Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Determinants of Policy Design Choices: A Theoretical Framework for Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Policy Design for Research and Innovation

Part of the book series: International Series on Public Policy ((ISPP))

  • 93 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces the conceptual toolkits adopted for the analysis. It begins with a discussion of the extant literature on policy design theories, highlighting the contribution of this research to the scholarship in the field. Section “The Outcomes of Policy Design: Policy Instruments and Mixes” introduces the description of the dependent variable: policy instruments. Here the proposed policy instrument typology is presented, and the different constitutive concepts are discussed. Then, it moves on by presenting the exploratory framework of analysis, while contextualizing this heuristic within the literature on policy design studies. The last section discusses the analytical perspective of “policy takers” and “policymakers” adopted in the analysis of policy design choices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is intended as the formal rules and procedures regulating actors’ interaction.

  2. 2.

    Adapted from (Acciai and Capano 2021).

  3. 3.

    Here, regulation is intended as one of the varieties of tools that governments have at their disposal to exert power (Vedung 1998:30–31).

  4. 4.

    Our interpretation of institutions relates to the explicit norms and rules constraining individual actors’ choices and influencing their behavior, meaning the set of shared codes and beliefs influencing the rule of the game (John 2012; North 1990; Peters 2012). The creation of public agency represents a highly coercive instrument. Indeed, such a change drives the modification of the institutional structure and of the system of power relations among the actors involved in a given sector.

  5. 5.

    These two types of instruments create different typologies of preferences and incentives on the behavioral decisions of recipients: “I’ll give you money to do this (expenditure)”; “If you do (don’t do) this I’ll give you money (taxation).” Subsidy involves money that comes to recipients from the government in the form of, for instance, a grant (a transaction that involves government ownership and control over the money prior to receipt of the grant); whereas a fiscal instrument involves money that the government has not taken from the recipient, which suggests that the recipient has been, and remains, the owner of those funds. A second difference is their visibility. While expenditures will be funded through taxpayers’ contribution, the tax expenditure involves foregone revenue. The importance of visibility is related to the fact that the exercise of power entails winners and losers, and thus conflict. Therefore, the extent to which the action is easily associated with the government can become an important variable in government decision-making {Formatting Citation}.

  6. 6.

    This list is the result of the analysis of secondary sources, and it will likely be modified in the future because the variety of policy instruments available to decision-makers is limited only by their imagination (Howlett 2009:114). However, it still represents a satisfactory overview of the different instrument shapes of governing action in R&I.

  7. 7.

    A “certain overlap exists, between the automaticity dimension and the directness dimension of tools. However, not all automatic tools are indirect and not all indirect tools are automatic” (Salamon 2002:1663).

  8. 8.

    These factors characterize the multidimensionality (Salamon 2002) embedded in policy instruments.

Bibliography

  • Acciai, Claudia. 2021. The Politics of Research and Innovation: Understanding Instrument Choices in Complex Governance Environments – the Case of France and Italy. Research Policy 50 (9): 104254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acciai, Claudia, and Giliberto Capano. 2021. Policy Instruments at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Their Applications. Public Administration 99: 118–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, G.L., and A. Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, Erik. 2007. CREST 3 % OMC Third Cycle Policy Mix Peer Review Country Report France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, Erik, and Patries Boekholt. 2003. Research and Innovation Governance in Eight Countries: A Meta-Analysis of Work Funded by EZ (Netherlands) and RCN (Norway). Technolopolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banfi, A., and G. Viesti. 2016. Il Finanziamento Delle Università. In Università in declino. Un’indagine sugli atenei da Nord a Sud, ed. G. Viesti, 277–304. Donzelli. Roma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayerlein, Louisa, Christoph Knill, and Dionys Zink. 2021. The Concept of Administrative Styles. In The Routledge Handbook of Policy Styles, ed. M. Howlett and J. Tosun, 153–164. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • BCG & CM INTERNATIONAL. 2008. Evaluation Des Pôles de Compétitivité, Synthèse Du Rapport d’évaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béland, Daniel. 2009. Ideas, Institutions, and Policy Change. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (5): 701–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béland, Daniel, and Michael Howlett. 2016. The Role and Impact of the Multiple-Streams Approach in Comparative Policy Analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (3): 221–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergek, Anna, Marko Hekkert, Staffan Jacobsson, Jochen Markard, Björn Sandén, and Bernhard Truffer. 2015. Technological Innovation Systems in Contexts: Conceptualizing Contextual Structures and Interaction Dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 16: 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Suzanne. 2016. Reforms in the French Industrial Ecosystem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersani, Pier Luigi, Alfonso Lelio, and Letta Enrico. 2004. Viaggio Nell’economia Italiana. Donzelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, Mark. 2003. Structures Do Not Come with an Instruction Sheet: Interests, Ideas, and Progress in Political Science. Perspectives on Politics 1 (4): 695–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bologna, Federica, Angelo Di Iorio, Silvio Peroni, and Francesco Poggi. 2021. Do Open Citations Inform the Qualitative Peer-Review Evaluation in Research Assessments? An Analysis of the Italian National Scientific Qualification.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, Susana. 2009. The Widening and Deepening of Innovation Policy: What Conditions Provide for Effective Governance? In Papers in Innovation Studies 2009/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, Susana, and Jakob Edler. 2015. The Governance of Socio-Technical Systems: Explaining Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, Susana, and Charles Edquist. 2019. Holistic Innovation Policy. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, Susana, and Leonard Seabrooke. 2015. Sources of National Institutional Competitiveness: Sensemaking in Institutional Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwma, Irene, Bas Arts, and Duncan Liefferink. 2017. Cause, Catalyst or Conjunction? The Influence of the Habitats Directive on Policy Instrument Choice in Member States. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60 (6): 977–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, Richard E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, Dietmar. 1993. Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making. Journal of Public Policy 13 (02): 135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008a. Lessons on the Political Coordination of Knowledge and Innovation Policies. Science and Public Policy 35 (4): 289–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008b. Organising the Political Coordination of Knowledge and Innovation Policies. Science and Public Policy 35 (4): 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bressers, H.A., and L. O’Toole. 2005. Instrument Selection and Implementation in a Networked Context. In Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance, ed. P. Eliadis, M. Hill, and M. Howlett, 132–153. Montreal: M.-Q. U. Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bressers, Hans, and Laurence O’Toole. 1998. The Selection of Policy Instruments: A Network-Based Perspective. Journal of Public Policy 18: 213–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchs, Milena. 2007. New Governance in European Social Policy: The Open Method of Coordination. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J.M.C. 2010. Cross-Case Synthesis and Analysis. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, ed. A.J. Mills, G. Durepos, and E. Wiebe, vol. 1. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantner, Uwe, and Andreas Pyka. 2001. Classifying Technology Policy from an Evolutionary Perspective. Research Policy 30 (5): 759–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G., J.E. Rayner, and A.R. Zito. 2012. Governance from the Bottom up: Complexity and Divergence in Comparative Perspective. Public Administration 90 (1): 56–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, Giliberto., and Elisabetta, Gualmini. 