How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices

Abstract

Policy instruments are a fundamental component of public policies. Policy instruments are often a result of mediation within the policy design process, whenever decision makers reshape existing instruments without introducing any real innovation. This results in imitation, layering and ambiguity in tool choice selection, and raises the theoretical problem of the logic according to which decision makers choose certain specific policy instruments rather than others. Decision makers may have different reasons for choosing certain specific instruments, although these reasons should be connected to the two main purposes of decision-making, that is, the search for effectiveness and the construction of a shared sense, a common acceptance. Thus, the choice of instruments is a question of potentially conflicting drivers that decision makers have to cope with within a specific decisional situation, when asked to solve those problems that have arisen. This paper examines this question and offers an analytical framework based on the two main factors in terms of which the selection of instruments is channelled and assessed: legitimacy and instrumentality. The boundaries created by how decision makers perceive these two dimensions mean that only four selection patterns can be chosen by decision makers: hybridization, stratification, contamination or routinization.

The instrumentation of test-based accountability in the autonomous dutch system

“…Findings have clearly indicated however that perceived effectiveness is not the sole driver of instrument choice. Indeed, the extent to which instruments are considered contextually appropriate is highly significant (Capano & Lippi 2017). Perceptions of appropriateness are in turn, heavily shaped by institutional history (Peters 2002).…”

“…It is on this point that we must understand the relationship between autonomy and accountability in a second way: not as complementary but as conflicting. At times, these tensions resulted in a loss of instrumentality in favour of legitimacy (Capano & Lippi 2017). The principle on which TBA is hingedthe standardisation of testing, enabling the direct comparison of schoolswas compromised.…”

“…Policy-makers do not freely choose the most technically adept instrument in light of policy goals, rather, selection is a far more complex, contingent and bounded process. As well as guided by perceived policy effectiveness or 'instrumentality' (Capano & Lippi 2017), instrument choice is also guided by acceptance. Acceptance is based on perceptions of appropriateness or 'legitimacy' (Capano & Lippi 2017), which in turn, are mediated by a range of factors, such as institutions, interests, ideas, individuals and the international environment (Peters 2002) as well as by decision-makers' preferences (Capano & Lippi 2017).…”

Drivers of Policy Instrument Selection for Environmental Management by Local Governments

“…Policy instrument selection reconciles a desire for effectiveness, which is based on rationally identifying the mechanisms most likely to achieve objectives, with a desire for acceptability or appropriateness, which rests on ideas of legitimacy and shared values (Capano and Lippi ). Because instruments allocate resources and power, they are inherently political and reveal a “(fairly explicit) theorization of the relationship between the governing and the governed: every instrument constitutes a condensed form of knowledge about social control and ways of exercising it” (Lascoumes and Le Galès , 3).…”

Policy dynamics and types of agency: From individual to collective patterns of action

“…In fact, the design of policy mixes may suffer either from the mismatch between policy tools and the administration's capacity to implement policy or from the specific policy styles combining such instruments within a particular sector (Howlett, ; Kagan, ). Hence, the selection of policy tools (regulatory, financial, informational and organizational, see Hood, ; Lester, ), also based on organizational culture and capacity, is a key task that involves not only the policy experts acting as policy entrepreneurs but also the political and administrative leadership (Bressers & O'Toole, ; Capano & Lippi, ).…”