Two logics of participation in policy design

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http

://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Saguin, K.; Cashore, B.

DOI

10.1080/25741292.2022.2038978

Publication date

2022

Document Version

Final published version

Published in

Policy Design and Practice

License

CC BY

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

Saguin, K., & Cashore, B. (2022). Two logics of participation in policy design.

Policy Design

and Practice

(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2038978

General rights

It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)

and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open

content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations

If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please

let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material

inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter

to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You

will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date:09 Sep 2024

INTRODUCTION

Two logics of participation in policy design

Kidjie Saguin

and Benjamin Cashore

Department of Political Science, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands;

The Public

Policy Initiative for Environment and Sustainability (PPIES), Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,

National University of Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT

The formalization of citizen participation in public policy proc-

esses is now widespread. Despite its popularity, just how to

design these initiatives to simultaneously create legitimate arenas

for deliberation on the one hand, and substantive problem solv-

ing on the other hand, remains hotly contested. This Special Issue

on Participatory Policy Design contributes to these questions by

empirically cataloguing a range of practices aimed at engaging

stakeholders in public policy creation and decisions making. The

cases, which span a range of countries and local contexts, provide

several insights for overcoming the limits, and maximizing the

potential, of participatory policy design initiatives. Specifically,

they help unpack, and better understand: the logic of participa-

tion for design which is targeted by those who are concerned

with drawing on inclusionary processes to improve outcomes;

and the logic of design for participation: which is championed by

those who seek to empower the participants and democratic

legitimacy. We argue the integration of these disparate logics

hold the key for fostering transformative collabora-

tive mechanisms.

KEYWORDS

Policy design; citizen

participation; public policy

1. Introduction

One of the most nagging problems confronting students and practitioners of public

policy today is to better craft appropriate and adaptive solutions to increasingly com-

plex policy problems in an unpredictable policy environment. Recognition of this con-

fronts the orthodox ‘science of design’ approach (Simon 1969) that seeks to identify

the most suitable policy mix through a systematic technical analysis of alternative pol-

icy instruments (Linder and Peters 1984; Howlett 2010). However, as this Special Issue

illustrates, an array of policy problems do not easily lend themselves to these

“rationalist” problem-solving methods. From intractable social inequalities to global cli-

mate change to recent trade wars to the COVID-19 pandemic, the evidence is clear

CONTACT Kidjie Saguin [email protected] Department of Political Science, Universiteit van Amsterdam,

Amsterdam, Netherlands

ß 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is

properly cited.

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE

2022, VOL. 5, NO. 1, 1–11

https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2038978

that the most thorny problems are not well-suited to ahistorical, “after the fact”

approaches that seeks to compare alternatives and choose the ‘best’ solution (Head

2008; Cairney 2012). Yet many of today’s policy making deliberations—often dominated

by those trained in technical sciences such as engineering, economics and the physical/

biological sciences—continue to champion elusive efforts to realize Simon’srationalist

“satisficing” approach through increasingly sophisticated “data-driven” analyses, to find,

and advocate for, “optimal” outcomes.

Yet these approaches continue to vex policy makers at multiple levels, challenging

pre-conceived notions of “what works”—al l of which combine to undermine the abil-

ity to engage in for ward looking policy design aimed at addressing c omplex socio-

economic problems . To b e sure, a wide range of soci al sc ience comm unities studying

policy design n ow recognize the li mitations (Howlett and Le jano 2013;Kimbell2016)

for managing th ese “wi c ke d” (Rittel a nd Webber 1973) and “super wicke d ” problems

(Levin et al. 2012).

It is in part owing to the recognition of the inability to engage in purely ahistorical

predictive analyses that led to the “participatory turn” in policy design as a corrective

to the rationalist approach to policy analysis and design. This turn recognizes that pol-

icy design is inherently political and deliberative (Dryzek and Ripley 1988) that is not

captured by rational-technical policy processes, nor by those advocating for authorita-

tive “ top down” governance to address societal challenges.

At the same time, less attention has been applied to disentangling two potentially

countervailing reasons for engaging in participatory analysis. One rationale, conform-

ing to “logic of consequences” is instrumental: that is, citizens bring tacit knowledge

that improve, rather than counteract, the rationality of policy interventions (Fischer

1993). This vision views stakeholder engagement as an instrumental way to generate

relevant knowledge for making sound decisions. A second rationale fits within March

and Olsen’s(1998) conception of a “logic of appropriateness” in that focus attention to

generating legitimacy for the policy and/or the authoritative arena charged with devel-

oping, and implementing, a policy mix by focusing on some type of policy problem.

Even here there are two distinct perspectives. One approach to “appropriateness” is

causal, highlighted by Rittel and Weber (1973), advances a causal argument that delib-

erations shape how problems are conceived and adjudicated and how legitimacy is

enhanced through an argumentative process (see also Risse 2000). Another is norma-

tive, that is, citizens—regardless of the effects – must be included in the processes that

significantly affect their lives (DeLeon 1995; Schneider and Ingram 1997).

Participatory policy design lies at the center of this consequentialist-appropriateness

distinctions to policy design. Yet for the most part both camps reject the other by treat-

ing them as diametrically opposite. This has been reinforced, as Howlett and Lejano

(2013, 13) lamented, the current state of policy design studies as “characterized by mis-

information, ideological predilection, and unnecessarily polarized positions.” As a cor-

rective, a range of policy design scholars are increasingly theorizing, and practically

showing, the benefits of “co-existence” depending on the specific design circumstance

(Dorst and Dijkhuis 1995). This can be advanced, some argue, by differentiating those

processes in which the problem is understood at the outset, from those in which prob-

lem articulation lends itself to a specific kind of design method (Kimbell 2009). Rather

2 K. SAGUIN AND B. CASHORE

than seeing these approaches as challenges of each other’s ontological position or

undermining each other, some argue they might be combined in a mutually reinforcing

fashion (Considine 2012; Kimbell 2016).

This emphasis on integration of literatures to improve, in some way, policy out-

comes and procedures (Scharpf, 2000) has also been matched by the recognition that

participatory policy design is not a panacea. Meaningfully engaging citizens and other

non-state actors in complex technical processes such as budgeting exacts production

costs in designing and organizing efficient solutions (Cooper 1979; Wang and Bryer

2013). As a result, governments sometimes end up turning to participation as a token

empowerment tool that does not, in any meaningful way, advance democratic princi-

ples of inclusion and deliberation (Arnstein 1969). This, in turn, can hinder, rather

than help, efforts to build legitimacy and authority. Similarly, despite the lofty ambi-

tions of policy design for democracy, participatory processes often deliver mixed results

(Mansuri and Rao 2004). While evidence exists that the design of participatory proc-

esses can deliver equitable outcomes, scholars have found that participation often con-

tend with long-standing political structures that privilege elites more than the citizens

it seek to serve (Park and Wang 2010; Saguin 2018). As a result, how participatory

processes can be designed to promote democratic and instrumental rationality still

remains poorly understood.

This special issue begins to fill this gap by bringing together a collection of empiric-

ally grounded scholarly pieces on participatory policy design. To do so we distinguish

different approaches to understanding and advocating for participation—“design for

participation” and “participation for design.” These not only help disentangle different

prescriptive and empirical projects, but also permit us to explore the conditions through

their designs might reinforce, or undermine, the other. We argue that for students and

practitioners of participatory policy design to advance theory and methods, these two

logics —and whether they are reinforcing or undermining— must be anchored in ana-

lysis that is contingent on the key features of the policy problem in question.

2. Design for participation or participation for design?

In the past 30 years, citizen participation in governmental policy processes have

become widespread across transnational, national and local arenas (Michels and De

Graaf 2010; Bryson et al. 2013; Cashore et al. 2019). Individual citizens and civil society

organizations now participate alongside historically entrenched roles of business and,

to a lesser degree, labor organizations (Bherer, Dufour, and Montambeault 2016).

Multi-stakeholder bodies are now deeply involved in the programmatic allocation of

resources, and more recently, in designing how policies are to be implemented through

collaborative mechanisms aimed at “co-creation,”“co-production” and “co-design” of

policy tools and interventions. Participatory policy design is particularly popular within

municipal and town planning as a way to foster more effective and legitimate inclusion

of communities in decisions making that directly affects their lives.

The attractiveness of participatory policy design lies in its ability to simultaneously

pursue rationality, a value thought to be quintessential in modern governments, and

democracy but often ignored when privileging expertise and scientific information

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 3

(Dryzek 1989). Participatory policy design hence requires integrating instrumentalist

consequences (i.e. identifying the best means for the right goals) with appropriateness

orientations (i.e. collective and deliberate generation of normative judgements) by fos-

tering a deliberative method of problem and solution articulation (Mudacumura 2004).

Doing so will help foster problem focused theories about the types of policy design

efforts that, through “the process of inventing, developing and fine-tuning a course of

action” (Dryzek 1983, 346) are capable of, through mutual learning, incorporating the

values and preferences of stakeholders and participants into goals and solutions (Schon

1984). This, in turn, will target participatory design techniques in ways that are

expected to improve policy designer’s understanding of the “realities of the users’ sit-

uation” while the “users” are able to “articulate their desired aims and learn appropri-

ate technological means to obtain them” (Robertson and Simonsen 2012, 2). Thus,

effective participatory policy design both expands the set of available information into

the policy process and folds into the process participants who are often overlooked or

neglected (DeLeon 1990).

Hence, we argue that students of contemporary participatory policy design should

be acquainted with the two inter-related logics when deciding how to approach, under-

stand, and draw conclusions from, empirical cases of efforts to include stakeholders in

policy design exercises. First, the logic of participation for design assesses participation

as an instrument for policy design. This project identifies different design techniques

for including diverse set of interests that might generate new and relevant knowledge

generated outside of expert-driven processes. Second, the logic of design for participa-

tion assesses how stakeholder engagement might improve legitimacy. Disentangling,

but also integrating, these two logics results in insights for how argumentation and

deliberation might improve problem amelioration.

2.1. Participation for design

The designer’s role under the logic of participation for design is to “define the full set of

contending instruments” and facilitate the selection of the best solution to address a

particular problem (Linder and Peters 1991, 127). The collective concern is to promote

instrumental rationality with participation being treated, as DeLeon (1990) argues, as

“distinct from ‘empowerment’, or the immediate and direct involvement of the citi-

zenry in policymaking or political decision-making” as such processes like participatory

policy analysis seek “to inform and advise the decisionmaker, rather than making

the actual decision.” Participatory mechanisms form part of the designer’s toolkit not

only to legitimize actions but also to gather information collectively through argumen-

tation, discussion and exchange of ideas (Howlett 2009; Lewis, McGann, and

Blomkamp 2020).

This logic privileges breadth in participation and thus, falls short of participatory

democracy that “emphasizes debate and reasoning about and toward public interests

and actions in political communities of citizens who govern themselves” (Dryzek 1989,

110). By treating participation instrumentally, participatory processes following this

logic tend to only form a small part of the policy design process, leaving design to the

discretion of professionals and experts. The emphasis for a rational policy design

4 K. SAGUIN AND B. CASHORE

derived through some form of citizen participation can be credulous of power dynam-

ics that naturally operate in government-citizen interactions. Processes can in fact be

disempowering, counteracting the exact purpose of the introduction of participation.

2.2. Design for participation

The more recent efforts within design studies to engage with public policy have been

concerned with examining how participatory processes can be better designed to

empower the participants, and foster creativity and innovation. The principal concern

is more on the unraveling of the how of designing, driven by the “ the need for provid-

ing means for people to be able to be involved, the need for respect for different voices,

the engagement of modes other than the technical or verbal” (Bannon and Ehn 2012,

41). Following this logic, the role of the designer is to create and sustain “conditions

and institutions for strong democratic discourse” (Dryzek 1989, 113). The recent trend

of incorporating design thinking into policy studies is driven by the desire to infuse

creativity and playfulness into the problem and solution search process to challenge the

overemphasis given to rationality (Considine 2012). In contrast to rationality-oriented

participatory processes, design thinking values creativity “over technical expertise and

democratic principles, and imagination over evidence and discussion” (Lewis,

McGann, and Blomkamp 2020, 117). And it does so by involving citizens much earlier

on in the process during problem definition and mechanism design through partici-

pant observation, mapping, sensemaking, games and environmental scanning

(Mintrom and Luetjens 2016). In other words, mastering the methodological procedure

or the form of participation is crucial in reinforcing the logic of appropriateness in

shaping how participants see the procedure as legitimate and meaningful.