2011. Le Pubbliche Amministrazioni in Italia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capano, Giliberto. 2008. Looking for Serendipity: The Problematical Reform of Government within Italy’s Universities. Higher Education 55 (4): 481–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, Giliberto, and Andrea Lippi. 2017. How Policy Instruments Are Chosen: Patterns of Decision Makers’ Choices. Policy Sciences 50 (2): 269–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, Giliberto, Andrea Pritoni, and Giulia Vicentini. 2019. Do Policy Instruments Matter? Governments’ Choice of Policy Mix and Higher Education Performance in Western Europe. Journal of Public Policy 40(3): 375–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capano, Giliberto, Marino Regini, and Matteo Turri. 2016. Changing Governance in Universities: Italian Higher Education in Comparative Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, Benjamin, and Michael Howlett. 2007. Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry. American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 532–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J.A. 2014. France. In Comparative Public administration. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, Jong-Tsong. 1991. From ‘Mission-Oriented’ to ‘Diffusion-Oriented’ Paradigm: The New Trend of U.S. Industrial Technology Policy. Technovation 11 (6): 339–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chmiliar, L. 2010. “Multiple Case Design.” in Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Sang Ok, Sang-Seok Bae, Sung-Wook Kwon, and Richard Feiock. 2008. County Limits: Policy Types and Expenditure Priorities. The American Review of Public Administration 40 (1): 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, Meng-Hsuan, Jens Jungblut, Pauline Ravinet, and Martina Vukasovic. 2017. Higher Education Governance and Policy: An Introduction to Multi-Issue, Multi-Level and Multi-Actor Dynamics. Policy and Society 36 (1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Chao-chen. 2013. Government, Policy-Making and the Development of Innovation System: The Cases of Taiwanese Pharmaceutical Biotechnology Policies (2000–2008). Research Policy 42 (5): 1053–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobis, Fabrizio. 2008. I Nuovi Processi Di Innovazione e l’azione Del Ministero Dell’Università e Della Ricerca. In I Nuovi Processi Di Innovazione e l’azione Del Ministero Dell’Università e Della Ricerca, 1000–1005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, Mario, and Secondo Rolfo. 2010. New Entrepreneurial Behaviour of Public Research Organisations: Opportunities and Threats of Technological Services Supply. International Journal of Services Technology and Management 13 (1/2): 134–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Considine, Mark, and Kamran Ali Afzal. 2010. Legitimacy. In The SAGE Handbook of Governance, ed. M. Bevir. Berkeley: University of California, SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, Fiammetta. 2009. Alla Ricerca Dell’eccellenza: Le Politiche per l’eccellenza Nell’istruzione Superiore in Quattro Paesi Europei. LED, Edizioni universitarie di lettere, economia, diritto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curley, Cali, Richard Feiock, and Xu. Kewei. 2020. Policy Analysis of Instrument Design: How Policy Design Affects Policy Constituency. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 22 (6): 536–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cytermann, Jean-Richard. 2006. L’architecture de la loi organique relative aux lois de finances (LOLF) dans les domaines de l’éducation et de la recherche: choix politiques ou choix techniques ? Revue française d’administration publique 117 (1): 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dente, B. 2014. Understanding Policy Decisions. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dermont, Clau, Karin Ingold, Lorenz Kammermann, and Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen. 2017. Bringing the Policy Making Perspective in: A Political Science Approach to Social Acceptance. Energy Policy 108: 359–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doern, G., and R. Phidd. 1983. Canadian Public Policy: Ideas, Structures, Process. Toronto: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donina, Davide, Michele Meoli, and Stefano Paleari. 2015. Higher Education Reform in Italy: Tightening Regulation Instead of Steering at a Distance. Higher Education Policy 28 (2): 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosso, Mafini. 2014. “Restructuring in France’s Innovation System: From the Mission-Oriented Model to a Systemic Approach of Innovation.” LEM Papers Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dür, Andreas. 2008. Measuring Interest Group Influence in the EU: A Note on Methodology. European Union Politics 9 (4): 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, Jakob, Paul Cunningham, Kieron Flanagan, and Philippe Laredo. 2013. Innovation Policy Mix and Instrument Interaction: A Review. London: Nesta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edler, Jakob, Paul Cunningham, A. Gök, and Philip Shapira. 2016. Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, Jakob, and Jan Fagerberg. 2017. Innovation Policy: What, Why, and How. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 33 (1): 2–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, Jakob, and Stefan Kuhlmann. 2008. Coordination within Fragmentation: Governance in Knowledge Policy in the German Federal System. Science and Public Policy 35 (4): 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, Charles. 2001. The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An Account of the State of the Art. In DRUID conference, Aalborg (pp. 12–15).

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, Charles, and Susana Borrás. 2013. The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80: 1513–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eparvier, Patrick; Turcat, Nicolas; Schoen, Antonie; Carat, Gerard; Nill, Jan. 2008. ERAWATCH Country Report 2008. An Assessment of Research System and Policies France

    Google Scholar 

  • Eparvier, Patrick, Flora Giarracca, and Léonor Rivoire. 2009. ERAWATCH Country Report 2009: France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eparvier, Patrick, Olivier Mallet, and Léonor Rivoire. 2011. ERAWATCH Country Reports 2011: France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergas, H. 1987. The Importance of Technology Policy. In Economic Policy and Technological Performance, ed. P. Dasgupta and P. Stoneman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni A 1961. Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 1999. European Trend Chart on Innovation Country Report: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000a. European Trend Chart on Innovation - Country Report France.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000b. European Trend Chart on Innovation Country Report: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. European Trend Chart on Innovation Country Report: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002a. European Trend Chart on Innovation Country Report Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002b. EUROPEAN TREND CHART Theme-Specific Country Report: France.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. European Trend Chart on Innovation Country Report: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004a. European Trend Chart on Innovation Annual Innovation Policy Trends and Appraisal Report: France.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004b. European Trend Chart on Innovation Country Report: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005a. European Trend Chart on Innovation - Annual Innovation Policy Trends and Appraisal Report: France.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005b. European Trend Chart on Innovation Country Report: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. European Trend Chart on Innovation Country Report: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista, Rinaldo. 2007. Rilevanza e Impatto Delle Politiche Dell’innovazione in Italia. I Risultati Delle Indagini CIS. Economia e Politica Industriale 1: 103–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, Jan. 2017. Innovation Policy: Rationales, Lessons and Challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys 31 (2): 497–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, Kieron, Elvira Uyarra, and Manuel Laranja. 2011. Reconceptualising the ‘Policy Mix’ for Innovation. Research Policy 40 (5): 702–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., D.C. Mowery, and R.R. Nelson. 2012. Public R&D and Social Challenges: What Lessons from Mission R&D Programs? Research Policy 41 (10): 1697–1702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foray, Dominique. 2009. The New Economics of Technology Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraussen, Bert. 2014. The Visible Hand of the State: On the Organizational Development of Interest Groups. Public Administration 92 (2): 406–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Gary P. 2006. National Models, Policy Types, and the Politics of Immigration in Liberal Democracies. West European Politics 29 (2): 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French Court of Auditors. 2013. Le Financement Public de La Recherche, Un Enjeu National.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, Riccardo. 2016. Torniamo a Industriarci: A Novant’anni Dalla ‘Grande Crisi’ Guida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, Riccardo, Mauro Mallone, and Vincenzo Zezza. 2008. Technology Transfer: The RIDITT Experience. L’industria 1: 207–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, Riccardo, and Francesco Silva. 2006. Le Condizioni per Crescere: Diagnosi e Proposte per Il Sistema Produttivo. Il Sole 24 ore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassler, Helmut, Wolfgang Polt, and Christian Rammer. 2008. Priority Setting in Technology Policy: Historical Developments and Recent Trends. In Innovation Policy in Europe: Measurement and Strategy, ed. C. Nauwelaers and R. Wintjes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giest, Sarah. 2016. The Challenges of Enhancing Collaboration in Life Science Clusters: Lessons from Chicago, Copenhagen and Singapore: Table 1. Science and Public Policy 44 (2): scw046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, Klaus H. 2008. Governance as a Path to Government. West European Politics 31 (1–2): 258–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griessen, Thomas, and Dietmar Braun. 2008. The Political Coordination of Knowledge and Innovation Policies in Switzerland. Science and Public Policy 35 (May): 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, Catherine. 2007. Community Perspectives of Wind Energy in Australia: The Application of a Justice and Community Fairness Framework to Increase Social Acceptance. Energy Policy 35 (5): 2727–2736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter A. 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Historical Institutionalism in Rationalist and Sociological Perspective. In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, ed. J. Mahoney and K. Thelen, 204–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Eva, and Poul F. Kjaer. 2015. The Evolution of Intermediary Institutions in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, Gretchen, and Steven Levitsky. 2004. Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Perspectives on Politics 2 (4): 725–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, Adrienne, and Dirk Lehmkuhl. 2011. New Modes of Governance and Democratic Accountability. Government and Opposition 46 (1): 126–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, Eva, Katharina Gangl, Erich Kirchler, and Jennifer Stark. 2014. Enhancing Tax Compliance through Coercive and Legitimate Power of Tax Authorities by Concurrently Diminishing or Facilitating Trust in Tax Authorities. Law and Policy 36 (3): 290–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, Christopher. 1986. The Tools of Government / Christopher C. Hood. Chatham: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, Christopher, and Helen Magretts. 2007. The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Macmillan. Red Globe Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., and Ramesh, M. 2003. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., and I. Mukherjee. 2018. Routledge Handbook of Policy Design. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., M. Ramesh, and A. Perl. 2009. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael. 2000. Managing the ‘Hollow State’: Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance. Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique Du Canada 43 (4): 412–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Governance Modes, Policy Regimes and Operational Plans: A Multi-Level Nested Model of Policy Instrument Choice and Policy Design. Policy Sciences 42 (1): 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Aligning Policy Tools and Their Targets: Nudging and Utility Maximization in Policy Design. In Routledge Handbook of Policy Design, ed. M. Howlett and I. Mukherjee, 1st ed., 106–121. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael, and Ishani Mukherjee. 2014. Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types. Politics and Governance 2 (2): 57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh. 1993. Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice: Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience. Review of Policy Research 12 (1–2): 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh, and Giliberto Capano. 2020. Policy-Makers, Policy-Takers and Policy Tools: Dealing with Behaviourial Issues in Policy Design. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 22 (6): 487–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael, and Jeremy Rayner. 2013. Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design. Politics and Governance 1 (2): 170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IGAENR. 2012. Etude Des Mécanismes d’allocation Des Moyens Humains et Financiers Aux Unités de Recherche Par Les Organismes de Recherche. Direction de l’information légale et administrative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, Karin, Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen, and Lorenz Kammermann. 2018. The Acceptance of Instruments in Instrument Mix Situations: Citizens’ Perspective on Swiss Energy Transition. Research Policy 48: 103694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, Peter. 2012. Analysing Public Policy. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungblut, Jens. 2015. Bringing Political Parties into the Picture: A Two-Dimensional Analytical Framework for Higher Education Policy. Higher Education 69 (5): 867–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kammermann, Lorenz, and Karin Ingold. 2019. Going beyond Technocratic and Democratic Principles: Stakeholder Acceptance of Instruments in Swiss Energy Policy. Policy Sciences 52 (1): 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, Hussein, and Patrick Le Galès. 2010. Exploring Governance in a Multi-Level Polity: A Policy Instruments Approach. West European Politics 33 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, Christoph. 