The idea of policy design: Intention, process, outcome, meaning and validity

While policy design is a relatively recent term in the social science literature, the concept itself is ancient. The modernist incarnation, from the mid-20th century onwards, is grounded in the applied social sciences: the systematic calculation of prob- lems, values, practices and outcomes. But in many ways, the confidence of the faith in systematic design was not borne out by experience. It became clear that rather than finding expert designers advising authoritative decision-makers and perhaps monitoring the activities of subordinate ‘implementers’, the world of policy was populated by multiple participants in distinct organisational locations, with divergent framings, con- tinuing negotiation on practice, and ambiguity in the understanding of outcomes. There is clearly a tension between the image of policy design and the experience of the activity. The response to this tension in the literature on policy design has largely been aimed at reconciling the experience of practice with the norms of instrumental rationality. It has tended to give little attention to the interpretive significance of ‘design talk’ in the process of governing. This paper argues that ‘policy design’ is an exercise in giving meaning – framing activity in a way that makes practices and outcomes appropriate and valid – and develops a more comprehensive analysis of ‘policy design’ as a concept in use in both policy practice and the analysis of that practice

Work, boundaries and the accomplishment of governing

Work, boundaries and the accomplishment of governingThis article addresses the practices of governing, and the way in which the concepts of “work” and “social boundary” can be applied to make sense of them. It shows how a constitutional/normative account depicts the work of governing, and the social boundaries within which it is carried out, and shows the significance of specialisation, clustering and involvement in the work of governing. It examines the range of activities in governing, the extent to which they become “work-like”, and the tension between involvement and professionalisation. It explores the significance of the concept of boundaries and alternative theorisations of the existence of multiple social formations with accompanying framings of practice. In conclusion, it discusses the significance of multiple accounts in the framing and validation of practice in governing, the way in which collective accomplishments are attributed to the practices of particular actors, and the place of the concepts of “work” and “boundary” in this process.Praca i jej granice a praktyki rządzeniaNiniejszy artykuł podejmuje problem praktyk rządzenia oraz sposobu wykorzystania pojęć „praca” i „granica społeczna” w celu ich zrozumienia. Artykuł ukazuje, w jaki sposób praca związana z rządzeniem, a także jej społeczne granice, prezentowane są w wyjaśnieniach konstytucjonalistycznych/normatywnych, wskazując na znaczenie specjalizacji, koncentracji i zaangażowania w tak rozumianą pracę. Przeanalizowane zostaje wiele działań związanych z rządzeniem, zakres, w jakim stają się one „podobne do pracy”, a także napięcie między zaangażowaniem i profesjonalizacją. Zbadane zostają również znaczenie pojęcia granic oraz alternatywne ujęcia teoretyczne różnorodnych formacji społecznych oraz towarzyszących im podejść do badania praktyk. Na zakończenie w artykule poddane zostają dyskusji znaczenie wielorakich podejść, które służą analizie i uzasadnianiu praktyk rządzenia, sposoby przypisywania zbiorowych osiągnięć praktykom poszczególnych aktorów, jak również miejsce pojęć „praca” i „granica” w opisywanych procesach.Work, boundaries and the accomplishment of governingThis article addresses the practices of governing, and the way in which the concepts of “work” and “social boundary” can be applied to make sense of them. It shows how a constitutional/normative account depicts the work of governing, and the social boundaries within which it is carried out, and shows the significance of specialisation, clustering and involvement in the work of governing. It examines the range of activities in governing, the extent to which they become “work-like”, and the tension between involvement and professionalisation. It explores the significance of the concept of boundaries and alternative theorisations of the existence of multiple social formations with accompanying framings of practice. In conclusion, it discusses the significance of multiple accounts in the framing and validation of practice in governing, the way in which collective accomplishments are attributed to the practices of particular actors, and the place of the concepts of “work” and “boundary” in this process.Praca i jej granice a praktyki rządzeniaNiniejszy artykuł podejmuje problem praktyk rządzenia oraz sposobu wykorzystania pojęć „praca” i „granica społeczna” w celu ich zrozumienia. Artykuł ukazuje, w jaki sposób praca związana z rządzeniem, a także jej społeczne granice, prezentowane są w wyjaśnieniach konstytucjonalistycznych/normatywnych, wskazując na znaczenie specjalizacji, koncentracji i zaangażowania w tak rozumianą pracę. Przeanalizowane zostaje wiele działań związanych z rządzeniem, zakres, w jakim stają się one „podobne do pracy”, a także napięcie między zaangażowaniem i profesjonalizacją. Zbadane zostają również znaczenie pojęcia granic oraz alternatywne ujęcia teoretyczne różnorodnych formacji społecznych oraz towarzyszących im podejść do badania praktyk. Na zakończenie w artykule poddane zostają dyskusji znaczenie wielorakich podejść, które służą analizie i uzasadnianiu praktyk rządzenia, sposoby przypisywania zbiorowych osiągnięć praktykom poszczególnych aktorów, jak również miejsce pojęć „praca” i „granica” w opisywanych procesach

Policy, learning and regime change: Western concepts and CEE experience

This article offers an outsider’s perspective on the place of policy in the analysis of governing in Central and Eastern Europe, both before the change from a communist to a post-communist order, and since. It explores the way in which ‘policy’ is used as a construct in both the practice of governing and the analysis of that practice. It argues that we have to recognise multiple strands – authority, structured interaction, and collective problematisation - in the construction of ‘policy’. It points to a distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘practical’ perspectives, and argues that this distinction reflects structural tensions in the process of ’putting together’ the shared understandings and relationships which make g for ‘governing’, It argues for the importance of continuing research, empirically based and theoretically informed, into the way that governing is ‘put together’ in Central and Eastern Europe, and how both participants and the governed ‘make sense’ of this process

Stasis and change

The normal state of a policy domain is stasis: issues are solved and settled within, and reproducing, the domain’s structural features. Transformative change is the exception, but in the early 21st century a topical one: think of transforming welfare states, identity politics and the transition to sustainability. This chapter reviews theories that seek to explain stasis and change in the same terms. Using examples as illustrations, it discusses various branches of theory. Regarding punctuated equilibrium theory, there appears ample evidence for the main causal claims of the theory, but the role of agency and reflexivity remains obscure. Early neo-institutionalist theorizing is demonstrated to pay more attention to agency and ideas, yet more to explain stasis than change. On the latter account, interpretive and discursive neo-institutionalist theories do much better. Yet future theorizing may benefit from fields like transition studies and urban studies, where the intertwining of policy and societal practices is emphasized