When the primary goal of participatory policy design is to attaining depth in partici-

pation through deliberative arenas that promote curiosity and empathy, there is often

less attention to whether this procedure translates into a specific outcome. Hence, the

design for participation logic tends to treat participation as the goal in itself, hardly

going beyond understanding the effectiveness of the procedure at the cost of relating to

broader institutional implications. Such logic falls into the trap of not only failing to

question but also perpetuating “dominant power patterns” (Beck, 2002: 82). Ironically,

design that follows this logic can de-politicize policy design (Huybrechts, Benesch, and

Geib, 2017a) and design thinking in particular suffers from “its naïve blindness to the

politics of the policy process (Clarke and Craft 2019, 14). As a result, “design thinking

fails to reference wider theories of the social and misses opportunities to illuminate the

context into which the designer is intervening” (Kimbell 2011, 295). Systems design or

the design of complex macro-systems, such as urban planning and policy design, can-

not be divorced from the broader set of ‘wicked problems’ it is trying to address

(Buchanan 1992). By privileging the micro-political level of the individuals and groups,

design for participation can fail “to look at the construction of the problem as being

the political core of legitimacy within design participation” (Opazo, Wolff, and Araya

2017, 74). Design research has advanced toward a recognition that “participants

endeavor to enact desired futures and prompt change” (Dantec and DiSalvo 2013, 242)

with the introduction of concepts like “infrastructuring” (Ehn 2008

) and

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 5

"institutioning" (Huybrechts, Benesch and Geib 2017b). The application of design

thinking in policy studies is similarly being nudged to extend beyond its emphasis on

the form to think about its systemic consequences (Clarke and Craft 2019;

Howlett 2020 ).

3. The articles in this special issue

The articles in this Special Issue on Participatory Policy Design elaborates on these two

logics of participatory policy design. Some of the articles document existing empirical

cases that sought to improve how policy designers conduct participatory processes

while others situate participation as part of a complex system of public actions dedi-

cated to address the inherent uncertainties and ambiguities in policymaking. These

paint a comprehensive account of participatory experiments across different policy

contexts, suggesting the universal interest for problem-oriented participation of non-

state actors in policy-making.

They advance a view that policy design is essentially a systemic process in which

participation must be governed by norms and standards of practice that will not only

allow for meaningful participation of stakeholders but also relate to the broader issues

of anticipating and designing policy futures. For example, Blomkamp (2021) develops

an authoritative practice framework for practitioners of participatory approaches to

systemic design. This framework deepens the logic of design for participation by sug-

gesting norms comprised of five core elements—principles, places, process, people and

practice that seek to facilitate how governments and design professionals can jumpstart

collaborative problem-solving. Blomkamp provides insights on the dynamics of solving

wicked problems that requires reframing the parameters of the problems and solutions

being deliberated.

Participatory processes can also, through prototyping, challenge embedded techno-

rational norms that allows for identification of solutions better suited to cope with

multiple ambiguities of the future. For instance, Nogueira and Schimdt (2021) demon-

strate how shifting the focus toward designing for policy (rather than designing of pol-

icy), can generate increased understanding of the structure the problems which can, in

turn, lead to interventions that are causally linked to transformative impacts. For

example, Noguiera and Schimdt’s analysis of bottom-up innovations in structuring the

food waste problems combines systems and behavioral design frameworks to show the

power of prototyping for structuring meaningful interactions. This, in turn, elicited

new questions that technocratic approaches had failed to uncover, let alone address.

For these reasons Nogueira and Schimdt argue that transformative solutions require

simultaneous attention to problem framing and participation.

