Policy Design and Tools
POSC 315 | Week 11
Understanding how policies are crafted to address public problems
Policy Design
The process by which policies are designed—through technical analysis and political negotiation—to achieve a public goal.
- Occurs across the policy process, not just at the beginning
- Involves selecting policy tools to pursue goals
- Balances technical feasibility with political acceptability
Key Insight:
Every design choice involves trade-offs—between values, goals, and outcomes
Policy Design and Implementation
Design Influences Implementation
- Shapes available resources
- Establishes timelines and milestones
- Determines which agencies are involved
- Sets parameters for discretion
Implementation Informs Design
- Experience can change the design
- Implementation reveals unforeseen obstacles
- Feedback loops may alter understanding of the problem
- Administrative agencies interpret vague legislative commands
The relationship between design and implementation is iterative, not linear
Five Elements of Policy Design
- Goals - What is the policy trying to achieve?
- Causal Theory - What is the theory of change?
- Tools - What tools will be used to achieve the goals?
- Target Population - Who is the policy trying to affect?
- Implementation - How will the policy be implemented?
These five elements must work together coherently for a policy to succeed
Goals
The desired outcomes of the policy - what the policy is trying to achieve
Explicit Goals
- Stated clearly in the policy text
- Found in legislative history
- Articulated in public statements
- Measurable objectives and targets
Implicit Goals
- Embedded in policy design choices
- Revealed through implementation priorities
- Sometimes political or symbolic
- May reflect unstated priorities
Multiple, sometimes conflicting goals often exist within the same policy
Causal Theory
The theory about what causes a problem and how the policy will address it
- Forms the foundation of policy logic - the theory of change
- Essential for measuring the policy's success
- Shapes selection of appropriate policy tools
- Informs implementation strategies
- Poor theory can lead to policy failure even with perfect implementation
If your causal theory is wrong, even the most well-implemented policy will fail to achieve its goals
Causal Theory:
Problem Definition → Policy Design
Problems are socially constructed and defined - they don't simply exist "out there"
- Different stakeholders frame problems differently
- Each problem definition implies a different solution
- Whoever successfully defines the problem gains advantage in designing the solution
- Problems must be defined as something we can do something about
Problem Definition Example
Example: Homelessness
Defined as:
- Housing affordability crisis
- Mental health/addiction issue
- Economic displacement
Resulting Policy Approaches:
- Affordable housing development
- Treatment and services
- Job programs and economic support
The way we define the problem shapes the solutions we consider
Policy Goals
from Deborah Stone's Policy Paradox
- Security - Protecting people from harm
- Liberty - Protecting people's rights
- Efficiency - Getting the most out of resources
- Equity - Fairness in the distribution of resources
Stone argues these goals are inherently in tension with one another - policy design involves making trade-offs between them
Source: Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making
Equality: A Contested Goal
Equality of Opportunity
- Dominant in American political discourse
- Everyone starts with same rules and chances
- Policy focuses on removing barriers to entry
- Minimal intervention in markets
- Examples: Anti-discrimination laws, public education
Equality of Outcome
- More prevalent in social democracies
- Focuses on end distribution of resources
- Policy aims to narrow gaps between groups
- More significant market interventions
- Examples: Progressive taxation, universal benefits
Trade-offs involve balancing individual liberty with collective welfare, and efficiency with equity
Efficiency: A Contested Goal
Core Concept
- Often defined as achieving the most output for the least input
- Usually a means to a goal, not an end in itself
- The idea is to achieve an objective with the least amount of resources
- Often in conflict with other goals like equity or comprehensiveness
Key Questions
- How do we define and measure inputs?
- How do we define and measure outputs?
- Efficiency for whom? (Government, citizens, specific groups?)
- What timeframe are we considering? (Short vs. long-term)
Efficiency is not neutral or objective - it depends on how we value different inputs and outputs
Efficiency: A Contested Goal
Problems of efficiency:
Measurement Challenges
- What are the inputs and outputs?
- How do we measure them accurately?
- What is the appropriate time frame?
- What is the opportunity cost?
Policy Examples
- Education: Cost per student vs. quality metrics
- Healthcare: Treatment speed vs. health outcomes
- Welfare: Administrative costs vs. benefits delivered
- Infrastructure: Quick fixes vs. sustainable solutions
Efficiency: A Contested Goal
A good public library is not one that owns all the books that have ever been published, but one that has used its limited funds to build up as good a collection as possible under the circumstances
- Herbert Simon
Efficiency is about making the best possible use of limited resources, not maximizing every possible outcome
Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (1947)
Efficiency: A Contested Goal
People who oppose certain programs will often do so because they disagree with the substance of the policy. But it is much easier—and often more successful—to claim or expose how a policy is wasteful, rather than arguing about the policy's merits because nobody favors waste.
- Deborah Stone
Efficiency arguments can be strategic and political, not just technical
Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making
Equity: A Contested Goal
Equity is fairness in the distribution of resources, opportunities, and outcomes
- Often in tension with efficiency and sometimes with liberty
- Different conceptions of what counts as "fair"
- Contested views on whether process or outcomes matter more
- Disagreement about which inequities require intervention
Forms of Equity
- Horizontal equity (treating similar cases similarly)
- Vertical equity (treating different cases differently)
- Intergenerational equity
- Procedural vs. substantive equity
Policy Approaches
- Universal programs
- Targeted interventions
- Redistributive policies
- Procedural safeguards
Security vs. Liberty: Conflicting Goals
Thomas Hobbes' tradeoff:
- Give up some liberties to the state, which holds the most power, so there is security
- This is an authoritarian view of the state
- Emphasizes security as prerequisite for all other rights
- Views human nature as requiring strong control
John Locke's approach:
- Form a social contract wherein one surrenders some liberties to create a government of limited power
- Democratic view of the state
- Sees liberty as fundamental natural right
- Government exists primarily to protect rights
These competing philosophical traditions continue to shape contemporary policy debates
Security vs. Liberty: Modern Applications
This fundamental tension plays out in numerous policy areas:
- National Security: Surveillance vs. privacy rights
- Public Health: Mandatory measures vs. individual choice
- Gun Control: Public safety vs. individual rights to bear arms
- Internet Regulation: Protection from harm vs. free speech
The design question is not whether to limit liberty for security, but how much and in what ways to balance these competing goods
Ambiguity and Goal Conflict
Policy design reveals that goals are often ambiguous and in conflict with one another
- Different stakeholders prioritize different goals
- Policy design reveals conflicts over means of achieving goals
- Different policy goals can be in conflict with one another
- For example: Immigration policy versus foreign relations policy with Mexico
Conflicts are not hopeless! They are complex. Good policy finds a balance.
Policy ambiguity can sometimes be strategic - allowing coalitions to form around different interpretations
Goal Conflicts - Real World Examples
Environmental Policy
- Environmental protection vs. economic growth
- Carbon reduction vs. energy affordability
- Conservation vs. resource development
- Local impacts vs. global benefits
Healthcare Policy
- Universal access vs. cost containment
- Quality of care vs. efficiency
- Patient choice vs. standardized treatments
- Prevention vs. treatment funding
The most effective policies don't eliminate conflicts - they manage them transparently
Balancing Competing Goals
Common Trade-offs
- Efficiency vs. Equity: Cost-effectiveness vs. fair distribution
- Security vs. Liberty: Protection vs. freedom
- Speed vs. Deliberation: Quick action vs. careful planning
- Standardization vs. Flexibility: Consistency vs. adaptability
Balancing Strategies
- Prioritization - which goal takes precedence?
- Compromise - finding middle ground
- Sequencing - different goals at different stages
- Compensation - offsetting negative impacts
- Mixed strategies - different approaches for different segments
Policy design is not about eliminating all tensions, but making thoughtful choices about trade-offs
Case Study: Balancing Competing Goals
Healthcare Policy Example
Competing Goals
- Universal Access: Everyone gets healthcare
- Quality: High standards of care
- Cost Control: Affordable for society
- Provider Autonomy: Medical judgment
- Patient Choice: Selection of providers/treatments
Balancing Approaches
- Tiered Systems: Basic universal coverage with optional supplements
- Quality Metrics: Performance-based payments
- Managed Care: Coordinated services with oversight
- Public-Private Mix: Different sectors handle different aspects
Policy designers must explicitly address these tensions rather than ignoring them
Complexity and Differing Goals
Is the purpose of the goal to eliminate a problem, hold steady a growing problem, or reduce the problem to a lower level?
War on Drugs Example
- Elimination: Zero tolerance, maximum enforcement, severe penalties
- Holding Steady: Targeted enforcement, education campaigns
- Reduction: Harm reduction strategies, treatment over punishment
Each approach implies different tools, resources, timeframes, and metrics for success
Scalability of Policy Goals
Goal Intensity Questions
- How much change is needed?
- What is politically feasible?
- What is administratively possible?
- What resources are available?
- What is the timeframe?
Target Setting Example
- Ambitious: Carbon neutrality by 2030
- Moderate: 50% emissions reduction by 2035
- Minimal: Stabilize emissions by 2040
- Each target demands different policy tools
Policy designers must balance ambition with feasibility when setting targets
Policy Design Framework
Core Elements
- Goals: What the policy is trying to achieve
- Causal Theory: Why the proposed solution will work
- Tools: The instruments used to achieve goals
- Implementation: How the policy is carried out
Cross-Cutting Themes
- Equity: Who benefits or bears costs?
- Efficiency: Are we using resources well?
- Political Feasibility: Can it gain support?
- Administrative Capacity: Can it be implemented?
Design is the intersection of logic, values, and institutional capacity
Policy Tools
The means by which the policy will achieve its goals
- How government seeks a policy objective
- The interface between the government's intentions and actual implementation outcomes
- Range from direct provision to market incentives to regulations
The selection of appropriate policy tools is crucial for successful implementation
Policy Tool Typology
Schneider & Ingram (1990)
- Authority tools: Rules backed by sanctions (e.g., mandates)
- Incentive tools: Rewards or penalties (e.g., taxes, subsidies)
- Capacity tools: Build ability to comply (e.g., training, funding)
- Symbolic tools: Signal intent or values (e.g., proclamations)
Most policies use a mix of tools, each reflecting assumptions about how people behave
Dimensions of Policy Tools
Type of Activity
- Money (grants, payments)
- Services, protections, restrictions
Delivery System
- Direct (govt) vs. Indirect (nonprofits, contractors)
Centralization
- Federal, state, or shared
Complexity
- Simple vs. layered or customized
Effective tools match the problem’s nature, target population, and administrative context
Love, Fear, and Money (Etzioni 1961)
Three basic reasons why people comply with rules, orders, or policy:
- Love: Compliance out of a sense of agreement, love, or moral obligation
- Fear: Compliance out of a sense of fear of punishment
- Money: Compliance is in one's monetary or remunerative interest
Effective policies find a balance between low levels of fear and high levels of love and money
Source: Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations
Love, Fear, and Money - Applications
Policy Examples
- Love: Public campaigns that appeal to moral duty (recycling, blood donation)
- Fear: Traffic fines, criminal penalties, business regulations
- Money: Tax incentives, subsidies, grants, economic benefits
Trade-offs
- Fear-based tools are often immediately effective but create resistance
- Love-based tools create sustainable behavior but take time to develop
- Money-based tools work well but can be expensive and create dependency
Different policy domains may require different compliance mechanisms
Balancing Compliance Mechanisms
Policy designers must consider:
- Cultural context - what motivates the target population?
- Time horizon - immediate compliance vs. long-term sustainability
- Resource constraints - economic tools require budgets
- Political feasibility - coercive tools face more resistance
- Administrative capacity - can the implementing agency enforce?
The most effective policies typically employ a mix of all three mechanisms tailored to context and goals
Policy Tool Considerations
- Non-Coercive to coercive (love to fear) exist along a continuum
- The extent to which government will use its resources to achieve a policy goal
- Choosing effective tools requires a good causal theory
Questions to Ask
- What behavior needs to change?
- Who needs to take action?
- What might motivate compliance?
- What tools are politically feasible?
Tool Selection Criteria
- Effectiveness
- Efficiency
- Equity
- Enforceability
- Political acceptability
Models of Policy Tools
Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl
Policy tools represent the specific instruments governments use to implement policies and achieve policy goals.
