The criteria for effective policy design: character and context in policy instrument choice

References

• Araral, E. (2014). Policy and regulatory design for developing countries: A mechanism design and transaction cost approach. Policy Sciences, 1–15. doi:10.1007/s11077-013-9192-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ariely, D. (2010). Predictably irrational, revised and expanded edition: The hidden forces that shape our decisions (1 Exp Rev ed.). New York: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B., Leroy, P., & Van Tatenhove, J. (2006). Political modernisation and policy arrangements: A framework for understanding environmental policy change. Public Organization Review, 6, 93–106. doi:10.1007/s11115-006-0001-4
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B., Van Tatenhove, J., & Goverde, H. (2000). Environmental policy arrangements: a new concept. In Global and European Polity? Organizations, Policies, Contexts, 223–37. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Bason, C. (2014). Design for policy. Farnham: Gower Pub Co.
   Google Scholar
• Beland, D. (2007). Ideas and institutional change in social security: Conversion, layering and policy drift. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 20–38. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00444.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. (Eds.). (1998). Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bobrow, D. (2006). Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In B. Guy Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 75–96). New York, NY: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: Voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 346–359. doi:10.1177/0958928706068273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boonekamp, P. G. M. (2006, November). Actual interaction effects between policy measures for energy efficiency–A qualitative matrix method and quantitative simulation results for households. Energy, 31(14), 2848–2873. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braathen, N. A. (2007, May 16). Instrument mixes for environmental policy: How many stones should be used to kill a bird?. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 1(2), 185–235. doi:10.1561/101.00000005
   Google Scholar
• Braathen, N. A., & Croci, E. (2005). Environmental agreements used in combination with other policy instruments. In E. Croci (Ed.), The handbook of environmental voluntary agreements (Vol. 43, pp. 335–364). Dodrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brandl, J. (1988). On politics and policy analysis as the design and assessment of institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(3), 419–424. doi:10.2307/3323721
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briassoulis, H. (2005a). Analysis of policy integration: Conceptual and methodological considerations. In Briassoulis (Ed.), Policy integration for complex environmental problems: The example of Mediterranean desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Briassoulis, H. (Ed.). (2005b). Policy integration for complex environmental problems: The example of Mediterranean desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, P. (2012). Policy as Palimpsest. Policy & Politics, 40(3), 423–443. doi:10.1332/030557312X626613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashore, B., & Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 532–551. doi:10.1111/ajps.2007.51.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, R. (2003). A policy mix for environmentally sustainable development - Learning from the Dutch experience. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 7(1), 29–51.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., & Wise, L. R. (2002). Transforming administrative policy. Public Administration, 80(1), 153–179. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A Garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. doi:10.2307/2392088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Considine, M. (2012). Thinking outside the box? Applying design theory to public policy. Politics & Policy, 40(4), 704–724. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00372.x
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A., & Randall, A. (2011, August). Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 1005–1014. doi:10.16/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare: Planning and politico-economic systems resolved into basic social processes. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C. (2009). Sequencing in public policy: The evolution of the CAP over a decade. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(2), 395–411. doi:10.1080/13501760802662698
   Google Scholar
• Del Río, P. (2010, September). Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and energy efficiency support schemes: The impact of different instruments and design elements. Energy Policy, 38(9), 4978–4989. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Río, P., Calvo Silvosa, A., & Iglesias Gómez, G. (2011, April). Policies and design elements for the repowering of wind farms: A qualitative analysis of different options. Energy Policy, 39(4), 1897–1908. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• deLeon, P. (1988). The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 297–309. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1988.tb00583.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewees, D. N. (1983). Instrument choice in environmental policy. Economic Inquiry, 31, 53–71. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1983.tb00616.x
   Google Scholar
• Doern, G. B. (1981). The nature of scientific and technological controversy in federal policy formation. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Doern, G. B., & Phidd, R. W. (1983). Canadian public policy: Ideas, structure, process. Toronto: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Doern, G. B., & Wilson, V. S. (1974). Conclusions and observations. In Issues in Canadian public policy (pp. 337–345). Toronto: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 217–232. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00036-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. (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
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek John, S., & Ripley, B. (Eds.) (1988). The ambitions of policy design. Policy Studies Review, 7(4), 705–719. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1988.tb00890.x
   Google Scholar
• Duesberg, S., Dhubháin, Á. N., & O’Connor, D. (2014, May). Assessing policy tools for encouraging farm afforestation in Ireland. Land Use Policy, 38, 194–203. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelman, M. (1964). The Symbolic uses of politics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eijlander, P. (2005). Possibilities and constraints in the use of self-regulation and co-regulation in legislative policy: Experiences in the Netherlands - lessons to be learned for the EU. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 9(1), 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Eliadis, P., Hill, M., & Howlett, M. (Eds.). (2005). Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feindt, P. H., & Flynn, A. (2009, September). Policy stretching and institutional layering: British food policy between security, safety, quality, health and climate change. British Politics, 4(3), 386–414. doi:10.1057/bp.2009.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011, June). Reconceptualising the ‘Policy Mix’ for Innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franchino, F., & Hoyland, B. (2009). Legislative involvement in parliamentary systems: Opportunities, conflict and institutional constraints. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 607–621. doi:10.1017/S0003055409990177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, G. P. (1985). National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), 467–496. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00003287
   Google Scholar
• Gevrek, Z. E., & Uyduranoglu, A. (2015, October). Public preferences for carbon tax attributes. Ecological Economics, 118, 186–197. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. B. (1999). Voluntary initiatives: The new politics of corporate greening. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilabert, P., & Lawford‐Smith, H. (2012). Political feasibility: A conceptual exploration. Political Studies. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00936.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givoni, M. (2013). Addressing transport policy challenges through policy-packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givoni, M., Macmillen, J., Banister, D., & Feitelson, E. (2012, December 11). From policy measures to policy packages. Transport Reviews, 1–20. doi:10.1080/01441647.2012.744779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González-Eguino, M. (2011, October). The importance of the design of market-based instruments for CO2 mitigation: An AGE analysis for Spain. Ecological Economics, 70(12), 2292–2302. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23, 347–369. doi:10.1016/S0194-6595(05)80003-6
   Google Scholar
• Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law and Policy, 21(1), 49–76. doi:10.1111/1467-9930.00065
   Google Scholar
• Guy, P. B. (2000, January). Policy instruments and public management: Bridging the gaps. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 10(1), 35–47. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024265
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, J. S., Levin, M. A., & Shapiro, M. (2004). Reform without change, change without reform: The politics of US health policy reform in comparative perspective. In M. A. Levin, M. & Shapiro, Transatlantic policymaking in an age of austerity: Diversity and drift (pp. 13–63). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, J. S. (2005). Policy drift: The hidden politics of US welfare state retrenchment. In W. Streek & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 40–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haynes, K. E., & Li., Q. (1993, January). Policy analysis and uncertainty: Lessons from the IVHS transportation development process. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 17(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/0198-9715(93)90002-M
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennicke, P. (2004, October). Scenarios for a robust policy mix: The final report of the German study commission on sustainable energy supply. Energy Policy, 32(15), 1673–1678. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00163-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hippes, G. (1988). New instruments for environmental policy: A perspective. International Journal of Social Economics, 15(3/4), 42–51. doi:10.1108/eb014102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144. doi:10.1111/gove.2007.20.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou, Y., & Brewer, G. (2010). Substitution and supplementation between co- functional policy instruments: Evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 914–924. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02223.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1991.tb01878.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2004). Administrative styles and regulatory reform: Institutional arrangements and their effects on administrative behavior. International Public Management Review, 5(2), 13–35.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Del Rio, P. (2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: Verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C, 33(5), 1233–1245. doi:10.1177/0263774X15610059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. (in press). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and re-birth?) of policy design studies. Administration & Society.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M, & Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71. doi:10.17645/pag.v2i2.149
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Policy tools, policy mixes and policy implementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 31–50). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles & policy subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2006). Convergence and divergence in ‘new governance’ arrangements: Evidence from European integrated natural resource strategies. Journal of Public Policy, 26(2), 167–189. doi:10.1017/S0143814X06000511
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R., Pykett, J., & Whitehead, M. (2014). Changing behaviours: On the rise of the psychological state. Edward Elgar Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, A., Benson, D., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A. (2011). Policy instruments in practice. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 536–549). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, A., Benson, D., Zito, A., & Wurzel, R. (2012). Environmental policy: Governing by multiple policy instruments?. In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a policy state? Policy dynamics in the EU (pp. 104–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Justen, A., Fearnley, N., Givoni, M., & Macmillen, J. (2013a). A process for designing policy packaging: Ideals and realities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Justen, A., Schippl, J., Lenz, B., & Fleischer, T. (2013b). Assessment of policies and detection of unintended effects: Guiding principles for the consideration of methods and tools in policy-packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagan, R. A. (2001). Adversarial legalism: The American way of law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaine, G., Murdoch, H., Lourey, R., & Bewsell, D. (2010, December). A framework for understanding individual response to regulation. Food Policy, 35(6), 531–537. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay, A. (2007). Tense layering and synthetic policy paradigms: The politics of health insurance in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 579–591. doi:10.1080/10361140701595775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keohane, N. O., Revesz, R. L., & Stavins, R. N. (1998). The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 22, 313–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2009, November 1). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 391–408. doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9099-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschen, E. S., Benard, J., Besters, H., Blackaby, F., Eckstein, O., Faaland, J., … Tosco, E. (1964). Economic policy in our time. Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Kiss, B., Manchón, C. G., & Neij, L. (2012, December 29). The role of policy instruments in supporting the development of mineral wool insulation in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knill, C. (1998). European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 1–28. doi:10.1017/S0143814X98000014
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, W. A. (2009, August). The environment, energy, and the Tinbergen rule. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4), 308–312. doi:10.1177/0270467608325375
   Google Scholar
• Lanzalaco, L. (2011, May 25). Bringing the Olympic rationality back in? Coherence, integration and effectiveness of public policies. World Political Science Review, 7(1), 1098.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, T. P., Taylor-Gooby, P., & Kananen, J. (2006). New labour’s policy style: A mix of policy approaches. International Social Policy, 35(4), 629–649. doi:10.1017/S0047279406000110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lascomes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments - from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00342.x
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. New York, NY: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. (1954). Key symbols, signs and icons. In L. Bryson, L. Finkelstein, R. M. MacIver, and Richard McKean (Eds.), Symbols and Values: An Initial Study, 77–94. New York: Harper and Brothers.
   Google Scholar
• Lecuyer, O., & Bibas, R. (2012, January 26). Combining climate and energy policies: Synergies or antagonism? Modeling interactions with energy efficiency instruments (SSRN Scholarly Paper). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1992324
   Google Scholar
• Lejano, R. P., & Shankar, S. (2013, March 1). The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India. Policy Sciences, 46(1), 83–102. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9163-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leplay, S., & Thoyer, S. (2011). Synergy effects of international policy instruments to reduce deforestation: A cross-country panel data analysis (Working Paper). LAMETA, University of Montpellier. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/lam/wpaper/11-01.html
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, M. (2007). States of reason: Freedom, responsibility and the governing of behaviour change. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lowi, T. J. (1966). Distribution, regulation, redistribution: The functions of government. In R. B. Ripley (Eds.), Public policies and their politics: Techniques of government control (pp. 27–40). New York: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Lynn, L. E. (1986). The behavioral foundations of public policy-making. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S379–84. doi:10.1086/296375
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1975). On the notion of political feasibility. European Journal of Political Research, 3(2), 259–274. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1975.tb00780.x
   Google Scholar
• Maor, M. (2012). Policy overreaction. Journal of Public Policy, 32(3), 231–259. doi:10.1017/S0143814X1200013X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maor, M. (2013). Policy bubbles: Policy overreaction and positive feedback. Governance, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/gove.12048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maor, M. (2015, September 1). Emotion-driven negative policy bubbles. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 191–210. doi:10.1007/s11077-015-9228-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maor, M. (2016, July 19). The implications of the emerging disproportionate policy perspective for the new policy design studies. Policy Sciences, 1–16. doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9259-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maskin, E. S. (2008, June 1). Mechanism design: How to implement social goals. The American Economic Review, 98(3), 567–576. doi:10.2307/29730086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, P. J. (2003). Policy design and implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 223–233). Beverly Hills: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• May, P. J. (2005). Policy maps and political feasibility. In I. Geva-May (Eds.), Thinking like a policy analyst: Policy analysis as a clinical profession (pp. 127–151). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• May, P. J., Saptichne, J., & Workman, S. (2005). Policy coherence and policy design. In Annual research meeting of the association for public analysis and management. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Mayntz, R. (1983, April). The conditions of effective public policy: A new challenge for policy analysis. Policy & Politics, 11, 123–143. doi:10.1332/030557383782718779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milkman, K. L., Mazza, M. C., Shu, L. L., Tsay, C.-J., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011, August 1). Policy bundling to overcome loss aversion: A method for improving legislative outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Corrected Proof. doi:10.16/j.obhdp.2011.07.001
   Google Scholar
• Miller, S. M. (1990). The evolving welfare state mixes. In A. Evers and H. Winterberger (Eds.), Shifts in the welfare mix: Their impact on work, social services and welfare policies (pp. 371–388). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Mulgan, G. (2008). The art of public strategy: Mobilizing power and knowledge for the common good. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, V. L., and Parker, C. (2012). “Mixed motives: Economic, social, and normative motivations in business compliance.” Law & Policy 34(4), 428–462. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2012.00369.x
   Google Scholar
• Oecd. (1996). Building policy coherence: Tools and tensions. Paris: Public Management Occasional Papers no. 12.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2005). Conclusion: The future of instruments research. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 353–363). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., & Van Nispen, F. K. M. (1998). Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration. New York: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Philibert, C. (2011). Interactions of policies for renewable energy and climate (IEA Energy Paper). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/oecieaaaa/2011_2f6-en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, J., & Howlett, M. (2009, July). Conclusion: Governance arrangements and policy capacity for policy integration. Policy and Society, 28(2), 165–172. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.05.005
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J., Gustafsson, G., & Jordan, G. (1982). The concept of policy style. In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy styles in Western Europe (pp. 1–16). London: George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Rogge, K. S., Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2017, November 1). Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 33(Supplement C), 1–10. Policy mixes for energy transitions https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025
   Google Scholar
• Sager, F., & Rielle, Y. (2013, March 1). Sorting through the Garbage can: Under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?. Policy Sciences, 46(1), 1–21. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9165-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond privatization: The tools of government action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1988). Systematically pinching ideas: A comparative approach to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 8(1), 61–80. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00006851
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. doi:10.2307/2939044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (2005). Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy. SUNY series in public policy. Albany: State University of New York.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990b). Policy design: Elements, premises and strategies. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Policy theory and policy evaluation: Concepts, knowledge, causes and norms (pp. 77–102). New York: Greenwood.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1990a). Behavioural assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 511–529. doi:10.2307/2131904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1992, March). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14. doi:10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafir, E. (Ed.). (2013). The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A primer for policy analysis. New York: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Stover, R. V., & Brown, D. W. (1975, December 1). Understanding compliance and noncompliance with law: The contributions of utility theory. Social Science Quarterly, 56(3), 363–375.
