No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Managing ideational complexity in public policies: the case of public research funding
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2022
Abstract
This article examines how ideational complexity, i.e. the lasting presence of alternative policy frames in a policy domain, can be managed without leading to overt conflicts. By leveraging insights from the organisational literature, we suggest that, in most cases, alternative frames are kept apart within distinct policy instruments, while hybrid instruments are established only when required by the nature of the problem. We provide illustrative examples of how these strategies are employed in the case of public grant schemes for research funding. Our findings suggest that a) composite instrument mixes are an important resource to deal with ideational complexity, and b) the design of the instruments’ delivery package, and specifically its procedural and organisational dimensions, plays a central role in avoiding conflicts between policy frames. Accordingly, our analysis advances the unexplored issue of how the coexistence of alternative policy frames impacts policy implementation.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Aagaard, K (2017) The Evolution of a National Research Funding System: Transformative Change Through Layering and Displacement. Minerva, 55(3): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aleman-Diaz, A (2023) Motivations Guiding Public Research Funding in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy: A Synthesis. In Lepori, B., Jongbloed, B. and Hicks, D. (eds.), Handbook of Public Research Funding. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Bégin-Caouette, O, Askvik, T and Cui, B (2016) Interplays Between Welfare Regimes Typology and Academic Research Systems in OECD Countries. Higher Education Policy, 29, 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleiklie, I and Michelsen, S (2013) Comparing HE policies in Europe. Higher Education, 65, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boin, A and Christensen, T (2008) The Development of Public Institutions: Reconsidering the Role of Leadership. Administration & Society, 40, 271–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D (1998) The Role of Funding Agencies in the Cognitive Development of Science. Research Policy, 27(1998): 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D (2003) Lasting Tensions in Research Policy-Making – A Delegation Problem. Science and Public Policy, 30, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D (2008) Organising the Political Coordination of Knowledge and Innovation Policies. Science and Public Policy, 35, 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D and Capano, G (2010) Introductory Paper: The Missing Link–Policy Ideas and Policy Instruments. European Consortium for Political Research, March, 22–27.Google Scholar
Bressers, HTA and O’Toole, LJ (2005) Instrument Selection and Implementation in a Networked Context. In Pearl, E, Hill, MM and Howlett, M (eds.), Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 132–153.Google Scholar
Capano, G (2011) Government Continues to Do Its Job. A Comparative Study of Governance Shifts in the Higher Education Sector. Public Administration, 89, 1622–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, G and Howlett, M (2020) The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes. SAGE Open, 10, 2158244019900568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, G and Lippi, A (2017) How Policy Instruments Are Chosen: Patterns of Decision Makers’ Choices. Policy Sciences, 50, 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, G and Pritoni, A (2019) Varieties of Hybrid Systemic Governance in European Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 73, 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, G, Pritoni, A and Vicentini, G (2020) Do Policy Instruments Matter? Governments’ Choice of Policy Mix and Higher Education Performance in Western Europe. Journal of Public Policy, 40(3): 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T and Lægreid, P (2007) Regulatory Agencies—The Challenges of Balancing Agency Autonomy and Political Control. Governance, 20, 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T and Lægreid, P (2011) Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration—Theoretical and Empirical Challenges. Public Organization Review, 11, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, LH and Lounsbury, M (2013) Strange Brew: Bridging Logics via Institutional Bricolage and the Reconstitution of Organizational Identity. In Lousnbury, M and Boxenbaum, E (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Bingley: Emerald, 199–232.Google Scholar
Cocos, M and Lepori, B (2020) What We Know About Research Policy Mix. Science and Public Policy, 47, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C (2020) The Governance of Hybrid Organisations. In Billis, D and Rochester, C Handbook on Hybrid Organisations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 220–236.Google Scholar
Del Rio, P and Howlett, M (2013) Beyond the ‘Tinbergen Rule’ in Policy Design: Matching Tools and Goals in Policy Portfolios. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper, Working Paper 13-01.Google Scholar
Elzinga, A (2012) Features of the Current Science Policy Regime: Viewed in Historical Perspective. Science and Public Policy, 39, 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ferlie, E, Ashburner, L, Fitzgerald, L and Pettigrew, A (1996) The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, K, Uyarra, E and Laranja, M (2011) Reconceptualising the ‘Policy Mix’ for Innovation. Research Policy, 40, 702–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedland, R and Alford, R (1991) Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions. In Powell, WW and DiMaggio, PJ (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 232–263.Google Scholar
Geuna, A, Salter, AJ and Steinmueller, WE (2003) Science and Innovation. Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M, Limoges, C, Nowotny, H, Schwartzman, S, Scott, P and Trow, M (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R, Raynard, M, Kodeih, F, Micelotta, E and Lounsbury, M (2011) Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, M (2005) Tensions in the Research Council-Research Community Relationship. Science and Public Policy, 32(3): 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guston, DH (2000) Between Politics and Science. In Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, PA and Taylor, RCR (1996) Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5): 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M (2004) Beyond Good and Evil in Policy Implementation: Instrument Mixes, Implementation Styles, and Second Generation Theories of Policy Instrument Choice. Policy and Society, 23, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M (2019) Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howlett, M and 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: Government and Policy, 33, 1233–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M and Mukherjee, I (2014) Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types. Politics and Governance, 2, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jongbloed, B and Lepori, B (2015) The Funding of Research in Higher Education: Mixed Models and Mixed Results. In The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 439–462.Google Scholar
Kern, F and Howlett, M (2009) Implementing Transition Management as Policy Reforms: A Case Study of the Dutch Energy Sector. Policy Sciences, 42, 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, F, Rogge, KS and Howlett, M (2019) Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions: New Approaches and Insights Through Bridging Innovation and Policy Studies. Research Policy, 48, 103832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LÊgreid, P (2017) Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lægreid, P, Verhoest, K and Jann, W (2008) The Governance, Autonomy and Coordination of Public Sector Organizations. Public Organization Review, 8, 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larédo, P and Mustar, P (2001) Research and Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy. An International Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton MA, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lascoumes, P and Le Galès, P (2007) Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments? From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance, 20, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepori, B (2011) Coordination Modes in Public Funding Systems. Research Policy, 40, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepori, B and Montauti, M (2020) Bringing the Organization Back in: Flexing Structural Responses to Competing Logics in Budgeting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 80, 101075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepori, B and Reale, E (2019) The Changing Governance of Research Systems. Agencification and Organizational Differentiation in Research Funding Organizations. In Kuhlmann, S, Simon, D, Canzler, W and Stamm, J (eds.), Handbook on Science and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 448–463.Google Scholar
Lepori, B, Reale, E and Spinello, AO (2018) Conceptualizing and Measuring Performance Orientation of Research Funding Systems. Research Evaluation, 27, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepori, B, Van den Besselaar, P, Dinges, M, Potì, B, Reale, E, Slipersæter, S, Thèves, J and van der Meulen, B (2007) Comparing The Evolution of National Research Policies: What Patterns of Change? Science and Public Policy, 34, 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzucato, M (2018) Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies: Challenges and Opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27, 803–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, CM and Sauder, M (2013) Logics in Action: Managing Institutional Complexity in a Drug Court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, RE, Egger-Peitler, I, Höllerer, MA and Hammerschmid, G (2014) Of Bureaucrats and Passionate Public Managers: Institutional Logics, Executive Identities, and Public Service Motivation. Public Administration, 92, 861–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noordegraaf, M (2007) From “Pure” to “Hybrid” Professionalism Present-Day Professionalism in Ambiguous Public Domains. Administration & Society, 39, 761–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noordegraaf, M (2016) Reconfiguring Professional Work: Changing Forms of Professionalism in Public Services. Administration & Society, 48, 783–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, C (1991) Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pache, A-C and Santos, F (2013) Embedded in Hybrid Contexts: How Individuals in Organizations Respond to Competing Institutional Logics. In Lounsbury, M and Boxenbaum, E(eds.), Institutional Logics in Action, Part B (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 39 Part B). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, M and Peters, BG (2010) Administrative Traditions in Comparative Perspective: Families, Groups and Hybrids. In Anonymous (ed.), Tradition and Public Administration. Dordrecht: Springer, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C and Bouckaert, G (2017) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis-into the Age of Austerity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polzer, T, Meyer, RE, Höllerer, MA and Seiwald, J (2016) Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms. In Gehman, J, Lounsbury, M and Greenwood, R (eds.), How Institutions Matter! From the Micro Foundations of Institutional Impacts to the Macro Consequences of Institutional Arrangements. Cheltenham: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 69–99.Google Scholar
Rayner, J, Howlett, M and Wellstead, A (2017) Policy Mixes and Their Alignment Over Time: Patching and Stretching in the Oil Sands Reclamation Regime in Alberta, Canada. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27, 472–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rip, A (2004) Strategic Research, Post-Modern Universities and Research Training. Higher Education Policy, 17, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L (2002) The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, CQ and Wagemann, C (2012) Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze-Cleven, T and Olson, JR (2017) Worlds of Higher Education Transformed: Toward Varieties of Academic Capitalism. Higher Education, 73, 813–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, D, Kuhlmann, S, Stamm, J and Canzler, W (2019) Introduction: Science and Public Policy-Relations in Flux. In Kuhlmann, S, Simon, D, Canzler, W and Stamm, J (eds.), Handbook on Science and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skelcher, C and Smith, SR (2015) Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional Logics, Complex Organizations, and Actor Identities: The Case of Nonprofits. Public Administration, 93, 433–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skoie, H (2000) Diversity and Identity: The Merger of Five Research Councils in Norway. Science and Public Policy, 27, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slipersæter, S, Lepori, B and Dinges, M (2007) Between Policy and Science: Research Councils’ Responsiveness in Austria, Norway and Switzerland. Science and Public Policy, 34, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M, Jarzabkowski, P, Burke, GT and Spee, P (2015) Reinsurance Trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing Conflicting-Yet-Complementary Logics in Practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 932–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, WK and Besharov, ML (2019) Bowing Before Dual Gods: How Structured Flexibility Sustains Organizational Hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stampfer, M, Pichler, R and Hofer, R (2010) The Making of Research Funding in Austria: Transition Politics and Institutional Development, 1945–2005. Science and Public Policy, 37, 765–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, P (2013) The Endless Frontier: Reaping What Bush Sowed? In Jaffe, AB and Jones, BF (eds.), The Changing Frontier. Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 321–370.Google Scholar
Surel, Y (2000) The Role of Cognitive and Normative Frames in Policy-Making. Journal of European Public Policy, 7, 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thèves, J, Lepori, B and Larédo, P (2007) Changing Patterns of Public Research Funding in France. Science and Public Policy, 34, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, P, Phillips, N and Jarvis, O (2011) Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Creation of New Organizational Forms: A Multilevel Model. Organization Science, 22, 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gestel, N, Denis, J-L and Ferlie, E (2020) Hybridity in Public Organisations. In Billis, D and Rochester, C (eds.), Handbook on Hybrid Organisations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 48–65.Google Scholar
Vedung, E, Bemelmans-Videc, M-L and Rist, RC (1998) Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In Bemelmans-Videc, M, Rist, RC and Vedung, E (eds.), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick and London: Transaction, 21–58.Google Scholar
Verhoest, K, Roness, PG, Verschure, B, Rubecksen, K and Mac Carhaigh, M (2009) Autonomy and Control in State Agencies. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar