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., Spence, A., 2015. Public values for energy
futures: framing, indeterminacy and policy making. Energy Policy 87, 665–672.
searchers highlight what they need from governments to secure policy Cairney, P., 2016. The Politics of Evidence Based Policymaking. Palgrave, London.
change, while policy theories identify the low likelihood that govern- Cairney, P., 2020. Understanding Public Policy, 2nd ed. Red Globe, London.
ments can meet that need (often accompanied by the exhortation to Cairney, P., Keating, M., Kippin, S., St Denny, E., 2022. Public Policy to Reduce Inequalities
Across Europe: Hope Versus Reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
explore more communal solutions).
Cairney, P., Kwiatkowski, R., 2017. How to communicate effectively with policymakers:
Second, recognise not only the limited coordinative capacity of gov- combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun. 3 (1), 1–8.
ernments but also the strong rationale for seemingly suboptimal pol- doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8.
Cairney, P., Oliver, K., 2017. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based
icymaking arrangements. Some result from political choice, to share
medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?
power across multiple levels of government; others result from necessity, Health Res. Policy Syst. 15 (35), 1–11. doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x.
in which central governments must delegate power within and outside Cairney, P., Heikkila, T., Wood, M., 2019. Making Policy in a Complex World. Cambridge
of government departments (Cairney et al, 2019). While there is some Elements, Cambridge.
Cairney, P., St Denny, E., Mitchell, H., 2021a. The future of public health policymaking
scope to foster the kinds of ‘joined up’ government essential to solve after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies.
complex policy problems, there is also a strong rationale for pervasive Open Res. Europe.
‘silo’ working in policy communities. This necessity should be incorpo- Cairney, P., St Denny, E., Kippin, S., 2021b. Policy learning to reduce inequalities: the
search for a coherent Scottish gender mainstreaming policy in a multi-level UK. Territ.
rated in policy design rather than wished away by optimistic designers. Polit. Govern. 9 (3), 412–433. doi:10.1080/21622671.2020.1837661.
Third, identify the policy design dilemmas that need to be resolved Cairney, P., Weible, C., 2017. The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science
via clear political choice rather than technical design methods. For ex- of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis. Policy Sci. 50
(4), 619–627.
ample, older studies focused on the extent to which sophisticated pol- Carey, G., Crammond, B., 2015. What works in joined-up government? An evidence syn-
icy design could help overcome most ‘top-down’ policy implementation thesis. Int. J. Public Admin. 38 (13–14), 1020–1029.
problems. Now, when researchers identify implementation gaps, they Carey, G., Friel, S., 2015. Understanding the role of public administration in implementing
action on the social determinants of health and health inequities. Int, J, Health Policy
may actually be the political dilemmas that accompany trade-offs be-
Manag. 4 (12), 795–798. http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2015.185.
tween governance aims: central government direction and the adoption Chilvers, J., Foxon, T.J., Galloway, S., Hammond, G.P., Infield, D., Leach, M., Pearson, P.J.,
of formal regulations may aid the pursuit of uniform interventions (such Strachan, N., Strbac, G., Thomson, M., 2017. Realising transition pathways for a more
electric, low-carbon energy system in the United Kingdom: Challenges, insights and
as in the service of population equity), but also undermine the auton-
opportunities. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part A: J. Power
omy of local collaborations that require high freedom to produce cre- Energy 231 (6), 440–477.
ative solutions to context-specific problems. The dilemma is to decide Cohen, M., March, J., Olsen, J., 1972. The garbage can model of organizational choice.
how much local deviation from a national policy there should be, rather Adm. Sci. Q. 1 (7), 1–25.
Considine, M., Alexander, D., Lewis, J., 2014. Policy design as craft: teasing out policy
than treating any deviation as a gap to be filled. design expertise using a semi-experimental approach. Policy Sci. 47 (3), 209–225.
Finally, manage expectations about the prospect for policy learning- Corburn, J., Curl, S., Arredondo, G., Malagon, J., 2014. Health in all urban pol-
informed policy change. Part of the problem is that systematic learning icy, city services through the prism of health. J. Urban Health 91 (4), 623–636.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-014-9886-3.
requires designers to complete a series of Herculean tasks to (1) ensure Cox, E., Royston, S., Selby, J., 2016. The Impacts of Non-Energy Policies on the Energy
full knowledge of policymaking system comparability, and (2) engage System: A Scoping Paper. UK Energy Research Centre.
effectively to foster design-led policy change. The role of policy analysis del Rio, P., 2014. On evaluating success in complex policy mixes: the case of renewable
energy support schemes. Policy Sci. 47 (3), 267–287.
may be to encourage evidence-informed and agency-centred design, but Dolowitz, D., Marsh, D, 1996. Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer
policy theories remind us of the need to situate design in a policymaking literature. Polit. Stud. XLIV, 343–357.
environment that constrains or facilitates agency. Dunlop, C., Radaelli, C., 2013. Systematising policy learning. Polit. Stud. Rev. 61 (3),
599–619.
Dunlop, C., Radaelli, C., 2018. The lessons of policy learning. Policy Polit. 46 (2), 255–272.
Declaration of interests Dunn, W., 2019. Pragmatism and the Origins of the Policy Sciences. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Dryzek, J., 1983. Don’t toss coins in garbage cans: a prologue to policy design. J. Public
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Policy 3 (4), 345–367.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Durose, C., Richardson, L., 2015. Designing Public Policy for Co-Production. Policy Press,
the work reported in this article. Bristol.
Dunn, W., 2017. Public Policy Analysis, 6th Ed. Routledge.
Geels, F., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Res. Policy
Acknowledgment 33, 897–920.
Gottlieb, L.M., Fielding, J.E., Braveman, P.A., 2012. Health impact assessment; neces-
The equity and inequalities research for IMAJINE is supported by sary but not sufficient for healthy public policy. Public Health Rep. 127, 156–162.
doi:10.1177/003335491212700204.
the H2020 European Research Council [grant number REVINEQUAL- Heikkila, T., Cairney, P., 2018. Comparison of theories of the policy process. In: Weible, C.,
07-2016]. Sabatier, P. (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edn. Westview Press, Chicago.

7
P. Cairney EURO Journal on Decision Processes 9 (2021) 100002

Helsinki statement on health in all policies, 2013. Health Promot. Int. 29 (1), i17–i18. Pressman, J., Wildavsky, A., 1973. Implementation. University of California Press, Berke-
http://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau036. ley, CA.
Hood, C., Margetts, H., 2007. The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Palgrave, Bas- Radin, B., 2019. Policy Analysis in the Twenty-First Century. Routledge, London.
ingstoke. Richardson, J., 1982. Policy Styles in Western Europe. Allen and Unwin, London.
Howlett, M., 2014. From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design think- Rhodes, A., Skea, J., Hannon, M., 2014. The global surge in energy innovation. Energies
ing beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sci. 47, 187–207. 7, 5601–5623.
doi:10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0. Rogge, K., Pfluger, B., Geels, F., 2018. Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical
Howlett, M., Lejano, R., 2012. Tales from the crypt: the rise and fall (and Rebirth?) of scenarios: the case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system
policy design. Admin. Soc. 45 (3), 357–381. doi:10.1177/0095399712459725. (2010–2050). Technol. Forecast. Social Change 151 (1–15), 119259 February.
Howlett, M., Leong, C., 2021. Dealing with risk in policy design and decision-making: Rose, R., 2005. Learning From Comparative Public Policy: A Practical Guide. Routledge,
“inherent vices” and policy volatility. holding reference. London.
Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., Woo, J.J., 2014. From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: Salamon, L., 1981. Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the
the new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy Polit. 43 (2), changing forms of government action. Public Policy 29, 255–275.
291–311. Salamon, L., 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford
John, P., 2018. How Far to Nudge? Assessing Behavioural Public Policy. Edward Elgar, University Press, New York, NY.
Cheltenham. Schneider, A., Ingram, H., 1988. Systematically Pinching Ideas: A Comparative Approach
Jordan, A., Matt, A., 2014. Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in to Policy Design 8 (1), 61–80.
a changing climate. Policy Sci. 47 (3), 227–247. Schneider, A., Ingram, H., 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. University of Kansas Press,
Jordan, A., Turnpenny, J., 2015. The Tools of Policy Formulation. Edward Elgar, Chel- Kansas.
tenham. Schneider, A., Ingram, H. (Eds.), 2005. Deserving and Entitled: Social Construction and
Lasswell, H., 1951. The policy orientation. In: Lerner, D., Lasswell, H.D. (Eds.), The Policy Public Policy. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method. Stanford University Press. Schneider, A., Sidney, M., 2009. What is next for policy design and social construction
Lasswell, H.D., 1956. The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. Bu- theory? Policy Stud. J. 37 (1), 103–119.
reau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, Uni- Sidney, M, 2007. Policy formulation: design and tools. In: Fischer, F., Miller, G., Sidney, M.
versity of Maryland. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
Lasswell, H.D., 1971. The emerging conception of the policy sciences. Policy Sci. 1 (1), Simon, H., 1976. Administrative Behavior, 3rd edn Macmillan, London.
3–14. Spyridaki, N., Flamos, A., 2014. A paper trail of evaluation approaches to energy and
Lasswell, H., Kaplan, D.A., 1950. Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. climate policy interactions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40, 1090–1107.
Yale University Press, New Haven. Solar, O., Irwin, A., 2010. A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants
Linder, S., Peters, B.G., 1984. From social theory to policy design. J. Public Policy 4 (3), of Health. WHO, Geneva.
237–259. Stone, D., 2012. Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Stud. 33 (6), 483–499.
Lindblom, C., 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Adm. Rev. 19, 79–88. Storm, I., Aarts, M., Harting, J., Schuit, A.J., 2011. Opportunities to reduce health inequal-
Lindblom, C., 1979. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Adm. Rev. 39, 517–525. ities by ‘health in all policies’ in the Netherlands: an explorative study on the national
Lowi, T., 1964. An American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. level. Health Policy 103, 130–140. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.09.009.
World Polit. 16 (4), 677–715. Topp, L., Mair, D., Smillie, L., Cairney, P., 2018. Knowledge management for policy im-
Lowi, T., 1972. Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Adm. Rev. 32 (4), pact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Palgrave Com-
298–310. mun. 4 (87), 1–10. doi:10.1057/s41599-018-0143-3.
May, P., 1991. Reconsidering policy design: policies and publics. J. Public Policy 11 (2), Tosun, J., Lang, A., 2017. Policy integration: mapping the different concepts. Policy Stud.
187–206. 38 (6), 553–570. doi:10.1080/01442872.2017.1339239.
May, P., Peters, B.G., Pierre, J., 2003. Policy design and implementation. Handbook of van der Heijden, J., 2014. Experimentation in policy design: insights from the building
Public Administration. Sage, London. sector. Policy Sci. 47 (3), 249–266.
Mei, C., Liu, Z., 2014. Experiment-based policy making or conscious policy design? The Weible, C., Cairney, P., 2019. A diamond in the Rough: digging up and polishing Lasswell’s
case of urban housing reform in China. Policy Sci. 47 (3), 321–337. decision functions. Paper Prepared for the Workshop on The Future of the Policy
Meltzer, R., Schwartz, A., 2019. Policy Analysis as Problem Solving. Routledge, London. Sciences. November 14-15. The Education University of Hong Kong.
Mintrom, M., 2012. Contemporary Policy Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Weible, C., Cairney, P. (Eds.), 2021. Practical Lessons from Policy Theories. Bristol Uni-
Moyson, S., Scholten, P., Weible, C., 2017. Policy learning and policy change. Policy Soc. versity Press, Bristol.
36 (2), 161–177. Weimer, D., Vining, A., 2017. Policy Analysis, 6th Edition Routledge, London.
Munro, F., Cairney, P., 2020. A systematic review of energy systems: the role of pol- Whitehead, M., Dahlgren, G., 2006. Concepts and Principles for Tackling Social Inequities
icymaking in sustainable transitions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 119, 109598. in Health. WHO Europe, Copenhagen.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109598, 1-14. Wu, X., Howlett, M, Ramesh, M., Fritzen, S, 2017. The Public Policy Primer, 2nd ed Rout-
Peters, B.G., Capano, G., Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., Chou, M.H., Ravinet, P., 2018. De- ledge, London.
signing for Policy Effectiveness: Defining and Understanding a Concept. Cambridge Wu, X., Ramesh, M., 2014. Market imperfections, government imperfections, and policy
University Press, Cambridge. mixes: policy innovations in Singapore. Policy Sci. 47 (3), 305–320.
Pluchinotta, I., Steenmans, I., 2021. holding reference.
Polski, M., Ostrom, E., 1999. An Institutional Framework for Policy Analysis and Design
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.691.5464&rep=rep1&
type=pdf.