2001. The Europeanisation of National Administrations: Patterns of Institutional Change and Persistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, Christian. 2008. The Superministry Approach: Integrated Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation with Contracted Autonomy. Science and Public Policy 35 (4): 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, Luigi. 2016. Innovation Policies and SMEs Development. In Entrepreneurship: Antecedents and Effects “Przedsiębiorczość Międzynarodowa”, ed. M. Kosała, M. Urbaniec, and A. Żur, vol. 2, no. 2, 147–163. Kraków: Cracow University of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanza, Orazio, and Kostas Lavdas. 2000. The Disentanglement of Interest Politics: Business Associability, the Parties and Policy in Italy and Greece. European Journal of Political Research 37 (2): 203–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laranja, Manuel, Elvira Uyarra, and Kieron Flanagan. 2008. Policies for Science, Technology and Innovation: Translating Rationales into Regional Policies in a Multi-Level Setting. Research Policy 37 (5): 823–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrue, Philippe, Patrick Eparvier, and Sophie Bussillet. 2006. Etude de l’impact Du Crédit Impôt Recherche.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascoumes, Pierre, and Patrick Le Gales. 2007. Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments? From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance 20 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, Michael, and Kenneth Shepsle. 1996. The Social Context of Government Formation. In Making and Breaking Governments. Cabinets and legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies, ed. K. Laver and Shepsle Michael, 18–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, Benedetto. 2011. Coordination Modes in Public Funding Systems. Research Policy 40 (3): 355–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, Benedetto, Emanuela Reale, and Emilia Primieri. 2017. Public Funding Country Profile France Annex 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The Science of ‘Muddling Through.’. Public Administration Review 19 (2): 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, Stephen H., and B. Guy Peters. 1989. Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts. Journal of Public Policy 9 (01): 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, Francesco, Peter Lotz, Jens Schovsbo, and Adele Treccani. 2009. Academic Patenting and the Professor’s Privilege: Evidence on Denmark from the KEINS Database. Science and Public Policy 36 (8): 595–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, Francesco, and Fabio Montobbio. 2015. The Ownership of Academic Patents and Their Impact. Evidence from Five European Countries. Revue économique 66 (1): 143–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T.J. 1964. American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory. Word Politics 16: 677–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucchese, Matteo, Leopoldo Nascia, Mario Pianta, and Mario Pianta. 2016. Industrial Policy and Technology in Italy. Economia e Politica Industriale 43 (3): 233–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, Douglas. 2001. Coerciveness and the Selection of Environmental Policy Instruments. Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique Du Canada 44 (2): 161–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Maio, Adriano. 2011. L’ Innovazione Vincente. Brioschi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maio, Michele. 2014. The Italian Economy, the Economic Crisis and Industrial Policy. In Structural change, competitiveness and industrial policy: painful lessons from the European periphery, ed. A. Teixeira and E. Silva. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, Giandomenico. 1989. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Heaven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1976. Choice among Policy Instruments for Pollution Control. Policy Analysis 2: 589–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, Franco. 1993. The National System of Innovation: Italy. In National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1997. Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. The Logic of Appropriateness. Oslo: Arena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, Sandra. 2005. Cross-Case Analysis. In Encyclopedia or Evaluation, ed. S. Mathison. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. 1938. Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review 3 (5): 672–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministére de l’education nationale de l’enseignment supérieur et de la Recherche. 2014. Développement et Impact Du Crédit d’impôt Recherche: 1983-2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca. 2005. Programma Nazionale per La Ricerca.

    Google Scholar 

  • MISE. 2010. Gli Incentivi Alle Attività Produttive. Effetti Della Legge 46/82 Sull’innovazione e Sull’industrializzazione Dei Prototipi Di Ricerca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, Christine (1958–........). 2017. La Grande Course Des Universités. edited by Sciences Po Presse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, Christine, and Catherine Paradeise. 2009. France: From Incremental Transitions to Institutional Change. In University governance: Western European comparative perspectives, ed. Catherine Paradeise, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ewan Ferlie, 21–49. Cham: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, Philippe, and Philippe Laredo. 2002. Innovation and Research Policy in France (1980-2000) or the Disappearance of the Colbertist State. Research Policy 31 (1): 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, Philippe, and Philippe Larédo. 2002. Innovation and Research Policy in France (1980–2000) or the Disappearance of the Colbertist State. Research Policy 31 (1): 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nascia, Leopoldo, and Mario Pianta. 2013. ERAWATCH Country Reports 2013: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascia, Leopoldo, Bianca Potì, and Emanuela Reale. 2012. ERAWATCH Country Report 2012: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nauwelaers, Claire, and Wintjes René. 2008. Innovation Policy in Europe: Measurement and Strategy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2005. Governance of Innovation Systems. OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Reviews of Innovation Policy: France 2014. OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, Jan, and Joachim Åström. 2003. Why Regionalism in Sweden? Regional & Federal Studies 13 (3): 66–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palier, Bruno. 2007. Tracking the Evolution of a Single Instrument Can Reveal Profound Changes: The Case of Funded Pensions in France. Governance 20 (1): 85–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelkonen, Antti, Tuula Teräväinen, and Suvi-Tuuli Waltari. 2008. Assessing Policy Coordination Capacity: Higher Education, Science and Technology Policies in Finland. Science and Public Policy 35 (4): 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, Beth, and Tim May. 2007. Governance, Science Policy and Regions: An Introduction. Regional Studies 41 (8): 1039–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B.G. 1998a. Managing Horizontal Government: The Politics of Coordination. Canadian Centre for Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. Guy. 1998b. Comparative Politics. London: Macmillan Education UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. The Politics of Tool Choice. In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, ed. L. Salamon, 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Governance as Political Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Governance, ed. Levi-Faur. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierantozzi, Valentina. 2007. ERAWATCH Analytical Country Report 2007: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pochet, Philippe, and Caroline de la Porte. 2002. Building Social Europe through the Open Method of Co-Ordination. Brussels: P. Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potì, Bianca, and Emanuela Reale. 2006. Project Funding. Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Changing Allocation Models for Public Research Funding: An Empirical Exploration Based on Project Funding Data. Science and Public Policy 34 (6): 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. ERAWATCH Country Reports 2010: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. ERAWATCH Country Report 2011: Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poti, Bianca, Emanuela Reale, and Valentina Pierantozzi. 2008. ERAWATCH Country Report. An Assessment of Research System and Policies. Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prange, Heiko. 2008. Explaining Varieties of Regional Innovation Policies in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 15 (1): 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reale, Emanuela, and Lucio Morettini. 2017. Public Funding Country Profile Italy Annex 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reale, Emanuela, and Bianca Potì. 2009. Italy: Local Policy Legacy and Moving to an ‘In Between’ Configuration. In University governance: Western European comparative perspectives, ed. Catherine Paradeise, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ewan Ferlie, 77–102. Cham: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reillon, V. 2015. Overview of EU Funds for Research and Innovation. EPRS: European Parliamentary Research Service. Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimkutė, Dovilė, and Markus Haverland. 2015. How Does the European Commission Use Scientific Expertise? Results from a Survey of Scientific Members of the Commission’s Expert Committees. Comparative European Politics 13 (4): 430–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringeling, Arthur B. 2005. Instruments in Four: The Elements of Policy Design. In Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance, ed. P. Eliadis, M.M. Hills, and M. Howlett, 185–202. Kingston: O. McGill-Queens University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rist, Ray C. 1998. Choosing the Right Policy Instrument at the Right Time: The Contextual Challenges of Selection and Implementation. In In Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation, ed. M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. Rist, and E. Vedung. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., and J. Lewis. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogge, Karoline S. 2018. Designing Complex Policy Mixes. In Routledge Handbook of Policy Design, ed. M. Howlett and I. Mukherjee, 1st ed., 34–58. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rogge, Karoline S., and Kristin Reichardt. 2016. Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions: An Extended Concept and Framework for Analysis. Research Policy 45 (8): 1620–1635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and John D. Stephens. 1997. Comparing Historical Sequences: A Powerful Tool for Causal Analysis. Comparative Social Research 16: 55–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, Paul A. 1986. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy 6 (1): 21–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, Lester. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action. 28(5). Symposium - Redefining the Public Sector: Accountability and Democracy in the Era of Privatization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Mendez, Luis, and Susana Borrás. 2001. Explaining Changes and Continuity in EU Technology Policy: The Politics of Ideas. In Changing European Research System, ed. Imon Dresner and Nigel Gilbert. Aldershot: Ashgate Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Tobias S., and Sebastian Sewerin. 