Similarly, Smedt and Borch (2021) find that a collaborative, participatory policy

design approach to sustainability transitions can generate the necessary knowledge to

adequately respond to complex technological changes. They do this by offering a novel

synthetic framework for integrating narrative accounts into policy design that locates

the contrasting logics of participation within a design spectrum. The focus of the

reflexive game in iterative proto-typing improves the understanding of the problem

that is often, at the outset, either incomplete and under-specified

6 K. SAGUIN AND B. CASHORE

Smedt and Borsh conclude that students of participatory policy design who seek to

eschew the logic of participation for design must situate the participatory process in

the broader political context. In so doing, they view the combination of various partici-

patory instruments with traditional decision-making devices as an inherent component

of effective design. Hence, they recognized the need to focus on political outcomes

rather than implementing participatory processes alone. Gouache (2021) advances

questions about outcomes and participation through the case of participatory foresight

and policy design experiment in Marcoussis, France to stress the need for creative

methods to bring out more unusual suspects to engage in such processes. By offering

‘enjoyable’ experiences to participants, Gouache’s study showed how locating participa-

tory experiments within the larger decision-making systems appears to generate inter-

est among otherwise left-out citizens to be involved in participation.

Lanng, Laursen, and Borg (2021) contribute to novel ideas for inclusion by situating

participatory design methods in the deliberation and articulation of the future of a

rural village. They turn to a case in Denmark in which village decision-making and

participatory techniques were confronted by the broader power dynamics among vari-

ous actors, which worked to constrain the ability of the participatory process to trans-

late to realize desired outcomes. Their study reinforced the need to constantly integrate

politics into problematizing the future, and to, as a result, foster participatory design

approaches that are expected to mobilize the public to sustain the process of problem

amelioration.

In this regard, Perez, Ng, and Tiglao’s (2021) work on employing design thinking in

transportation planning demonstrates the instrumental purpose of participation. Inputs

to better management of bus transit in Pasig City, Philippines were generated by

engaging a diverse of participants to include not only the citizens but also the bus con-

ductors and drivers. This study generates not only political capacity through the legit-

imacy the design thinking workshop but, given the city government was better able to

structure the problem, the important role of organizational analytical capacity.

4. Moving participatory policy design forward: Prospects and challenges

A crucial component to integrating these two logics is to deepen its engagement with

policy studies literature. Policy studies tells us that the very act of arguing and engaging

over specific courses of action may generate norms that cut across organizational inter-

ests, that can, and do, draw on appropriateness motivations to shift consequentialist

expectations (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier 1994). This can occur through the emergence

of advocacy coalitions that tend to focus on broad based policy challenges, such as

environmental degradation, but it can also occur through the generation of scientific

knowledge about the nature of particular problems that then leads to causal norms

about the appropriates of different policy tools for addressing the problem at hand

(Haas 1992). As a result, theories of participatory policy design must reflect on empir-

ical examples for managing both types of consequentialist motivations such that legit-

imacy and outcomes can be simultaneously championed. This requires integrating,

rather than treating as separate, Cox’s(1996) distinction between critical and problem-

solving scholarship.

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 7

Further nuancing participatory innovation’s role in the policy process is important

because most studies of both liberal-democracies and more authoritarian regimes show

that over time, a government’s ability to solve problems in ways that are durable, rather

than temporary, require earning support from both stakeholders and broader civil soci-

ety. Failure to tend to either task can either lead to problem solving approaches that

are usually short-lived, because stakeholder and civil society perceives them as illegit-

imate; or in which legitimate processes lead to exacerbating the problem at hand. For

example, participatory stakeholder engagement to address overharvesting of

Newfoundland’s cod fishery, resulted in a catch limit higher than what scientists pro-

jected was required. The result was the collapse of the cod fishery (Cashore and

Bernstein 2020). This task is highly challenging because emergent policy interventions

often follow non-linear “U-curve” trajectories in which building systems, such as global

supply chain tracking of eco-labeled products, have been projected to be effective in

the long run only by carefully managing a shift from a logic of consequences to a logic

of appropriateness. In some instances, these processes, in turn, may require emphasiz-

ing modest environmental standards in order to generate broad support of global

tracking systems that reward, rather than punish, early supporters—which only then

might pave the way for higher standards once the system is fully routinized (Bernstein

and Cashore 2007; Cashore, et al. 2007; Cashore and Stone 2014). This, in turn,

requires that those leading planning processes have necessarily political and policy cap-

acity expertise with which to identify distinct managerial capacities that will depend on

the nature of the policy tool at hand (Howlett and Ramesh 2016; Cashore 2019; Kekez,

Howlett, & Ramesh, 2019).

What we do know, as highlighted by the contributions to these special issues, is that

finding a way to integrate the benefits of design for participation, and participation for

design, is essentially for uncovering innovative design strategies that can simultan-

eously advance processes that are deemed legitimacy and appropriate, while meaning-

fully addressing the problem at hand.

To do so, it is clear from the articles to follow that policy designers must be guided

by the logic of participation for design as the meaningful involvement of non-state

actors not only for legitimizing decisions under conditions of contested authority but it

also for enabling the expansion of problem structuring beyond the expert-led frame-

work of traditional bureaucracies. Key conclusions emerge for designing effective par-

ticipatory processes including: not being haphazardly designed; allowing for creativity;

avoiding tokenistic gestures.

We argue that the key insights that that emerges from this special issue—curated

during the on-going COVID19 pandemic that posed so many challenges to effective-

ness and legitimacy — is that building better theories of transformative policy decisions

requires integration of insights for fostering participating for design with those focused

on designing for participation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

8 K. SAGUIN AND B. CASHORE

References

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of

Planners 35 (4): 216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.

Bannon, L. J., and P. Ehn. 2012. “Design: Design Matters in Participatory Design.” In

Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design,57–83. Abingdon: Routledge.

Bernstein, S., and B. Cashore. 2007. “Can Non-State Global Governance Be Legitimate? An

Analytical Framework.” Regulation and Governance 1 (4): 347–371. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.

2007.00021.x.

Bherer, L., P. Dufour, and F. Montambeault. 2016. “The participatory democracy turn: an

introduction.” Journal of Civil Society, 12(3), 225–230.

Blomkamp, E. 2021. “Systemic Design Practice for Participatory Policymaking.” Policy Design

and Practice 1–20. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/25741292.2021.1887576.

Bryson, J. M., K. S. Quick, C. S. Slotterback, and B. C. Crosby. 2013. “Designing Public

Participation Processes.” Public Administration Review 73 (1): 23–34. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

6210.2012.02678.x.

Buchanan, R. 1992. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” Design Issues 8 (2): 5–21. doi:10.

2307/1511637.

Cairney, P. 2012. “Complexity Theory in Political Science and Public Policy.” Political Studies

Review 10 (3): 346–358. doi:10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00270.x.

Cashore, B. 2019. “Ch 10 Problems of Bottom-up Collaboration: Evolutionary Pathways and

Capacity Challenges of NSMD Governance Institutions.” In Collaboration and Public Service

Delivery: Promise and Pitfalls Edward Elgar, edited by A. Kekez, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cashore, B., G. Auld, S. Bernstein, and C. L. McDermott. 2007. “ Can Non-State Governance

‘Ratchet Up

’ Global Environmental Standards? Lessons from the Forest Sector.” Review of

European Community & International Environmental Law 16 (2): 158–172. http://www.

scopus.com/scopus/in ward/reco rd.ur l?eid=2-s 2.0-345485 23620& partner ID=40&re l=R7.0.0.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-93 88.2007.00560 .x .

Cashore, B., and S. Bernstein. 2020. Bringing the Environment Back in: Overcoming the

Tragedy of the Diffusion of the Commons Metaphor. Paper presented at the Revised version

of paper presented to the Ostrom workshop, April 2018, Bloomington, Indiana.

Cashore, B., S. Bernstein, D. Humphreys, I. Visseren-Hamakers, and K. Rietig. 2019.

“Designing Stakeholder Learning Dialogues for Effective Global Governance.” Policy and

Society 38 (1): 118–147. doi:10.1080/14494035.2019.1579505.

Cashore, B., and M. Stone. 2014. “Does California Need Delaware? Explaining Indonesian,

Chinese, and United States Support for Legality Compliance of Internationally Traded

Products.” Regulation & Governance 8 (1): 49–73. doi:10.1111/rego.12053.

Clarke, A., and J. Craft. 2019. “The Twin Faces of Public Sector Design.” Governance 32 (1):

5–21. doi:10.1111/gove.12342.

Considine, M. 2012. “Thinking Outside the Box? Applying Design Theory to Public Policy.”

Politics and Policy 40 (4): 704–724. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00372.x.

Cooper, T. L. 1979. “The Hidden Price Tag: Participation Costs and Health Planning.”

American Journal of Public Health 69 (4): 368 –374. doi:10.2105/ajph.69.4.368.

Cox, R. W. 1996. Approaches to World Order. Vol. 40. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Dantec, C. A. L., and C. DiSalvo. 2013. “Infrastructuring and the Formation of Publics in

Participatory Design.” Social Studies of Science 43 (2): 241–264. doi:10.1177/0306312712471581.

DeLeon, P. 1990. “Participatory Policy Analysis: Prescriptions and Precautions.” Asian Journal

of Public Administration 12 (1): 29–54. doi:10.1080/02598272.1990.10800227.

DeLeon, P. 1995. “Democratic Values and the Policy Sciences.” American Journal of Political

Science 39 (4): 886–905. doi:10.2307/2111661.

Dorst, K., and J. Dijkhuis. 1995. “Comparing Paradigms for Describing Design Activity.”

Design Studies 16 (2): 261–274. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(94)00012-3.

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 9

Dryzek, J. S. 1983. “ Don’t Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design.” Journal

of Public Policy 3 (4): 345–367. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00007510.

Dryzek, J. S. 1989. “Policy Sciences of Democracy.” Polity 22 (1): 97–118. doi:10.2307/3234848.

Dryzek, J. S., and B. Ripley. 1988. “The Ambitions of Policy Design.” Review of Policy Research

7 (4): 705–719. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1988.tb00890.x.

Ehn, P. 2008. Participation in Design Things. Paper Presented at the Proceedings Participatory

Design Conference 2008.

Fischer, F. 1993. “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From

Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases.” Policy Sciences 26 (3): 165–187. doi:10.1007/

BF00999715.

Gouache, C. 2021. “Imagining the Future with Citizens: participatory Foresight and

Democratic Policy Design in Marcoussis, France.” Policy Design and Practice 1–20. Advance

online publication. doi:10.1080/25741292.2021.1930687.

Haas, P. 1992. “Introduction:epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.”

International Organization 46 (1): 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001442.

Head, B. W. 2008. “Wicked Problems in Public Policy.” Public Policy 3 (2): 101.DOI: 10.3316/

informit.662880306504754

Howlett, M. 2009. “Governance Modes, Policy Regimes and Operational Plans: A Multi-Level

Nested Model of Policy Instrument Choice and Policy Design.” Policy Sciences 42 (1):

73–89. doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1.

Howlett, M. 2010. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. Abingdon: Routledge.

Howlett, M. 2020. “Challenges in Applying Design Thinking to Public Policy: Dealing With

the Varieties of Policy Formulation and Their Vicissitudes.” Policy and Politics 48 (1):

49–65. doi:10.1332/030557319X15613699681219.

Howlett, M., and R. P. Lejano. 2013. “Tales from the Crypt: The Rise and Fall (and Rebirth?)

of Policy Design.” Administration and Society 45 (3): 357–381. doi:10.1177/

0095399712459725.

Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 2016. “Achilles’ Heels of Governance: Critical Capacity Deficits

and Their Role in Governance Failures.” Regulation and Governance 10 (4): 301–313. doi:10.

1111/rego.12091.

Huybrechts, L., H. Benesch, and J. Geib. 2017a. “Co-design and the Public Realm.” CoDesign,

13(3), 145–147.

Huybrechts, L., H. Benesch, and J. Geib. 2017b. “Institutioning: Participatory Design, Co-

design and the Public Realm.” CoDesign 13 (3): 148–159. doi:10.1080/15710882.2017.

1355006.

Jenkins-Smith, H. C., and P. A. Sabatier. 1994. “Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition

Framework.” Journal of Public Policy 14 (2): 175–203. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00007431.

Kekez, A., M. Howlett, and M. Ramesh, eds. 2019. Collaboration and Public Service Delivery:

Promise and Pitfalls. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kimbell, L. 2009. “Design Practices in Design Thinking.” European Academy of Management 5:

1–24.

Kimbell, L. 2011. “Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I.” Design and Culture 3 (3): 285–306.

doi:10.2752/175470811X13071166525216.

Kimbell, L. 2016. Design in the Time of Policy Problems, In Proceedings of DRS2016: Design þ

Research þ Society  Future-Focused Thinking, Volume 9, edited by P. Lloyd, and E.

Bohemia, 3605–3618. Brighton: Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.

498

Lanng, D., L. H. Laursen, and S. Borg. 2021. “Forming Issues and Publics: participatory

Design Things and Uncertain Rural Futures.”

Policy Design and Practice 1–17. Advance

online publication. doi:10.1080/25741292.2021.1930688.

Levin, K., B. Cashore, S. Bernstein, and G. Auld. 2012. “Overcoming the Tragedy of Super

Wicked Problems: constraining Our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change.”

Policy Sciences 45 (2): 123–152. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.

10 K. SAGUIN AND B. CASHORE

Lewis, J., M. McGann, and E. Blomkamp. 2020. “When Design Meets Power: Design

Thinking, Public Sector Innovation and the Politics of Policymaking.” Policy and Politics 48

(1): 111–130. doi:10.1332/030557319X15579230420081.

Linder, S., and B. G. Peters. 1991. “The Logic of Public Policy Design: Linking Policy Actors

and Plausible Instruments.” Knowledge and Policy 4(1–2): 125–151. doi:10.1007/

BF02692751.

Linder, S. H., and B. G. Peters. 1984. “From Social Theory to Policy Design.” Journal of Public

Policy 4 (3): 237–259. doi:10.1017/S0143814X0000221X.

Mansuri, G., and V. Rao. 2004. “Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical

Review.” The World Bank Research Observer 19 (1): 1–39. doi:10.1093/wbro/lkh012.

March, J. G., and J. P. Olsen. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political

Orders.” International Organization 52 (4): 943–969. doi:10.1162/002081898550699.

Michels, A., and L. De Graaf. 2010. “Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory

Policy Making and Democracy.” Local Government Studies 36 (4): 477–491. doi:10.1080/

03003930.2010.494101.

Mintrom, M., and J. Luetjens. 2016. “Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes:

Opportunities and Challenges.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 (3): 391–402.

doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12211.

Mudacumura, G. 2004. “Participatory Development Policy Design: Integrating Instrumental

and Democratic Rationality.” In Handbook of Development Policy Studies, edited by G. M.

Mudacumura and S. Hoque, 629–644. New York: Routledge.

Nogueira, A., and R. Schmidt. 2021. “Participatory Policy Design: Igniting Systems Change

through Prototyping.” Policy Design and Practice 1

–19. Advance online publication. doi:10.

1080/25741292.2021.1888399.

Opazo, D., M. Wolff, and M. J. Araya. 2017. “Imagination and the Political in Design

Participation.” Design Issues 33 (4): 73–82. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00462.

Park, A., and S. Wang. 2010. “Community-Based Development and Poverty Alleviation: An

Evaluation of China’s Poor Village Investment Program.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (9-

10): 790–799. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.06.005.

Risse, T. (2000). “Let’s argue!”: communicative action in world politics. International organiza-

tion, 54(1), 1–39.

Rittel, H. 1972. On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of The’ first and Second Generations.

Bedriftskonomen, 8: 390–396.

Rittel, H. W., and M. M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy

Sciences 4 (2): 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.

Robertson, T., and J. Simonsen. 2012. “Participatory Design: An Introduction.” In Routledge

International Handbook of Participatory Design,21–38. Abingdon: Routledge.

Saguin, K. 2018. “Why the Poor Do Not Benefit from Community-Driven Development:

Lessons from Participatory Budgeting.” World Development 112: 220–232. doi:10.1016/j.

worlddev.2018.08.009.

Scharpf, F. W. (2000). Institutions in comparative policy research. Comparative political stud-

ies, 33(6–7), 762–790.

Schneider, A. L., and H. M. Ingram. 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS:

University Press of Kansas.

Schon, D. A. 1984. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Vol. 5126.

New York: Basic Books.

Simon, H. A. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial

. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Smedt, P., and Kristian Borch. 2021. “Participatory Policy Design in System Innovation.”

Policy Design and Practice doi:10.1080/25741292.2021.1887592.

Wang, X., and T. A. Bryer. 2013. “Assessing the Costs of Public Participation: A Case Study of

Two Online Participation Mechanisms.” The American Review of Public Administration 43

(2): 179–199. doi:10.1177/0275074012438727.

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 11