policy note research paper

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A policy memo is a practical, professionally written document that can vary in length from one page to over twenty-five pages. It provides analysis and recommendations directed to a predetermined audience regarding a specific situation, topic, or issue. A well-written policy memo reflects attention to the policy problem. It is well organized and structured in a clear and concise style that assumes the reader possesses limited knowledge of, as well as little time to conduct research about, the topic of concern. There is no thesis statement or overall theoretical framework underpinning the document; the focus is on describing one or more specific policy recommendations and their supporting action items.

Bhasin, Tavishi and Charity Butcher. “Teaching Effective Policy Memo Writing and Infographics in a Policy Programme.” European Political Science 21 (2022): 1-17; Davis, Jennifer. Guide to Writing Effective Policy Memos. MIT OpenCourseWare, Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Planning in Developing Countries, Spring 2004; Judge, Andrew. "Designing and Implementing Policy Writing Assessments: A Practical Guide." Teaching Public Administration 39 (2021): 351-368; Pennock, Andrew. “The Case for Using Policy Writing in Undergraduate Political Science Courses.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (January 2011): 141-146.

How to Approach Writing a Policy Memo

Benefits of Writing a Policy Memo

Writing a policy memo is intended to support the following learning outcomes:

• Helps students learn how to write academically rigorous, persuasive papers about a specific “real-world” issue;
• Teaches how to choose and craft a document’s content based on the needs of a particular audience [rather than for a general readership];
• Prepares students to write an effective position paper in non-academic settings;
• Promotes researching, organizing, and writing a persuasive paper that emphasizes presenting evidence-based recommendations rather than simply reporting a study's findings;
• Teaches students to be client-oriented and to better anticipate the assumptions and concerns of their targeted readership;
• Encourages reflective thinking about the cause and consequential effect of a particular recommendation and to anticipate what questions stakeholder groups may have; and,
• Enables students to create original work that synthesizes policy-making research into a clearly written document advocating change and specific courses of action.

Do not approach writing a policy memo in the same way as you would an academic research paper . Yes, there are certain commonalities in how the content is presented [e.g., a well-written problem statement], but the overarching objective of a policy memo is not to discover or create new knowledge. It is focused on providing to a predetermined group of readers the rationale for choosing a particular policy alternative and/or specific courses of action leading to positive social and political change within society. In this sense, most policy memos possess a component of advocacy and advice intended to promote evidence-based dialog about an issue.

Essential Elements of an Effective Policy Memo Focus and Objectives The overall content of your memo should be strategically aimed at achieving the following goal: convincing your target audience about the accuracy of your analysis and, by extension, that your policy recommendations are valid. Avoid lengthy digressions and superfluous narration that can distract the reader from understanding the policy problem. Note that your target audience is defined in two ways: by the decision-makers who can advocate for or implement change and by individuals and groups most likely impacted by your policy recommendations should they be implemented. Professionally Written Always keep in mind that a policy memorandum is a tool for decision-making. Keep it professional and avoid hyperbole and clever or indeterminate language that could undermine the credibility of your document. The presentation and content of the memo should be polished, easy to understand, and free of jargon. Writing professionally does not imply that you can’t be passionate about your topic, but your policy recommendations should be evidence-based and grounded in solid reasoning and a succinct writing style. Evidence-based A policy memo is not an argumentative debate paper. The reader should expect your recommendations to be based upon evidence that the problem exists and understand the consequences [both good and bad] of adopting particular policy alternatives. To address this, policy memos should include a clear cost-benefit analysis that considers anticipated outcomes, the potential impact on stakeholder groups you have identified, clear and quantifiable performance goals, and how success will be measured. Accessibility A policy memo requires clear and simple language that avoids unnecessary jargon and concepts of an academic discipline. Do not skip around. Use one paragraph to develop one idea or argument and make that idea or argument explicit within the first one or two sentences. Your memo should have a straightforward, explicit organizational structure that provides well-explained arguments arranged within a logical sequence of reasoning [think in terms of an if/then logic model--if this policy recommendation, then this action; if this benefit, then this potential cost; if this group is allocated resources, then this group may be excluded]. Presentation Style The visual impact of your memo affects the reader’s ability to grasp your ideas quickly and easily. Include a table of contents and list of figures and charts, if necessary. Subdivide the text using clear and descriptive headings to guide the reader. Incorporate devices such as capitalization, bold text, and bulleted items, but be consistent, and don’t go crazy; the purpose is to facilitate access to specific sections of the paper for successive readings. If it is difficult to find information in your document, policy makers will not use it. Practical and Feasible Your memorandum should provide a set of actions based on what is actually happening in reality. Do not base your policy recommendations on future scenarios or hypothetical situations that could be interpreted as unlikely to occur or that do not appear possible because you have not adequately explained the circumstances supporting these scenarios. Here again, your cost-benefit analysis can be essential to validating the practicality and feasibility of your recommendations. Explicit Transparency Provide specific criteria to assess either the success or failure of the policies you are recommending. As much as possible, this criteria should be derived from your cost/benefit analysis. Do not hide or under-report information that does not support your policy recommendations. Just as you would note the limitations of your study in a research paper, a policy memo should describe issues of weakness of your analysis. Explain why they may arise and why your recommendations are still valid despite these issues. Be open and straightforward because doing so strengthens your arguments and it will help the reader assess the overall impact of recommended policy changes.

NOTE: Technically, it would not be wrong for your policy memo to argue for maintaining the status quo. However, the general objective of a policy memo assignment is to critically examine opportunities for transformative change and to highlight the risks of on-going complacency. If you choose to argue for maintaining the current policy trajectory, in whole or in part, be concise in identifying and systematically refuting all relevant policy options. Again, it must be rooted in an evidence-based cost/benefit analysis. Whether maintaining current policies is short-term or long-term [and these need to be clearly defined], you must explain concisely why each possible outcome of maintaining the status quo would be preferable to any alternative policy options and recommended courses of action. If your argument for maintaining the status quo is short-term, explain what factors in the future could trigger a policy-related course correction.

Herman, Luciana. Policy Memos. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University; How to Write a Public Policy Memo. Student Learning Center. University of California, Berkeley; Policy Memo. Thompson Writing Program, Writing Studio. Duke University; Policy Memo Guidelines. Cornell Fellows Program. Cornell University; Memo: Audience and Purpose. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition. Institute for Public Policy Studies. University of Denver; Thrall, A. Trevor. How to Write a Policy Memo. University of Michigan--Dearborn, 2006; Mastro, Oriana Skylar. "Teach What you Preach: A Comprehensive Guide to the Policy Memo as a Methods Teaching Tool." Journal of Political Science Education 17 (2021): 326-340; Writing Effective Memos. Electronic Hallway. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. University of Washington; Writing Effective Policy Memos. Water & Sanitation Infrastructure Planning syllabus. Spring 2004. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Structure and Writing Style

The contents of a policy memo can be organized in a variety of ways. Below is a general template adapted from the “Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition” published by the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver and from suggestions made in the book, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving [Eugene Bardach. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012] . Both sources provide useful approaches to writing a policy memo in the event your professor does not provide specific guidance. Overall, the tone of your writing should be formal but assertive. Note that the most important consideration in terms of writing style is professionalism, not creativity. I.  Cover Page Provide a complete and informative cover page that includes the document title, date, the full names and titles of the writer or writers [i.e., Joe Smith, Student, Department of Political Science, University of Southern California]. The title of the policy memo should be formally written and specific to the policy issue [e.g., “Charter Schools, Fair Housing, and Legal Standards: A Call for Equal Treatment”]. For longer memos, consider including a brief executive summary that highlights key findings and recommendations.

II.  Introduction and Problem Definition A policy memorandum should begin with a short summary introduction that defines the policy problem, provides important contextual background information, and explains what issues are being covered. This is followed by a short justification for writing the memo, why a decision needs to be made [answering the “So What?” question], and an outline of the recommendations you make or key themes the reader should keep in mind. Summarize your main points in a few sentences, then conclude with a description of how the remainder of the memo is organized.

III.  Methods This is usually where other research about the problem or issue of concern is summarized. Describe how you plan to identify and locate the information on which your policy memo is based. This may include peer-reviewed journals and books as well as possible professionals you interviewed, databases and websites you explored, or legislative histories or relevant case law that you used. Remember this is not intended to be a thorough literature review; only choose sources that persuasively support your position or that help lay a foundation for understanding why actions need to be taken.

IV.  Issue Analysis This section is where you explain in detail how you examined the issue and, by so doing, persuade the reader of the appropriateness of your analysis. This is followed by a description of how your analysis contributes to the current policy debate. It is important to demonstrate that the policy issue may be more complex than a basic pro versus con debate. Very few public policy debates can be reduced to this type of rhetorical dichotomy. Be sure your analysis is thorough and takes into account all factors that may influence possible strategies that could advance a recommended set of solutions.

V.  Proposed Solutions Write a brief review of the specific solutions you evaluated, noting the criteria by which you examined and compared different proposed policy alternatives. Identify the stakeholders impacted by the proposed solutions and describe in what ways they will benefit from your proposed solution. Focus on identifying solutions that have not been proposed or tested elsewhere. Offer a contrarian viewpoint that challenges the reader to take into account a new perspective on the research problem. Note that you can propose solutions that may be considered radical or unorthodox, but they must be realistic and politically feasible.

VI.  Strategic Recommendations Solutions are just opinions until you provide a path that delineates how to get from where you are to where you want to go. Describe what you believe are the best recommended courses of action [i.e., "action items"]. In writing this section, state the broad approach to be taken, with specific, practical steps or measures that should be implemented. Be sure to also state by whom and within what time frame these actions should be taken. Conclude by highlighting the consequences of maintaining the status quo [or if supporting the status quo, why change at this time would be detrimental]. Also, clearly explain why your strategic recommendations are best suited for addressing the current policy situation.

VI.  Limitations As in any academic paper, you must describe limitations to your analysis. In particular, ask yourself if each of your recommendations are realistic, feasible, and sustainable, and in particular, that they can be implemented within the current bureaucratic, economic, political, cultural, social, or other type of contextual climate in which they reside. If not, you should go back and clarify your recommendations and provide further evidence as to why the recommendation is most appropriate for addressing the issue. It does not necessarily undermine the overall recommendations of your study if the limitation cannot be overcome, but you must clearly acknowledge this. Place the limitation within the context of a critical issue that needs further study in concurrence with possible implementation [i.e., findings indicate service learning promotes civic engagement, but there is a lack of data on the types of service learning programs that exist among high schools in South Central Los Angeles].

VII.  Cost-Benefit Analysis This section may be optional but, in some cases, your professor may ask you to include an explicit summary analysis of the costs and benefits of each recommendation. If you are asked to include a separate cost-benefit analysis, be concise and brief. Since most policy memos do not have a formal conclusion, the cost-benefit analysis can act as your conclusion by summarizing the key differences among policy alternatives and recommended courses of action.

Bardach, Eugene. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving . 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012; Herman, Luciana. Policy Memos. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University; How to Write a Public Policy Memo. Student Learning Center. University of California, Berkeley; Policy Memo Guidelines. Cornell Fellows Program. Cornell University; Memo: Audience and Purpose. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Pennock, Andrew. “The Case for Using Policy Writing in Undergraduate Political Science Courses.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (January 2011): 141-146; Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition. Institute for Public Policy Studies. University of Denver; Thrall, A. Trevor. How to Write a Policy Memo. University of Michigan--Dearborn, 2006; Sajedinejad, S., et al. From Research to Impact: A Toolkit for Developing Effective Policy Briefs . Toronto, Ontario: Policy Bench, Fraser Mustard Institute of Human Development, University of Toronto, 2021; What Are Policy Briefs. FAO Corporate Document Repository. United Nations; Writing Effective Memos. Electronic Hallway. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. University of Washington; Writing Effective Policy Memos. Water & Sanitation Infrastructure Planning syllabus. Spring 2004. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Proofreading the Memo

Problems to Avoid

The style and arrangement of an effectively written memo can differ because no two policies, nor their intended audience of readers, are exactly the same. Nevertheless, before you submit your policy memo, be sure you proofread the document so that you avoid these common problems. If you identify one or more of these problems, you should rewrite or re-organize the content accordingly.

1.  Acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences . No policy analysis is complete until you have identified for whom the policy actions are supposed to benefit and identify what groups may be impacted by the consequences of their implementation. Review your memo and make sure you have clearly delineated who could be helped and who could be potentially harmed or excluded from benefiting from your recommended policy actions. As noted by Wilcoxen, this is also important because describing who may or may not benefit can help you anticipate which stakeholder groups will support your policy recommendations and which groups will likely oppose it. Calculating potential "winners" and "losers" will help reveal how much it may cost to compensate those groups excluded from benefiting. By building this compensation into your policy recommendations, you are better able to show the reader how to reduce political obstacles.

2.  Anticipate the Reader's Questions . Examine your recommended courses of action and identify any open-ended, declarative, indeterminate, or ambiguous statements that could lead the reader to have to ask further questions. For example, you declare that the most important factor supporting school choice among parents is distance from home. Without clarification or additional information, this could lead the reader to ask numerous questions, such as, why or by what means do you know this, what distance is considered to be too far, what factors contribute to parent's decision about school choice and distance from schools, or what age group does this most apply to. Clarify these types of open-ended statements so that your policy recommendations can be more fully understood and accepted as valid.

3.  Be Concise . Being succinct in your writing does not relate to the overall length of the policy memo or the amount of words you use. It relates to your ability to provide a lot of information clearly and without superfluous detail. Strategies include r eviewing long paragraphs and breaking them up into parts, looking for long sentences and eliminating unnecessary qualifiers and modifiers, and deleting prepositional phrases in favor of adjectives or adverbs. The overarching goal is to be thorough and precise in how your ideas are presented and to avoid writing that uses too many words or excessively technical expressions.

4.  Focus on the Results . While it is important that your memo describe the methods by which you gathered and analyzed the data informing your policy recommendations, the content should focus on explaining the results of your analysis and the logic underpinning your recommendations. Remember your audience. The reader is presumably a decision-maker with limited knowledge of the issue and who has little time to contemplate the methods of analysis. The validity of your findings will be determined primarily by your reader's determination that your policy recommendations and supporting action items are realistic and rooted in sound reasoning. Review your memo and make sure the statement about how you gathered the data is brief and concise. If necessary, technical issues or raw data can be included in an appendix.

5.  Minimize Subjective Reasoning . Although the memo should be persuasive, avoid emphasizing your personal opinion about the topic. A policy memo should be written in a professional tone with recommendations based upon empirical reasoning while, at the same time, reflecting a level of passion about your topic. However, being passionate does not imply being opinionated. The memo should emphasize presenting all of the facts a reader would need to reach their own conclusions about the validity of your recommendations.

6.  Use of Non-textual Elements . Review all tables, charts, figures, graphs, or other non-textual elements and make sure they are labeled correctly. Examine each in relation to the text, making sure they are described adequately and that they relate to the overall content of your memo. If these elements are located in appendices, make sure references to them within the text are correct [i.e., reference to Figure 2 is actually the table you want the reader to look at].

Bardach, Eugene and Eric M. Pataschnik. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving . 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2016; Herman, Luciana. Policy Memos. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University; How to Write a Public Policy Memo. Student Learning Center. University of California, Berkeley; Memo: Audience and Purpose. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition. Institute for Public Policy Studies. University of Denver; Wilcoxen, Peter J. Tips on Writing a Policy Memo. PAI 723, Economics for Public Decisions Course Syllabus. Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

Writing Tip

Difference Between a Policy Memo and a Policy Brief

A policy memo and a policy brief share much in common. They both describe the rationale for choosing particular policy alternatives or courses of action, they both contain persuasive language, and both documents are written for non-experts, such as, practitioners, politicians, non-governmental agency workers, lobbyists, and others who work on or regularly make decisions about the issue addressed in the document. Both documents are free of jargon or technical terminology and focus on communicating the practical implications of prior policy research to a specific audience based on available evidence.

Ironically, however, a policy memo is typically shorter in length than a policy “brief.” A policy memo usually ranges from one to twent-five pages, while a policy brief can be anywhere from twenty to more than a hundred pages in length depending on the complexity of the topic. Therefore:

• A policy brief is commonly produced in response to a request from a decision-maker concerning an issue that requires more thorough information to address the underlying policy problem or they are produced by an advocacy group or organization for the purpose of influencing a specific policy, often in an urgent tone. Non-textual elements , such as, figures, charts, graphs, or diagrams, are often included.
• A policy memo is concisely written and presents information, ideas, and recommendations clearly so the reader can quickly scan the document for the most relevant points. Policy memos focus on brevity and often synthesize existing evidence in language that is direct, specific, and with minimal background information or historical context. Non-textual elements are only included if necessary.

Guide to Writing an Effective Policy Memo. Leadership for Educational Equity, New York; Policy Briefs. The Writing Center, University of North Carolina;  Policy Memo. Writing Studio, Duke University; Manny, Karoline. What is a Policy Brief/Memo? Grace Doherty Library, Centra College; Sajedinejad, S., et al. From Research to Impact: A Toolkit for Developing Effective Policy Briefs . Toronto, Ontario: Policy Bench. Fraser Mustard Institute of Human Development, University of Toronto, 2021.

Another Writing Tip

Citing Sources

Policy memos generally do not include extensive footnotes, endnotes, further readings, or a bibliography. However, if you use supporting information in a memo, cite the source in the text. For example, you may refer to a study that supported a specific assertion by referencing it in the following manner: "A study published in 2012 by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling showed that public opinion towards China was....” However, some assignments may require a formal list of references. Before writing your memo, be sure you are clear about how your professor wants you to cite any sources referred to in your analysis.

Policy Memo. Thompson Writing Program, Writing Studio. Duke University.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Using Non-Textual Elements

Policy memos are not just text-based but frequently include numeric tables and charts or other non-textual elements, such as photographs, maps, and illustrations. However, it is important that you use non-textual elements judiciously and only in relation to supplementing and clarifying arguments made in the text so as not to distract the reader from the main points of your memo . As with any non-textual elements, describe what the reader is seeing and why the data is important to understanding the policy problem.

Still Yet Another Writing Tip

Including Appendices

The purpose of an appendix is to provide supplementary material that is not an essential part of the main text but which may be helpful in providing the reader with more complete information. If you have information that is vital to understanding an issue discussed in the memo, it can be included in one or more appendices. However, if you have a lot of information, don't write a five page memo and include twenty pages of appendices. Memos are intended to be  succinct and clearly expressed. If there is a lot of data, refer to the source and summarize it, or discuss with your professor how it should be included.

• << Previous: Writing Field Notes
• Next: Writing a Reflective Paper >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 13 September 2021

Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review

• Diana Arnautu 1 &
• Christian Dagenais 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  211 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

16 Citations

100 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Health humanities
• Medical humanities

There is a significant gap between researchers’ production of evidence and its use by policymakers. Several knowledge transfer strategies have emerged in the past years to promote the use of research. One of those strategies is the policy brief; a short document synthesizing the results of one or multiple studies. This scoping study aims to identify the use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer strategy. Twenty-two empirical articles were identified, spanning 35 countries. Results show that policy briefs are considered generally useful, credible and easy to understand. The type of audience is an essential component to consider when writing a policy brief. Introducing a policy brief sooner rather than later might have a bigger impact since it is more effective in creating a belief rather than changing one. The credibility of the policy brief’s author is also a factor taken into consideration by decision-makers. Further research needs to be done to evaluate the various forms of uses of policy briefs by decision-makers.

Similar content being viewed by others

Barriers and facilitators of translating health research findings into policy in sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review

Florence Upenyu Damba, Ntombifikile Gloria Mtshali & Moses John Chimbari

Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

Mark Rickinson, Connie Cirkony, … Annette Boaz

Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice

Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple, Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz

Introduction

Improving well-being and reducing health-related inequalities is a challenging endeavor for public policymakers. They must consider the nature and significance of the issue, the proposed interventions and their pros and cons such as their impact and acceptability (Lavis et al., 2012 ; Mays et al., 2005 ). Policymakers are members of a government department, legislature or other organization responsible for devising new regulations and laws (Cambridge University Press, 2019 ). They face the challenge of finding the best solutions to multiple health-related crises while being the most time and cost-effective possible. Limited by time and smothered by an overwhelming amount of information, some policymakers are likely to use cognitive shortcuts by selecting the “evidence” most appropriate to their political leanings (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ; Cairney et al., 2019 ; Oliver and Cairney, 2019 ).

To prevent snap decisions in policymaking, it is essential to develop tools to facilitate the dissemination and use of empirical research. Evidence-informed solutions might be an effective way to address these complicated questions since they derive knowledge from accurate and robust evidence instead of beliefs and provide a more holistic view of a problem. Although it may be possible for different stakeholders to agree on certain matters, a consensus is uncommon (Nutley et al., 2013 ). Using research evidence allows policymakers to decrease their bias towards an intervention’s perceived effectiveness. This leads to more confidence among policymakers on what to expect from an intervention as their decisions are guided by evidence (Lavis et al., 2004 ). However, trying to integrate research findings into the policy-making process comes with a whole new set of challenges, both for researchers and policymakers.

Barriers to evidence-informed policy

Barriers to evidence-informed policy can be defined in three categories: the research evidence is not available in an accessible format for the policymaker, the evidence is disregarded for political or ideological reasons and the evidence is not applicable to the political context (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ).

The first category of barriers refers to the availability and the type of evidence. The vast amount of information policymakers need to keep up-to-date in specific fields is a particular challenge to this barrier, leading to policymakers being frequently overwhelmed with the amount of information they need to go through regarding each case (Orandi and Locke, 2020 ). Decision-makers have reported a lack of competencies in finding, evaluating, interpreting or using certain evidence such as systematic reviews in their decision-making, leading to difficulty in accessing these reviews and identifying the key messages quickly (Tricco et al., 2015 ). Although policymakers use a broader variety of forms of evidence than previously examined in the literature, scholars have rarely been consulted and research evidence has rarely been seen as directly applicable (Oliver and de Vocht, 2017 ). The lack of awareness on the importance of research evidence and on the ways to access these resources also contribute to the gap between research and policy (Oliver et al., 2014 ; van de Goor et al., 2017 ). Some other frequently reported barriers to evidence use in policymaking were the poor access to timely, quality and relevant research evidence as well as the limited collaboration between policymakers and researchers (Oliver et al., 2014 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ; van de Goor et al., 2017 ). Given the fact that research is only one input amongst all the others that policymakers must consider in their decision, it is no surprise that policymakers may disregard research evidence in favor of other sources of information (Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ).

The second category of barriers refers to policymakers’ ideology regarding research evidence and the presence of biases. Resistance to change and a lack of willingness by some policymakers to use research are two factors present when attempting to bridge the gap. This could be explained by certain sub-cultures of policymaking that grants little importance to evidence-informed solutions or by certain policymakers prioritizing their own opinion when research findings go against their expectations or against current policy (Koon et al., 2013 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ). Policymakers tend to interpret new information based on their past attitudes and beliefs, much like the general population (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ). It also does not seem to persuade policymakers with beliefs opposed to the evidence, rather it increases the effect of attitudes on the interpretation of information by policymakers (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ). This highlights the importance of finding methods to disseminate tailored evidence in a way that policymakers will be open to receive and consider (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ).

The third category of barriers refers to the evidence produced not always being tailor-made for application in different contexts (Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ; WHO, 2004 ). Indeed, the political context is an undeniable factor in the use of evidence in policymaking. Political and institutional factors such as the level of state centralization and democratization, the influence of external organizations and donors, the organization of bureaucracies and the social norms and values, can all affect the use of evidence in policy (Liverani et al., 2013 ). The elaboration of new policies implies making choices between different priorities while taking into consideration the limited resources available (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). The evidence of research can always be contested or balanced with the potential negative consequences of the intervention in another domain, such as a health-care intervention having larger consequences on the economy. Even if the effectiveness of an intervention can be proved beyond doubt, this given issue might not be a priority for decision-makers, or it might involve unrealistic resources that would rather be granted to other issues. Policymakers need to stay aware of the political priorities identified and the citizens they need to justify their decisions to. In this sense, politics and institutions are not a barrier to the use of research but rather they are the context under which evidence must respond to (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ; Hawkins and Parkhurst, 2016 ).

Summaries to prevent information overload

A great deal of research evidence has been developed but not enough of it is being disseminated in effective ways (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ). Offering a summary of research results in an accessible format could facilitate policy discussion and ultimately improve the use of research and help policymakers with their decisions (Arcury et al., 2017 ; Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ). In this age of information overload, when too much information is provided, one can have trouble discerning what is most important and make a decision. It is not unlikely that policymakers will, after a brief glance, discard a large amount of information given to them (Beynon et al., 2012 ; Yang et al., 2003 ). Decision-makers oftentimes criticize the length and overly dense contents of research documents (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ; Oliver et al., 2014 ). Hence, summaries of research results could increase the odds of decision-makers reading and therefore using the evidence proposed by researchers.

There are different methods to summarize research findings to provide facts and more detail for those involved in decision-making. For example, an infographic is an effective visual representation that explains information simply and quickly by using a combination of text and graphical symbols (Huang and Tan, 2007 ). Another type of research summary is the rapid review, a form of knowledge synthesis tailored and targeted to answer specific questions arising in “real world” policy or program environments (Moore et al., 2016 ; Wilson et al., 2015 ). They are oftentimes commissioned by people who would need scientific results to back up a decision. To produce the information in a timely manner, certain components of the systematic review process need to be simplified or omitted (Khangura et al., 2012 ). One study examining the use of 139 rapid reviews found that 89% of them had been used by commissioning agencies, on average up to three uses per review. Policymakers used those rapid reviews mostly to determine the details of a policy, to identify priorities and solutions for future action and communicate the information to stakeholders. However, rapid reviews might be susceptible to bias as a consequence of streamlining the systematic review process (Tricco et al., 2015 ). Also, policymakers may not always be able to commission a rapid review due to financial constraints.

Policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool

Another approach to summarizing research, which is more focused on summarizing results for the use of policymakers, is the policy brief. There are multiple definitions to the policy brief (Dagenais et Ridde, 2018 ). However, in this article it will refer to a short document that uses graphics and text to summarize the key elements of one or multiple researches and provides a succinct explanation of a policy issue or problem, together with options and specific recommendations for addressing that issue or problem (Arcury et al., 2017 ; Keepnews, 2016 ).

The objective of a policy brief is to inform policymakers’ decisions or motivate action (Keepnews, 2016 ; Wong et al., 2017 ). Their resolve can be placed on a continuum going from “neutral”, meaning objective and nuanced information, to “interventionist”, which puts forwards solutions to the stated problem (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). However, it is not an advocacy statement nor is it an opinion piece. A policy brief is analytic in nature and aims to remain objective and fact-based, even if the evidence is persuasive (Wong et al., 2017 ). A policy brief should include contextual and structural factors as a way to apply locally what was initially more general evidence (Rajabi, 2012 ).

What is known about format preferences

The format of policy briefs is just as important as the content when it comes to evidence use by policymakers. Decision-makers like concise documents that can be quickly examined and interpreted (Rajabi, 2012 ). Evidence should be understandable and user-friendly, as well as visually appealing and easy to access (Beynon et al., 2012 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Oliver et al., 2014 ). Tailoring the message to the targeted audience and ensuring the timing is appropriate are also two important factors in research communication. Indeed, the wording and contextualization of findings can have a noticeable impact on the use of those results (Langer et al., 2016 ). Policymakers also prefer documents written by expert opinions that is both simple and clear. It must be restricted to the information of interest and propose recommendations for action (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ; Cairney and Oliver, 2020 ).