2019. Measuring the Temporal Dynamics of Policy Mixes – An Empirical Analysis of Renewable Energy Policy Mixes’ Balance and Design Features in Nine Countries. Research Policy 48 (10): 103557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. 1990. Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. The Journal of Politics 52 (2): 510–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. American Political Science Review 87 (2): 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Anne, and Mara Sidney. 2009. What Is Next for Policy Design and Social Construction Theory? Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, Antonie, Gerard Carat, and Nill Jan. 2008. ERAWATCH Analytical Country Report 2007: France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, Margrit. 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seawright, Jason, and John Gerring. 2008. Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seravalli, G. 2009. Competitive European Regions through Research and Innovation. Different Theoretical Approaches to Innovation Policies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, Francesco. 2007. La Politica Industriale Del Governo Prodi. Economia e Politica Industriale 2: 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, Arno, and Jan-Peter Voß. 2018. The Concept of Instrument Constituencies: Accounting for Dynamics and Practices of Knowing Governance. Policy and Society 37 (1): 14–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirilli, Giorgio. 2010. La Produzione e La Diffusione Della Conoscenza. Ricerca, Innovazione e Risorse Umane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, Ruud, Philip Shapira, and Stefan Kuhlmann. 2010. The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, R.E. 2014. Italy. In Comparative public administration, ed. J.A. Chandler, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoppino, Mario. 2001. Potere e Teoria Politica. Giuffre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamtik, Merli. 2016. Institutional Change Through Policy Learning: The Case of the European Commission and Research Policy. Review of Policy Research 33 (1): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thèves, Jean, Benedetto Lepori, and Philippe Larédo. 2007. Changing Patterns of Public Research Funding in France. Science and Public Policy 34 (6): 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tödtling, Franz, and Michaela Trippl. 2005. One Size Fits All? Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy Approach. Research Policy 34: 1203–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Transformation of Regional Innovation Systems: From Old Legacies to New Development Paths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, Jale. 2018. Investigating Ministry Names for Comparative Policy Analysis: Lessons from Energy Governance. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 20 (3): 324–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traù, Fabrizio. 2009. Logica Di Un Sistema Di Sostegno Alle Imprese. La Politica Industriale Italiana Dal Secondo Dopoguerra a ‘Industria 2015’. Economia e Politica Industriale 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trebilcock, Michael J., and Douglas G. Hartle. 1982. The Choice of Governing Instrument. International Review of Law and Economics 2 (1): 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trein, Philipp. 2017. A New Way to Compare Horizontal Connections of Policy Sectors: ‘Coupling’ of Actors, Institutions and Policies. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 19 (5): 419–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A.H., and R. Garud. 1989. A Framework for Understanding the Emergence of New Industries. In Research on Technological Innovation and Management Policy, ed. R. Rosenbloom and R. Burgelman. Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Doelen, F., 1998. The ‘give-and-take’ packaging of policy instruments: optimising legitimacy and effectiveness. In Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation, eds. M-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. Rist, and E. Vedung. Transaction: New Brunswick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meulen, Barend. 1998. Science Policies as Principal–Agent Games: Institutionalization and Path Dependency in the Relation between Government and Science. Research Policy 27 (4): 397–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varone, Frédéric, and Bernard Aebischer. 2001. Energy Efficiency: The Challenges of Policy Design. Energy Policy 29 (8): 615–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedung, Evert. 1998. Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation, ed. E. Vedung, M.L. Bemelmans-Videc, and R.C. Rist, 21–58. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, Koen, and Geert Bouckaert. 2005. Machinery of Government and Policy Capacity. In Challenges to State Policy Capacity, ed. M. Painter and J. Pierre. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, Jan-Peter, and Arno Simons. 2014. Instrument Constituencies and the Supply Side of Policy Innovation: The Social Life of Emissions Trading. Environmental Politics 23 (5): 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Instrument Constituencies: Promoting Policy Designs. In Routledge Handbook of Policy Design, ed. M. Howlett and I. Mukherjee, 1st ed., 180–200. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Waarden, F. 1995. Persistence of National Policy Styles: A Study of Their Institutional Foundations. In Convergence or Diversity, ed. B. Unger and F. van Waarden, 333–372. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Carter. 2000. Policy Regimes and Policy Change. Journal of Public Policy 20 (3): 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, James. 1973. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1980. The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, Kenneth. 1983. The Political Economy of Policy Instruments: Tax Expenditures and Subsidies. In The Politics of Canadian Public Policy, ed. Michael M. Atkinson and Marsha A. Chandler, 173–197. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1986. Policy Instruments and the Study of Public Policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 19 (4): 775–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaparucha, Elisabeth. 2010. ERAWATCH Country Report 2010: France.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Claudia Acciai

Authors
  1. Claudia Acciai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Acciai .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Acciai, C. (2023). The Determinants of Policy Design Choices: A Theoretical Framework for Analysis. In: Policy Design for Research and Innovation. International Series on Public Policy . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36628-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation