R&D policy instruments – a critical review of what we do and don’t know

In recent years, the term ‘policy instrument’ has been used more frequently with regard to R&D policy and innovation policy. What does this term mean? Where did it come from? What do we know about it, both with regard to the general field of policy studies but also in the specific context of R&D policy? This article examines the development of the notion of policy instruments as part of a body of research known as ‘policy design’. Over the last 50 years, there has been substantial progress in setting policy design on a more systematic basis, with the development of established concepts and analytical frameworks, including various taxonomies of policy instruments. However, with just a few exceptions, this body of research seems to have had little impact in the world of R&D policy. The paper reviews the literature on R&D policy instruments. It identifies a number of challenges for R&D policy instruments in the light of four transitions – the shift from linear to systemic thinking about R&D and innovation, the shift from national governments to multi-level governance, the shift from individual actors to collaborations and networks, and the shift from individual policies to policy mixes. It sets out a research agenda for the study of R&D policy instruments, before ending with a number of conclusions

Employment Policy confronted with new patterns of governance centred on coordination and performance

At both the global and local levels, employment policy currently constitutes one of the major issues confronted by governments faced with economic crises and globalization. The success of these policies depends, in particular, on their ability to link together initiatives undertaken not only at different levels of power, but also within a single level between multiple actors that (more or less) have prerogatives in matters of employment policy. This domain of public policy constitutes a unique space in which to analyse the developments and circulation of principles promoted by advocates of two new patterns of governance: New Public Management and the Open Method of Coordination. On the basis of a qualitative analysis conducted with employment policy actors in the Brussels-Capital Region (BCR), this article studies the difficulties these actors come up against when faced with the implementation expectations of new managerial demands, as well as coordination demands that force an increasingly flexible economic landscape and an increasingly complex institutional landscape onto these actors. Enumerating the difficulties encountered, the article also updates the strategies put into place by the actors themselves to address the often severe diagnoses that are made of the situations to which they are subject. This article also constitutes a contribution to the clarification of both the favourable and undesirable conditions for the establishment of new forms of governance within public policy. Points for practitioners In most countries, employment policies figure among the highest priorities. When new initiatives in this sector need to be elaborated and implemented, practitioners attempt to balance a wide variety of opinions, focusing on the coherence of their decisions and actions. In the context of performance management, practitioners are also required to demonstrate the success of their public interventions. In Europe, these expectations are exacerbated by the requirements of the Open Method of Coordination and New Public Management. The appropriation of these two patterns of governance depends on a given practitioner's receptivity regarding the perceived utility of these patterns to their particular work. © The Author(s) 2011.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Mechanisms of environmental policy change in a federal system: The case of open federalism and the 2006–15 Harper government

Between 2006 and 2011, the Canadian Conservative government advocated the concept of ‘open federalism’ which sought to minimize the role of the federal government in areas falling under provincial jurisdiction. Environmental policy-making was particularly impacted with the passage of the highly contentious 2012 omnibus Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, commonly known as Bill C-38. This paper argues that environmental policy needs to ‘bring back federalism’ into their analysis. In order to do so, a mechanisms approach is employed and focuses on the role of both macro and meso level historical institutionalism mechanisms in explaining policy layering and policy dismantling during this period

The governance of self-organization: Which governance strategy do policy officials and citizens prefer?

This article compares views of policy officials and members of community-based collectives on the ideal role of government in processes of community self-organization. By using Q methodology, we presented statements on four different governance perspectives: traditional public administration, New Public Management, network governance, and self-governance. Perceptions differ about how government should respond to the trend of community self-organization and, in particular, about the primacy of the relationship. Whereas some public servants and collectives favor hands-off involvement of policy officials, others show a preference for a more direct and interactive relation between government and community-based collectives. In general, neither of the two groups have much appreciation for policy instruments based on performance indicators, connected to the New Public Management perspective or strong involvement of politicians, connected the traditional public administration perspective. This article contributes to the discussion of how practitioners see and combine governance perspectives and serve to enable dialogs between practitioners