In the case of a workshop, sending the policy brief in advance facilitates the use of its information (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). The results tend to be considered further since the information will already have been acknowledged prior to the workshop, leaving enough time during for it to be discussed with other stakeholders. These findings are in line with Langer’s report ( 2016 ), which suggested that interventions using a combination of evidence use mechanisms, such as communication of the evidence and interactions between stakeholders, are associated with an increased probability of being successful.

Why policy briefs were chosen

In the interest of sharing key lessons from research more effectively, it is essential to improve communication tools aimed at decision-making environments (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ). In recent years, policy briefs have seen an increase in use as a way to inform or influence decision-making (Tessier et al., 2019 ). The policy brief was the chosen scope in this study as it is the most commonly used term referring to information-packaging documents. Indeed, a study of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low to middle income countries determined that “policy brief” was the most frequently used label (39%) to describe such a document (Adam et al., 2014 ). However, there are many different terms related to such a synthesized document, including the technical note, policy note, evidence brief, evidence summary, research snapshot, etc. (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). Although these different terms were searched, the term “policy briefs” will be used in this paper.

Furthermore, policy briefs are postulated as a less intimidating form of research synthesis for policymakers, as opposed to systematic reviews. They offer key information on a given subject based on a systematic yet limited search of the literature for the most important elements. The policy brief is a first step into evidence, leading to further questioning and reading rather than providing a definitive report of what works (Nutley et al., 2013 ).

How should evidence use be measured?

The idea that evidence should be used to inform decision-making, rather than to determine what should be done, leads to questioning the way that evidence use should be measured (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). What constitutes good use of evidence does not necessarily lead to the recommendations being applied. A policymaker might read the evidence but ultimately decide not to apply the recommendations due to taking into consideration a series of other factors such as the interests of other stakeholders and the limited resources available (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ).

While the evidence may not have been used in decision-making, it was still used to inform (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). The term evidence- based policy, implying that decision-making should depend on the body of research found, has been transitioning in the last few years to evidence- informed policy (Oxman et al., 2009 ; Nutley et al., 2019 ). This change reflects a new perspective of looking at research communication processes rather than solely the results and impact of the evidence use on decision-making. It sheds light into the current issues characterizing the know-do gap while also recognizing the political nature of the decision-making process.

Therefore, as a guide to evaluate the use of evidence by decision-makers, the instrumental, conceptual and persuasive use of policy briefs by decision-makers will be used. This approach allows for a more holistic view of evidence use and to determine more specifically in which ways policymakers use research evidence

The instrumental use refers to the direct use of the policy brief in the decision-making process. The conceptual use refers to the use of the policy brief to better understand a problem or a situation. The symbolic, or persuasive use, refers to the use of the policy brief to confirm or justify a decision or a choice, which has already been made (Anderson et al., 1999 ). This framework is based on the idea that good use of evidence should not rely solely on the following decisions taken by policymakers, but also on the manner in which these decisions were taken and how the evidence was identified, interpreted and considered to better inform the parties involved (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ).

In policy contexts, instrumental use of research is relatively rare while conceptual and strategic use tend to be more common (Boaz et al., 2018 ). However, evidence on the use and effectiveness of policy briefs more specifically as a knowledge transfer tool remains unclear. Previous reviews, such as Petkovic et al., ( 2016 ), have researched the use of systematic review summaries in decision-making and the policy-maker’s perspective towards the summaries in terms of understanding, knowledge and beliefs. Other articles have studied the barriers and facilitators to policymakers using systematic review summaries (Oliver et al., 2014 ; Tricco et al., 2015 ). It remains unknown under which circumstances does a policy brief elicit changes in attitude, knowledge and intention to use. Hence, this study will report what is known about whether policy briefs are considered effective by decision-makers, how policy briefs are used by decision-makers and which components of policy briefs were considered useful.

Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (1) identify evidence about the use of policy briefs and (2) identify which elements of content made for an effective policy brief. The first objective includes the perceived appreciation and the different types of use (instrumental, conceptual, persuasive) and the factors linked to use. The second objective includes the format, the context and the quality of the evidence.

This study used the scoping review method by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ). A scoping study is a synthesis and analysis of a broad range of research material aimed at quickly mapping the key concepts underpinning a wider research area that has not been reviewed comprehensively before and where several different study designs might be relevant (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ; Mays et al., 2001 ). This allows to provide a greater conceptual clarity on a specific topic (Davis, et al., 2009 ). A scoping study, as opposed to other kinds of systematic reviews, is less likely to address a specific research question or to assess the quality of included studies. Scoping studies tend to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ). They do not reject studies based on their research designs.

This method was chosen to assess the breadth of knowledge available on the topic of short documents synthesizing research results and their usage by policymakers. Scoping reviews allow a greater assessment of the extent of the current research literature since the inclusion and exclusion criteria are not exhaustive.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The policy brief must have been presented to the target users; policymakers. A policymaker refers to a person responsible for devising regulations and laws. In this paper, the term policymaker will be used along with the term decision-maker, which is characterized more broadly as any entity who, such as health system managers, could benefit from empirical research to make a decision. For this paper, we did not differentiate between types or levels of policymakers. Stakeholders involved in the decision-making process related to a large jurisdiction or organization for which policy briefs were provided were included. As an example, papers were rejected if the participants were making decisions for an individual person or a patient. Articles were accepted if other user types were included as participants, as long as policymakers or decision-makers were included as users. This was decided because many papers included a variety of participants and if the feedback given by policymakers would have been different from other decision-makers, it would have been explained in the article.

Type of document

Articles were included when decision-makers had to assess a short document synthesizing research results. Given that many different terms are used to describe short research syntheses, the articles were identified using terms such as policy briefs, evidence summaries, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. The full list can be found in Table 1 .

Evaluations of systematic reviews were rejected as they are often written using technical language and can be lengthy (Moat et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, past research has evaluated the use and effectiveness of systematic reviews in policy. Given that this paper sought to evaluate short synthesized documents as a technical tool for knowledge transfer, any form of lengthy reports or reviews were excluded.

Rapid reviews were rejected due to their commissioned nature and the large breadth of literature available on their subject. Rapid reviews and commissioned research were excluded because they are different in a fundamental aspect: they are made as a direct response to a request from decision-makers. Since these papers are commissioned, there is already an intended use of these papers by decision-makers, as opposed to the use of non-commissioned papers. The expectations and motivations of these decision-makers in using these research results will be different. For these reasons, rapid reviews and commissioned research were excluded.

Articles were mostly excluded for being only examples of policy briefs, for not testing empirically the effectiveness of a policy brief, for testing another type of knowledge transfer tool (ex: deliberative dialogs) or for not having decision-makers as participants.

Type of study

All empirical studies were included, meaning qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods. Any type of literature review such as systematic reviews were excluded to avoid duplication of studies and to allow an equal representation of all included studies. This prevented the comparison between the results of a systematic review and the results of one case study. Systematic reviews were however scanned for any study respecting the criteria to be added into the scoping review.

Empirical studies were eligible based on the implementation of a policy brief and the assessment of its use by decision-makers. Outcomes of interest were the use and effectiveness of policy briefs according to decision-makers, as well as the preferred type of content and format of such documents. These results were either reported directly by the decision-makers or through observations by the researchers. Articles were included if the policy brief was reviewed in any sort of way, whether through the participants giving their opinion on the policy brief or any commentary on the way the policy brief had been acknowledged. Articles were not excluded for not assessing a specific type of use. Examples of policy briefs and articles limited to the creation process of a policy brief and articles without any evaluations of the use of policy brief were not included, as no empirical evidence was used to back up what the authors considered made a policy brief effective.

Search strategy

To identify potentially eligible studies, literature searches have been conducted using PsycNET, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from February 2018 to May 2019 in an iterative process. The search strategy was conceived in collaboration with a specialist in knowledge and information management. The scoping review’s objectives were discussed until four main concepts were identified. Related words to the four main concepts of the scoping study were searched with APA Thesaurus, these concepts being: (1) policy brief, (2) use, (3) knowledge transfer and (4) policymaker. The first term was used to find articles about the kind of summarized paper being evaluated. The second term was used to find articles discussing the ways these papers were used or discussing their effectiveness. Without this search term, many articles were simply mentioning policy briefs without evaluating them. The third term referred to the policy brief’s intent and to the large domain of knowledge transfer to get more precise research results into this field. The fourth search term allowed for the inclusion of the desired participants.

Different keywords for the concept of policy brief (any short document summarizing research results) were found through the literature and were also created using combinations of multiple keywords (e.g., research brief and evidence summary were combined to create research summary). The different concepts were then combined in the databases search engines until a point of saturation was reached and no new pertinent articles were found.

Study selection

Following the removal of duplicates, the articles were selected by analyzing the titles. If they seemed pertinent, the abstracts were then read. The remaining articles were verified by two authors to assess their eligibility, were read in their entirety and possibly eliminated if they did not respect the established criteria.

Data extraction

Once the articles were selected, summary sheets were created to extract data systematically. The factors recorded were the intended audience of the paper, the journal of publication, the objectives of the research, the research questions, a summary of the introduction, the variables researched, the type of research synthesis used in the study and a description of the document, information on sampling (size, response rate, type of participants, participants’ country, sampling method), the type of users reading the document (ex: practitioners, policymakers, consumers), a description of the experimentation, the research design, the main results found and the limits identified in the study.

Data analyses

Based on the extracted information compiled in the summary sheets, the data was taken from those summary sheets and separated into the two objectives of this study, which are (1) the evidence of policy brief use and (2) the elements of content that contributed to their effectiveness. Further themes were outlined based on the results, which formed the main findings. When more than one study had the same finding, the additional sources would be indicated. Similarly, any contradicting findings were also noted.

Literature search

Four-thousand nine-hundred four unique records were retrieved, of which 215 were screened on full text. In total, 22 articles were included in this scoping study. The number of studies in each step of the literature review process are shown in Fig. 1 .

A diagram of the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

Study characteristics

The year of publication ranged from 2007 to 2018, with 50% of the articles having been published in the last 5 years.

The studies spanned 35 countries, with the most common being conducted in Canada ( n  = 5), others being conducted in Burkina Faso ( n  = 2), the United States ( n  = 2), Netherlands ( n  = 1), Wales ( n  = 1), Thailand ( n  = 1), Nigeria ( n  = 1), Uganda ( n  = 1), Kenya ( n  = 1) and Israel ( n  = 1). Six studies were conducted in multiple countries Footnote 1 . Of the included studies, 12 took place in a total of 23 low to middle income countries, according to the World Bank Classification ( 2019 ).

Case studies were the most common design (59%), followed by descriptive studies (27%) and randomized controlled trials (14%). Five studies used quantitative research methods, eight were qualitative methods and nine used mixed-methods. For more details, Table 2 presents an overview of the characteristics of selected studies.

Primary objective: use of policy briefs

Appreciation of policy briefs.

The perception of decision-makers regarding policy briefs is a starting point to evaluate if more work should be put into its format to meet the needs of decision-makers or if it should go into communicating the importance of evidence-informed methods to decision-makers.

Of all the eligible studies, 19 (86%) found it useful or had a general appreciation towards policy briefs as a tool for knowledge transfer by decision-makers. Two studies (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Orem et al., 2012 ) did not report about the perceived usefulness or appreciation of such a document and one study (de Goede et al., 2012 ) had policy actors declare they found the document of no importance and neglected it during the policy process. Many participants reported throughout the various studies that taking into consideration the available evidence would help improve decision-making (El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Vogel et al., 2013 ).

Types of use of policy briefs

The use of the policy brief in the decision-making process was assessed through its instrumental use, conceptual use and persuasive use.

In regard to instrumental use, many policymakers claimed to have used evidence to inform their decision-making, even sometimes going as far as actively seeking out policy briefs and improving their ability to assess and use research evidence (El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Policy briefs seem to oftentimes be used as a starting point for deliberations on policies and to facilitate the discussions with policy actors on definitions and solutions to multiple problems (Ellen et al., 2016 ; de Goede et al., 2012 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ; Ti et al., 2017 ). Although policy briefs have helped in identifying problems and solutions in their communities, policymakers reported also relying on other sources of information, such as other literature, colleagues and their own knowledge (Goede et al., 2012 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). When it comes to putting recommendations into action, policymakers may be more inclined to report intentions to take into consideration and apply the recommendations when the solutions offered require little effort or co-operation from others (Beynon et al., 2012 ).

Policy briefs are most commonly used conceptually, which is no surprise given that it is the type of use requiring the least commitment. They allow decision-makers to better understand the different facets of a situation, to inform policymaking and raise awareness on certain issues (Campbell et al., 2009 ; El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Ellen et al., 2016 ; Goede et al., 2012 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). A better comprehension of a situation can also lead to a change of beliefs in certain circumstances. Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) found that reading a policy brief lead to creating evidence-accurate beliefs more commonly amongst those with no prior opinion. The policy brief was not as effective in changing the beliefs of respondents who had an opinion on the issue before reading the brief.

Few studies reported the persuasive use of policy briefs. One study reported policy briefs being used to support prior beliefs such as good timing for specific policies and to allow the progression of information before publication in order to make sure it is aligned with national health policies (de Goede et al., 2012 ). Policy briefs can be seen as an effective tool for advocacy when the objective is to convince other stakeholders of a position using evidence-based research (Ti et al., 2017 ). However, one study had policymakers claim that although research needs to be used more, rarely will they use research to inform policy agendas or to evaluate the impacts of a policy (Campbell et al., 2009 ). Thus, it remains unclear whether policy briefs are often used in a persuasive way.

Factors linked to use

Decision-makers are more inclined to report intentions and actual follow-up actions that require little effort or co-operation from others although globally, women are less likely to claim that they will do follow-up actions than men (Beynon et al., 2012 ). The same study reported that a higher level of self-perceived influence predicts a higher level of influence and those readers are more inclined to act. Furthermore, decision-makers were most likely to use policy briefs if they were directly targeted by the subject of the evidence (Brownson et al., 2011 ).

Dissemination strategies are specific methods of distributing information to key parties with the intention of having the reader process that information. A policy brief could be very well written and have all the necessary information but if it is not properly shared with the intended audience, it might not be read. One effective dissemination strategy appreciated by policymakers is to send the policy briefs a few weeks before a workshop (Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2018 ) as well as an individualized email in advance of the policy brief (Ellen et al., 2016 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ). Asking policymakers to be a part of the presentation of the briefs and to arrange a follow-up meeting to receive feedback on the documents was also viewed favorably (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ).

Secondary objective: elements of content contributing to the effectiveness of policy briefs

Decision-makers often report the language of researchers being too complex, inaccessible, lacking clarity and commonly using overly technical terms (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ). They prefer the use of simple and jargon-free language in clear, short sentences (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Schmidt et al., 2014 ; Vogel et al., 2013 ). Some decision-makers have reported having difficulty understanding the objectives in the policy brief and finding the document too long (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). They appreciate the emphasis to be on the advantages of the policy brief and for it to be constructed around a key message to draw the reader and disseminate the critical details. Multiple articles recommended policy briefs not to go over one to two pages, with references to more detailed findings so the reader can investigate further (Dobbins et al., 2007 ; Ellen et al., 2014 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ).

Furthermore, policy briefs need to be visually engaging. Since policymakers spend on average 30 to 60 min reading information about a particular issue, it is a challenge to present the information in such a way to make them go for the policy brief (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Information can be displayed in different ways to be more memorable such as charts, bullets, graphs and photos (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2018 ). One research study has reported that an overly esthetic document may seem expensive to produce, which can lead to policymakers wondering why funding was diverted from programs to the production of policy briefs (Schmidt et al., 2014 ). Another study found that “graded-entry” formats, meaning a short interpretation of the main findings and conclusions, combined with a short and contextually framed narrative report, followed by the full systematic review, were associated with a higher score for clarity and accessibility of information compared to systematic reviews alone (Opiyo et al., 2013 ). However, the exact format of the document does not seem to be as important for policymakers as its clarity. Indeed, policymakers do not appear to have a preference between electronic and hard copy formats (Dobbins et al., 2007 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ). This is also shown by another case study, where policymakers preferred the longest version of a policy brief, one easier to scan, leading to believe that a longer text may not necessarily be the condemnation of a policy brief, as long as it is written in an easily scannable way with small chunks of information dispersed through the document (Ellen et al., 2014 ).

Context-related

There is a preference for local information over global information by decision-makers (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Orem et al., 2012 ). It allows for local council members to identify relevant issues in their communities as well as responses tailored to the socio-political nature of the issue, such as cultural values, historical-political sensitivities and election timing (de Goede et al., 2012 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Authors of policy briefs, depending on the study, must consider the latest insights as well as the complex power relations underpinning the policy process when writing their recommendations. The issue of the policy brief has a significant impact on whether it can influence the views of decision-makers. To have a better grasp on the relevance of the topic, policymakers want to have the data put into context instead of simply presenting the facts and statistics (Schmidt et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, such research needs to be transmitted in a time-sensitive matter to remain relevant (Ellen et al., 2016 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Orem et al., 2012 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ; Uneke et al., 2015 ).

Given the time pressures on policymakers to make rapid and impactful decisions, the use of actionable, evidence-informed recommendations acknowledging the specific situation are much appreciated by policymakers. Decision-makers wish for realistic recommendations on an economic and strategic plan. They dislike a policy brief that is too general and without any propositions of concrete action (Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ; de Goede et al., 2012 ). Indeed, many policymakers claim that not concluding with recommendations is the least helpful feature for policy briefs (Moat et al., 2014 ). They prefer that the document provides more guidance on which actions should be taken and the steps to take as well as the possible implementations (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). However, it can also be a barrier to use if the content of the policy brief is not in line with the policy-maker’s system belief (de Geode et al., 2012 ).

Quality evidence

Quality, compelling evidence must be provided to facilitate the use of policy brief by decision-makers (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Therefore, it is required to know what kind of arguments are needed to promote research in the decision-making process. Although information about the situation and its context is appreciated, policymakers prefer having some guidance on what to do with such information afterwards. Some policymakers have reported a lack of details on the strategies to adopt, the tools to use and the processes required that would otherwise lead to a successful integration of the ideas proposed in the policy brief (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). There is a particular interest in detailed information about local applicability or costs, outcome measurements, broader framing of the research (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ), clear statements of the implication for practice from health service researchers (Dobbins et al., 2007 ), information about patient safety, effectiveness and cost savings (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ).

On the other hand, less emphasis should be put on information steering away from important results. One study showed that researchers should more often than not forego acknowledgements, forest plot diagrams, conflicts of interest, methods, risk of bias, study characteristics, interventions that showed no significant effect and statistical information (e.g., confidence interval) (Marquez et al., 2018 ). Surprisingly, policymakers tend to prefer data-centered arguments rather than story-based arguments, the former containing data percentages and the latter containing personal stories (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Schmidt et al., 2014 ), hinting that the use of emotions might not be the most effective method in convincing policymakers to adopt research into their decision-making. However, a certain subjectivity is appreciated. Indeed, policymakers value researchers’ opinions about the policy implications of their findings (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) found that policy briefs, including an opinion piece acquire significance over time, possibly indicating that the effect of the opinion piece trickles in slowly.

Legitimacy however does not emerge solely from good evidence and arguments, but also from the source of those arguments, more specifically the authors involved. Policymakers specified that they pay attention to the authors of policy briefs and that it influences their acceptance of the evidence and arguments presented (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Authoritative messages were considered a key element of an effective policy brief. This is confirmed by Beynon et al. ( 2012 ), who found a clear authority effect on readers’ intentions to send the policy brief to someone else. Readers were more likely to share briefs with a recommendation from an authoritative figure rather than a recommendation from an unnamed researcher. It can be considered an obstacle to the use of the document if the latter is not perceived as coming from a credible source (Goede et al., 2012 ). Authoritative institutions, research groups and experts have been identified as the best mediators between researchers and decision-makers (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

The objectives of this study were to identify what the literature has concluded about the use of policy briefs and which elements made for an effective one.

The results showed that policy briefs were considered generally useful, easy to understand and credible, regardless of the group, the issue, the features of the brief or the country tested. Different types of use were assessed, notably the instrumental, conceptual and persuasive use. Many policymakers claimed to use the evidence given in their decision-making process, some even reporting an increased demand for knowledge transfer products by policymakers. This fact and the surge of knowledge transfer literature in the past few years might suggest that policy briefs and other short summaries of research could become a more commonly used tool in the next years for the decision-making process in policy. Given that policymakers oftentimes rely on multiple sources of information and that policy briefs facilitated discussions between different actors, future interventions should aim to combine a policy brief with other mechanisms of evidence use (Langer et al., 2016 ).

One factor linked to a greater use of policy briefs was the dissemination strategies. Arranging a meeting with policymakers following the reading of the document to receive feedback is a good strategy to get the policymakers to read attentively and consider the content of the policy brief (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ). A greater implication by policymakers seems to encourage the use of the policy brief. This supports the findings of Langer et al. ( 2016 ) concerning interaction as a mechanism to promote evidence use. Indeed, improved attitudes towards evidence were found after holding joint discussions with other decision-makers who were motivated to apply the evidence. Increasing motivation to use research evidence through different techniques such as the framing and tailoring of the evidence, the development of policymakers’ skills in interpreting evidence and better access to the evidence could lead to an increase in evidence-informed decision-making (Langer et al., 2016 ). Instead of working independently, it has been often proposed that researchers and policymakers should work in collaboration to increase the pertinence and promote the use of evidence (Gagliardi et al., 2015 ; Langer et al., 2016 ). The collaboration between policymakers and researchers would allow researchers to better understand policymakers’ needs and the contexts in which the evidence is used, thus providing a well-tailored version of the document for a greater use for those in need of evidence-informed results (Boaz et al., 2018 ; Langer et al., 2016 ). However, multiple barriers are present to the collaboration between researchers and decision-makers, such as differing needs and priorities, a lack of skill or understanding of the process and attitudes towards research (Gagliardi et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, different dilemmas come into play when considering how much academics should engage in policymaking. Although recommendations are often made for researchers to invest time into building alliances with policymakers and getting to know the political context, there is no guarantee that these efforts will lead to the expected results. Influencing policy through evidence advocacy requires engaging in different networks and seeing windows of opportunity, which may blur the line between scientists and policymakers (Cairney and Oliver, 2020 ). To remain neutral, researchers should aim to listen to the needs of policymakers and inform them of new evidence, rather than striving to have policymakers use the evidence in a specific way.

When policymakers considered the policy brief of little importance for their decision-making, it could be partially explained by the fact that the document shared was not aligned with the groups’ belief systems (de Goede et al., 2012 ). Similarly, Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) had found that policy briefs are not as effective in changing opinions in respondents who held previous beliefs rather than forging an opinion on a new topic. Being presented with information opposite of one’s belief can be uncomfortable. This cognitive dissonance can influence the level of acceptance of new information, which can affect its use. To return to a feeling of consistency with their own thoughts, policymakers could easily discard a policy brief opposing their beliefs. The use of policy briefs is, therefore, determined largely by the type of audience and whether they agree with the content. To improve the acceptance, the policy brief should strive to be aligned with the needs of policymakers. This implies that when creating and disseminating the evidence, researchers must consider their audience. Therefore, there is no “one-size-fits-all” and a better solution to improve the use of research is to communicate information based on the type of policymaker (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

These results should lead researchers to first determine who is the targeted audience and how can the format of the policy brief be attractive to them. Different versions of policy briefs can be made according to the different needs, priorities and positions of varying policy actors (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Furthermore, people directly targeted by the content of the evidence are more likely to read the policy brief. In the knowledge to action cycle, it seems essential to have a clear picture of who will be reading the policy brief and what kind of information to provide as a way to better reach them.

The lack of recommendations was cited as being the least helpful feature of evidence briefs (Moat et al., 2014 ). This, along with other studies claiming the importance of clear recommendations could lead to believe that policymakers prefer an advocacy brief rather than a neutral brief (Goede et al., 2012 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). However, this brings the question of impartiality in research (Cairney and Oliver, 2017 ). The purpose of policy briefs and generally of knowledge transfer is to gather the best evidence and to disseminate it in a way to assure that it has an impact. Science is seen as neutral and providing only the facts, yet policymakers ask for precise recommendations and opinions. This seeming contradiction leads to wondering whether researchers should offer their opinion and how much co-production with policymakers should they be involved in to align the results with the policymakers’ agenda (Cairney and Oliver, 2017 ).

The credibility of the messenger is also an important factor in the decision-maker’s use of the document. Briefs were more likely to be shared when associated with an authoritative figure than with an unnamed research fellow. This authority effect may be due to the brief becoming more memorable when associated with an authoritative figure, which leads to a greater likelihood for the policymakers to share that message with other people (Beynon et al., 2012 ). Another possible explanation is the trust associated with authority. The results have shown that policymakers tend to forego the information about conflicts of interest, methodology, risks of bias and statistics. In other words, the details that would show the legitimacy of the data. Instead, they prefer going straight to the results and recommendation. This could lead to believe that policymakers would prefer to read a paper coming from a reputable source that they can already trust, so they can focus on analyzing the content rather than the legitimacy of it. Thus, the partnering between authoritative institutions, researchers and policymakers could help not only to better target the needs of policymakers but also to improve the legitimacy of the message communicated through the brief, in an effort to help policymakers focus more on the information being shared (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

Strengths and limitations

The use of all the similar terms related to policy briefs in the search strategy allowed for a wide search net during the literature search process, leading to finding more studies. Another strength was the framework assessing both the types of use and the format of the policy brief preferred by policymakers, which allowed a better understanding of the place policy briefs currently have in policymaking as well as an explanation of different content factors related to its use. As knowledge transfer is becoming a pillar in organizations across the globe, there remains however a gap in the use of research in decision-making. This review will enable researchers to better adapt the content of their research to their audience when writing a policy brief by adjusting the type of information that should be included in the document. One limit of the present scoping study is its susceptibility to a sampling bias. Although the articles assessed for eligibility were verified by two authors, the first records identified through database searching were carried out by a single author. The references of the selected articles were not searched systematically to find additional articles. This scoping study also does not assess the quality of the selected studies and evaluation since its objective is to map the current literature on a given subject.

Although the quality of the chosen articles was not assessed, it is possible to notice a few limits in their method, which can be found in the Table 2 . There is also something to be said about publication bias, meaning that papers with positive results tend to be published in greater proportion than papers failing to prove their hypotheses.

Furthermore, few studies determined the actual use or effect of the policy brief in decision-making but instead assessed self-reported use of the policy brief or other outcomes, such as perceived credibility or relevance of those briefs, since these may affect the likelihood of research use in decision-making. Few studies reported the persuasive use of policy briefs. This could be explained by the reticence of participants to report such information due to the implications that they would use research results only to further their agenda rather than using them to make better decisions, or simply because researchers did not question the participants on such matters. Although the inclusion criteria of this study were fairly large, it is worth noting that the number of selected articles was fairly low, with only 22 studies included. Further research on persuasive research would need to assess researchers’ observations rather than self-reported use by policymakers. Since the current research has shown that policy briefs could be more useful in creating or reinforcing a belief, future studies could assess the actual use of policy briefs in decision-making.

The findings indicate that while policy briefs are generally valued by decision-makers, it is still necessary for these documents to be written with the end reader in mind to meet their needs. Indeed, an appreciation towards having a synthesized research document does not necessarily translate to its use, although it is a good first step given that it shows an open-mindedness of decision-makers to be informed by research. Decision-making is a complex process, of which the policy brief can be one step to better inform the decision-makers on the matter at hand. A policy brief is not a one-size-fits-all solution to all policy-making processes. Evidence can be used to inform but it might not be able to, on its own, fix conflicts between the varying interests, ideas and values circulating the process of policymaking (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). Since credibility is an important factor for decision-makers, researchers will have to take into consideration the context, the authors associated with writing policy briefs and the actors that will play a lead role in promoting better communication between the different stakeholders.

Given that the current literature on the use of policy briefs is not too extensive, more research needs to be done on the use of such documents by policymakers. Future studies should look into the ways researchers can take the context into consideration when writing a policy brief. It would also be interesting to search whether different formats are preferred by policymakers intending to use evidence in different ways. Furthermore, there are other types of summarized documents that were excluded in this scoping review such as rapid reviews, or even different formats such as infographics. The use of commissioned summaries could be an interesting avenue to explore, as the demand for these types of documents from policymakers would ensure their use in a significant manner.

Data availability

All data analyzed in this study are cited in this article and available in the public domain.

The studies were conducted in Zambia ( n  = 3), Uganda ( n  = 3), South Africa ( n  = 2), Argentina ( n  = 2), China ( n  = 2), Cameroon ( n  = 2), Cambodia ( n  = 1), Norway ( n  = 2), Ethiopia ( n  = 2), India ( n  = 1), Ghana ( n  = 1), Nicaragua ( n  = 1), Bolivia ( n  = 1), Brazil ( n  = 1), England ( n  = 1), Wales ( n  = 1), Finland ( n  = 1), Germany ( n  = 1), Burkina Faso ( n  = 1), Italy ( n  = 1), Scotland ( n  = 1), Spain ( n  = 1), Mozambique ( n  = 1), Bangladesh ( n  = 1), Nigeria ( n  = 1), Central African Republic ( n  = 1), Sudan ( n  = 1), Colombia ( n  = 1) and Australia ( n  = 1).

Adam T, Moat KA, Ghaffar A, Lavis JN (2014) Towards a better understanding of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low-and middle-income countries. Implement Sci 9(1):67

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Anderson M, Cosby J, Swan B, Moore H, Broekhoven M (1999) The use of research in local health service agencies. Soc Sci Med 49(8):1007–1019

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arcury TA, Wiggins MF, Brooke C, Jensen A, Summers P, Mora DC, Quandt SA (2017) Using “policy briefs” to present scientific results of CBPR: farmworkers in North Carolina. Prog Commun Health Partnerships: Res Educ Action 11(2):137

Article   Google Scholar  

Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32

Baekgaard M, Christensen J, Dahlmann CM, Mathiasen A, Petersen NBG (2019) The role of evidence in politics: motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians. Br J Polit Sci 49(3):1117–1140

Beynon P, Chapoy C, Gaarder M, Masset, E (2012) What difference does a policy brief make? Full report of an IDS, 3ie, Norad study: Institute of Development Studies and the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)

Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M (2018) How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):60

Brownson RC et al. (2011) Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(4):306–316

Cairney P, Heikkila T, Wood M (2019) Making policy in a complex world (1st edn.). Cambridge University Press

Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R (2017) How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun 3(1):37

Cairney P, Oliver K (2017) Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst 15:1

Cairney P, Oliver K (2020) How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact? Polit Stud Rev 18(2):228–244

Cambridge University Press (2019) Definition of a policymaker. https://dictionary.cambridge.org . Accessed 2019

Campbell DM et al. (2009) Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: Practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Aust N Z Health Policy 6(21):1–11

Google Scholar  

Dagenais C, Ridde V (2018) Policy brief (PB) as a knowledge transfer tool: To “make a splash”, your PB must first be read. Gaceta Sanitaria

Davis K, Drey N, Gould D (2009) What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud 46(10):1386–1400

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dobbins M, Jack S, Thomas H, Kothari A (2007) Public Health Decision-Makers’ informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. Worldview Evid-Based Nurs 4(3):156–163

El-Jardali F, Lavis J, Moat K, Pantoja T, Ataya N (2014) Capturing lessons learned from evidence-to-policy initiatives through structured reflection. Health Res Policy Syst 12(1):1–15

Ellen M et al. (2014) Health system decision makers’ feedback on summaries and tools supporting the use of systematic reviews: A qualitative study. Evid Policy 10(3):337–359

Ellen ME, Horowitz E, Vaknin S, Lavis JN (2016) Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel. Israel J Health Policy Res 5:24

de Goede J, Putters K, Van Oers H (2012) Utilization of epidemiological research for the development of local public health policy in the Netherlands: a case study approach. Soc Sci Med 74(5):707–714

Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R (2015) Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implementation. Science 11(1):38

Hawkins B, Parkhurst J (2016) The ‘good governance’ of evidence in health policy. Evid Policy 12(4):575–592

Huang W, Tan CL (2007) A system for understanding imaged infographics and its applications. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Document engineering, Association for Computing Machinery, Seoul, pp 9–18

Jones N, Walsh C (2008) Policy briefs as a communication tool for development research. ODI Background Note. ODI, London

Keepnews DM (2016) Developing a policy brief. Policy Polit Nurs Pract 17(2):61–65

Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D (2012) Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 1:10

Kilpatrick K et al. (2015) The development of evidence briefs to transfer knowledge about advanced practice nursing roles to providers, policymakers and administrators. Nurs Leadership (Toronto, Ont.) 28(1):11–23

Koon AD, Rao KD, Tran NT, Abdul G (2013) Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making processes in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst 18:9

Langer L, Tripney J, Gough D (2016) The science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making. Social Science Research Unit, & Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre

Lavis JN, Posada FB, Haines A, Osei E (2004) Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet 364(9445):1615–1621

Lavis JN et al. (2012) Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med 9:3

Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO (2013) Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77404

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Marquez C, Johnson AM, Jassemi S, Park J, Moore JE, Blaine C, Straus SE (2018) Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: What is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study. Implement Sci 13(1):84

Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J (2001) Synthesising research evidence. In: Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N (eds) Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: research methods. Routledge, London, pp. 188–220

Mays N, Pope C, Popay J (2005) Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy 10(Suppl 1):6–20

Mc Sween-Cadieux E, Dagenais C, Somé PA, Ridde V (2017) Research dissemination workshops: Observations and implications based on an experience in Burkina Faso. Health Res Policy Syst 15(1):1–12

Mc Sween-Cadieux E, Dagenais C, Ridde V (2018) A deliberative dialogue as a knowledge translation strategy on road traffic injuries in Burkina Faso: a mixed-method evaluation. Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):1–13

Moat KA, Lavis JN, Clancy SJ, El-Jardali F, Pantoja T (2014) Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt. Bull World Health Organiz 20:8

Moore GM, Redman S, Turner T, Haines M (2016) Rapid reviews in health policy: a study of intended use in the New South Wales’ Evidence Check programme. Evid Policy 12(46):505–519

Nutley S, Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A (2019) New development: What works now? Continuity and change in the use of evidence to improve public policy and service delivery. Public Money Manage 39(4):310–6

Nutley S, Powell AE, Davies HTO (2013) What counts as good evidence, Alliance for Useful Evidence, London

Oliver K, Boaz A (2019) Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1

Oliver K, Cairney P (2019) The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Commun 5(1):21

Oliver KA, de Vocht F (2017) Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health 1(27 May):112–7

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):2

Opiyo N, Shepperd S, Musila N, Allen E, Nyamai R, Fretheim A, English M (2013) Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study. PLoS ONE 8:1

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Orandi BJ, Locke JE (2020) Engaging policymakers to disseminate research. In: Dimick J., Lubitz C. (eds) Health Serv Res. Springer, Cham, pp. 283–288

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Orem JN, Mafigiri DK, Marchal B, Ssengooba F, Macq J, Criel B (2012) Research, evidence and policymaking: The perspectives of policy actors on improving uptake of evidence in health policy development and implementation in Uganda. BMC Public Health 12(1):109

Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A (2009) SUPPORT Tools for evidence informed health policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Res Policy Syst 7:S1

Petkovic J, Welch V, Jacob MH, Yoganathan M, Ayala AP, Cunningham H, Tugwell P (2016) The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review. Implement Sci 11(1):1–14

Rajabi F (2012) Evidence-informed Health Policy Making: the role of policy brief. Int J Prevent Med 3(9):596–598

Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Wiysonge CS, Abalos E, Mignini L, Young T, Oxman AD (2011) Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ 89(1):54–61

Schmidt AM, Ranney LM, Goldstein AO (2014) Communicating program outcomes to encourage policymaker support for evidence-based state tobacco control. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(12):12562–12574

Suter E, Armitage GD (2011) Use of a knowledge synthesis by decision makers and planners to facilitate system level integration in a large Canadian provincial health authority. Int J Integr Care, 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107086 . Accessed 2019

Tessier C, Tessier C, Centre de collaboration nationale sur les politiques publiques et la santé (2019) The policy brief: a tool for knowledge transfer. http://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/4002463 . Accessed 2020

Ti L, Hayashi K, Ti L, Kaplan K, Suwannawong P, Kerr T (2017) ”Knowledge translation to advance evidence-based health policy in Thailand. Evid Policy 13(4):723–731

Tricco AC, Antony J, Straus SE (2015) Systematic reviews vs. rapid reviews: What’s the difference? CADTH Rapid Review Summit

Uneke CJ, Ebeh Ezeoha A, Uro-Chukwu H, Ezeonu CT, Ogbu O, Onwe F, Edoga C (2015) ”Promoting evidence to policy link on the control of infectious diseases of poverty in Nigeria: outcome of a multi-stakeholders policy dialogue. Health Promot Perspect 5(2):104–115

Uzochukwu B, Onwujekwe O, Mbachu C, Okwuosa C, Etiaba E, Nyström ME, Gilson L (2016) The challenge of bridging the gap between researchers and policy makers: experiences of a Health Policy Research Group in engaging policy makers to support evidence informed policy making in Nigeria. Glob Health 12(1):1–15

van de Goor I, Hämäläinen RM, Syed A, Lau CJ, Sandu P, Spitters H, Karlsson LE, Dulf D, Valente A, Castellani T, Aro AR (2017) Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries. Health policy 121(3):273–81

Vogel JP, Oxman AD, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Lewin S, Gülmezoglu AM, Souza JP (2013) Policymakers' and other stakeholders' perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey. Health Res Policy Syst 11(1):1–9

Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Gauvin FP (2015) Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue. Syst Rev 4(25):1–11

Wong SL, Green LA, Bazemore AW, Miller BF (2017) How to write a health policy brief. Fam Syst Health 35(1):21–24

World Bank (2019) Classification of low- and middle- income countries. https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-and-middle-income . Accessed 2020

World Health Organization (2004) Knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. Ministerial Summit on Health Research:16-20

Yang CC, Chen H, Honga K (2003) Visualization of large category map for internet browsing. Decision Supp Syst 35(1):89–102

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Julie Desnoyers for her collaboration on developing the search strategy, Stéphanie Lebel for extracting data on the selected articles and Valéry Ridde for peer-reviewing the article. This study was conducted as part of the first author’s doctoral training in industrial-organizational psychology. The candidate received financial support from Équipe RENARD, a research team studying knowledge transfer, which is led by Christian Dagenais and funded by the FRQSC.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Arnautu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Arnautu, D., Dagenais, C. Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 211 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00885-9

Download citation

Received : 24 February 2020

Accepted : 25 February 2021

Published : 13 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00885-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences.

• Sam McCrabb
• Luke Wolfenden

Health Research Policy and Systems (2023)

Comparing two federal financing strategies on penetration and sustainment of the adolescent community reinforcement approach for substance use disorders: protocol for a mixed-method study

• Alex R. Dopp
• Sarah B. Hunter
• Jonathan Purtle

Implementation Science Communications (2022)

When the messenger is more important than the message: an experimental study of evidence use in francophone Africa

• Amandine Fillol
• Esther McSween-Cadieux
• Valéry Ridde

Health Research Policy and Systems (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Policy Memo

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods

Using Non-Textual Elements

• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

A policy memo is a practical and professionally written document that can vary in length from one page to over one hundred pages. It provides analysis and/or recommendations directed to a predetermined audience regarding a specific situation or topic. A well-written policy memo reflects attention to the research problem. It is well organized and structured in a clear and concise style that assumes the reader possesses limited knowledge of, as well as little time to conduct research about, the issue of concern. There is no thesis statement or overall theoretical framework underpinning the document; the focus is on describing one or more specific policy recommendations and their supporting action items.

Davis, Jennifer. Guide to Writing Effective Policy Memos . MIT OpenCourseWare, Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Planning in Developing Countries, Spring 2004; Pennock, Andrew. “The Case for Using Policy Writing in Undergraduate Political Science Courses.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (January 2011): 141-146.

How to Approach Writing a Policy Memo

Policy memo writing assignments are intended to promote the following learning outcomes :

• Help students learn how to write academically rigorous, persuasive papers about a specific “real-world” issue;
• Learn how to choose and craft a document’s content based on the needs of a particular audience [rather than for a general readership];
• Prepare students about how to write effectively in non-academic settings;
• Teach students to be client-oriented and to better anticipate the assumptions and concerns of their targeted readership; and,
• Enable students to create original work that synthesizes their research into a succinctly written document advocating change or a specific course of action.

You should not approach writing a policy memo like you would an academic research paper. Yes, there are certain commonalities in how the content is presented [e.g., a well-written problem statement], but the overarching objective of a policy memo is not to discover or create new knowledge. It is focused on providing a pre-determined group of readers the rationale for choosing a particular policy alternative or specific course of action. In this sense, most policy memos possess a component of advocacy and policy advice intended to promote evidence-based dialog about an issue.

Given these intended learning outcomes, keep in mind the following: Focus and Objectives The overall content of your memo should be strategically aimed at achieving the following goal: convincing your target audience about the accuracy of your analysis and, by extension, that your policy recommendations are valid. Avoid lengthy digressions and superfluous narration that can distract the reader from understanding the policy problem. Professionally Written Always keep in mind that a policy memorandum is a tool for decision-making. Keep it professional and avoid hyperbole that could undermine the credibility of your document. The presentation and content of the memo should be polished, easy to understand, and free of jargon. Writing professionally does not imply that you can’t be passionate about your topic, but your policy recommendations should be grounded in solid reasoning and a succinct writing style. Evidence-based A policy memo is not an argumentative debate paper. The reader should expect your recommendations to be based upon evidence that the problem exists and of the consequences [both good and bad] of adopting particular policy alternatives. To address this, policy memos should include a clear cost-benefit analysis that considers anticipated outcomes, the potential impact on stakeholder groups you have identified, clear and quantifiable performance goals, and how success is to be measured. Accessibility A policy memo requires clear and simple language that avoids unnecessary jargon and concepts of an academic discipline. Do not skip around. Use one paragraph to develop one idea or argument and make that idea or argument explicit within the first one or two sentences. Your memo should have a straightforward, explicit organizational structure that provides well-explained arguments arranged within a logical sequence of reasoning [think in terms of an if/then logic model--if this policy recommendation, then this action; if this benefit, then this potential cost; if this group is allocated resources, then who may be excluded]. Presentation Style The visual impact of your memo affects the reader’s ability to grasp your ideas quickly and easily. Include a table of contents and list of figures and charts, if necessary. Subdivide the text using clear and descriptive headings to guide the reader. Incorporate devices such as capitalization, bold text, and bulleted items but be consistent, and don’t go crazy; the purpose is to facilitate access to specific sections of the paper for successive readings. If it is difficult to find information in your document, policy makers will not use it. Practical and Feasible Your memorandum should provide a set of actions based on what is actually happening in reality. The purpose is never to base your policy recommendations on future scenarios that are unlikely to occur or that do not appear realistic to your targeted readers. Here again, your cost-benefit analysis can be essential to validating the practicality and feasibility to your recommendations. Explicit Transparency Provide specific criteria to assess either the success or failure of the policies you are recommending. As much as possible, this criteria should be derived from your cost/benefit analysis. Do not hide or under-report information that does not support your policy recommendations. Just as you should note limitations in an original research study, a policy memo should describe the weaknesses of your analysis. Be straightforward about it because doing so strengthens your arguments and it will help the reader to assess the overall impact of recommended policy changes.

NOTE : Technically, your policy memo could argue for maintaining the status quo. However, the general objective of policy memos is to examine opportunities for transformative change and the risks of on-going complacency. If you choose to argue for maintaining the current policy trajectory, be concise in identifying and systematically refuting all relevant policy options. Summarize why the outcomes of maintaining the status quo are preferable to any alterative policy options.

Herman, Luciana. Policy Memos . John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University; How to Write a Public Policy Memo . Student Learning Center. University of California, Berkeley; Policy Memo . Thompson Writing Program, Writing Studio. Duke University; Policy Memo Guidelines . Cornell Fellows Program. Cornell University; Memo: Audience and Purpose . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition . Institute for Public Policy Studies. University of Denver; Thrall, A. Trevor. How to Write a Policy Memo . University of Michigan--Dearborn, 2006; Writing Effective Memos . Electronic Hallway. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. University of Washington; Writing Effective Policy Memos . Water & Sanitation Infrastructure Planning syllabus. Spring 2004. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Structure and Writing Style

The contents of a policy memo can be organized in a variety of ways. Below is a general template adapted from the “Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition” published by the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver and from suggestions made in the book, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving [Eugene Bardach. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012] . Both provide useful approaches to writing a policy memo should your professor not provide you with specific guidance. The tone of your writing should be formal but assertive. Note that the most important consideration in terms of writing style is professionalism, not creativity. I.  Cover Page Provide a complete and informative cover page that includes the document title, date, the full names and titles of the writer or writers [i.e., Joe Smith, Student, Department of Political Science, University of Southern California]. The title of the policy memo should be formally written and specific to the policy issue [e.g., “Charter Schools, Fair Housing, and Legal Standards: A Call for Equal Treatment”]. For longer memos, consider including a brief executive summary that highlights key findings and recommendations.

II.  Introduction and Problem Definition A policy memorandum should begin with a short summary introduction that defines the policy problem, provides important contextual background information, and explains what issues the memo covers. This is followed by a short justification for writing the memo, why a decision needs to be made [answering the “So What?” question], and an outline of the recommendations you make or key themes the reader should keep in mind. Summarize your main points in a few sentences, then conclude with a description of how the remainder of the memo is organized.

III.  Methods This is usually where other research about the problem or issue of concern is summarized. Describe how you plan to identify and locate the information on which your policy memo is based. This may include peer-reviewed journals and books as well as possible professionals you interviewed, databases and websites you explored, or legislative histories or relevant case law that you used. Remember this is not intended to be a thorough literature review; only choose sources that persuasively support your position or that helps lay a foundation for understanding why actions need to be taken.

IV.  Issue Analysis This section is where you explain in detail how you examined the issue and, by so doing, persuade the reader of the appropriateness of your analysis. This is followed by a description of how your analysis contributes to the current policy debate. It is important to demonstrate that the policy issue may be more complex than a basic pro versus con debate. Very few public policy debates can be reduced to this type of rhetorical dichotomy. Be sure your analysis is thorough and takes into account all factors that may influence possible strategies that could advance a recommended set of solutions.

V.  Proposed Solutions Write a brief review of the specific solutions you evaluated, noting the criteria by which you examined and compared different proposed policy alternatives. Identify the stakeholders impacted by the proposed solutions and describe in what ways the stakeholders benefit from your proposed solution. Focus on identifying solutions that have not been proposed or tested elsewhere. Offer a contrarian viewpoint that challenges the reader to take into account a new perspective on the research problem. Note that you can propose solutions that may be considered radical or unorthodox, but they must be realistic and politically feasible.

VI.  Strategic Recommendations Solutions are just opinions until you provide a path that delineates how to get from where you are to where you want to go. Describe what you believe are the best recommended courses of action ["action items"]. In writing this section, state the broad approach to be taken, with specific practical steps or measures that should be implemented. Be sure to also state by whom and within what time frame these actions should be taken. Conclude by highlighting the consequences of maintaining the status quo [or if supporting the status quo, why change at this time would be detrimental]. Also, clearly explain why your strategic recommendations are best suited for addressing the current policy situation.

VI.  Limitations As in any academic paper, you must describe limitations to your analysis. In particular, ask yourself if each of your recommendations are realistic, feasible, and sustainable, and in particular, that they can be implemented within the current bureaucratic, economic, political, cultural, or other type of contextual climate in which they reside. If not, you should go back and clarify your recommendations or provide further evidence as to why the recommendation is most appropriate for addressing the issue. If the limitation cannot be overcome, it does not necessarily undermine the overall recommendations of your study, but you must clearly acknowledge it. Place the limitation within the context of a critical issue that needs further study in concurrence with possible implementation [i.e., findings indicate service learning promotes civic engagement, but.there is a lack of data on the types of service learning programs that exist among high schools in Los Angeles].

VII.  Cost-Benefit Analysis This section may be optional but, in some cases, policy memos include an explicit summary analysis of the costs and benefits of each strategic recommendation. If you are asked to include a separate cost-benefit analysis, be concise and brief. Since most policy memos do not have a formal conclusion, the cost-benefit analysis can act as your conclusion by summarizing the key differences among policy alternatives and recommended courses of action.

Bardach, Eugene. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving . 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012; Herman, Luciana. Policy Memos . John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University; How to Write a Public Policy Memo . Student Learning Center. University of California, Berkeley;  Policy Memo Guidelines . Cornell Fellows Program. Cornell University; Memo: Audience and Purpose . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Pennock, Andrew. “The Case for Using Policy Writing in Undergraduate Political Science Courses.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (January 2011): 141-146; Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition . Institute for Public Policy Studies. University of Denver; Thrall, A. Trevor. How to Write a Policy Memo . University of Michigan--Dearborn, 2006; “ What Are Policy Briefs? ” FAO Corporate Document Repository. United Nations; Writing Effective Memos . Electronic Hallway. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. University of Washington; Writing Effective Policy Memos . Water & Sanitation Infrastructure Planning syllabus. Spring 2004. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Proofreading the Memo

Problems to Avoid

The style and arrangement of an effectively written memo can differ because no two policies, nor their intended audience of readers, are exactly the same. Nevertheless, before you submit your policy memo, be sure you proofread the document in order to avoid these common problems. If you identify one or more of them, you should rewrite or re-organize the content accordingly.

1.  Acknowledge the law of unintended consequences -- no policy analysis is complete until you have identified for whom the policy is supposed to benefit as well as identify what groups may be impacted by the consequences of implementation. Review your memo and make sure you have clearly delineated who could be helped and who could be potentially harmed or excluded from benefiting from your recommended policy actions. As noted by Wilcoxen, this is also important because describing who may or may not benefit can help you anticipate which stakeholder groups will support your policy recommendations and which groups will likely oppose it. Calculating potential winners and losers will help reveal how much it may cost to compensate those groups excluded from benefiting. By building this compensation into your policy recommendations, you are better able to show the reader how to reduce political obstacles.

2.  Anticipate the reader's questions -- examine your recommended courses of action and identify any open-ended, declarative, or ambiguous statements that could lead the reader to have to ask further questions. For example, you declare that the most important factor supporting school choice among parents is distance from home. Without clarification or additional information, a reader may question why or by what means do you know this, or what distance is considered to be too far? Or, what factors contribute to parent's decision about school choice and distance from schools? What age group does this most apply to? Clarify these types of open-ended statements so that your policy can be more fully understood.

3.  Be concise -- being succinct in your writing does not relate to the overall length of the policy memo or the amount of words you use. It relates to an ability to provide a lot of information clearly and without superfluous detail. Strategies include r eviewing long paragraphs and breaking them up into parts, looking for long sentences and eliminating unnecessary qualifiers and modifiers, and deleting prepositional phrases in favor of adjectives or adverbs. The overarching goal is to be thorough and precise in how you present ideas and to avoid writing that uses too many words or excessively technical expressions.

4. Focus on the results -- while it's important that your memo describe the methods by which you gathered and analyzed the data informing your policy recommendations, the content should focus on explaining the results of your analysis and the logic underpinning your recommendations. Remember your audience. The reader is presumably a decision-maker with limited knowledge of the issue and with little time to contemplate the methods of analysis. The validity of your findings will be determined primarily by your reader's determination that your policy recommendations and supporting action items are realistic and rooted in sound reasoning. Review your memo and make sure the statement about how you gathered the data is brief and concise. If necessary, technical issues or raw data can be included as an appendix.

5.  Minimize subjective reasoning -- avoid emphasizing your personal opinion about the topic. A policy memo should be written in a professional tone with recommendations based upon empirical reasoning while, at the same time, reflecting a level of passion about your topic. However, being passionate does not imply being opinionated. The memo should emphasize presenting all of the facts a reader would need to reach his or her own conclusions about the validity of your recommendations.

6.  Use of non-textual elements -- review all tables, charts, figures, graphs, or other non-textual elements and make sure they are labeled correctly. Examine each in relation to the text and make sure they are described adequately and relate to the overall content of your memo. If these elements are located in appendices, make sure references to them within the text is correct [i.e., reference to Figure 2 is actually the table you want the reader to look at].

Bardach, Eugene and Eric M. Pataschnik. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving . 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2016; Herman, Luciana. Policy Memos . John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University; How to Write a Public Policy Memo . Student Learning Center. University of California, Berkeley; Memo: Audience and Purpose . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University;  Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition . Institute for Public Policy Studies. University of Denver; Wilcoxen, Peter J. Tips on Writing a Policy Memo . PAI 723, Economics for Public Decisions Course Syllabus. Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

Writing Tip

Referencing Sources

Policy memos generally do not include footnotes, endnotes, further readings, or a bibliography. However, if you use supporting information in a memo, cite the source in the text. For example, you may refer to a study that supported a specific assertion by referencing it in the following manner: "A study published in 2012 by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling showed that public opinion towards China was....” However, some assignments may require a formal list of references. Before writing your memo, be sure you are clear about how your professor wants you to cite any sources referred to in your analysis.

Policy Memo . Thompson Writing Program, Writing Studio. Duke University .

Another Writing Tip

Policy memos are not just text-based but they may also include numeric tables and charts or non-textual elements, such as photographs, maps, and illustrations. However, it is very important that you use non-textual elements judiciously and only in relation to supplementing and clarifying arguments made in the text so as not to distract the reader from the main points of your memo . As with any non-textual elements, describe what the reader is seeing and why the data is important to understanding the research problem.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Including Appendices

The purpose of an appendix is to provide supplementary material that is not an essential part of the main text but which may be helpful in providing the reader with more complete information. If you have information that is vital to understanding an issue discussed in the memo, it can be included in one or more appendices. However, if you have a lot of information, don't write a five page memo and include twenty pages of appendices. Memos are intended to be  succinct and clearly expressed. If there is a lot of data, refer to the source and summarize it, or discuss with your professor how it could be included.

• << Previous: Writing Field Notes
• Next: Writing a Research Proposal >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023 10:50 AM
• URL: https://libguides.pointloma.edu/ResearchPaper

Policy Briefs

What this handout is about.

This handout will offer tips for writing effective policy briefs. Be sure to check with your instructor about their specific expectations for your assignment.

What are policy briefs?

Imagine that you’re an elected official serving on a committee that sets the standards cars must meet to pass a state inspection. You know that this is a complex issue, and you’d like to learn more about existing policies, the effects of emissions on the environment and on public health, the economic consequences of different possible approaches, and more–you want to make an informed decision. But you don’t have time to research all of these issues! You need a policy brief.

A policy brief presents a concise summary of information that can help readers understand, and likely make decisions about, government policies. Policy briefs may give objective summaries of relevant research, suggest possible policy options, or go even further and argue for particular courses of action.

How do policy briefs differ from other kinds of writing assignments?

You may encounter policy brief assignments in many different academic disciplines, from public health and environmental science to education and social work. If you’re reading this handout because you’re having your first encounter with such an assignment, don’t worry–many of your existing skills and strategies, like using evidence , being concise , and organizing your information effectively , will help you succeed at this form of writing. However, policy briefs are distinctive in several ways.

In some of your college writing, you’ve addressed your peers, your professors, or other members of your academic field. Policy briefs are usually created for a more general reader or policy maker who has a stake in the issue that you’re discussing.

Tone and terminology

Many academic disciplines discourage using unnecessary jargon, but clear language is especially important in policy briefs. If you find yourself using jargon, try to replace it with more direct language that a non-specialist reader would be more likely to understand. When specialized terminology is necessary, explain it quickly and clearly to ensure that your reader doesn’t get confused.

Policy briefs are distinctive in their focus on communicating the practical implications of research to a specific audience. Suppose that you and your roommate both write research-based papers about global warming. Your roommate is writing a research paper for an environmental science course, and you are writing a policy brief for a course on public policy. You might both use the exact same sources in writing your papers. So, how might those papers differ?

Your roommate’s research paper is likely to present the findings of previous studies and synthesize them in order to present an argument about what we know. It might also discuss the methods and processes used in the research.

Your policy brief might synthesize the same scientific findings, but it will deploy them for a very specific purpose: to help readers decide what they should do. It will relate the findings to current policy debates, with an emphasis on applying the research outcomes rather than assessing the research procedures. A research paper might also suggest practical actions, but a policy brief is likely to emphasize them more strongly and develop them more fully.

To support these changes in audience, tone, and purpose, policy briefs have a distinctive format. You should consult your assignment prompt and/or your professor for instructions about the specific requirements of your assignment, but most policy briefs have several features in common. They tend to use lots of headings and have relatively short sections. This structure differs from many short papers in the humanities that may have a title but no further headings, and from reports in the sciences that may follow the “IMRAD” structure of introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Your brief might include graphs, charts, or other visual aids that make it easier to digest the most important information within sections.  Policy briefs often include some of these sections:

• Title: A good title quickly communicates the contents of the brief in a memorable way.
• Executive Summary: This section is often one to two paragraphs long; it includes an overview of the problem and the proposed policy action.
• Context or Scope of Problem: This section communicates the importance of the problem and aims to convince the reader of the necessity of policy action.
• Policy Alternatives: This section discusses the current policy approach and explains proposed options. It should be fair and accurate while convincing the reader why the policy action proposed in the brief is the most desirable.
• Policy Recommendations: This section contains the most detailed explanation of the concrete steps to be taken to address the policy issue.
• Appendices: If some readers might need further support in order to accept your argument but doing so in the brief itself might derail the conversation for other readers, you might include the extra information in an appendix.
• Consulted or Recommended Sources: These should be reliable sources that you have used throughout your brief to guide your policy discussion and recommendations.

Depending on your specific topic and assignment, you might combine sections or break them down into several more specific ones.

How do I identify a problem for my policy brief?

An effective policy brief must propose a solution to a well-defined problem that can be addressed at the level of policy. This may sound easy, but it can take a lot of work to think of a problem in a way that is open to policy action.

For example, “bad spending habits in young adults” might be a problem that you feel strongly about, but you can’t simply implement a policy to “make better financial decisions.” In order to make it the subject of a policy brief, you’ll need to look for research on the topic and narrow it down. Is the problem a lack of financial education, predatory lending practices, dishonest advertising, or something else? Narrowing to one of these (and perhaps further) would allow you to write a brief that can propose concrete policy action.

For another example, let’s say that you wanted to address children’s health. This is a big issue, and too broad to serve as the focus of a policy brief, but it could serve as a starting point for research. As you begin to research studies on children’s health, you might decide to zoom in on the more specific issue of childhood obesity. You’ll need to consult the research further to decide what factors contribute to it in order to propose policy changes. Is it lack of exercise, nutritional deficiencies, a combination of these, or something else? Choosing one or another of these issues, your brief would zoom in even further to specific proposals that might include exercise initiatives, nutritional guidelines, or school lunch programs.

The key is that you define the problem and its contributing factors as specifically as possible so that some sort of concrete policy action (at the local, state, or national level) is feasible.

Framing the issue

Once you’ve identified the problem for yourself, you need to decide how you will present it to your reader. Your own process of identifying the problem likely had some stops, starts, and dead-ends, but your goal in framing the issue for your reader is to provide the most direct path to understanding the problem and the proposed policy change. It can be helpful to think of some of the most pressing questions your audience will have and attempt to preemptively answer those questions. Here are some questions you might want to consider:

What is the problem?

Understanding what the problem is, in the clearest terms possible, will give your reader a reference point. Later, when you’re discussing complex information, your reader can refer back to the initial problem. This will help to ‘anchor’ them throughout the course of your argument. Every piece of information in the brief should be clearly and easily connected to the problem.

What is the scope of the problem?

Knowing the extent of the problem helps to frame the policy issue for your reader. Is the problem statewide, national, or international? How many people does this issue affect? Daily? Annually? This is a great place for any statistical information you may have gathered through your research.

Who are the stakeholders?

Who does this issue affect? Adult women? College-educated men? Children from bilingual homes? The primary group being affected is important, and knowing who this group is allows the reader to assign a face to the policy issue.

Policy issues can include a complex network of stakeholders. Double check whether you have inadvertently excluded any of them from your analysis. For example, a policy about children’s nutrition obviously involves the children, but it might also include food producers, distributors, parents, and nutritionists (and other experts). Some stakeholders might be reluctant to accept your policy change or even acknowledge the existence of the problem, which is why your brief must be convincing in its use of evidence and clear in its communication.

Effective policy-writing

This handout has emphasized that good policy briefs are clear, concise, and focused on applying credible research to policy problems. Let’s take a look at two versions of the introduction to a policy brief to see how someone might write and revise to achieve these qualities:

A “not-so-good” policy brief

Adolescents’ Dermatologic Health in Outlandia: A Call to Action

The Report on Adolescents’ Dermatologic Health in Outlandia (2010), issued by Secretary of Health Dr. Polly Galver, served as a platform to increase public awareness on the importance of dermatologic health for adolescents. Among the major themes of the report are that dermatologic health is essential to general health and well-being and that profound and consequential dermatologic health disparities exist in the state of Outlandia. Dr. Galver stated that what amounts to a silent epidemic of acne is affecting some population groups–restricting activities as schools, work, and home–and often significantly diminishing the quality of life. Dr. Galver issued the Report on Adolescents’ Dermatologic Health as a wake-up call to policymakers and health professionals on issues regarding the state’s dermatologic health. (“ Not so good policy brief ,” Reproduced with permission of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.)

This paragraph introduces a relevant and credible source, but it fails to use that source to explain a problem and propose policy action. The reader is likely to be confused because the word “acne” does not appear until the middle of the paragraph, and the brief never states what action should be taken to address it. In addition to this lack of focus, the paragraph also includes unnecessary phrases like “among the major themes” that could be removed to make it more concise.

A better policy brief

Seeing Spots: Addressing the Silent Epidemic of Acne in Outlandia’s Youth

Acne is the most common chronic disease among adolescents in Outlandia (Outlandia Department of Health, 2010). Long considered a benign rite of passage, acne actually has far-reaching effects on the health and well being of adolescents, significantly affecting success in school, social relationships, and general quality of life. Yet large portions of the state’s population are unable to access treatment for acne. The Secretary of Health’s Report on Adolescents’ Dermatologic Health in Outlandia (2010) is a call to action for policymakers and health professionals to improve the health and wellbeing of Outlandia’s youth by increasing access to dermatologic care (“ A Better Policy Brief” , Reproduced with permission of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.)

This paragraph is far more focused and concise than the first version. The opening sentence is straightforward; instead of focusing on the source, it makes a clear and memorable point that is supported by the source. Additionally, though the first version was titled “a call to action,” it did not actually say what that action might be. In this version, it is clear that the call is for increased access to dermatologic care.

Keep in mind that clarity, conciseness, and consistent focus are rarely easy to achieve in a first draft. Careful editing and revision are key parts of writing policy briefs.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Smith, Catherine F. 2016. Writing Public Policy , 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Young, Eoin, and Lisa Quinn. n.d. “The Policy Brief.” University of Delaware. Accessed June 24, 2019. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blog.lrei.org/dist/c/104/files/2009/11/PolicyBrief-described.pdf .

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Writing a Policy Memo

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods

Using Non-Textual Elements

• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

A policy memo is a practical and professionally written document that can vary in length from one page to over one hundred pages. It provides analysis and/or recommendations directed to a predetermined audience regarding a specific situation or topic. A well-written policy memo reflects attention to the research problem. It is well organized and structured in a clear and concise style that assumes the reader possesses limited knowledge of, as well as little time to conduct research on, an issue of concern. There is no thesis statement or overall theoretical framework underpinning the document; the focus is on describing one or more specific policy recommendations and supporting action items.

Davis, Jennifer. Guide to Writing Effective Policy Memos . MIT OpenCourseWare, Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Planning in Developing Countries, Spring 2004; Pennock, Andrew. “The Case for Using Policy Writing in Undergraduate Political Science Courses.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (January 2011): 141-146.

How to Approach Writing a Policy Memo

Policy memo writing assignments are intended to promote the following learning outcomes :

• to help students learn how to write academically rigorous, persuasive papers about a specific “real-world” issue,
• to learn how to choose and craft a document’s content based on the needs of a particular audience [as opposed to general readership],
• to prepare students about how to write effectively in non-academic settings,
• to teach students to be client-oriented and to better anticipate the assumptions and concerns of their targeted readership, and
• to force students to create original work that synthesizes their research into a succinctly written document advocating change or a specific course of action.

With this in mind, you should not approach writing a policy memo like you would an academic research paper. Yes, there are certain commonalities in how the content is presented [e.g., a well-written problem statement], but the overarching objective of a policy memo is not to discover or create new knowledge. It is focused on providing a pre-determined readership with the rationale for choosing a particular policy alternative or specific course of action. Given this, keep in mind the following: Focus and Objectives The overall content of your memo should be strategically aimed at achieving the following goal--convincing your target audience about the accuracy of your analysis and thus, by extension, that your policy recommendations are valid. Avoid lengthy digressions and superfluous narration that can distract the reader from understanding the policy problem. Professionally Written Always keep in mind that a policy memorandum is a tool for decision-making. Keep it professional and avoid hyperboles that could undermine the credibility of your document. The presentation and content of the memo should be polished, easy to understand, and free of jargon. Writing professionally does not imply that you can’t be passionate about your topic, but your policy recommendations should be grounded in solid reasoning. Evidence-based A policy memo is not an argumentative debate paper. The reader should expect your recommendations to be based upon evidence that the problem exists and of the consequences [both good and bad] of adopting particular alternatives. To address this, policy memos include a clear cost-benefit analysis that considers anticipated outcomes, the potential impact on stakeholder groups, clear and quantifiable performance goals, and how success is to be measured. Accessibility A policy memo requires clear and simple language that avoids unnecessary jargon and concepts of an academic discipline. Do not skip around. Use one paragraph to develop one idea or argument and make that idea or argument explicit within the first one or two sentences. Your memo should have a straightforward, explicit organizational structure that provides well-explained arguments arranged within a logical sequence of reasoning [think if/then; if this policy recommendation, then this action; if this benefit, then this potential cost]. Presentation Style The visual impact of your memo affects the reader’s ability to grasp your ideas quickly and easily. Subdivide the text using clear and descriptive headings to guide the reader. Incorporate devices such as capitalization, bold text, and bulleted items but be consistent, and don’t go crazy; the purpose is to facilitate access to specific sections of the paper for successive readings. If it is difficult to find information in your document, policy makers will not use it. Practical and Feasible Your memorandum should provide arguments based on what is actually happening in reality. The purpose is never to base your policy recommendations on future scenarios that are unlikely to occur or that do not appear realistic to your targeted readers. Here again, your cost-benefit analysis can be essential to validating the practicality and feasibility to your recommendations. Explicit Transparency Provide specific criteria to assess either the success or failure of the policies you are recommending. As much as possible, this criteria should be derived from your cost/benefit analysis. Do not hide or under-report information that does not support your policy recommendations. Just as you should note limitations of a research study, a policy memo should describe the weaknesses of your analysis. Be straightforward about it because doing so strengthens your arguments and it will help the reader to assess the overall impact of recommended policy changes.

NOTE : Technically, your policy memo could argue for maintaining the status quo. However, the general objective of policy memos is to examine opportunities for change and describe the risks of inaction. If you choose to argue to maintain the current policy trajectory, be concise in identifying and systematically refuting all relevant policy options. Summarize why the outcomes of maintaining the status quo are preferable to any alterative policy options.

Herman, Luciana. Policy Memos . John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University; How to Write a Public Policy Memo. Student Learning Center. University of California, Berkeley; Policy Memo. Thompson Writing Program, Writing Studio. Duke University; Policy Memo Guidelines . Cornell Fellows Program. Cornell University; Memo: Audience and Purpose . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition . Institute for Public Policy Studies. University of Denver; Thrall, A. Trevor. How to Write a Policy Memo. University of Michigan--Dearborn, 2006; Writing Effective Memos. Electronic Hallway. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. University of Washington; Writing Effective Policy Memos . Water & Sanitation Infrastructure Planning syllabus. Spring 2004. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Structure and Writing Style

The contents of a policy memo can be organized in a variety of different ways. Below is a general template adapted from the “Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition” published by the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver and the book, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving [Eugene Bardach. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012] . Both provide useful approaches to writing a policy memo if your professor has not provided you with specific guidance. The tone of your writing should be formal but assertive. The most important consideration in terms of writing style is professionalism not creativity. I.  Cover Page Provide a complete and informative cover page that includes the title, date, the full names and titles of the writer or writers [i.e., Joe Smith, Student, Department of Political Science]. The title of your memo should be formally written and specific to the policy issue [e.g., “Charter Schools, Fair Housing, and Legal Standards: A Call for Equal Treatment”]. For longer memos, consider including an executive summary that highlights key findings and recommendations.

II.  Introduction and Problem Definition A policy memorandum should begin with a short summary introduction that defines the policy problem and explains what issues it covers. This is followed by a short justification for writing the memo, why a decision needs to be made [answering the “So what?” question], and an outline of the recommendations you make or key themes the reader should keep in mind. Summarize your main points in a few sentences then conclude with a description of how the remainder of the memo is organized.