They range from direct service provision to market incentives to regulations.
The choice of tools reflects both technical considerations and political values
Source: Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems
Economic Tools
Characteristics
- Favor individual freedom and choice
- Tend to use non-coercive means
- Makes many assumptions about what is "possible" and what is "rational"
- Assumes that people are rational actors
Examples
- Subsidies: Agriculture, energy, housing
- Tax incentives: R&D credits, mortgage deductions
- Vouchers: Education, housing, healthcare
- User fees: Parks, highways, utilities
- Market creation: Cap and trade systems
Economic Tools: Trade-offs
Advantages
- Preserve individual choice and market mechanisms
- Often more politically palatable than regulations
- Can harness market efficiency for public goals
- Allow flexible responses by target populations
Disadvantages
- May not work when markets are imperfect
- Can be captured by special interests
- Benefits may be unequally distributed
- Effectiveness depends on accurate pricing
- May have unintended consequences
Economic tools work best when markets function well and policy goals align with individual self-interest
Political Tools
"Any instrument [or tool] can theoretically accomplish any chosen aim, but governments prefer less coercive instruments unless forced by either recalcitrance on the part of the subject and/or continued social pressure for change to utilize more coercive instruments."
- Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl
Political Tool Examples:
- Regulations: Command-and-control rules
- Direct provision: Government services
- Information: Public campaigns
- Public enterprises: State-owned entities
Source: Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems
Tools and Choices
Key Considerations
- Technically sound design ≠ political viability
- Resources constrain available options
- Behavioral assumptions matter
- Multiple tools typically needed
Tool Selection Factors
- Administrative capacity
- Organizational culture
- Past policy experiences
- Political support/opposition
- Time constraints
The most successful policies use complementary tools that address different aspects of the problem
Objective and Subjective Tools
Objective - Rational Characteristics
- Target population: The citizens who receive the benefits or bear the costs of the policy
- Values: What is being distributed or promoted
- Rules: Guidelines governing or constraining action
- Rationales: The justification for the policy
- Assumptions: Behavioral theories that tie all of these together
These represent the technical elements of policy design - the "mechanics" of how policies function
Objective and Subjective Tools
Subjective - Value Characteristics
- Who justifiably deserves the costs and benefits of the policy?
- What values should be backed by the coercive powers of the state?
- Who (or what) should have the freedom of action promoted or constrained to uphold those values?
These represent the normative and political dimensions of policy design
Objective and Subjective Elements: Interplay
Climate Policy Example
Objective elements:
- Carbon pricing mechanisms
- Emissions targets and timelines
- Reporting requirements
- Enforcement structures
Subjective elements:
- Intergenerational justice concerns
- Distribution of transition costs
- Rights of affected communities
- Balance between global and local interests
Effective policy design requires attention to both dimensions
Integrating Policy Design Elements
- Goals must be clearly articulated but may require flexibility
- Causal theories should be evidence-based but acknowledge uncertainties
- Tools should match both the technical aspects of the problem and reflect societal values
- Target populations must be precisely defined while considering equity implications
- Implementation plans need to address both administrative capacity and political sustainability
The art of policy design lies in synthesizing technical expertise with democratic values
Policy Design in Practice
Challenges
- Incomplete information
- Value conflicts
- Resource constraints
- Political pressures
- Implementation complexities
Strategies
- Pilot programs
- Phased implementation
- Adaptive management
- Inclusive design processes
- Evidence-based approaches
Policy design is iterative, not linear - it requires ongoing learning and adaptation
Apply the Framework
Use these design questions to strengthen your policy process paper:
- What are the policy's stated and unstated goals?
- What is the causal logic? Why will this work?
- What tool(s) are used, and why?
- Who is the target population?
- How is the policy implemented?
- What trade-offs are present—between equity, efficiency, and feasibility?
Show that you’ve thought through these design choices—not just what the policy does, but how and why
That's it for Today
Next Time: Implementation
We'll explore how policy designs translate into real-world action
Remember: Good policy design balances technical effectiveness with political feasibility and democratic values