Public policies are the result of efforts made by governments to alter aspects of their own or social behaviour in order to carry out some end or purpose and are comprised of complex arrangements of policy goals and policy means. In this view policy design involves the effort to more or less systematically develop efficient and effective policies through the application of knowledge about policy means gained from experience, and reason, to the development and adoption of courses of action that are likely to succeed in attaining their desired goals or aims within specific policy contexts (Bobrow and Dryzek 1987; Bobrow 2006; Montpetit 2003). As Linder and Peters (1991) argued, policy design can be thought of as a spatial activity. That is, as: a systematic activity composed of a series of choices . . . design solutions, then, will correspond to a set of possible locations in a design space . . . this construction emphasizes not only the potential for generating new mixtures of conventional solutions, but also the importance of giving careful attention to tradeoffs among design criteria when considering instrument choices. That is, designing successful policies requires thinking about policy-making in such a way as to fully take into account the dual purposes – substantive and procedural – which polices can serve and the nature of the multiple levels of policy elements or components which make up a typical policy: that is, to understand the ‘design space’ (Hillier, Musgrove and O’Sullivan 1972; Hillier and Leaman 1974; Gero 1990) or context in which policy formulators and decision-makers work.. 1. An Outline of the Topic: (Explain why there is a need for a Workshop on the subject, bearing in mind that the topic should not have been covered by another Workshop during the past two years) 1 This is significant because the ends and purposes attempted to be attained through such designs are multifarious and wide- ranging and different policies can be more or less systematically designed. That is, not all policies are ‘designed’ in the sense set out above and can rather evolve through less rational processes such as political bargaining or have their content informed by activities such as self-interested lobbying rather than disinterested analysis. And exactly what constitutes a design, what makes one successful and what makes one design better than other are important questions Attempts to understand the basic conditions for design (vs non-design) and to answer the questions posed above have animated design studies and research in the policy sciences over the past half century. This workshop addresses the significance of contextual and other factors involved in policy-making and instrument choices and their impact in terms of creating propitious or inauspicious circumstances for design efforts. That is, the exact processes through which policy designs emerge and are articulated vary greatly by jurisdiction and sector, and appear to reflect factors such as the great differences, and nuances, that exist between different forms of government – from military regimes to liberal democracies and within each type – as well as the particular configuration of issues, actors and problems various governments, of whatever type, face in particular areas or sectors of activity – such as health or education policy, industrial policy, transportation or energy policy, social policy and many others (Ingraham 1987; Howlett, Ramesh and Perl 2009). In some circumstances, it can be expected that policy decisions will be more highly contingent and ‘irrational’ than others, that is, driven by situational logics and opportunism rather than careful deliberation and assessment. (Cohen et al. 1979; Dryzek 1983; Kingdon 1984; Eijlander 2005; Franchino and Hoyland 2009). This high level of contingency in some decision-making contexts has led some critics and observers of policy design efforts to suggest that policies cannot be ‘designed’ in the sense that a house or a piece of furniture can be (Dryzek and Ripley 1988; deLeon 1988). However, many other scholars disagreed with this assessment. A design orientation focusing on rational instrument decisions engendered a large literature in the 1980s and 1990s under the guidance of such prominent figures in the US, Canadian, European and Australian policy studies community such as Lester Salamon, Patricia Ingraham, Malcolm Goggin, John Dryzek, Hans Bressers, Helen Ingram and Anne Schneider, G.B. Doern, Stephen Linder and B. Guy Peters, Renate Mayntz, Christopher Hood, Eugene Bardach, Evert Vedung, Peter May, Frans van Nispen and Michael Trebilock, among others. Another strand in the literature did not ignore the irrational elements of policy-making 2 but argued that formulation and decision-making activities could be analytically or practically distinguished and divorced from each other In their many works on the subject in the late 1980s and early 1990s for example, Stephen H. Linder and B. Guy Peters (1988) argued that the actual process of public policy decision-making could, in an analytical sense, be divorced from the abstract concept of policy design, in the same way that an abstract architectural concept can be divorced from its engineering manifestation in theory if not in practice. Such a distinction, they argued, allowed policy design (noun) to be separated conceptually from policy design (verb) and allowed for the development within policy studies of a design orientation even if the ultimate decision on policy content was less overtly rational (Schon 1988, 1992). After the early 1990s the number of works adopting a design orientation declined (Howlett and Lejano 2013) Although some writings on policy design continued to flourish in specific fields such as economics, energy and environmental studies (see for example, Boonecamp 2006, del Rio 2010a and 2010b), in the fields of public administration and public policy the design orientation was largely replaced by a new emphasis on the study of institutional forms and decentralized governance arrangements. As a result of these processes, for example, many commentators suggested that implementation practices had become more participatory and consultative over the last several decades (Alshuwaikhat and Nkwenti 2002; Arellano-Gault and Vera-Cortes 2005) replacing previous top-down formulation processes dominated by government analysts with more ‘bottom-up’ ones; that is, ones less amenable to design by state elites. These studies embodied their own notions about what sorts of institutional arrangements and processes constituted desirable and attainable designs and usually treated these as inevitable quasi-automatic processes, therefore requiring only ex-post analysis (Rhodes 1996; Kooiman 1993 and 2000). Ironically, these studies largely ignored the contextual and potentially irrational elements of policy-making and design. That is, in this literature, policy is typically seen as the outcome of decentralized, democratized processes involving the actions and interests of multiple public and private stakeholders and therefore is less ‘designed’ than ‘emergent’, but is still ‘rational’ in the sense that ‘form is expected to follow function’ so that policies match their contexts.. These arguments had a serious negative impact on policy design research. If accurate, the idea that changes in governance modes entailed both alterations in the abilities of various state and non-state actors to prevail in policy formulation disputes and decisions, as well as shifts in the choices and types of policy instruments used to implement public policy which are at the core of policy designs and designing (March and Olson, 1996; Offe, 2006; Weaver and Rockman, 1993; Scharpf, 1991), suggested that design was largely functional and automatic. Although ‘networkization’ could just 3 have been seen as a new contextual design challenge (Agranoff and McGuire 1999), for many authors the alleged weakening of the centrality of the state as an author of policy was accompanied by a waning in interest in the authorship (or design) of policy. More recently, however, the government-to-governance thinking behind these models has been challenged by studies which revealed the continuing high profile and important role played by governments both in contexts of social ‘steering’ and in more traditional areas of policy activities (Capano 2001; Tollefson et al 2011; Howlett et al 2009). These studies have found that even in ostensibly high-network areas of activity such as social policy and health, governments (or more generally, public institutions) still have the prime responsibility for governing society and choosing governance techniques and policy content although they may choose to modify the way they perform this role if they feel the need to be more effective in dealing with stakeholders, or they wish to avoid paying an excessive political costs for their actions. Accurately describing and understanding the nature of the policy design ‘space’ or context thus remains a crucial activity for policy designers and students of policy design. Designers must avoid simply advocating ‘stock’ solutions unless this is called for by the limited nature of the space available for new designs (May 1981). Rather they should ‘consider the range of feasible’ options possible in a given circumstance and package these into sets of ‘competing strategies’ to achieve policy goals (May 1981: 236, 238). As David Weimer (1992: 373) has argued, ‘Instruments, alone or in combination, must be crafted to fit particular substantive, organizational and political contexts’. Old or new, “Policy Design” has never been the subject of an ECPR workshop. However as a topic and field of research in the policy sciences it has a history dating back over 50 years. In recent years this orientation towards policy studies has received new impetus (Howlett and Lejano 2013) and a renaissance of studies in this orientation has begun. The present workshop will collate these new efforts, consider their relationship with prior work, and outline future research directions and questions. Policy design as a field of inquiry has had a checkered history. After a promising beginning in the 1970s and 1980s the field languished in the 1990s and 2000s as work in the policy sciences focused on the impact on policy outcomes of meta-changes in society and the international environment. Both globalization and governance studies of the period ignored traditional design concerns in arguing that changes at this level pre- determined policy specifications. However more recent work re-asserting the role of governments both at the international and domestic levels has re-vitalized design studies. 2. Its Relation to Existing Research: (Explain how the Workshop topic relates to existing research/publications in the area) 4 Much of the original design literature in the 1960s and 1970s focused attention on ‘technical’ analysis. That is, upon efforts to assess the functional capacities of specific tools. The newer design literature keeps this focus but adds to it the need to also assess contextual factors involved in tool choices and use, especially political ones. While the old design literature recognized that the process of design and instrument selection is made simpler once the fact that some of the elements of public policies remain more amenable to careful thought and deliberate government manipulation than others (Schon 1992; Gero and Kannengiesser nd; Kannengiesser and Gero nd), the new design field is concerned with understanding exactly how instrument choices are constrained by higher- order sets of variables (Baliga and Maskin 2003; Maskin 2008). Re-focusing on the issue of policy design is a promising way to better understanding the processes through which policies are formulated and implemented and see how their content is continuously chosen and developed. From this point of view the “new” policy design wave in public policy is a fruitful way through which different theoretical and empirical streams in political science can join together on a specific strategic research theme related to the nature of policy advice and decision-making dynamics both in theory and practice. In fact to understand how policy design matters in policy-making means to read from a multi-theoretical perspective on the different stages of the policy-making trying to understand how institutional arrangements, governance modes, institutional behaviors (above all those of governments and parliaments), institutionalized patterns of actors’ relations, conflicting policy ideas interact each other in designing the content of agendas, political decisions, implementation strategies. Seen from this point of view, to call for a renewed focus on policy design means to call for a convergence of those streams of research, both in political science and in public policy, which study how political and policy decisions are made and implemented, that is, in other words, how the policy design space is delimited and fulfilled. The idea of the workshop is to extend a general invitation to the many colleagues who work on the topics listed above – from the nature of policy formulation and policy advice to legislative and executive decision-making and policy implementation and others - to come together to help evaluate when (agenda, formulation, implementation) policy design matters, and how (through which factors, mechanisms, dynamics) it matters. Previous ECPR panel sessions (Bordeaux 2013 and Glasgow 2014) have dealt with aspects of the subject, looking at the design perspective and how it has evolved over 3. Likely participants: (Indicate who the likely participants are to be. Note that all Workshops should be open rather than confined to an existing closed group of specialist) 5 time, and identifying the series of research questions which motivate this workshop. The field is very interesting for many policy-oriented political scientists but that there is the necessity to better address and consolidate debate and research. Hence we expect to invite not only policy scholars but also those political scientists who are involved in studying how political institutions (governments and parliaments) decide on the policy content, how specific political actors (above all political parties and leaders) influence the policy design in each policy stage, and how institutional arrangements can delimit the design space. 4. Type of Papers: (Try to indicate the type of Papers you wish to attract, e.g. empirical, case study, comparative, theory) The workshop would include both theoretical treatments relating to policy design as well as empirical studies assessing design efforts in practice. We welcome theoretical studies capable to enlighten the dynamics through which policy are designed as well empirical papers with a significant comparative perspective. 5. Funding: (Give an indication of foundations or research councils to which you would apply for funding the Workshop). Most participants will be self-funded from their home institutions. Giliberto Capano is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy in the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the University of Bologna. He is the director of the Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche (Italian Journal of Public Policy), and is co-editor of Policy & Society. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the International Political Science Association (2009-2014) He is the Director of the PhD programme in Political Science at the Italian Institute of Humanities (a joint degree involving the Universities of Bologna, Florence, Naples and Siena) He has published five monographical studies and edited ten books in Italian. Together with Michael Howlett, he has co-edited European and North American Experiences in Policy Change. Policy Drivers and Policy Dynamics (Routledge, 2009). His work in English has been published in several books, as well as in journals such as: Higher Education, Journal of Legislative Studies, Higher Education Policy, Public Administration, Southern European Society and Politics, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Journal of European Public Policy, Comparative Education Review. Michael Howlett is Burnaby Mountain Chair in the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University and Yong Pung How Chair Professor in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. He specializes in public policy analysis, political economy, and resource and environmental policy. He is the author of Canadian Public Policy (2013) and Designing Public Policy(2011), and co- 6. Biographical note: Please outline (in 60-80 words) your current research interests, most recent publications and academic status (ie. Professor, PhD student, etc). 6 author ofThe Public Policy Primer(2010),Integrated Policymaking for Sustainable Development (2009), Studying Public Policy (2009, 2003 & 1995), In Search of Sustainability (2001), The Political Economy of Canada (1999 & 1992) and Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy (1997 & 2005). He has edited Canadian Forest Policy (2001) and coedited Regulating Next Generation Agri-Food Bio- Technologies (2012), The Routledge Handbook of Public Policy (2013), British Columbia Politics and Government (2009), European and North American Policy Change (2009); Canada's Resource Economy in Transition (2008); Policy Analysis in Canada (2007); Deregulation and Its Discontents (2006); Executive Styles in Canada (2005);Designing Government (2005); The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics (2004); The Provincial State In Canada (1992 & 2000); Innovation Systems in a Global Context (1998); Policy Studies in Canada (1996), and The Puzzles of Power (1994 & 1998). 7. References Agranoff, R., and McGuire, M. (1999) Managing in Network Settings. Policy Studies Review, 16 (1), 18-41. Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Nkwenti, D.I. (2002) Visualizing Decisionmaking: Perspectives on Collaborative and Participative Approach to Sustainable Urban Planning and Management. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29, 513-531 Anderson, C. W. “Comparative Policy Analysis: The Design of Measures.” Comparative Politics 4, no. 1 (1971): 117-131. Arellano-Gault, D.,& Vera-Cortes, G. (2005) Institutional Design and Organisation of the Civil Protection National System in Mexico: The Case for a Decentralised and Participative Policy Network. Public Administration and Development, 25 , 185-192. Baliga, Sandeep, and Eric Maskin. “Mechanism Design for the Environment.” In Handbook of Environmental Economics, edited by Karl-Göran Mäler and Jeffrey R. Vincent, Volume 1:305–324. Elsevier, 2003. Bardach, E. (1980). Implementation Studies and the Study of Implements. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association. Barnett, C. K., & Shore, B. (2009). Reinventing Program Design: Challenges in Leading Sustainable Institutional Change. Leadership & Organization, 30,(1), 16-35. Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T. & OʼLeary, R. (2005) The New Governance: Practices and processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public administration review, 65 (5), 547-558. Blonz, J. A., Vajjhala, S.P. & Safirova, E. (2008). Growing Complexities: A Cross-Sector Review of U.S. Biofuels Policies and Their Interactions . Washington DC: Resources for the Future. Bobrow, D. B., and J. S. Dryzek. Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1987. Bobrow, Davis. “Policy Design: Ubiquitous, Necessary and Difficult.” In Handbook of public policy, edited by B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, 75-96. SAGE, 2006. 7 Bode, I. “Disorganized Welfare Mixes: Voluntary Agencies and New Governance Regimes in Western Europe.” Journal of European Social Policy 16, no. 4 (2006): 346-359. Boonekamp, Piet G.M. “Actual Interaction Effects Between Policy Measures for Energy efficiency--A Qualitative Matrix Method and Quantitative Simulation Results for Households.” Energy 31, no. 14 (November 2006): 2848–2873. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.004. Braathen, N. A., and E. Croci. “Environmental Agreements Used in Combination with Other Policy Instruments.” In The Handbook of Environmental Voluntary Agreements Vol 43, 335-364. Dodrecht: Springer, 2005. Braathen, Nils Axel. Instrument Mixes Addressing Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution. Paris: OECD, 2007. Braathen, Nils Axel. Instrument Mixes Addressing Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution. Paris: OECD, 2007. Braun, D. “Interests or Ideas? An Overview of Ideational Concepts in Public Policy Research.” In Public Policy and Political Ideas, edited by A. Busch and Dietmar Braun, 11-29. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1999. Bressers, H. T. A., and L. J. O'Toole. “Instrument Selection and Implementation in a Networked Context.” In Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance, edited by P. Eliadis, M. Hill, and M. Howlett, 132-153. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2005. Bressers, H. T. A., and L. J. O'Toole. “The Selection of Policy Instruments: A Network- based Perspective.” Journal of Public Policy 18, no. 3 (1998): 213-239. Bressers, H., & Honigh, M. (1986) A Comparative Approach to the Explanation of Policy Effects. International Social Science Journal , 108, 267-288. Bressers, H., & Klok, P.J.(1988). Fundamentals for a Theory of Policy Instruments. International Journal of Social Economics, 15, (3/4), 22-41. Briassoulis, H. “Analysis of Policy Integration: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations.” In Policy Integration for Complex Environmental Problems: The Example of Mediterranean Desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. Briassoulis, H., ed. Policy Integration for Complex Environmental Problems: The Example of Mediterranean Desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. Brint, Steven. “Rethinking the Policy Influence of Experts: From General Characterizations to Analysis of Variation.” Sociological Forum 5, no. 3 (September 1990): 361-385. Buckman, G., & Diesendorf, M. Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7) 3365-3376. Campbell, J. L. “Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy.” Theory and Society 27, no. 5 (1998): 377-409. Campbell, John L. “Ideas, Politics and Public Policy.” Annual Review of Sociology 28, no. 1 (8, 2002): 21-38. Capano, Giliberto. “Government continues to do its job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector”, Public Administration, 89(4), pp. 1622 - 1642, 2011. Castells, M. (1996) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume I - The Rise of Network Society . Malden: Blackwell. 8 Chadwick, A. “Studying Political Ideas: A Public Political Discourse Approach.” Political Studies 48 (2000): 283-301. Christensen, T., P. Laegreid, and L. R. Wise. “Transforming Administrative Policy.” Public Administration 80, no. 1 (2002): 153-179. Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J.M. (1999). Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441-466. Cohen, M. D., J. G. March, and J. P. Olsen. “People, Problems, Solutions and the Ambiguity of Relevance.” In Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, 24–37. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1979. Considine, Mark. “Thinking Outside the Box? Applying Design Theory to Public Policy.” Politics & Policy 40, no. 4 (2012): 704–724. doi:10.1111/j.1747- 1346.2012.00372.x. Del Río, Pablo, Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, and Totti Könnölä. “Policy Strategies to Promote Eco-Innovation.” Journal of Industrial Ecology (2010). Del Río, Pablo. “Analysing the Interactions Between Renewable Energy Promotion and Energy Efficiency Support Schemes: The Impact of Different Instruments and Design Elements.” Energy Policy 38, no. 9 (September 2010): 4978–4989. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.003. deLeon, P. “The Missing Link Revisited: Contemporary Implementation Research.” Policy Studies Review16, no. 3 (1999): 311-338. deLeon, P. (1988) The Contextual Burdens of Policy Design. Policy Studies Journal, 17 (2), 297-309. Dobuzinskis, L. (1987). The Self-Organizing Polity: An Epistemological Analysis of Political Life . Boulder: Westview. Dobuzinskis, Laurent, Michael Howlett, and David Laycock, eds. Policy Analysis in Canada: the State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Doern, G. B., & Wilks, S. (1998). Changing Regulatory Institutions in Britain and North America . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Donovan, M. C. Taking Aim: Target Populations and the Wars on AIDS and Drugs. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001. Doremus, H. “A Policy Portfolio Approach to Biodiversity Protection on Private Lands.” Environmental Science & Policy 6 (2003): 217–232. Dryzek, J. (1983). Donʼt Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design. Journal Of Public Policy, 3 (4), 345-367. Dryzek, J. S., & Ripley, B. (1988) The Ambitions of Policy Design. Policy Studies Review, 7 (4), 705-719. Durr, R. H. “What Moves Policy Sentiment?.” American Political Science Review 87 (1993): 158-172. Edelman, M. J. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press*, 1988. Eichbaum, Chris, and Richard Shaw. “Ministerial Advisers and the Politics of Policy- Making: Bureaucratic Permanence and Popular Control.” The Australian Journal of Public Administration 66, no. 4 (2007): 453-467. Eichbaum, Chris, and Richard Shaw. “Revisiting Politicization: Political Advisers and Public Servants in Westminster Systems.” Governance 21, no. 3 (2008): 337- 363. 9 Eijlander, P. “Possibilities and Constraints in the Use of Self-regulation and Co- Regulation in Legislative Policy: Experiences in the Netherlands - Lessons to Be Learned for the EU.” Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 9, no. 1 (2005): 1–8. Eijlander, P. “Possibilities and Constraints in the Use of Self-regulation and Co- Regulation in Legislative Policy: Experiences in the Netherlands - Lessons to be Learned for the EU.” Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 9, no. 1 (2005): 1- 8. Eliadis, F. P., M. M. Hill, and M. Howlett, eds. Designing government: from instruments to governance. McGill Queens Univ Pr, 2005. Franchino, Fabio, and Bjorn Hoyland. “Legislative Involvement in Parliamentary Systems: Opportunities, Conflict and Institutional Constraints.” American Political Science Review 103, no. 4 (2009): 607–621. George, A. L. “The "Operational Code": A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making.” Int.Stud.Q. 13 (1969): 190-222. Gero, John S. “Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design.” Text.Serial.Journal, December 15, 1990. Gero, John S., and Udo Kannengiesser. “An Ontological Account of Donald Schon's Reflection in Designing,” n.d. Goggin, M. L., Bowman A. O. M., Lester, J. P. & OʼToole, L.J. (1990) Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward A Third Generation . Glenview: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown. Goldmann, K. (2005) Appropriateness and Consequences: The Logic of Neo- Institutionalism. Governance, 18 (1), 35-52. Goldstein, J., and R. O. Keohane, eds. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1993. Gormley, William T. “Public Policy Analysis: Ideas and Impact.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 (2007): 297-313. Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green Markets: Environmental Regulation by the Private Sector. Law and Policy, 16 (4), 419-448. Grant, Wyn. “Policy Instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy.” West European Politics 33, no. 1 (2010): 22-38. Gunningham, N., and D. Sinclair. “Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection.” Law Policy 21, no. 1 (1999): 49-76. Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Haasnoot, Marjolijn, Jan H. Kwakkel, Warren E. Walker, and Judith ter Maat. “Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways: A Method for Crafting Robust Decisions for a Deeply Uncertain World.” Global Environmental Change (2013). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006. Hall, P. A. “Policy Paradigms, Experts, and the State: The Case of Macroeconomic Policy-Making in Britain.” In Social Scientists, Policy, and the State, edited by S. Brooks and A. G. Gagnon, 53-78. New York: Praeger, 1990. Hall, P. A. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25, no. 3 (1993): 275-96. 10 Halligan, John. “Policy Advice and the Public Sector.” In Governance in a Changing Environment, edited by B. Guy Peters and Donald T. Savoie, 138-172. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995. Hamelin, Fabrice. “Renewal of Public Policy via Instrumental Innovation: Implementing Automated Speed Enforcement in France.” Governance 23, no. 3 (2010): 509-530. Hawkins, K., & Thomas, J.M. (1989). Making Regulatory Policy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Heinrichs, H. “Advisory Systems in Pluralistic Knowledge Societies: A Criteria-Based Typology to Assess and Optimize Environmental Policy Advice.” In Democratization of expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by S. Maasen and P. Weingart, 41-61. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005. Hilgartner, S., and C. L. Bosk. “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model.” American Journal of Sociology 94, no. 1 (1988): 53-78. Hillier, Bill, and Adrian Leaman. “How is Design Possible: A Sketch for a Theory.” DMG-DRS Journal: Design Research and Methods 8, no. 1 (1974): 40-50. Hillier, Bill, John Musgrave, and Pat O'Sullivan. “Knowledge and Design.” In Environmental Design: Research and Practice, edited by William J. Mitchell, 29.3.1-29.3.14. Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles, 1972. Hippes, G. (1988). New instruments for Environmental Policy: A Perspective. International Journal of Social Economics, 15 (3/4), 42-51. Hoffmann, Matthew J. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response After Kyoto. Oxford University Press, 2011. Hood, C. (1986). The Tools of Government . Chatham: Chatham House Publishers. Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69 (Spring) , 3-19. Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual Obsolescence and Intellectual Makeovers: Reflections on the Tools of Government After Two Decades. Governance, 20 (1), 127-144. Hou, Yilin, and Gene Brewer. “Substitution and Supplementation Between Co- Functional Policy Instruments: Evidence from State Budget Stabilization Practices.” Public Administration Review 70, no. 6 (2010): 914–924. Howlett, Michael, Jeremy Rayner, and Chris Tollefson. “From Government to Governance in Forest Planning? Lesson from the Case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest Initiative.” Forest Policy and Economics 11 (2009): 383–391. Howlett, M. “Beyond Good and Evil in Policy Implementation: Instrument Mixes, Implementation Styles and Second Generation Theories of Policy Instrument Choice.” Policy & Society 23, no. 2 (2004): 1-17. Howlett, M. “Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Network Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evidence From Four Canadian Policy Sectors 1990-2000.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35, no. 2 (2002): 235-268. Howlett, M. “Managing the "Hollow State": Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance.” Canadian Public Administration 43, no. 4 (2000): 412-431. Howlett, M. “Policy instruments, policy styles and policy implementation.” Policy Studies Journal 19, no. 2 (1991): 1–21-1–21. 11 Howlett, M. “What is a Policy Instrument? Policy Tools, Policy Mixes and Policy Implementation Styles.” In Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance, edited by P. Eliadis, M. Hill, and Howlett, M, 31-50. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2005. Howlett, M. (1991). Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy Implementation: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19 (2), 1-21. Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments . New York: Routledge. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1993). Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice: Policy Styles, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience. Policy Stud.Rev., 12 (1), 3-24. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2006). Globalization and the Choice of Governing Instruments: The Direct, Indirect and Opportunity Effects of Internationalization. International Public Management Journal, 9 (2), 175-194. Howlett, M., and J. Rayner. “Do Ideas Matter? Policy Subsystem Configurations and the Continuing Conflict Over Canadian Forest Policy.” Canadian Public Administration 38, no. 3 (1995): 382-410. Howlett, Michael, and Jeremy Rayner. “Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in 'New Governance Arrangements'.” Policy and Society 26, no. 4 (2007): 1-18. Howlett, Michael, and Joshua Newman. “Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multi-level governance systems.” Policy and Society 29, no. 1 (3, 2010): 123–136. Howlett, Michael, and Joshua Newman. “Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multi-level governance systems.” Policy and Society 29, no. 1 (3, 2010): 123– 136. Howlett, Michael, and Raul Lejano. “Tales from the Crypt: The Rise and Fall (and Re- Birth?) of Policy Design Studies.” Administration & Society 45, no. 3 (2013): 356–380. Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh, and Anthony Perl. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. 3rd ed. OUP Canada, 2009. Howlett, Michael. “Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi- level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design.” Policy Sciences 42, no. 1 (2009): 73-89. Howlett, Michael. “Policy Analytical Capacity and Evidence-Based Policy-Making: Lessons from Canada.” Canadian Public Administration 52, no. 2 (2009): 153- 175. Howlett, Michael. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments New York: Routledge, 2011. Howlett, Michael, and Benjamin Cashore. “The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 11, no. 1 (2009): 33–46. Huitt, R. K. “Political Feasibility.” In Political Science and Public Policy, edited by A. Rannay, 263-276. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co, 1968. 12 Ingraham, P. “Toward More Systematic Considerations of Policy Design.” Policy Studies Journal 15, no. 4 (1987): 611-628. Ingram, H.,& Schneider, A. (1990). Improving Implementation Through Framing Smarter Statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10 (1), 67-88. Jacobsen, J. K. “Much Ado About Ideas: The Cognitive Factor in Economic Policy.” World Polit., no. 47 (1995): 283-310. Jordan, A., D. Benson, A. Zito, and Wurzel R. “Environmental Policy: Governing by Multiple Policy Instruments?” In Constructing a Policy State? Policy Dynamics in the EU, edited by JJ Richardson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Jordan, Andrew, David Benson, Rudiger Wurzel, and Anthony Zito. “Policy Instruments in Practice.” In Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg, 536–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Kannengiesser, Udo, and John S. Gero. “A Process Framework of Affordances in Design,” n.d. Kern, Florian, and Michael Howlett. “Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector.” Policy Sciences 42, no. 4 (November 1, 2009): 391-408. Kickert, W. J. M., E. H. Klijn, and J. F. M. Koppenjan. Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage 1997. Kiss, Bernadett, Clara González Manchón, and Lena Neij. “The Role of Policy Instruments in Supporting the Development of Mineral Wool Insulation in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom.” Journal of Cleaner Production no. 0. Accessed December 29, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.016 Kiviniemi, M. “Public Policies and Their Targets: A Typology of the Concept of Implementation.” International Social Science Journal 38, no. 108 (1986): 251- 266. Klijn, E. H., & Teisman, G.R. (1991). Effective Policymaking in a Multi-Actor Setting: Networks and Steering. In R. ’T Veld, L. Schaap, C. J. A. M. Termeer, and M J. W. Van Twist (Eds.), Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory: New Approaches to Societal Steering (pp. - 99-111). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Knill, C. (1999). Explaining Cross-National Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 113-139. Knill, C. The Europeanization of National Administrations: Patterns of Institutional Change and Persistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Kooiman, J. (1993). Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics and Diversity. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern Governance (pp. 35-50). London: Sage. Kooiman, Jan. “Exploring the Concept of Governability.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 10, no. 2 (2008): 171-190. Knill, C. The Europeanization of National Administrations: Patterns of Institutional Change and Persistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Landry, R., Varone, F., & Goggin, M. L. (1998). The Determinants of Policy Design: The State of the Theoretical Literature. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. 13 Lasswell, H. (1954). Key Symbols, Signs and Icons. In L. Bryson, L. Finkelstein, R. M. MacIver, and Richard McKean (Eds.), Symbols and Values: An Initial Study (pp. 77- 94). New York: Harper & Bros. Lehmbruch, G. (1991). The Organization of Society, Administrative Strategies, and Policy Networks. In R. M. Czada and A. Windhoff-Heritier, (Eds.), Political Choice: Institutions, Rules, and the Limits of Rationality (pp. 121-155). Boulder: Westview. Lejano, Raul P., and Savita Shankar. “The Contextualist Turn and Schematics of Institutional Fit: Theory and a Case Study from Southern India.” Policy Sciences 46, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 83–102. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9163-9. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B.G. (1984). From Social Theory to Policy Design. Journal of Public Policy, 4 (3), 237-259. Linder, S. H., and B. G. Peters. “Policy Formulation and the Challenge of Conscious Design.” Eval.Program Plann. 13 (1990): 303-311. Linder, S. H., and B. G. Peters. “The Analysis of Design or the Design of Analysis?.” Policy Studies Review 7, no. 4 (1988): 738-750. Linder, S. H., and B. G. Peters.. “Research Perspectives on the Design of Public Policy: Implementation, Formulation, and Design.” In Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening up the Black Box, edited by D. J. Palumbo and D. J. Calista, 51- 66. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990. Linder, S., and B. G. Peters. “The Design of Instruments for Public Policy.” In Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation: Concepts, Knowledge, Causes, and Norms, edited by S. S. Nagel, 103-119. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990. Linder, Stephen H., and B. Guy Peters. “An Institutional Approach to the Theory of Policy-Making: The Role of Guidance Mechanisms in Policy Formulation.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 2, no. 1 (January 1, 1990): 59-83. Linder, Steven, and B. Peters. “The logic of public policy design: Linking policy actors and plausible instruments.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy 4, no. 1 (March 1, 1991): 125-151. Lindvall, Johannes. “The Real but Limited Influence of Expert Ideas.” World Politics 61, no. 04 (8, 2009): 703-730. Lowi, T. J. (1966). Distribution, Regulation, Redistribution: The Functions of Government. In R. B. Ripley (Ed.), Public Policies and Their Politics: Techniques of Government Control (pp. 27-40). New York: W.W. Norton. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice. Public Administration Review, 32 (4), 298-310. Lowi, T. J. (1985). The State in Politics: The Relation Between Policy and Administration. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences (pp. 67-105). Berkeley: University of California Press. MacRae, D., and D. Whittington. Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis and Discourse. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1997. Majone, G. “On the Notion of Political Feasibility.” Eur.J.Polit.Res. 3 (1975): 259-274. Majone, G. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Maley, Maria. “Conceptualising Advisers' Policy Work: The Distinctive Policy Roles of Ministerial Advisers in the Keating Government, 1991–96.” Australian Journal of Political Science 35, no. 3 (2000): 449-449. 14 March, J. G., & Olsen, J.P. (1984). The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review, 78 (3), 734-749. Maskin, Eric S. “Mechanism Design: How to Implement Social Goals.” The American Economic Review 98, no. 3 (June 1, 2008): 567–576. doi:10.2307/29730086. May, P. 2003 Policy Design and Implementation. In B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 223-233). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. May, Peter J. “Hints for Crafting Alternative Policies.” Policy Analysis 7, no. 2 (1981): 227-244. Mayntz, R. (1979). Public Bureaucracies and Policy Implementation. International Social Science Journal, 31 (4), 633-645. Mayntz, R. (1993). Modernization and the Logic of Interorganizational Networks. In J. Child, M. Crozier, and R. Mayntz (Eds.), Societal Change Between Market and Organization (pp. 3-18). Aldershot: Avebury. Meijers, E., D. Stead, and H. Geerlings. “Policy Integration: A Literature Review.” In Policy Integration in Practice: The Integration of Land Use Planning, Transport and Environmental Policy-Making in Denmark, England and Germany, 9–24. Delft: Delft university Press, 2004. Meltsner, A. J. Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Meuleman, L. (2009) Metagoverning Governance Styles: Increasing the Public Manager’s Toolbox. Paper presented at the ECPR general conference, Potsdam. Meuleman, Louis. “The Cultural Dimension of Metagovernance: Why Governance Doctrines May Fail.” Public Organization Review 10, no. 1 (8, 2009): 49-70. Montpetit, E. Misplaced Distrust: Policy Networks and the Environment in France, the United States, and Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2003. O’Toole, L. J. (2000). Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10 (2), 263-288. Offe, C. (2006). Political Institutions and Social Power: Conceptual Explorations. In I. Shapiro, S. Skowronek, and D. Galvin (Eds.), Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State (pp. 9-31). New York: New York University Press. Orren, K., and S. Skowronek. “Regimes and Regime Building in American Government: A Review of Literature on the 1940s.” Political Science Quarterly 113, no. 4 (1998): 689-702. Page, Edward C. “Bureaucrats and expertise: Elucidating a problematic relationship in three tableaux and six jurisdictions.” Sociologie du Travail In Press, Corrected Proof (2010). Peled, A. “Why Style Matters: A Comparison of Two Administrative Reform Initiatives in the Israeli Public Sector, 1989-1998.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12, no. 2 (2002): 217-240. Peled, A. “Why Style Matters: A Comparison of Two Administrative Reform Initiatives in the Israeli Public Sector, 1989-1998.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12, no. 2 (2002): 217-240. Peters, B. G. (1998). The Experimenting Society and Policy Design.” In William N. Dunn (Ed.), The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honour of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 125-139). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. 15 Peters, B. G., P. Eliadis, M. Hill, and M. Howlett. “Conclusion: The Future of Instruments Research.” In Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance, 353–363. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005. Peters, B.G. (1996) The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Peters, B.G., & Pierre, J. 1998 Governance Without Government? Rethinking Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8 (2), 223- 244. Potoski, M. “Designing Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Administrative Procedures and Agency Choice in State Environmental Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2, no. 1 (2002): 1-23. Rayner, J., M. Howlett, J. Wilson, B. Cashore, and G. Hoberg. “Privileging the Sub- Sector: Critical Sub-Sectors and Sectoral Relationships in Forest Policy-Making.” Forest Policy and Economics 2, no. 3 (2001): 319-332. Rhodes, R. A. W. “The New Governance: Governing Without Government.” Political Studies 44 (1996): 652-667. Roch, C., D. Pitts, and I. Navarro. (2010). Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Tools: Ethnicity, Student Discipline, and Representation in Public Schools. Administration & Society, 42(1):38-65. Salamon, L. “Rethinking Public Management: Third Party Government and the Changing Forms of Government Action.” Public Policy 29, no. 3 (1981): 255-275. Salamon, L. M. “The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction.” Fordham Urban Law J. 28, no. 5 (2001): 1611-1674. Salamon, L. M. (1989). The Tools Approach: Basic Analytics.” In L. S. Salamon and M.S. Lund (Eds.). Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action (pp. 23- 50). Washington D.C. Urban Institute. Salamon, L. M. (2002). The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action. In L.M. Salamon (Ed.). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (pp. 1- 47). New York: Oxford University Press. Salamon, L. M. (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance . New York: Oxford University Press. Scharpf, F. W. (1991). Political Institutions, Decision Styles, and Policy Choices.” In R. M. Czada and A. Windhoff-Heritier (Eds.). Political Choice: Institutions, Rules and the Limits of Rationality (pp. 53-86). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990). Policy Design: Elements, Premises and Strategies. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.). Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation: Concepts, Knowledge, Causes and Norms(pp. 77-102). New York: Greenwood, 1990. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Schneider, A. L., and H. Ingram. “Behavioural Assumptions of Policy Tools.” Journal of Politics 52, no. 2 (1990): 511-529. Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. “Social Constructions and Policy Design: Implications for Public Administration.” Research in Public Administration 3 (1994): 137-173. Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87, no. 2 (1993): 334- 347. 