   Google Scholar
• Taeihagh, A., Bañares-Alcántara, R., & Wang, Z. (2009). A novel approach to policy design using process design principles. In C. A. O. D. Nascimento, E. Chalbaud Biscaia, & R. M. De Brito Alves (Eds.), Computer aided chemical engineering (Vol. 27, pp. 2049–2054). London: Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570794609707321
   Google Scholar
• Taeihagh, A., Givoni, M., & Bañares-Alcántara, R. (2013). Which policy first? A network-centric approach for the analysis and ranking of policy measures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(4), 595–616. doi:10.1068/b38058
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C., Pollard, S., Rocks, S., & Angus, A. (2012, May 8). Selecting policy instruments for better environmental regulation: A critique and future research agenda. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22, 268–292. doi:10.1002/eet.1584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (Revised & Expanded ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2010, April 2). Choice architecture (SSRN Scholarly Paper). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1583509
   Google Scholar
• Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 208–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tinbergen, J. (1952). On the theory of economic policy. Dordrecht: North-Holland Pub. Co..
   Google Scholar
• Tinbergen, J. (1967). Economic policy: Principles and design. Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual orientation in policy analysis: The contribution of Harold D. Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 18, 241–261. doi:10.1007/BF00138911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trebilcock, M., & Hartle, D. G. (1982). The choice of governing instrument. International Review of Law and Economics, 2, 29–46. doi:10.1016/0144-8188(82)90012-6
   Google Scholar
• Trebilcock, M.J., Prichard, R. S., Hartle, G. D., & Dewees, D. N. (1982). The choice of governing instrument.  Ottawa: Canadian Government Pub. Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Trebilcock, M. J., & Prichard, J. R. S. (1983). Crown corporations: The calculus of instrument choice. In J. R. S. Prichard (Ed.), Crown corporations in Canada: The calculus of instrument choice (pp. 1–50). Toronto: Butterworths.
   Google Scholar
• Tupper, A., & Doern, G. B. (Eds.) (1981). Public corporations and public policy in Canada. In Public corporations and public policy in Canada (pp. 1–50). Saskatoon, Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Heijden, J. (2011, January 10). Institutional layering: A review of the use of the concept. Politics, 31(1), 9–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01397.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, K. (2009a). If you build it, will they come? Overcoming unforeseen obstacles to program effectiveness. The Tansley Lecture - University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, K. (2009b). Target compliance: The final frontier of policy implementation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2009/09/30-compliance-weaver
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, K. (2015, July 1). Getting people to behave: Research lessons for policy makers. Public Administration Review, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/puar.12412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, R. K. (2014, April 1). Compliance Regimes and Barriers to Behavioral Change. Governance, 27(2), 243–265. doi:10.1111/gove.12032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, A. M., & Balaz, V. (1999). Privatisation in Central Europe: Different legacies, methods, and outcomes. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 17, 731–751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, S. C., & May, P. J. (2001). Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(4), 675–698. doi:10.1002/pam.1023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woo, J. J., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Legitimation capacity: System-level resources and political skills in public policy. Policy and Society, 34, 271–283. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodside, K. (1979). Tax incentives vs. subsidies: Political considerations in governmental choice. Canadian Public Policy, 5(2), 248–256. doi:10.2307/3550268
   Google Scholar
• Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775–793. doi:10.1017/S0008423900055141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: Conceptual framework and measures. Policy & Society, (Fall). doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2012, March 1). Policy tool interactions and the adoption of state renewable portfolio standards. Review of Policy Research, 29(2), 193–206. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00548.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar