واکاوی مفهوم آمیخته ابزار خط‌مشی عمومی و معیارهای طراحی آن با روش فراترکیب

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری، مدیریت سیاست‌گذاری، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه رهبری و سرمایۀ انسانی، دانشکده مدیریت دولتی و علوم سازمانی، دانشکدگان مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه خط‌مشی و ادارۀ امور عمومی، دانشکده مدیریت دولتی و علوم سازمانی، دانشکدگان مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

10.22059/jipa.2025.390995.3655

چکیده

هدف: امروزه ابزارهای خط‌مشی عمومی، به‌عنوان یکی از اجزای کلیدی در نظام‌های حکومتی شناخته می‌شوند. یکی از چالش‌های اصلی در طراحی خط‌مشی، انتخاب ابزارهای خط‌مشی یا ترکیبی از ابزارهای مناسب برای کار است. بدین‌منظور، هدف این پژوهش، تبیین مفهوم آمیخته ابزار خط‌مشی و شناسایی معیارهای طراحی آن است. این مطالعه به‌دنبال پُرکردن خلأ موجود در ادبیات این حوزه و ارائۀ چارچوبی جامع برای طراحی و اجرای مؤثر آمیخته ابزارهای خط‌مشی است.
روش: پژوهش حاضر یک مطالعه کیفی است که با استفاده از روش فراترکیب اجرا شده است. فراترکیب روشی است که یافته‌های پراکندۀ مطالعات پیشین را در راستای ارائۀ چارچوب مفهومی جدید با یکدیگر تلفیق می‌کند. جامعۀ آماری این پژوهش، مطالعات پژوهشی قبلی است که پس از جست‌وجو و یافتن منابع موجود، از طریق بررسی و ارزیابی عنوان، چکیده و محتوای منابع یافت‌شده، منابع مناسب به‌عنوان نمونه‌های پژوهش انتخاب شدند. به‌علاوه، برای تجزیه‌وتحلیل و ترکیب داده‌ها و گزارش نتیجۀ نهایی این پژوهش، از روش تحلیل مضمون استفاده شده است. این روش به پژوهشگران امکان می‌دهد تا با رویکردی نظام‌مند، داده‌ها را تحلیل و ترکیب کنند.
یافته‌ها: یافته‌ها نشان داد که در ادبیات، سه نوع تئوری انتخاب ابزار وجود دارد که هر یک معیارهای متفاوتی را برای انتخاب ابزارها ارائه می‌دهد. در سال‌های اخیر، تئوری آمیختۀ ابزار خط‌مشی عمومی در کانون توجه قرار گرفت. این تئوری بر استفاده از ترکیبی از ابزارها برای دستیابی به اهداف خط‌مشی تأکید می‌کند و نشان می‌دهد که دستیابی به اهداف خط‌مشی، فقط با به‌کارگیری یک نوع ابزار امکان‌پذیر نیست. با این حال، یافته‌ها نشان داد که هنوز در تعریف دقیق مفهوم آمیختۀ ابزار خط‌مشی و تعیین معیارهای طراحی آن، اتفاق نظری بین محققان وجود ندارد. علاوه‌براین، طراحی آمیختۀ ابزارهای خط‌مشی عمومی، فرایندی پیچیده است و به توجه به معیارهای گوناگون و در نظر گرفتن هم‌زمان عوامل درونی و بیرونی نیاز دارد. براساس یافته‌های این پژوهش، مهم‌ترین معیارهای طراحی آمیختۀ ابزار خط‌مشی عبارت‌اند از: کارایی، اثربخشی، امکان‌پذیری اجرایی، عدالت، سازگاری و انسجام بین ابزارها.
نتیجه‌گیری: برای دستیابی به خط‌مشی‌های مؤثر و پایدار، باید از ترکیبی از ابزارهای خط‌مشی استفاده کرد و معیارهای طراحی را به‌طور جامع و نظام‌مند در نظر گرفت. این رویکرد می‌تواند به بهبود عملکرد خط‌مشی‌ها و کاهش چالش‌های اجرایی کمک کند. این پژوهش با پوشش گسترده‌ای از ادبیات انتخاب ابزار و ارائۀ تحولات نظری جدید، تلاش می‌کند تا خلأ موجود در ادبیات این حوزه در کشور را پسر کند. نتایج این مطالعه می‌تواند به‌عنوان راهنمایی برای سیاست‌گذاران و دست‌اندرکاران در طراحی و اجرای خط‌مشی‌های عمومی مؤثر استفاده شود. این پژوهش نه تنها به توسعۀ ادبیات نظری در این حوزه کمک می‌کند، بلکه راه‌کارهای عملی برای بهبود فرایند طراحی و اجرای خط‌مشی‌ها ارائه می‌دهد. با توجه به پیچیدگی‌های موجود در طراحی خط‌مشی‌ها، این مطالعه بر اهمیت توجه به معیارهای چندگانه و هماهنگی بین ابزارها تأکید می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing the Concept of Public Policy Instrument Mix and Its Design Criteria Using the Meta-synthesis Method

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohsen Ghorbanloo 1
  • Mazaher Yusefi Amiri 2
  • Maysam Chegin 3
1 Ph.D., Department of Policy Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Prof., Department of Leadership and Human Capital, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Assistant Prof., Department of Policy and Public Affairs, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Objective
Today, public policy instruments are widely recognized as one of the key components of governance systems. A major challenge in policy design lies in selecting appropriate policy instruments or their combinations. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explain the concept of policy instrument mix and identify the criteria for its design. This research seeks to address a gap in the literature by providing a comprehensive understanding of how policy instrument mixes can be effectively designed and implemented to achieve policy goals. By focusing on this issue, the study contributes to the broader discourse on governance and policymaking, offering practical insights for both policymakers and researchers.
Methods
This qualitative research was conducted using the meta-synthesis method. Meta-synthesis is a systematic approach that integrates the scattered findings of previous studies to construct a new conceptual framework. The statistical population of this study consists of existing research studies, which were identified through an extensive search of available sources. These sources were evaluated based on their titles, abstracts, and content, and relevant ones were selected as research samples. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze and synthesize the data, enabling the reporting of the study’s final results. This method ensures a rigorous and structured approach to understanding the complexities of policy instrument mixes, facilitating deeper exploration of the topic.
Results
The findings indicate that the literature includes three types of instrument selection theories, each offering different criteria for choosing policy tools. In recent years, the theory of policy instrument mixes has gained considerable attention, advocating for the use of a combination of instruments to achieve policy objectives. This approach illustrates that relying on a single instrument is insufficient to meet complex policy goals. However, the results also reveal a lack of consensus among researchers regarding the precise definition of a policy instrument mix and the criteria for its design. Designing an effective mix of public policy instruments is a complex task that requires consideration of multiple criteria and both internal and external factors. The most important criteria identified for designing policy instrument mixes include efficiency, effectiveness, feasibility, equity, consistency, and coherence among instruments. These criteria ensure that the mix is balanced and capable of addressing the multifaceted nature of policy challenges.
Conclusion
To achieve effective policies, it is essential to employ policy instrument mixes and consider their design criteria in a comprehensive and systematic manner. This approach can enhance policy performance and reduce challenges related to implementation. By reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on instrument selection and presenting new theoretical advancements, this study aims to fill a critical gap in the domestic literature. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners, emphasizing the need for a holistic and integrated approach to policy design. Ultimately, the study offers a deeper understanding of how strategically designed policy instrument mixes can strengthen governance and support the achievement of desired policy outcomes. The implications of this research extend beyond theory, offering practical guidance for designing and implementing public policies across diverse contexts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Instruments mixes of public policy
  • Policy instrument design criteria
  • Literature review
  • Public policy
  • Public policy instruments
الوانی، سید مهدی (1387). خط‌مشی‌های عمومی و اجرا. حقوق و مصلحت، 1(1)، 45- 58.
حسین‌پور، داود؛ الوانی، سید مهدی؛ اصلی‌پور، حسین؛ قربانی پاجی، عقیل (1403). ارائه چارچوبی از عوامل مؤثر بر اجرای خط‏مشی‌های حوزۀ حفاظت و بهره‌برداری از جنگل‌های شمال کشور، مدیریت دولتی، 16(4)، 746-710
 
References
Alvani, S.M. (2008). Public and Executive Policies. Rights and Expediency, 1(1), 45-58.
(in Persian)
Bali, A. S., Howlett, M., Lewis, J. M. & Ramesh, M. (2021). Procedural policy tools in theory and practice. Policy and Society, 40 (3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1965379
Bemelmans-Videc, M. L. (1998). Introduction: Policy instrument choice and evaluation.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bressers, H. Th. A. & O’Toole, L. J. Jr. (2004). Instrument selection and implementation in a networked context. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance. Montreal, QB: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Buckman, G. & Diesendorf, M. (2010). Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3365-3376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.012
Capano, G. & Howlett, M. (2020). The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis: Policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. Sage Open, 10(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900568
Capano, G. & Lippi, A. (2017). How policy instruments are chosen: Patterns of decision makers' choices. Policy Sciences, 50, 269–293.
Coban, M. K. & Bali, A. Z. (2023). Policy tools and the attributes of effectiveness: Spaces, mixes and instruments. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools. London: Routledge.
Daugbjerg, C. & Sønderskov, K. M. (2012). Environmental policy performance revisited: Designing effective policies for green markets. Political Studies, 60(2), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00910.x
Del Rı´o, P., Ragwitz, M., Steinhilber, S., et al. (2012). Assessment criteria for identifying the main alternatives. D2.2 report under the beyond 2020 project, funded by the Intelligent Energy—Europe program. Retrieved from Energy Economics Group Website: http://www.res-policy-beyond2020.eu/.
Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E. & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005
Franco Vargas, M. H. & Restrepo, D. R. (2019). The instruments of public policy: A transdisciplinary look. Cuadernos De Administración, 35(63), 101-113. DOI:10.25100/cdea.v35i63.6893
Freire-González, J. (2018). Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: A critical review. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(1), 194–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.11.002
Ganghof, S. (2006). Tax mixes and the size of the welfare state: Causal mechanisms and policy implications. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 360-373. [DOI:10.1177/0958928706068274]
Gawel, E. (1991). Environmental policy through mixed instrumentation: Allocative effects of instrumentally diversified steering strategies for environmental goods. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Givoni, M., Macmillen, J., Banister, D. & Feitelson, E. (2013). From policy measures to policy packages. Transport Reviews: Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2012.744779
Glaus, A. (2020). Policy design in flood risk management: Studying policy preferences in three sub-catchment areas in Switzerland. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 194, 35–47.
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. (1998). Designing environmental policy. In N. Gunningham & P. Grabosky (Eds.), Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 375-453.
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. (1999). Integrative regulation: A principle-based approach to environmental policy. Law & Social Inquiry, 24(4), 853–896.
Gunningham, N. & Young, M. D. (1997). Towards optimal environmental policy: The case of biodiversity conservation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, 243-298.
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hood, C. (1983). The Tools of Government. Macmillan.
Hosseinpoor, D., Alvani, S. M., Aslipour, H. & Ghorbani Paji, A. (2024). Presenting a Framework of Effective Factors on the Implementation of Policies in the Field of Protection and Exploitation of Forests in the North of the Country. Journal of Public Administration16(4), 710-746. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2024.371150.3460 (in Persian)
Howlett, M. & Lejano, R. P. (2013). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration & Society, 45(3), 357-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712459725
Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (1998). Policy subsystem configurations and policy change: Operationalizing the post-positivist analysis of the politics of the policy process. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 466-481.
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in new governance arrangements. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2007.11.001
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.
Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1-21.
Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles, and second-generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy & Society, 23(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(04)70030-1
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.
Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. Routledge.
Howlett, M. (2023). The Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003163954
Howlett, M. P., Hill, M. M. & Eliadis, F. P. (2005). Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance.
Howlett, M., Kim, J. & Weaver, P. (2006). Assessing instrument mixes through program and agency-level data: Methodological issues in contemporary implementation research. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00189.x
Howlett, M., Pung How, Y. & 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.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. & Capano, G. (2020). Policymakers, policy-takers and policy tools: Dealing with behavioural issues in policy design. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 22(6), 487-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1774367
Ingram, H. & Schneider, A. (2005). Policy design for democracy. University Press of Kansas.
Justen, A. P., Franco, M. L. R. S., Monteiro, A. R. G., Mikcha, J. M. G., Gasparino, E. & Delbem, A. B. (2011). A process for designing policy packaging: Ideals and realities. Environment and Planning, 47, 35-38.
Kemp, R., Olsthoorn, X., Oosterhuis, F. & Verbruggen, H. (1992). Supply and demand factors of cleaner technologies: Some empirical evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2, 615–634.
Kern, F. & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9095-1
Kern, F., Kivimaa, P. & Martiskainen, M. (2017). Policy packaging or policy patching? The development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes. Energy Research & Social Science, 23, 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.002
Knill, C. & Tosun, J. (2012). Public Policy: A New Introduction. Macmillan International Higher Education, Basingstoke.
Laegreid, P. (2018). Designing organizational tools: Tool choices as administrative reforms. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Policy Design. London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781351252928-18]
Li, L., Wang, X., Wang, Q. & Wang, Q. (2020). Do policy mix characteristics matter for electric vehicle adoption? A survey-based exploration. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 85, 102488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102488
Lindberg, M. B., Markard, J. & Andersen, A. D. (2019). Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy policy mix. Research Policy, 48(10), Article 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.003
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35-58. DOI:10.1017/S0143814X00007960
Mantino, F. & Vanni, F. (2019). Policy mixes as a strategy to provide more effective social and environmental benefits: Evidence from six rural areas in Europe. Sustainability, 11(23), 6632. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236632
Mukherjee, I. (2021). Rethinking the procedural in policy instrument ‘compounds’: A renewable energy policy perspective. Policy and Society, 40(3), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1955488
Optic. (2011a). Deliverable 6: Best practices and recommendations on policy packaging.
Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 7-27.
O'Toole, L. J. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263-288. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024276
Pereira, Á., Carballo-Penela, A., Guerra, A. & Vence, X. (2018). Designing a policy package for the promotion of Servicising: A case study of vineyard crop protection in Galicia (Spain). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(2), 348-369. [DOI:10.1080/09640568.2017.1308317]
Ring, I. & Schröter‐Schlaack, C. (2011). Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig.
Rogge, K. S. & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620-1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.006
Sabatier, P. A. & Weible, C. M. (2014). Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.
Salamon, L. M. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the changing forms of government action.
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (pp. 1-47). Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, T. S., Schneider, M. & Hoffmann, V. H. (2012). Decarbonising the power sector via technological change–differing contributions from heterogeneous firms. Energy Policy, 43, 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.041
Siebert, H. (2005). Economics of the Environment (6th ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Spyra, M., Cortinovis, C. C. & Ronchi, S. (2025). An overview of policy instruments for sustainable peri-urban landscapes: Towards governance mixes the current research agenda on policy mixes. Sage Open, 10(1), 1-13. [DOI:10.1177/2158244019900568]
Stead, D., Geerlings, H. & Meijers, E. (2004). Policy Integration in Practice: The Integration of Land Use Planning, Transport and Environmental Policy-Making in Denmark, England and Germany. Delft: Delft University Press.
Turner, R. K. & Opschoor, J. B. (1994). Environmental economics and environmental policy instruments: Introduction and overview. In J. B. Opschoor & R. K. Turner (Eds.), Economic incentives and environmental policies: Principles and practice (pp. 1–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Van den Bergh, J., Castro, J., Drews, S. & Exadaktylos, F. (2021). Designing an effective climate-policy mix: Accounting for instrument synergy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2021.1234567
Van Gossum, P., Arts, B. & Verheyen, K. (2009). Smart regulation: Can policy instrument design solve forest policy aims of expansion and sustainability in Flanders and the Netherlands? Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 616-627. DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.004
Verweij, S., Busscher, T. & van den Brink, M. (2021). Effective policy instrument mixes for implementing integrated flood risk management: An analysis of the ‘Room for the River’ program. Environmental Science and Policy, 116, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.003
Wilts, H. & O'Brien, M. (2019). A policy mix for resource efficiency in the EU: Key instruments, challenges and research needs. Ecological Economics, 155, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.004
Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M. & Fritzen, S.A. (2010). The Public Policy Primer: Managing Public Policy. London: Routledge.
Zhang, F., Di, X., Yang, X., Yang, X., Jiang, Q. & Yuan, C. (2022). Will the policy instruments mix promote the facility input of care institutions for older people in China? Public Health, 10. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.840672