\u201cDonate your organs, donate life!\u201d Explicitness in policy instruments

Eva Thomann

doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9324-6

Abstract

Behavioural research suggests that the intensity with which policy instruments indicate a direction of desired behavioural change affects how target populations respond to them. However, comparative research on policy instruments focuses on their calibration, restrictiveness, density and formal intensity, but does not account for the degree to which they specify the particular policy goal. Moving beyond nudging and “command and control” approaches, this paper adds the dimension of explicitness to existing taxonomies of policy instruments. The explicitness of an instrument results from two questions: first, does the instrument specify a direction of behavioural change? Second, does the instrument attach valence to this behaviour? The paper proposes a stepwise measurement procedure and links explicitness with policy outcomes. A comparative case study of organ donor policy in Switzerland and Spain illustrates how accounting for the explicitness dimension can improve our understanding of policy instruments and their effectiveness.

Highlights

It is wise and prudent for policy makers to be much more careful about understanding the behavioural aspects of both policy tools and targets and ensure these match up in an effective compliance regime
The explicitness of an instrument results from two questions: first, does the instrument specify a direction of behavioural change? Second, does the instrument attach valence to this behaviour? The paper proposes a stepwise measurement procedure and links explicitness with policy outcomes
I follow Schaffrin et al (2015: 258) who “take a perspective where policy instruments are regarded as the core concept of policy output and consider the respective content of the instruments focusing on its setting and calibrations”

Summary

Introduction

It is wise and prudent for policy makers to be much more careful about understanding the behavioural aspects of both policy tools and targets and ensure these match up in an effective compliance regime. Formal and substantive intensities describe the power relationship between the government and the target population (Bauer and Knill 2014; Hood 2007; Howlett and Cashore 2009; Sager 2009; Schaffrin et al 2015; Vedung 1998) These existing taxonomies focus on regulatory content either as the governments’ resources at hand, or as the relationship between public authorities and private actors (Schaffrin et al 2015). None of these categories captures the notion that each of these policy instruments can be neutral (objective) or involve a judgement of desirable behaviour (Vedung 1998: 33)

Results

Discussion

Conclusion