From Policy Measures to Policy Packages

Abstract

It is increasingly evident that harnessing the potential synergetic relationships that exist between certain policy measures can significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of policy interventions. However, while normative sentiments of “integrated policy” and “joined-up government” are well-established, minimal academic attention has, thus far, been paid to considerations of how such relationships might be strategically advanced in promoting effective policy interventions. Framed in relation to transport policy, this paper, thus, tentatively proposes a heuristic framework that seeks to engage with the major conceptual and procedural concerns involved in bona fide “policy packaging”. Wary of naive prescription, the framework is not intended to function as a universal blueprint for policy-making. Rather, we aim to critically examine a number of salient principles that appear to have generic policy relevance across institutional contexts and jurisdictional scales. Fundamentally, the paper argues that while policy packaging can certainly support effective and efficient policy-making—not least through enhancing interventions' implementation and the ex ante mitigation of unintended effects—the packaging process requires a deep and holistic appreciation of policy subsystems, together with a structured approach, if its benefits are to be genuinely realized.

Acknowledgements

This research forms part of the project “Optimal Policies for Transport In Combination” (OPTIC), which was generously funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° TREN/FP7TR/233681/"OPTIC”.

Notes

It should, of course, not be interpreted from this that policy effectiveness and efficiency are more important than other criteria used to appraise good governance, such as justice, transparency, accountability or inclusivity. Rather, it merely reflects the specific, instrumental value of policy packaging as a means of achieving desired ends.

Taeihagh et al. (2009, 2013) make a conceptual distinction between facilitation and synergetic linkages, whereby the former concerns unidirectional benefits (from Measure A to Measure B) while the latter concerns mutual benefits (from Measure A to Measure B and vice versa). However, for our purposes, this level of specification is not required and we consider the two as synonymous.

Taeihagh et al. (2009, 2013) make a conceptual distinction between contradictory relations and potentially contradictory relations.

Examples of politically safe objectives might be “reducing congestion” or creating “efficient transport systems”. Few would disagree with the validity of these, but this “safety” merely shifts the conflict to the level of policy formulation and measure selection. In the former case, a corresponding policy target might be “traffic reduction”; however, it is important to recognize that this objective and target may allow for different policy responses. Also, what falls out of the politics may not be an objective at all, but rather a concrete measure or intervention with vague, implicit or unmeasureable objectives attached.

For the purposes of this paper, we only focus solely on measure addition. However, we naturally recognise that several other courses of action exist for dealing with less-than-satisfactory interventions, including the modification or removal of measures already in the package.