The Tools of Policy Formulation An Introduction

1.
The tools of policy formulation: an

introduction
John R. Turnpenny, Andrew J. Jordan,
David Benson and Tim Rayner
INTRODUCTION
What techniques or means do public policymakers use in their attempts

to achieve policy goals? The roles of what may be termed policy instru-
ments, tools and methods (Howlett 2011, p. 22) have attracted a great deal
of attention. It is generally accepted that policy tools and instruments
exist at all stages of the policy process (Howlett 2011, p. 22), ranging from
policy formulation through to ex post evaluation (Dunn 2004). But in the
public policy literature, much of the debate has focused on instruments
for implementing agreed policy objectives, such as regulations, subsidies,
taxes and voluntary agreements (Hood 1983; Hood and Margetts 2007;
Salamon 2002). Recently, a second category of implementing instruments
has been identified: procedural tools (Howlett 2000). These include educa-
tion, training, provision of information and public hearings. These are
procedural in the sense that they seek to affect outcomes indirectly through
manipulating policy processes. The manner in which both types of instru-
ments are selected and deployed aims to change the substance, effects
and outcomes of policy, by sending signals about what is to be achieved
and how government is likely to respond to target groups. Understanding
these processes is critical to a better understanding of governing activities.
Adopting an ‘instruments perspective’ on these activities has arguably
contributed significantly to the study of public policy and governance in
general (Lascoumes and Le Galés 2007).
There is, however, also a third category of policy tools and instruments
which has largely remained outside the mainstream of policy research.1
These tools have typically been developed by researchers and policy prac-
titioners with the aim of performing a rather different set of tasks to the
implementing instruments described above. They are variously referred to
as ‘analytical tools’ (Radin 2013, p. viii), ‘policy-analytic methods’ (Dunn
Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 01/21/2016 05:19:01AM
via communal account
4 The tools of policy formulation
2004, p. 6), decision support tools or ‘analycentric’ tools (Schick 1977).

Radin rightly devotes a whole chapter of her book charting the develop-
ment of the field of policy analysis to telling their story – on the grounds
that they constitute the ‘tools of the [policy analysis] trade’ (Radin 2013,
p. 143).
From Radin’s and others’ accounts it soon becomes clear that what
we shall term policy formulation tools2 come in many different shapes and
sizes. Initially, they were designed to support a very specific task, namely
the ‘collection of as much information and data as were available to help
decision makers address the substantive aspects of the problem at hand’
(Radin 2013, p. 23). Nowadays, these tools are regarded as a means to
address many other policy formulation tasks, for example understanding
the nature of policy problems, estimating how they might change over
time and clarifying or even eliminating some of the many possible policy
response options. In fact, to understand these tools fully, we argue that
policy researchers must view them in the context of the broader activities
and processes of policy formulation.
Policy formulation is a very different activity to policy implementa-
tion. It is an important phase devoted to ‘generating options about what
to do about a public problem’ (Howlett 2011, p. 29), and is inherent to
most, if not all, forms of policymaking. If the agenda-setting stage in the
well-known policy cycle is essentially concerned with identifying where to
go, the policy formulation stage is all about how to get there (Hill 2009,
p. 171). If policy formulation is ‘a process of identifying and addressing
possible solutions to policy problems or, to put it another way, exploring
the various options or alternatives available for addressing a problem’,
then developing and/or using policy formulation tools is a vital part of
that process (Howlett 2011, p. 30). We suggest that, much more than for
other policy stages, it is very hard to conceive of policy formulation – let
alone properly study it – without thinking in terms of tools. Based on
Dunn (2004), these include tools for forecasting and exploring future
problems through the use of scenarios, tools for identifying and recom-
mending policy options (for example, cost–benefit, cost-effectiveness and
multi-criteria analyses) and tools for exploring problem structuring or
framing (for example, brainstorming, boundary analysis and argumenta-
tion mapping).
In recent years, the number of potentially deployable policy formula-
tion tools has expanded massively (for an indication of what is currently
in the toolbox, see Dunn (2004) and Radin (2013, p. 146)). They include
types that may be considered to fall into both positivist and post-positivist
categories, with the latter inspired by critiques of the role of technocratic
analysis and a concern to address subtle influences that act to condition

Introduction 5
the content of policy, such as material forces, discourses and ideologies

(Fischer 1995). Yet, the policy tools and instruments literature remains
stubbornly fixated on implementation instruments. And while there
are many individual literatures that seek to promote and/or inform the
use of specific policy formulation tools, the policy analysis literature is
relatively silent on how, why, when, by whom, in what settings and with
what effects, the various tools are used in practice. To the extent that they
devote attention to formulation as a specific stage in the policy process,
most textbooks frame it around understandings of processes, interests
and expertise. In many ways, the limited academic treatment that policy
formulation tools have received in the period following the Second World
War is symptomatic of a wider division in policy analysis between those
doing policy research and those engaged in policy practice. For reasons
explored more fully below, when it comes to policy formulation tools,
practice has arguably run well ahead of research. In this book, we seek
to bring these two wings of the policy analysis community into a closer
dialogue.
More specifically, in this book we investigate – for the first time – what
might be gained by bringing the study of policy formulation tools back
into the mainstream of public policy research. The policy instruments
literature might lead us to expect each policy formulation tool to impart a
specific ‘spin’ (Salamon 2002) on ensuing policy dynamics. Certain other
literatures, such as science and technology studies (Stirling 2008) or plan-
ning (Owens and Cowell 2002), also suggest that certain tools serve to
influence policy outputs in a variety of ways. For example, use of cost–
benefit analysis to develop policy has the potential to marginalize concern
for equity in some sectors, in favour of outputs perceived as the most effi-
cient use of scarce resources. But does this actually happen in practice, and
if so how? At present, the various literatures are too fragmented and too
detached from public policy theory to tell us. There has, of course, been
a huge amount written on individual formulation tools, often by scholars
who have invested a great deal in developing them and advocating their
use. They are understandably eager to see them being taken up and used by
policymakers. Yet we will show that many tool developers and promoters
are often vexed – and sometimes deeply disappointed – by their apparent
lack of use, or even outright misuse by practitioners (Shulock 1999). We
feel that this is another topic which would benefit from greater interaction
between those who (to employ another well-known distinction) analyse for
policy, and those who conduct analysis of policy.
We believe that now is a particularly opportune moment to look afresh
at policy formulation tools. Policy researchers and analysts are becoming
more interested in policy formulation – arguably one of the most poorly

understood of all the policy process stages; indeed, there is a growing belief
that it may constitute the final, ‘missing link’ (Hargrove 1975) in policy
analysis. Interest in policy design is also re-awakening, partly because
of the rise to prominence of ever more complex problems such as energy
insecurity and climate change that defy standard policy remedies (Howlett
et al. 2014). And having invested heavily in tools in the past, tool promot-
ers and policy practitioners are eager to understand how – and indeed
if – they perform in practice.
The remainder of this chapter is divided as follows. The second section
takes a step back by examining the main actors, processes and venues of
policy formulation in a very general sense. The third section scours the
various existing literatures to explore in more detail the development of
the various policy formulation tools that could in principle be used in
these venues. It also charts the subsequent turn away from these tools
in mainstream public policy research, and explores some of the reasons
why interest in policy formulation has recently undergone a renaissance.
Section 4 explores the analytical steps that will be needed to re-assemble
the various literatures into a more coherent sub-field of policy research,
revolving around a series of common foci. To that end, we propose a new
definition and typology of tools, and offer a means of re-assembling the
field around an analytical framework focused on actors, venues, capacities
and effects. We conclude by introducing the rest of the book, including
our final, concluding chapter.
POLICY FORMULATION: ACTORS, PROCESSES

AND VENUES
Actors: Who are the Policy Formulators?
The literature on policy formulation has expanded significantly in the

last three decades (Wolman 1981; Thomas 2001; Wu et al. 2010; Howlett
2011). According to Howlett (2011, p. 29), it is the stage of the policy
process ‘in which options that might help resolve issues and problems rec-
ognized at the agenda-setting stage are identified, refined, appraised and
formalized’. The process of identifying and comparing alternative actions
is said to shape the subsequent stage – that of decision making (Linder
and Peters 1990). During the formulation stage, policy analysts will typi-
cally have to confront trade-offs between legitimate public demands for
action, and the political, technical and financial capabilities to address
them. For many scholars, policy formulation is the very essence of public
policy analysis, which Wildavsky (1987, pp. 15‒16) characterized as how

Introduction 7
to understand the relationship between ‘manipulable means and obtain-

able objectives’.
But who formulates public policies? It is generally recognized that
policy formulation is a critically important but relatively inscrutable stage
of the policy process (Wu et al. 2010, p. 47), with many different actors
interacting, often under intense and focused political pressure from special
advisers, lobbyists and interest groups. There is also a widespread assump-
tion that unlike the agenda-setting stage (in which the media, politicians
and the public may be more transparently involved), policy formulation is
much more of a political netherworld, dominated by those with specialist
knowledge, preferred access to decision makers or a paid position in a par-
ticular government agency or department (Howlett and Geist 2012, p. 19).
Even though their precise role may be hard to fathom, in principle all may
use or seek to use formulation tools. As we shall see, this creates a distinct
set of challenges for those (like us) who want to study the use of the tools,
or those who wish to design and/or promote them.
In many ways, policy formulation is the stage which the policy analysis
community was originally established to understand and inform (Radin
2013, p. 5). Meltsner’s (1976) pioneering study of the still relatively
inchoate policy analysis community distinguished between analysts with
political skills and those with more technical skills. As we shall see, it was
the latter that took the lead in developing and applying the first policy
formulation tools. The more general literatures have focused on the role
of politicians and bureaucrats (Craft and Howlett 2012, p. 80). Pioneering
accounts of policymaking (such as Page and Jenkins (2005) and Fleischer
(2009)) have, for example, focused on the ‘policy process generalists’ who
rarely, if ever, deal with policy tools in a substantive way and have very
little training in formal policy analysis.
More specific studies of policy formulation have sought to offer a more
detailed stocktake of the different policy analysts who are typically involved
(Howlett 2011, p. 31). Together, these actors are often said to constitute a
policy advisory system, comprising: decision makers (chiefly politicians);
knowledge producers and/or providers; and knowledge brokers (Howlett
2011, pp. 31‒33). Other typologies have differentiated the main participants
in relation to their location (in other words, core actors – professional
policy analysts, central agency officials and others); and level of influence
(in other words, public sector insiders; private sector insiders; and outsid-
ers) (Howlett 2011, p. 33). Precisely who formulates policy is ultimately an
empirical question. The point which we wish to make is that it is important
to appreciate the variety of actors who might be involved in policy formula-
tion activities, as they might well have rather different motives and capabili-
ties for using particular tools – a matter to which we now turn.

Policy Formulation Processes and Tasks
One of the most common ways to comprehend the process of policy for-
mulation is to break it down into constituent steps or tasks. For Wolman
(1981), policy formulation comprises several ‘components’, each impacting
heavily on overall policy performance. In his view, the ‘formulating
process’ starts with the ‘conceptualization of the problem’ by policymakers
(Wolman 1981, p. 435). Like Wolman, Thomas (2001, pp. 216‒217) also
identifies an initial ‘[a]ppraisal phase’ of data collection where ‘critical
issues . . . [are] identified’ by stakeholders. However, as many commentators
have observed, ‘problems’ themselves are not self-evident or neutral, with
Wolman (1981, p. 437) arguing that they may be contested, subjective or
socially constructed and may change through time in response to societal
values. Problem characterization could therefore be considered to be an
extension of the agenda-setting process. Policymakers may select certain
forms of evidence to support action on specific issues, or issues themselves
may be productive of certain types of evidence (see for example, Kingdon
2010; Baumgartner and Jones 1991).
Having established the existence of a policy problem (or problems)
through some form of data collection, the various policy-relevant dimen-
sions of the problem are then evaluated to determine their causes and extent,
chiefly as a basis for identifying potential policy solutions. Inadequate
understanding at this stage creates a need for what Wolman (1981, p. 437)
terms ‘[t]heory evaluation and selection’. While the point is often made
that causation tends to be difficult to precisely establish, Wolman observes
that ‘the better the understanding is of the causal process . . . the more
likely . . . we will be able to devise public policy to deal with it success-
fully’ (Wolman 1981, p. 437). Understanding causation, as Wolman puts
it, is also reliant on the generation of adequate theoretical propositions in
addition to relevant data on which to support them. For Wu et al. (2010,
p. 40) ‘[u]nderstanding the source of the problem’ is an unavoidable part of
formulation. They also make the point that rarely is there ‘full agreement
over . . . underlying causes’ (Wu et al. 2010, p. 40). Like initial problem
characterization, evaluation of the causes of a problem may thus involve
political conflict as different actors seek to apportion blame, reduce their
perceived complicity or shape subsequent policy responses in line with
their interests. These characteristics strongly condition the type of tools
used.
Once a broad consensus has been reached on the nature and extent
of the problem(s), policymakers turn to consider appropriate responses.
From the initial information gathering and analysis of causes, formula-
tors engage in the ‘[s]pecification of objectives’ (Wolman 1981, p. 438) or

Introduction 9
‘[c]larifying policy objectives’ (Wu et al. 2010, p. 40) stage. Initially, this
third step of objective specification can involve the determination of
the objectives to be met and the timescales for action (Wu et al. 2010).
Again, disagreements over objectives can quickly ensue but once they
are established, as a fourth step, specific policy options can be assessed
and recommendations made on policy design(s). Because any particular
problem may have multiple potential solutions, each with differing costs
and benefits, these options require comparative assessment to guide deci-
sion making. As Howlett (2011, p. 31) puts it, this part of the formula-
tion process ‘sees public officials weighing the evidence on various policy
options and drafting some form of proposal that identifies which of these
options will be advanced to the ratification stage’.
Prior to the adoption of the final policy, it undergoes a fifth step – design.
Having determined objectives, various means are available for selection
from the tool box (for example Howlett 2011; Jordan et al. 2012; Jordan
et al. 2013b). Determining the preferred policy mix is central to design con-
siderations. While typologies also abound in the instruments literature,
four main categories are evident: regulations; market-based instruments;
voluntary approaches; and informational measures (Jordan et al. 2013b).
In addition, the instrument of public spending or budgeting may also be
identified (see for example, Russel and Jordan 2014). Policymakers select
from these instruments according to a range of considerations that are
both internal and external to the instrument. This stage of formulation
could, according to Wolman (1981, pp. 440‒446), consequently involve the
weighing-up of several factors: the ‘causal efficacy’ of the policy; ‘political
feasibility’; ‘technical feasibility’; any ‘secondary consequences’ result-
ing from the design; instrument type (regulations or incentives); and the
capacity of implementation structures.
As above, all the steps including this one may become deeply contested.
After all, the final architecture of the policy could, once implemented,
create winners and losers via processes of positive and negative feedback
(Jordan and Matt 2014). One means of dissipating distributional conflict
throughout the entire formulation process is to engage in what Thomas
(2001, p. 218) terms consensus building or ‘consolidation’, whereby agree-
ment is sought between the various policy formulators and their client
groupings. We shall show that a number of tools have been developed
specifically for this purpose. But while ‘[a]nticipating and addressing the
. . . concerns of the various powerful social groups is essential’, consulta-
tion may create associated transaction costs such as the slowing down of
policy adoption (Wu et al. 2010, p. 41). A decision can be taken – the sub-
sequent stage of the policy process – once agreement has been reached on
the chosen course of action.

These five tasks constitute the standard steps or tasks of policy formula-
tion. During the 1960s and 1970s, when the policy analysis movement was
still in its infancy, policy formulation was depicted as though it were both
analytically and in practice separate from agenda setting and decision
making. It was the stage where policy analysts ‘would explore alternative
approaches to “solve” a policy problem that had gained the attention of
decision makers and had reached the policy agenda’ (Radin 2013, p. 23). In
doing so, policy formulation could be ‘politically deodorized’ (Heclo 1972,
p. 15) in a way that allowed policy specialists to draw on the state of the art
in policy tools and planning philosophies, to ensure that policy remained
on as rationally determined a track as possible (Self 1981, p. 222).
As we saw above, and shall explain more fully below, it soon became
apparent that the politics could not be so easily squeezed out of policy for-
mulation by using tools or indeed any other devices. It also became clear
that some of the formulation tasks could overlap or be missed out entirely.
Indeed, policy formulation may not culminate in the adoption of a discrete
and hence settled ‘policy’: on the contrary, policies may continue to be (re)
formulated throughout their implementation as tool-informed learning
takes place in relation to their operational effectiveness and associated
outcomes (Jordan et al. 2013a). As we shall show, many policy analysts
responded to these discomforting discoveries by offering ever more stri-
dent recommendations on how policy formulation should be conducted
(Vining and Weimer 2010; Dunn 2004); notably fewer have studied how
it is actually practiced (Colebatch and Radin 2006; Noordegraaf 2011). In
the following section we shall explore what a perspective focusing on tools
and venues offers by way of greater insight into the steps and the venues
of policy formulation.
The Venues of Policy Formulation
Policy formulation – like policymaking more generally – occurs in par-

ticular venues. Baumgartner and Jones (1991, p. 1045) have termed these
‘venues of policy action’, going on to define them as ‘institutional loca-
tions where authoritative decisions are made concerning a given issue’
(Baumgartner and Jones 1993, p. 32). More specifically, Timmermans and
Scholten (2006, p. 1105) suggest that the venues ‘are locations where poli-
cies originate, obtain support, and are adopted as binding decisions’.
To date, this notion has been explored in most depth within the
‘venue shopping’ literature on agenda setting; a particular sub-field of
policy analysis that examines how interest groups strategically shift their
demands for realizing political goals between different venues in multi-
level systems of governance (Pralle 2003). Several types of venue have been

Introduction 11
detected, including, inter alia, within federal, state and local governments
plus within international organizations (Pralle 2003), European Union
institutions and national governments (Beyers and Kerremans 2012), and
various trans-governmental co-operation mechanisms (Guiraudon 2002).
Venues can include ‘formal political arenas such as legislatures, executives
and the judiciary, but also the media and the stock market’ and so-called
‘scientific venues such as research institutes, think-tanks and expert com-
mittees’ (Timmermans and Scholten 2006, p. 1105). A particular role is
also ascribed to the use of scientific evidence by actors to achieve agenda-
setting demands in venue shopping strategies (Timmermans and Scholten
2006).
On this basis, any attempt to categorize venues for policy formulation
should be cognizant of the institutional space itself and, significantly,
the type of evidence used. With respect to the former, when examining
formulation we can more neatly divide venues by functional power rather
than institutional level or actor group. Here, in terms of relative power,
it is national government executives that are still arguably dominant glo-
bally, despite increasing shifts towards multi-level governance (Jordan and
Huitema 2014). To give greater analytical purchase to our conceptualiza-
tions we therefore build on Peters and Barker (1993), Baumgartner and
Jones (1993) and Timmermans and Scholten (2006), and define policy
formulation venues as institutional locations, both within and outside gov-
ernments, in which certain policy formulation tasks are performed, with the
aim of informing the design, content and effects of policymaking activities.
Policy formulation venues can in principle exist at different levels of
governance (nation state versus supra/sub-national); and within or outside
the structures of the state. There has been much work (see for example
Barker 1993; Parsons 1995; Halligan 1995) on classifying policy advice
systems, and two dimensions identified therein are particularly important
for understanding policy formulation venues more generally. First, are the
policy formulation tasks conducted externally or internally to the execu-
tive; in other words, where is the task undertaken? For example, internal
venues may be populated wholly or mainly by serving officials or minis-
ters and may include departmental inquiries, government committees and
policy analysis units (for examples of the latter, see Page 2003). External
venues may encompass legislative, governmental or public inquiries and
involve non-executive actors such as elected parliamentarians, scientific
advisors, think tanks, industry representatives and non-governmental
organizations.
Second, are official (executive) or non-official sources of knowledge
employed, that is, what knowledge sources do policy formulators draw
upon? We distinguish between executive-sanctioned or derived knowledge,

Internal
Unofficial Official
External
Figure 1.1 The main venues of policy formulation
and unofficial sources that may include surveys, research which appears as
non-formal reports, and the outputs of research networks and public intel-
lectuals. Rather closed processes of policy formulation can occur within
internal venues using officially derived evidence, in contrast to more open
external venues that draw upon non-official forms of knowledge.
Neither of these two dimensions – well known to scholars of policy advi-
sory systems (Craft and Howlett 2012, p. 87) – are binary. For example,
there are varying degrees to which the entirety of a policy formulation task
is undertaken internally or externally, and varying degrees to which differ-
ent types of evidence are employed at different times or for different pur-
poses. We therefore propose to represent them by means of a 232 matrix
(Figure 1.1).
THE TOOLS OF POLICY FORMULATION
The Analycentric Turn in Policy Analysis
As noted above, tools have always had a special place in the history of
policy analysis. Modern policy analysis is often held to have developed in
earnest from the 1940s onwards (DeLeon 2006). Harold Lasswell’s (1971)

Introduction 13
‘policy sciences of democracy’ provided a vision of analysis that drew

together different academic disciplines as well as different actors in the
policy formulation process – academic, bureaucrat and the person in the
street – to address public problems. This was a multidisciplinary endeavour
that sought to solve problems in an applied fashion (Dunn 2004, p. 41).
While departments of public administration and politics were supposed
to supply an understanding of how political and administrative systems
operated, the assumption was that the tools of analysis would be produced
by technical experts in economics, operations and systems analysis (Dunn
2004, p. 41).
The 1950s and 1960s saw the rise of the professional policy analyst,
providing specialist input to policy, and institutions for formalizing such
input like the Systems Analysis Unit in the US Defense Department
(Radin 2013, p. 14) and, later in the UK, the Central Policy Review Staff,
both staffed by experts in the latest tools and methods. The Systems
Analysis Unit was charged with implementing one of the very first (and
most controversial) systematic policy formulation tools, known as the
Programme Planning and Budgeting System (PPBS) (Schultze 1970). The
PPBS sought to integrate budgeting and policy development in the quest
for greater efficiency and hence more rational decisions.
These tool-driven or ‘analycentric’ approaches (Schick 1977) initially
developed in the fields of defence and budgeting, but from the late 1960s,
as the reach of governmental action spread further into fields such as
education, health and social care, the scope of analytical activities also
expanded (Parsons 1995; Radin 2013, pp. 17‒22; DeLeon 2006) almost as
a corollary. As Schick (1977, p. 258) observed: ‘whenever positive govern-
ment action has been extended to a new sphere, analytic activity has been
sure to follow’. Crucially, the increasingly forceful turn towards analy
centric tools and methods embedded a linear-rational approach to analysis
of policy problems, in which – to put it simplistically – problems were to
be identified and then ‘solved’ using analytical tools. In his manifesto for
the new policy analysis community, Dror (1971, p. 232) famously declared
that the ‘aim of policy analysis is to permit improvements in decision
making and policymaking by allowing a fuller consideration of a broader
set of alternatives, with a wider context, with the help of more systematic
tools’.
Tools, in other words, were absolutely central to the rapidly emerg-
ing field of policy analysis, and were to be taken forward by a new cadre
of policy analysts, who operated in small policy analysis units like the
Central Policy Review Staff based at the very apex of government. A
direct consequence of these developments was a major effort to integrate
analytical tools into policy formulation, an activity which until then had,

as noted above, been dominated by generalists and those with a legal back-
ground (Radin 2013, p. 14). These tools initially drew on techniques from
operational research and economic analysis, including methods for assess-
ing the costs and benefits of different policy alternatives, and analysis of
interacting parts of complex systems. Tools such as cost–benefit analysis
(CBA) and computer models were to be found in the analycentric ‘back-
room’ (Self 1981, p. 222), where political ‘irrationalities’ could be tempered
and policy made more ‘rational’. These tools and tool-utilizing skills had
originally been developed and honed during the Second World War, but
as Radin (2013, p. 14) puts it rather nicely, ‘the energy of Americans that
had been concentrated on making war in a more rational manner now
sought new directions’. The tool specialists found a willing audience
amongst politicians and policymakers who were anxious to embark upon
new endeavours.
The Turn Away from Policy Formulation Tools
In the Lasswellian perspective, tools were seen as having a central role in

the development of an integrated approach that united policy research-
ers with policy practitioners. But for a number of reasons, things did not
quite match up to his vision, and policy formulation tools were gradually
marginalized in public policy research and some fell out of favour with
policymakers.
First, when used, CBA and integrated forms of planning and budget-
ing such as the PPBS fell some way short of initial expectations. When the
academic backlash came it pushed the study of policy formulation tools
back in the direction of the ‘cloistered’ (Radin 2013, p. 166) backroom of
policy research. Tools such as computer modelling and CBA seemed to
stand for everything that was bad about positivist and ‘technocratic’ forms
of policy analysis (Goodin et al. 2006, p. 4). Tool specialists were derided
as ‘econocrats’ (Self 1985) and ‘whizzkids’ (Mintrom and Williams 2013,
p. 9). Wildavsky (1987, p. xxvi), never keen on tools even when they were in
vogue, viewed policy analysis more as an art and a craft than an exercise in
applying ‘macro-macho’ policy tools such as the PPBS and CBA to solve
problems. ‘The technical base of policy analysis is weak’, he continued. ‘Its
strengths lie in the ability to make a little knowledge go a long way by com-
bining and understanding of the constraints of a situation with the ability
to explore the environment constructively’ (Wildavsky 1987, p. 16). Others
critiqued the assumption that using tools would take the politics out of
policymaking; in practice, politics all too readily intervened (DeLeon and
Martell 2006, p. 33). Why, to put it bluntly, should a bureaucrat perform
a sophisticated policy assessment employing state-of-the-art tools, when

Introduction 15
critical policy decisions had already effectively been made? (Shulock 1999,
p. 241). Politics could also intervene more insidiously, through the values
embodied and reproduced by particular, ostensibly neutral tools. CBA in
particular lost legitimacy in certain policy sectors as a result (Owens et al.
2004), though hung on quite tenaciously thereafter. The very idea that
policy analysis should seek to provide analytical solutions for ‘elites’ was
challenged; rather, claims were made that analysts should concentrate on
understanding the multiple actors that are involved in policy formulation
(Hajer and Wagenaar 2003), and uncover the many meanings that they
bring to the process and the framings they employ (Radin 2013, p. 162). So
while the academic critique of tools and methods were mostly centred on the
most positivist, rational variants (in other words, the PPBS and CBA) (Self
1985), its effect was eventually much more wide ranging and long lasting.
Second, policymakers also began to turn away from centralized, tool-
driven forms of policy planning. The abolition of PPBS in the 1970s
and of the CPRS in the early 1980s, coupled with the rise of a much
more explicitly ideological approach to policymaking in the 1980s, led
not to the removal of analysis altogether, but changes in the type and
tools of analysis demanded. Thus, the rise of private sector management
techniques in running public services (in other words, the New Public
Management agenda), coupled with desire to reduce the power and scope
of bureaucracy, nurtured a demand for a new set of accounting tools for
contracting out public services (Mintrom and Williams 2013).
Third, the mainstream of public policy research had long before turned
to other research questions. These focused more on attempts (of which
Lindblom (1959) is a classic early example) to better understand the policy
process itself, not as a series of stages in which rational analysis could/
should be applied, but as a much more complex, negotiated and above all
deeply political process. Others built on the claim that policy formulation
was actually not especially influential – that policy implementation, not
formulation, was the missing link – and devoted their energies to post-
decisional policymaking processes. Meanwhile, after Salamon’s (1989)
influential intervention, policy instrument scholars increasingly focused
on the selection and effects of the implementing instruments.
Finally, the tool designers and developers became ever more divided
into ‘clusters of functional interest’ (Schick 1977, p. 260). The idea of an
integrated policy analysis for democracy was quietly forgotten in the rush
to design ever more sophisticated tools. Indeed, some have devoted their
entire careers to this task, only later to discover that relatively few policy-
makers routinely use the tools they had designed (Pearce 1998; Hanley et al.
1990). As Schick (1977, p. 262) had earlier predicted, they believed that the
route to usefulness was via ever greater precision and rigour – but it wasn’t.

The Turn Back to Policy Formulation Tools
Nowadays, interest in policy formulation tools appears to be growing

strongly once again, for several reasons. First, new tasks other than
knowledge creation are being found for tools such as CBA and indicators.
As noted above, they are seen as a means to implement the New Public
Management agenda, for example. According to Boswell et al. (Chapter 11,
this volume), they seek to incentivize improvements in performance,
monitor progress and ensure political accountability. In many OECD coun-
tries, tool use has been institutionalized through systems of Regulatory
Impact Assessment (Turnpenny et al. 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008). In develop-
ing countries (Chapter 10, this volume), tools are being used to rationalize
policymaking in situations where the public sphere is still relatively weak,
vis-à-vis traditional forms of politics based on patronage.
Second, the emergence of ever more complex policy problems has gen-
erated a fresh wave of interest in more sophisticated policy formulation
tools such as scenarios and computer-based forms of modelling. There is a
growing appreciation amongst practitioners and academics that policies in
these areas will not ‘design themselves’ (Howlett and Lejano 2013, p. 14);
according to Lindquist (1992, pp. 128‒129), they:
need new analytical tools that will help them to diagnose and map the external
environments of the public agencies, to recognize the inherent tensions and
dynamics in these environments as they pertain to policy development and
consensus building, and to develop new strategies for ‘working’ in these envi-
ronments in the interests both of their political masters and those of the broader
communities they serve.
Tools, in other words, are no longer the preserve of technocrats operating

in cloistered backrooms, well away from the public gaze. Unfortunately,
there remains a lack of understanding of which tools are being used and
how well they are performing in relation to this considerably longer list
of tasks and purposes. In the UK, the Cabinet Office was sufficiently con-
cerned to institute a wide-ranging review, which called for ‘a fundamental
change in culture to place good analysis at the heart of policymaking’
(Cabinet Office 2000, p. 5). It asserted that ‘the use of analysis and model-
ling in the US is more extensive . . . and of much better overall quality’
(Cabinet Office 2000, p. 99), but acknowledged that there was no system-
atic audit of use across jurisdictions which could be used to identify best
practices. Following a major failure in the use of models in UK govern-
ment, a wide-ranging review was eventually undertaken in 2013 which
reported that around 500 computerized models were being used, influenc-
ing many billions of pounds of government expenditure (HM Treasury

Introduction 17
2013, p. 33). Yet this transformation in the tools of policy formulation

being used seems to have escaped the attention of most policy scholars.
Third, the growing interest in policy formulation tools could also be
seen as one symptom of the gradual re-discovery of policy design as both
a policy goal (in other words, through state-led policymaking) and a
research topic (Howlett et al. 2014). Far from reducing the need for state
involvement, the emergence of a more complex, networked society and
austerity pressures, makes it more important for interventions to be care-
fully targeted and legitimated (Howlett and Lejano 2013, p. 12). One way
the pressure upon the state to discharge these functions manifests itself is
in the perceived need for tools to formulate ‘better’ policies. Several of the
chapters in this book (for example, Chapters 3, 9 and 12) make repeated
references to tools that seek to engage with complex policy problems that
are uniquely interconnected and cross-jurisdictional in their scale and
scope, and have a very strong public interest dimension.
Finally, the number of policy formulation tool types has grown sig-
nificantly in recent years. And as they have emerged from the analycentric
‘backroom’ (Self 1981, p. 222), the expectation has grown that they will
respond more sensitively to changing contextual conditions and public
expectations, somewhat addressing Wildavsky’s (1987, p. vi) call for
policy to be seen as an art and a craft rather than a technocratic exercise
in selecting and employing tools to ‘solve’ problems. In the next section we
attempt to bring a greater sense of analytical order to the expanding list of
tools, methods, tasks and expectations.
FORMULATION TOOLS: TOWARDS A NEW SUB-

FIELD OF POLICY ANALYSIS?
The Literatures on Policy Formulation Tools: Taking Stock
In attempting to move the study of policy formulation tools back into the
mainstream of public policy research, we immediately confront a problem –
the relative absence of common definitions and typologies. Without these,
it is difficult to believe that the literatures discussed above can be telescoped
into a new sub-field. We believe that four literatures provide an especially
important source of common terms and concepts, which we now briefly
summarize.
The first literature describes the internal characteristics and functions of
each tool, and/or offers tool kits which seek to assist policy formulators in
selecting ‘the right tool for the job’. On closer inspection, there are in fact
many sub-literatures for all of a vast array of different tools; numerous

classic texts like Dunn (2004) and Rossi et al. (2004) introduce some of
the main ones. Generally speaking, rather fragmented into the main tool
subtypes, and rather rationalistic in its framing, this literature nonethe-
less remains crucial because it outlines the intrinsic features of each tool.
However (as repeatedly noted above), it does not have a great deal to say
about where, how, why and by whom (in other words, by which actors and
in which venues) they are used, and what effects they (do not) produce.
The second is dominated by typologies. Tools can be typologized in
a number of different ways, for example: by the resources or capacities
they require; by the activity they mainly support (for example, agenda
setting, options appraisal); by the task they perform; and by their spatial
resolution. Radin (2013, p. 145) opts for a more parsimonious framing,
distinguishing between two main types: the more economic tools such
as cost–benefit analysis (CBA) and what she terms the more ‘systematic
approaches’ such as criteria analysis and political mapping. The problem
is that dividing the field into two does not really offer much typological
variation. In an earlier analysis, we elected to subdivide the main tools into
three main types based on their level of technical complexity (Nilsson et
al. 2008):
●● Simple tools such as checklists, questionnaires, impact tables or

similar techniques for assisting expert judgement.
●● More formal tools, such as scenario techniques, CBA, risk assess-
ment and multi-criteria analysis, which entail several analytical steps
corresponding to predefined rules, methods and procedures.
●● Advanced tools which attempt to capture the more dynamic and
complex aspects of societal or economic development by performing
computer-based simulation exercises.
At the time, we noted that there was no normative ranking implied in this
typology. We also noted the basic difference between tools (such as scenar-
ios and public participation) with more open procedures and purposes, and
those like CBA that follow a set of standard procedural steps. But we did
not relate these to the policy formulation tasks that tools could or should
perform. We return to the matter of typologies below.
The third literature adopts a more critical perspective (Wildavsky
1987; Shulock 1999; Self 1981), offering words of caution about expect-
ing too much from tools. It appears to have left a deep impression on a
sufficient number of policy analysts, perhaps sufficient to militate against
the development of a new sub-field. However, it is clear that despite these
cautionary words, many tools have been developed and are very heavily
applied in certain venues to routinely produce effects that are not currently

Introduction 19
nderstood. Hence, questions about precisely where, how, why and by

u
whom they are used remain.
A fourth and final literature is more strongly focused on the main venues
and processes of policy formulation rather than the tools. In attempting to
better understand and explain how policy is made and what influences it,
this literature encompasses studies of crucial factors such as the utilization
of knowledge in policymaking (Radaelli 1995), and the role of power and
institutions (for an excellent summary, see Sabatier 2005). The manner
in which power and particular analytical practices are bound up with
one another has been explored in planning/geography (see for example,
Owens and Cowell 2002) and science and technology studies (Stirling
2008). Other aspects focus on the political demand for evidence-based
policymaking (Sanderson 2002; Shine and Bartley 2011). Much of this
literature adopts a macro-or a meso-level focus and draws on or develops
theory. To the extent that it considers policy formulation tools at all, there
is, however, a tendency (although by no means universal) to assume that
tools are epiphenomenal and hence not warranting detailed analysis. But
we shall argue that without more detailed research, these remain no more
than untested assumptions.
Re-assembling the Field: A Definition and a Typology
To move forwards, we draw upon Jenkins-Smith (1990, p. 11) by defining a

policy formulation tool as:
a technique, scheme, device or operation (including – but not limited to – those

developed in the fields of economics, mathematics, statistics, computing, opera-
tions research and systems dynamics), which can be used to collect, condense
and make sense of different kinds of policy relevant knowledge to perform
some or all of the various inter-linked tasks of policy formulation.
But what are the main tools of policy formulation and which of the
interlinked formulation tasks mentioned in this definition do they seek
to address? Today, the range of policy formulation tools is considerably
wider and more ‘eclectic’ (Radin 2013, p. 159) than it was in Lasswell’s time.
While keenly aware that typologizing can very easily become an end in
itself, developing some kind of workable taxonomy nonetheless remains a
crucial next step towards enhancing a shared understanding of how policy
formulation tools are used in contemporary public policymaking.
We propose that the five policy formulation tasks outlined above –
problem characterization, problem evaluation, specification of objectives,
policy options assessment and policy design – may be used to structure a
typology of policy formulation tools, based on what might be termed the

‘textbook’ characteristics of what they may be capable of. We also draw

on Dunn’s (2004, pp. 6‒7) schema of three types of tasks associated with
policy formulation tools (problem structuring, forecasting and recom-
mending), and de Ridder et al.’s (2007) typology of assessment tools (see
Table 1.1). In Table 1.1, the first two tasks of ‘problem characterization’
and ‘problem evaluation’ broadly correspond to Dunn’s (2004) problem
structuring – that is, tools that produce information about what problem
to solve. The remaining three tasks correspond to Dunn’s forecasting –
hence tools that produce information about the expected outcomes of
policies – and also recommending – hence tools that produce information
about preferred policies.
Following Thomas (2001, p. 218), the consensus building or ‘consolida-
tion’ that can occur throughout the formulation process may draw on
feedback or consolidation tools for communicating findings back to policy
actors. These can include many of the same sorts of tools presented under
‘problem characterization’, such as stakeholder meetings, the elicitation of
public perceptions and/or expert opinions.
An Analytical Framework
In the rest of this book, a number of experts in policy formulation tools and
venues seek to shed new light on the interaction between four key aspects
of these tools, which together constitute our analytical framework: actors,
capacities, venues and effects.
Actors
First, we seek to elucidate those actors who participate in policy formu-
lation, particularly those that develop and/or promote particular policy
formulation tools. The tools literature has often lacked a sense of human
agency and, as noted above, the policy formulation literature tended to
ignore the tools being used. These two aspects need to be brought together.
In this book we therefore seek to know who the actors are and why they
develop and/or promote particular tools. Why were particular tools devel-
oped, when and by whom? And what values do the tools embody?
Venues
Second, we want to know more about by whom and in which policy for-
mulation venues such tools are used, and for what purposes. What factors
shape the selection and deployment of particular tools? Again the broader
question of agency seems to be largely unaddressed in the four existing
literatures summarized above. Tool selection is treated largely as a ‘given’;
indeed many studies seem to ignore entirely the reasons why policymakers

Introduction 21
Table 1.1 A typology of policy formulation tools, linking tools to their

potential use in different policy formulation tasks
Policy Examples of the policy-relevant Examples of tools

formulation task information tools may provide
Problem baseline information on policy ● environmental,
Characterization problems social and economic
indicators;
● survey data;
● statistical reports;
● stakeholder evidence
evidence on problem causation ● geographical
and scale information systems;
● maps;
● expert evidence
articulation of values through ● brainstorming;
participation ● boundary analysis;
● argumentation
mapping
Problem Evaluation See ‘Problem Characterization’ See ‘Problem
Characterization’
Specification of visions on different objectives, ● scenario analysis
Objectives futures and pathways
Options comparison of potential ● cost–benefit and cost-
Assessment impacts of different options effectiveness analysis;
● cost–utility analysis;
● multi-criteria analysis;
● risk–benefit analysis;
● risk assessment
assessment of past and future extrapolative or
trends forecasting tools,
including:
● time-series analyses or
statistical methods;
● informed judgements
(for example, Delphi
technique);
● computer simulations;
● economic forecasting;
● multi-agent simulation
Policy Design evaluation of potential See ‘Options Assessment’

effectiveness of different
instruments or policy mixes
Source: Based on Dunn (2004); de Ridder et al. (2007).

utilize them (or do not). Finally, relatively little is known about how the
various tools and venues intersect, both in theory and, as importantly, in
practice.
Capacities
Third, we wish to examine the relationship between policy capacity and
policy formulation tools. Policy capacity is one of a number of sub-
dimensions of state capacity, which together include the ability to create
and maintain social order and exercise democratic authority (Matthews
2012). Broadly, it is the ability that governments have to identify and
pursue policy goals and achieve certain policy outcomes in a more or less
instrumental fashion, that is, ‘to marshal the necessary resources to make
intelligent collective choices about and set strategic directions for the allo-
cation of scarce resources to public ends’ (Painter and Pierre 2005, p. 2).
It is known to vary between policy systems and even between governance
levels in the same policy system. Policy instruments and tools have long
been assumed to have an important influence on policy capacity – if they
did not, why use them (Howlett et al. 2014, p. 4)? The fact that they are
unevenly used over time, for example, could explain why the policy capac-
ity to get things done also varies across space and time (Bähr 2010; Wurzel
et al. 2013).
The chapters of this book seek to examine the relationship between
policy capacity and tools in three main ways. First, they conceive of the
policy formulation or policy analytic capacities that inhere within each
tool (in other words, Table 1.1). For example, scenarios and foresight
exercises provide policymakers with the capacity to address the problem
characterization and problem evaluation tasks, particularly in situations
of high scientific uncertainty. By contrast, tools such as CBA and multi-
criteria analysis (MCA) provide a means to complete the policy assess-
ment of option and policy design stages of the policy formulation process.
Second, the chapters also tackle the question of what policy capacities
are in turn required by policymakers to employ – and perhaps even more
fundamentally to select – certain policy formulation tools. For example,
relatively heavily procedural tools such as MCA and CBA arguably
require specialist staff and specific oversight systems. When these are weak
or absent, the use made of tools may tend towards the symbolic. Thus,
several questions may be posed. What capacities do actors have – or need –
to employ specific policy formulation tools? And what factors enable and/
or constrain these capacities?
Finally, the chapters open up the potentially very broad – but equally
important – question of what factors might conceivably enable or con-
strain the availability of these capacities. The fact that critical supporting

Introduction 23
capacities may not be available in every policy system is something which

is raised in several of the chapters.
Effects
Finally, what effects, both intended and actual, do the various tools gener-
ate when they are employed? As we explained above, our original expecta-
tion was that the tools would produce some quite specific epistemic and
political effects. But while some evidence is available on their wider effects,
much more is required. The policy instruments literature has been strug-
gling to address this question, at least for implementation tools, ever since
Salamon (2002, p. 2) speculated that each tool imparts its own distinctive
spin or twist on policy dynamics. Substantive effects include learning in
relation to new means to achieve given policy goals (a feature which is
predominant amongst the more structured procedural tools such as CBA,
but also computer modelling tools) through to the heuristic-conceptual
effects on problem understandings (see for example Chapters 2 and 3, this
volume). The procedural effects could be similarly wide ranging including
(re-)channelling political attention, opening up new opportunities for
outsiders to exert influence and uncovering political power relationships.
The chapters examine whether or not these and other effects occurred, and
whether they were, or were not, originally intended.
Plan of this Book
The chapters are grouped into two main parts. Those in Part II provide – in
some cases, for the very first time – a systematic review of the literature on
particular tools. They are written by tool experts according to a common
template and draw upon examples from across the globe. Given space con-
straints, we elected to focus on six of the most widely known and commonly
advocated tools, which broadly reflect the range of tool types and policy
formulation tasks summarized in Table 1.1. Thus, Matthijs Hisschemöller
and Eefje Cuppen begin by examining participatory tools (Chapter 2),
Marta Pérez-Soba and Rob Maas cover scenarios (Chapter 3) and Markku
Lehtonen reviews indicators (Chapter 4). Then, Martin van Ittersum and
Barbara Sterk summarize what is currently known about computerized
models (Chapter 5), Catherine Gamper and Catrinel Turcanu explore forms
of multi-criteria analysis (Chapter 6) and Giles Atkinson concludes by
reviewing the literature on cost–benefit analysis (Chapter 7).
The chapters in Part II explore the relationship between actors, venues,
capacities and effects from the perspective of each tool. By contrast,
the authors in Part III cut across and re-assemble these four categories
by looking at tool–venue relationships in Europe, North America and

Asia. Some (for example, Chapters 8 and 9) turn the analytical telescope
right around and examine the use made of multiple tools in one venue.
Each chapter employs different theories to interpret freshly collected
empirical information to test explanations and identify pertinent new
research questions. In broad terms, the first two chapters in Part III
examine the use of multiple tools in one or more venues, whereas those
that follow focus on the application of specific tools in one or more
venues. Thus in their chapter, Michael Howlett and colleagues explore
the distribution of all tools across many venues in Canada (Chapter 8),
whereas John Turnpenny and colleagues explore the use of all the tools
in the single venue of policy-level appraisal within Europe (Chapter 9).
Sachin Warghade examines the use of two tools in a number of differ-
ent venues in India (Chapter 10), and Christina Boswell et al. investigate
the use of indicators in the UK (Chapter 11). Finally, Paul Upham and
colleagues explore the application of a particular type of computer-
ized model in a range of different policy formulation venues in the UK
(Chapter 12). In the final Chapter (13), we draw together the main find-
ings of the book and identify pertinent new policy and analytical research
challenges. Conscious that this still has the look and feel of a sub-field of
policy analysis ‘in the making’ we attempt to draw on these findings to
critically reflect back on our typology, our definition of formulation tools
and our analytical framework.
More generally, in Chapter 13 we seek to explore what a renewed focus
on policy formulation tools adds to our understanding of three impor-
tant matters. First, what stands to be gained in respect of our collective
understanding of the tools themselves, which as we have repeatedly noted
have often been studied in a rather isolated, static and descriptive manner?
Second, what does it reveal in relation to policy formulation and policy-
making more generally? Policy formulation is arguably the most difficult
policy ‘stage’ of all to study since it is often ‘out of the public eye . . . [and]
in the realm of the experts’ (Sidney 2007, p. 79). Howlett has argued that
it is a ‘highly diffuse and often disjointed process whose workings and
results are often very difficult to discern and whose nuances in particular
instances can be fully understood only through careful empirical case
study’ (Howlett 2011, p. 32). Aware of the challenges, in this book we
seek to investigate what a renewed focus on tools is able to add to the
current stock of knowledge. In doing so, we seek to directly challenge
the conventional wisdom about tools as epiphenomenal, that is, wholly
secondary to ideas, interests, power and knowledge. Finally, what does it
add to our collective understanding of the politics of policymaking? This
is an extremely pertinent question because many of the tools were origi-
nally conceived as a means to take the political heat out of policymaking.

Introduction 25
Rationalism no longer holds the same grip on policy analysis as it once

did, but the perceived need to ‘design’ policy interventions as effectively
and as legitimately as possible remains as strong as ever. Therefore,
whether or not the tools succeed in these tasks is something we believe
will interest mainstream political scientists, as much as policy analysts and
experts in the tools.
NOTES
1. Hood and Margetts’ (2007) concept of ‘detector’ tools for harvesting policy relevant
information corresponds only to one of a number of different policy formulation tasks.
2. Although we regard the terms tool and instrument as being broadly synonymous, hence-
forth we use the term ‘tools’ mainly to differentiate policy formulation tools from policy
implementation instruments.
REFERENCES
Bähr, H. (2010), The Politics of Means and Ends, Farnham: Ashgate.

Barker, A. (1993), ‘Patterns of decision advice processes: a review of types and
a commentary on some recent British practices’, in B.G. Peters and A. Barker
(eds), Advising West European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public
Policy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 20‒36.
Baumgartner, F.R. and B.D. Jones (1991), ‘Agenda dynamics and policy subsys-
tems’, The Journal of Politics, 53, 1044‒1074.
Baumgartner, F.R. and B.D. Jones (1993), Agendas and Instability in American
Politics, Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Beyers, J. and B. Kerremans (2012), ‘Domestic embeddedness and the dynamics of
multilevel venue shopping in four EU Member States’, Governance, 25, 263‒290.
Cabinet Office (2000), Adding It Up, London: Cabinet Office.
Colebatch, H.K. and B.A. Radin (2006), ‘Mapping the work of policy’, in
H.K. Colebatch (ed.), The Work of Policy, New York: Rowman and Littlefield,
pp. 217–226.
Craft, J. and M. Howlett (2012), ‘Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy
influence’, Journal of Public Policy, 32 (2), 79–98.
DeLeon, P. (2006), ‘The historical roots of the field’, in M. Moran, M. Rein
and R. Goodin (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 39‒57.
DeLeon, P. and C. Martell (2006), ‘The policy sciences: past, present and future’,
in B.G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds), Handbook of Public Policy, London: Sage,
pp. 31‒48.
de Ridder, W., J. Turnpenny, M. Nilsson and A. von Raggamby (2007), ‘A
framework for tool selection and use in integrated assessment for sustainable
development’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9,
423‒441.
Dror, Y. (1971), Ventures in Policy Sciences, New York: Elsevier.

Dunn, W. (2004), Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, Upper Saddle River,

New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Fischer, F. (1995), Evaluating Public Policy, Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Fleischer, J. (2009), ‘Power resources of parliamentary executives: policy advice in
the UK and Germany’, West European Politics, 32 (1), 196–214.
Goodin, R., M. Moran and M. Rein (2006), ‘The public and its policies’, in
M. Moran, M. Rein and R. Goodin (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Public
Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3‒35.
Guiraudon, V. (2002), ‘European integration and migration policy: vertical policy-
making as venue shopping’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38 (2), 251‒271.
Hajer, M. and H. Wagenaar (2003), Deliberative Policy Analysis, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Halligan, J. (1995), ‘Policy advice and the public service’, in B. Guy Peters and
D.T. Savoie (eds), Governance in a Changing Environment, Montreal: McGill-
Queen’s University Press, pp. 138–172.
Hanley, N., S. Hallett and I. Moffatt (1990), ‘Research policy and review 33: why
is more notice not taken of economists’ prescriptions for the control of pollu-
tion’, Environment and Planning A, 22, 1421‒1439.
Hargrove, E.C. (1975), The Missing Link: The Study of the Implementation of
Social Policy, Washington: Urban Institute.
Heclo, H. (1972), ‘Modes and moods of policy analysis’, British Journal of Political
Science, 2 (1), 131.
Hill, M. (2009), The Public Policy Process, 5th edition, Abingdon: Routledge.
HM Treasury (2013), Review of Quality Assurance of Government Analytic Models,
London: HM Treasury.
Hood, C. (1983), The Tools of Government, London: Macmillan.
Hood, C. and H. Margetts (2007), The Tools of Government in the Digital Age,
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Howlett, M. (2000), ‘Managing the hollow state. Procedural policy instruments
and modern governance’, Canadian Public Administration, 43 (4), 412‒431.
Howlett, M. (2011), Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments,
Abingdon: Routledge.
Howlett, M. and S. Geist (2012), ‘The policy making process’, in E. Araral,
S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu (eds), Routledge Handbook of
Public Policy, London: Routledge, pp. 17‒28.
Howlett, M. and R. Lejano (2013), ‘Tales from the crypt: the rise and fall (and
rebirth?) of policy design’, Administration and Society, 45 (3), 357‒381.
Howlett, M., J.J. Woo and I. Mukherjee (2014), ‘From tools to toolkits in policy
design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research’,
Policy and Politics, 42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/147084414X13992869118596.
Jenkins-Smith, H. (1990), Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis, Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Jordan, A.J. and D. Huitema (2014), ‘Innovations in climate policy: the politics
of invention, diffusion and evaluation’, Environmental Politics, 23 (5), 715–734.
Jordan, A. and E. Matt (2014), ‘Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy
feedback in a changing climate’, Policy Sciences, 47 (3), 227‒247.
Jordan, A.J., M. Bauer and C. Green-Pedersen (2013a), ‘Policy dismantling’,
Journal of European Public Policy, 20 (5), 795‒805.
Jordan, A., R. Wurzel and A. Zito (2013b), ‘Still the century of “new” environ-
mental policy instruments?’, Environmental Politics, 22 (1), 155‒173.

Introduction 27
Jordan, A.J., D. Benson, R. Wurzel and A.R. Zito (2012), ‘Environmental policy:
governing by multiple policy instruments?’, in J.J. Richardson (ed.), Constructing
a Policy Making State?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104‒124.
Kingdon, J.W. (2010), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Harmondsworth:
Longman.
Lascoumes, P. and P. Le Galés (2007), ‘Introduction: understanding public policy
through its instruments’, Governance, 20 (1), 1‒22.
Lasswell, H. (1971), A Pre-view of Policy Sciences, New York: Elsevier.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959), ‘The science of “muddling through”’, Public Administration
Review, 19 (2), 79‒88.
Linder, S.H. and B.G. Peters (1990), ‘Policy formulation and the challenge of con-
scious design’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 303–311.
Lindquist, E. (1992), ‘Public managers and policy communities’, Canadian Public
Administration, 35, 127‒159.
Matthews, F. (2012), ‘Governance and state capacity’, in D. Levi-Faur (ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 281‒293.
Meltsner, A.J. (1976), Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy, Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Mintrom, M. and C. Williams (2013), ‘Public policy debate and the rise of policy
analysis’, in E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh and X. Wu (eds),
Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, London: Routledge, pp. 3‒16.
Nilsson, M., A. Jordan, J. Turnpenny, J. Hertin, B. Nykvist and D. Russel (2008),
‘The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making’, Policy
Sciences, 41 (4), 335‒355.
Noordegraaf, M. (2011), ‘Academic accounts of policy experience’, in
H. Colebatch, R. Hoppe and M. Noordegraaf (eds), Working for Policy,
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, pp. 45–67.
Owens, S. and R. Cowell (2002), Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the
Planning Process, London and New York: Routledge.
Owens, S., T. Rayner and O. Bina (2004), ‘New agendas for appraisal: reflections
on theory, practice and research’, Environment and Planning A, 36, 1943‒1959.
Page, E.C. (2003), ‘The civil servant as legislator: law making in British adminis-
tration’, Public Administration, 81 (4), 651–679.
Page, E.C. and B. Jenkins (2005), Policy Bureaucracy: Governing with a Cast of
Thousands, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Painter, M. and J. Pierre (2005), ‘Unpacking policy capacity: issues and themes’, in
M. Painter and J. Pierre (eds), Challenges to State Policy Capacity, Basingstoke:
Palgrave, pp. 1‒18.
Parsons, W. (1995), Public Policy, Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, VT, USA:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pearce, D.W. (1998), ‘Cost–benefit analysis and policy’, Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 14 (4), 84‒100.
Peters, B.G. and A. Barker (1993), ‘Introduction: governments, information,
advice and policy-making’, in B.G. Peters and A. Barker (eds), Advising West
European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public Policy, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, pp. 1‒19.
Pralle, S.B. (2003), ‘Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: the
internationalization of Canadian forest advocacy’, Journal of Public Policy, 23,
233‒260.

Radaelli, C. (1995), ‘The role of knowledge in the policy process’, Journal of

European Public Policy, 2 (2), 159‒183.
Radin, B. (2013), Beyond Machiavelli, Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Rossi, P.H., M.W. Lipsey and H. Freeman (2004), Evaluation, London: Sage.
Russel, D. and A. Jordan (2014), ‘Embedding the concept of ecosystem services?
The utilisation of ecological knowledge in different policy venues’, Environment
and Planning C, 32 (2), 192‒207.
Sabatier, P. (2005), Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, Boulder: Westview
Press.
Salamon, L. (1989), Beyond Privatisation, Washington: Urban Institute Press.
Salamon, L. (2002), ‘The new governance and the tools of public action: an intro-
duction’, in L. Salamon (ed.), Tools of Government, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 1‒47.
Sanderson, I. (2002), ‘Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy
making’, Public Administration, 80 (1), 1‒22.
Schick, A. (1977), ‘Beyond analysis’, Public Administration Review, 37 (3), 258‒263.
Schultze, C. (1970), The Politics and Economics of Public Spending, Washington:
Brookings Institution.
Self, P. (1981), ‘Planning: rational or political?’, in P. Baehr and B. Wittrock (eds),
Policy Analysis and Policy Innovation, London: Sage, pp. 219‒236.
Self, P. (1985), Econocrats and the Policy Process, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Shine, K.T. and B. Bartley (2011), ‘Whose evidence base? The dynamic effects of
ownership, receptivity and values on collaborative evidence-informed policy
making’, Evidence and Policy, 7 (4), 511‒530.
Shulock, N. (1999), ‘The paradox of policy analysis: if it is not used, why do we
produce so much of it?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18 (2),
226–244.
Sidney, M.S. (2007), ‘Policy formulation: design and tools’, in F. Fischer,
G.J. Miller and M.S. Sidney (eds), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis:
Theory, Politics and Methods, New Brunswick, NJ: CRC Taylor & Francis,
pp. 79–87.
Stirling, A. (2008), ‘“Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation,
and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology’, Science, Technology, and
Human Values, 33 (2), 262‒294.
Thomas, H.G. (2001), ‘Towards a new higher education law in Lithuania: reflec-
tions on the process of policy formulation’, Higher Education Policy, 14 (3),
213‒223.
Timmermans, A. and P. Scholten (2006), ‘The political flow of wisdom: science
institutions as policy venues in the Netherlands’, Journal of European Public
Policy, 13 (7), 1104‒1118.
Turnpenny, J., C.M. Radaelli, A. Jordan and K. Jacob (2009), ‘The policy and
politics of policy appraisal: emerging trends and new directions’, Journal of
European Public Policy, 16 (4), 640–653.
Vining, A.R. and D.L. Weimer (2010), ‘Foundations of public administra-
tion: policy analysis’, Public Administration Review, Foundations of Public
Administration Series, retrieved from http://www.aspanet.org/public/
ASPADocs/PAR/FPA/FPA-Policy-Article.pdf (accessed 20 January 2014).
Wildavsky, A. (1987), Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy
Analysis, New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Introduction 29
Wolman, H. (1981), ‘The determinants of program success and failure’, Journal of

Public Policy, 1 (4), 433‒464.
Wu, X., M. Ramesh, M. Howlett and S.A. Fritzen (2010), The Public Policy
Primer: Managing the Policy Process, London: Routledge.
Wurzel, R.K.W., A.R. Zito and A.J. Jordan (2013), Environmental Governance
in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of New Environmental Policy Instruments,
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.


The Tools of Policy Formulation An Introduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Tools of Policy Formulation An Introduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Tools of Policy Formulation An Introduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

The tools of policy formulation: an

What techniques or means do public policymakers use in their attempts

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

2004, p. 6), decision support tools or ‘analycentric’ tools (Schick 1977).

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

the content of policy, such as material forces, discourses and ideologies

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

POLICY FORMULATION: ACTORS, PROCESSES

The literature on policy formulation has expanded significantly in the

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

to understand the relationship between ‘manipulable means and obtain-

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Policy Formulation Processes and Tasks

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

The Venues of Policy Formulation

Policy formulation – like policymaking more generally – occurs in par-

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Figure 1.1 The main venues of policy formulation

THE TOOLS OF POLICY FORMULATION

The Analycentric Turn in Policy Analysis

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

‘policy sciences of democracy’ provided a vision of analysis that drew

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

The Turn Away from Policy Formulation Tools

In the Lasswellian perspective, tools were seen as having a central role in

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

The Turn Back to Policy Formulation Tools

Nowadays, interest in policy formulation tools appears to be growing

Tools, in other words, are no longer the preserve of technocrats operating

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

2013, p. 33). Yet this transformation in the tools of policy formulation

FORMULATION TOOLS: TOWARDS A NEW SUB-­

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

●● Simple tools such as checklists, questionnaires, impact tables or

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

­ nderstood. Hence, questions about precisely where, how, why and by

Re-­assembling the Field: A Definition and a Typology

To move forwards, we draw upon Jenkins-­Smith (1990, p. 11) by defining a

a technique, scheme, device or operation (including – but not limited to – those

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

‘textbook’ characteristics of what they may be capable of. We also draw

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Table 1.1 A typology of policy formulation tools, linking tools to their

Policy Examples of the policy-­relevant Examples of tools

Policy Design evaluation of potential See ‘Options Assessment’

Source: Based on Dunn (2004); de Ridder et al. (2007).

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

capacities may not be available in every policy system is something which

Plan of this Book

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

Rationalism no longer holds the same grip on policy analysis as it once

Bähr, H. (2010), The Politics of Means and Ends, Farnham: Ashgate.

Andrew J. Jordan and John R. Turnpenny - 9781783477036

The tools of policy formulation: an

FORMULATION TOOLS: TOWARDS A NEW SUB-

nderstood. Hence, questions about precisely where, how, why and by

Re-assembling the Field: A Definition and a Typology

To move forwards, we draw upon Jenkins-Smith (1990, p. 11) by defining a

Table 1.1 A typology of policy formulation tools, linking tools to their

Policy Examples of the policy-relevant Examples of tools