16 Schneider, Anne, and Mara Sidney. “What is Next for Policy Design and Social Construction Theory?.” Policy Studies Journal 37, no. 1 (2009): 103-119. Schneider, J. W. “Social Problems Theory: The Constructionist View.” Annual Review of Sociology 11 (1985): 209-229. Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9(3), 181-190. Schön, D.A. “Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation.” Knowledge-Based Systems 5, no. 1 (March 1992): 3-14. Sidney, Mara S. “Policy Formulation: Design and Tools.” In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, edited by Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney, 79-87. New Brunswick, N. J.: CRC Taylor & Francis, 2007. Skodvin, Tora, Anne Therese Gullberg, and Stine Aakre. “Target-group Influence and Political Feasibility: The Case of Climate Policy Design in Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy 17, no. 6 (2010): 854. doi:10.1080/13501763.2010.486991. Stead, D., and E. Meijers. “Policy Integration in Practice: Some Experiences of Integrating Transport, Land-Use Planning and Environmental Politics in Local Government.” In 2004 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Greening of Policies - Interlinkages and Policy Integration, Berlin:1–13, 2004. Stead, D., H. Geerlings, and E. Meijers. Policy Integration in Practice: The Integration of Land Use Planning, Transport and Environmental Policy-Making in Denmark, England and Germany. Delft: Delft university Press, 2004. Sterner, T. (2003). Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Washington DC: Resource for the Future Press. Stimson, J. A. Public Opinion in America: Moods Cycles and Swings. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. Stimson, J. A., M. B. Mackuen, and R. S. Erikson. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89 (1995): 543-565. Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: Norton. Stone, D. A. Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1988. Stone, D. A. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.” Political Science Quarterly 104, no. 2 (1989): 281-300. Surel, Y. “The Role of Cognitive and Normative Frames in Policy-Making.” Journal of European Public Policy 7, no. 4 (2000): 495-512. Suzuki, M. “Political Business Cycles in the Public Mind.” American Political Science Review 86 (1992): 989-996. Thelen, K., J. Mahoney, and D. Rueschemeyer. “How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, 208-240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Thelen, Kathleen. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Timmermans, A., Rothmayr, C., Serduelt, U. and Varone, F. (1998). The Design of Policy Instruments: Perspectives and Concepts. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. Tinbergen, J. (1958). The Design of Development . The Johns Hopkins University Press. 17 Tinbergen, J. (1967). Economic Policy: Principles and Design . Chicago: Rand McNally. Tollefson, Chris, Anthony R. Zito, and Fred Gale. “Symposium Overview: Conceptualizing New Governance Arrangements.” Public Administration 90, no. 1 (2012): 3–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02003.x. Torenvlied, R., and A. Akkerman. “Theory of 'Soft' Policy Implementation in Multilevel Systems with an Application to Social Partnership in the Netherlands.” Acta Politica 39 (2004): 31-58. Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual Orientation in Policy Analysis: The Contribution of Harold D. Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 18, 240-252. Torgerson, D. (1990). Origins of the Policy Orientation: The Aesthetic Dimension in Lasswellʼs Political Vision. History of Political Thought, 11 (Summer), 340-344. Trebilcock, M. J., & Prichard, J.R.S. (1983). Crown Corporations: The Calculus of Instrument Choice. In J.R.S. Prichard ed. Crown Corporations in Canada: The Calculus of Instrument Choice (pp:1-50). Toronto: Butterworths.. Trebilcock, M., & Hartle, D.G.(1982). The Choice of Governing Instrument. International Review of Law and Economics, 2, 29-46. Tupper, A., & Doern, G.B. (1981). Public Corporations and Public Policy in Canada. In Tupper, A., & Doern, G.B eds. Public Corporations and Public Policy in Canada (pp. 1-50). Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Turnpenny, John, Claudio M. Radaelli, Andrew Jordan, and Klaus Jacob. “The Policy and Politics of Policy Appraisal: Emerging Trends and New Directions.” Journal of European Public Policy 16, no. 4 (2009): 640-653. Van der Heijden, Jeroen. “Institutional Layering: A Review of the Use of the Concept.” Politics 31, no. 1 (January 10, 2011): 9–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01397.x. Vedung, E., Bemelmans-Videc, M.L. & Rist, R.C. Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In Vedung, E., Bemelmans-Videc, M.L. & Rist, R.C. eds. Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation (pp.21-58). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Walker, Warren E., S. Adnan Rahman, and Jonathan Cave. “Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making.” European Journal of Operational Research 128, no. 2 (January 16, 2001): 282-289. Walker, Warren E., Vincent A.W.J. Marchau, and Darren Swanson. “Addressing Deep Uncertainty Using Adaptive Policies: Introduction to Section 2.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77, no. 6 (July 2010): 917–923. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.004. Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B.A. (1993). Assessing the Effects of Institutions. In Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B.A. eds. Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad (1-41). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institutions. Webber, D. J. “Analyzing Political Feasibility: Political Scientists' Unique Contribution to Policy Analysis.” Policy Studies Journal 14, no. 4 (1986): 545-554. Weimer, D. L.. “The Craft of Policy Design: can It Be More Than Art?.” Policy Studies Review 11, no. 3 (1992): 370-388. Weimer, David L. “The Current State of Design Craft: Borrowing, Tinkering, and Problem Solving.” Public Administration Review 53, no. 2 (April 1993): 110–120. 18 Weiss, J. A., & Tschirhart, M. (1994). Public Information Campaigns as Policy Instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13 (1), 82-119. Woodside, K. (1986). Policy Instruments and the Study of Public Policy. Can.J.Polit.Sci, 19 (4), 775-793. Wu, Xun, M. Ramesh, Michael Howlett, and Scott Fritzen. The Public Policy Primer: Managing Public Policy. London: Routledge, 2010. Yi, Hongtao, and Richard C Feiock. “Policy Tool Interactions and the Adoption of State Renewable Portfolio Standards.” Review of Policy Research 29, no. 2 (March 1, 2012): 193–206. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00548.x.