III. Methods This is usually where other research done on the issue is noted. Describe how you planned to identify and locate the information on which your policy memo is based. This may include peer-reviewed journals and books as well as possible professionals you interviewed, databases and websites you explored, or legislative histories or relevant case law that you used. Remember this is not intended to be a thorough literature review; only choose sources that persuasively support your position.

IV.  Issue Analysis This section is where you explain in detail how you examined the issue and, in so doing, persuade  the reader of the appropriateness of your analysis. This is followed by a description of how your analysis contributes to the current policy debate. It is important to demonstrate that the policy issue may be more complex than a basic pro versus con debate. Very few public policy debates can be reduced to this type of rhetorical dichotomy. Be sure your analysis is thorough and takes into account all factors that may influence possible strategies that could advance a recommended set of solutions.

V.  Proposed Solutions Write a brief review of the specific solutions you evaluated, noting the criteria by which you examined and compared different proposed policy alternatives. Identify the stakeholders impacted by the proposed solutions and describe in what ways the stakeholders benefit from your proposed solution. Focus on identifying solutions that have not been proposed elsewhere or offering a contrarian viewpoint that challenges the reader to take into account a new perspective on the problem. Note that your solutions can be radical but they must be realistic and politically feasible.

VI. Strategic Recommendations Solutions are just opinions until you provide a path that delineates how to get from where you are to where you want to go. Describe what you believe are the best recommended courses of action ["action items"] in addressing the policy issue. In writing this section, state the broad approach to be taken, with specific practical steps or measures that should be implemented. Be sure to also state by whom and within what time frame these actions should be taken. Conclude by highlighting the consequences of maintaining the status quo. Be sure to clearly explain why your strategic recommendations are best suited for the situation.

VI. Limitations As in any academic paper, you must describe any limitations to your analysis. In particular, ask yourself if each of your recommendations are realistic, politically feasible, and sustainable and that they can be implemented within the current bureaucratic, economic, political, cultural, or other type of contextual climate in which they reside. If not, you should go back and clarify your recommendations or provide further evidence as to why the recommendation is most appropriate for addressing the issue. If the limitation cannot be overcome [i.e., there is a lack of key data], clearly acknowledge it, but place the limitation within the context of a critical issue in need of further study.

VII. Cost-Benefit Analysis This section may be optional but some policy memos benefit by having an explicit summary analysis of the costs and benefits of each strategic recommendation. If you include a cost-benefit analysis, be concise and brief. Most policy memos do not have a formal conclusion; the cost-benefit analysis can act as a conclusion by summarizing key differences among policy alternatives.

Bardach, Eugene. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012; Herman, Luciana. Policy Memos . John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University; How to Write a Public Policy Memo. Student Learning Center. University of California, Berkeley;  Policy Memo Guidelines . Cornell Fellows Program. Cornell University; Memo: Audience and Purpose . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Pennock, Andrew. “The Case for Using Policy Writing in Undergraduate Political Science Courses.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (January 2011): 141-146; Policy Memo Requirements and Guidelines, 2012-2013 edition . Institute for Public Policy Studies. University of Denver; Thrall, A. Trevor. How to Write a Policy Memo. University of Michigan--Dearborn, 2006; “ What Are Policy Briefs? ” FAO Corporate Document Repository. United Nations; Writing Effective Memos. Electronic Hallway. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. University of Washington; Writing Effective Policy Memos . Water & Sanitation Infrastructure Planning syllabus. Spring 2004. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Writing Tip

Referencing Sources

Policy memos generally do not include footnotes, endnotes, further readings, or a bibliography. However, if you use supporting information in a memo, cite the source in the text. For example, you may refer to a study that supported a specific assertion by referencing it in the following manner: "A study published in 2012 by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling showed that public opinion towards China was....” However, some assignments may require a list of references. Before writing your memo, be sure you are clear about how your professor wants you to cite any sources referred to in your analysis.

Policy Memo . Thompson Writing Program, Writing Studio. Duke University .

Another Writing Tip

Policy memos are not just textual position papers but they may also include numeric tables and charts or non-textual elements, such as photographs, maps, or illustrations. However, it is very important that you use non-textual elements judiciously and only in relation to supplementing and clarifying arguments made in the text so as not to distract the reader from the main points of your memo . As with any non-textual elements, describe what the reader is seeing and why the data is important to understanding the issue.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Including Appendices

The purpose of an appendix is to provide supplementary material that is not an essential part of the main text but which may be helpful in providing the reader with more complete information. If you have information that is vital to understanding an issue discussed in the memo, it can be included in one or more appendices. However, if you have a lot of information, don't pull the trick of writing a five page memo and including twenty pages of appendices. Memos are intended to be  succinct and clearly expressed. If there is a lot of data, refer to the source and summarize it, or discuss with your professor how it could be included.

• << Previous: Writing Field Notes
• Next: Writing a Research Proposal >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

Princeton Correspondents on Undergraduate Research

A Freshman’s Guide to Writing a Research Policy Memo

The freshman seminars are one of the unique experiences at Princeton. While they may seem intimidating at first, they made me think of the process of research in my very first year in college. Not everyone might become a full-time researcher – I, for example, want to become a policy analyst – but many of our jobs will involve research, and the structure of the freshman seminar is very conducive to the research process. In the Economics of Immigration seminar that I took with Professor Leah Boustan during Fall 2019, we discussed aspects of the economic effects of immigration both on the receiving country and on the migrants themselves. Our final deliverable was a research policy memo – a document that describes a policy intervention by the government, by first arguing the need for it, then describing its advantages, and finally proposing a way by which it might be implemented. In order to write an effective memo, I had to research an issue that necessitated looking at it from diverse points of view. The process made me appreciate several principles of writing a policy memo.

First and foremost, define the problem precisely and clearly . It sounds almost common-sense, but it turned out to be a complicated exercise. For example, for my memo, I proposed a way by which the US government could arrest the economic deterioration in struggling regions like the Midwest incentivizing the labor workforce that had migrated to other areas to return. It is easy to choose a broad, pervasive issue – regional inequality in my case – but, when writing a paper, it is important to focus on a particular aspect of that issue. The idea came to me – quite serendipitously – in the seminar when we were discussing studies that showed that low-skilled immigrants tend to benefit more when they are part of enclaves that have more high-skilled workers. I was also aware that the decline of manufacturing in the Midwest precipitated an exodus of the younger or the wealthier members of the region (who tend to be more productive) in search of better opportunities.

I later realized that such moments of serendipity are often inspired by discussions that take place around us, whether inside the classroom or outside it. During the seminar, I discussed the idea with Professor Boustan, who helped me refine my thoughts and focus on the specific issue of knowledge transfer between the natives and the returning population. Focusing on a particular issue enables you to comprehensively examine the issue at hand, rather than skim over several partially-developed ideas.

Sometimes the discussions spilled outside the classroom, and at such times, I realized that I was sometimes making arguments that did not help with my overall narrative. That leads to the second guiding principle: in order to make a persuasive argument, make sure that your narrative never strays from the stated problem . I often found myself exploring all the different ripples of an idea, which seemed very enticing at first, but soon after they led me down the proverbial rabbit hole. At such times, I found it useful to discuss the issues with friends. As outsiders or as students who were not in this class, they would ask some – in retrospect – simple but powerful questions (“the decline of manufacturing in the Rust Belt is interesting, but how is that important for the proposal?”) that made me realize that I was wandering away from my stated problem. That is not to say that these other arguments were not important – it is just that I would not do any justice to them in my proposal.

The third principle that I realized is to think through the larger strands of your argument and how they relate to each other . While my policy prescription was mainly economic, Prof. Boustan had sensitized us to the fact that migration is also a deeply personal and social issue. Thus, while describing the severity of the problem, I often found that it made sense to emphasize the human cost of economic despair – and then emphasize the economic aspects of the problem. Economics is a social discipline, looking at societal issues, and therefore, it often makes eminent sense to explore the problem from multiple disciplines that inform the human condition.

Finally, give a great deal of thought to the implementation of your idea , in other words, if your ideas are going to help solve some problem, try to explain how those ideas can be turned into actionable advice. For example, while the main component of my policy prescription took the form of economic incentives for the returning population, I also had to emphasize the psychological reasons as to why they might return. In this, I was inspired by the examples of several countries like India, China, South Korea, and others, that have used a combination of economic incentives along with sentimental reasons to attract their famous native-born, who had emigrated to other countries, back to their homeland. Thus, even though my memo was about economic policy, I took time to emphasize family considerations and nostalgia for the place of one’s childhood.

Proper implementation is vitally important to the success of any project, and I found that thinking of the mechanism of implementation influenced every aspect of my research – right from how I thought about the research question. In my experience, one should consider implementation from the very beginning, even when the idea is a work-in-process, and continue to revise these ideas iteratively as they continue along the research process. While these guidelines are specifically for writing a policy memo, many of them are applicable to writing research papers more generally. Of course, not every research paper will need to consider all these principles. The issue of implementation would possibly not be a consideration for researchers in mathematics writing a paper that proves a theorem but would be for any research that has a component of practice. In general, however, I believe that these principles would be useful in a wide variety of contexts and many disciplines. Keeping these principles in mind should be very helpful in creating a coherent, persuasive, and well-structured paper – whether it’s a policy memo or otherwise.

–  Abhimanyu Banerjee, Social Sciences Correspondent

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

How to write a policy brief

Policy briefs are a key tool to present research and recommendations to a non-specialized audience. They serve as a vehicle for providing evidence-based policy advice to help readers make informed decisions.

A strong policy brief distills research findings in plain language and draws clear links to policy initiatives. The best policy briefs are clear and concise stand-alone documents that focus on a single topic.

Take a look at policy briefs in IDRC’s digital library

Planning your policy brief

Purpose, audience, content, and structure are the vital elements of an influential policy brief.

A policy brief should inform readers of a particular issue, suggest possible policy options, and make recommendations. Be upfront about your purpose from the start, maintain a laser focus on your direction, and link every paragraph back to your purpose. Given the conciseness of most policy briefs, do not discuss tangential information. A convincing policy brief should communicate the urgency of the issue and focus on the benefits and advantages of following your policy advice.

• Write out your purpose before drafting a brief, refer to it often, and ensure that everything you write serves that purpose.
• The intention of policy briefs is to offer your readers advice on how to solve a specific problem, so stay focused on this target alone.

Policy briefs should be accessible and targeted to a specific audience. Before you begin writing, establish whom your prospective readers are, their interest in and level of knowledge of the subject, the information they will need to make a decision, and how open they are to your recommendations.

A policy brief should be clear, succinct, and focus on a single topic.

• Do not exceed 1,500 words or two pages in length. Define the purpose of your policy brief up front.
• Include only essential information. Avoid tangents or being overly descriptive about methodology.
• Clearly identify the salient points that support your goal.
• Draft a new purpose-driven policy brief instead of summarizing or cutting down an existing report.
• Use plain language .

The structure should lead the reader from problem to solution. Clearly structure your policy brief before you start writing and use section headings to guide your content. Be clear about your policy recommendations and how they are supported by evidence.

The structure should be audience-specific and reflect each audience’s interests. For example, a focus on evidence is relevant for researchers, but a government official may value brevity and clear analysis of policy impacts.

• Some typical section headings are summary, context, analysis/discussion, considerations, conclusion/recommendation.

Policy brief template

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to writing policy briefs because the topic and audience will shape each one. However, effective policy briefs tend to contain the same key elements and therefore have similar structures: an executive summary, an introduction, an overview of the research or problem, an examination of the findings, and a concluding section that explains the policy recommendations and implications of the research.

Review the elements of an effective structure (in detail below) before writing your policy brief.   Examples drawn from IDRC’s GrOW policy briefs are included throughout to help you gain a better understanding of layout and the content requirements of each section.

Executive summary

Every policy brief should open with a short summary. This overview should be engaging and help busy readers quickly understand your argument. Most summaries take the form of a short paragraph or two, but some authors prefer to structure theirs as a few bullet points. Regardless of which style you choose, an effective executive summary should condense the essence of the brief down to a few sentences.

• The executive summary should always appear on the cover of the brief or at the top of the first page so that it is the first thing a reader will see.
• It can be helpful to write the executive summary last because you will gain clarity on its content as you draft the other sections.

Increasing women’s support for democracy in Africa  includes both a written overview and a bulleted list of key results (an executive summary does not need to include both, but each is effective). The overview provides a brief summary of the research while the key results present the findings at a glance.

Introduction

The introduction should set up the rest of the document and clearly convey your argument. In one or two paragraphs, define why you are writing the brief and express the urgency and importance of the topic to your audience. A good introduction should contain all of the relevant information for your argument. Describe the key questions of your analysis and your conclusions. The goal is to leave your readers with a clear sense of what your research is about while enticing them to continue reading.

”What’s at Stake?”, the introduction for  Increasing women’s support for democracy in Africa , vividly presents the issues and relevance of the research in only a few short paragraphs. A succinct summary of the brief’s goals gives the reader a firm understanding of the shape of the rest of the paper.

Research overview

This is one of the most important sections of the brief because it explains the reasoning behind your policy recommendations. In effect, this section describes the problem that your policy recommendations intend to solve.

Provide a summary of the facts to describe the issues, contexts, and research methods. Focus on two main elements: the research  approach  and the research  results .

• Research approach : explain how the study was conducted, who conducted it, how the data was collected, and any other relevant background information.
• Research results : paint a general picture of the research findings before moving on to the specifics.  

Present the results in a way that lends them to your analysis and argument, but do not interpret them yet. By the end of this section, the reader should have a firm understanding of the research and be primed for your argument. The goal is to take them on a journey that ends with them seeing the facts from your perspective.

• Avoid jargon and overly technical language.
• Focus on highlighting the benefits and opportunities stemming from the research.

​The research overview (entitled “Research approach”) in  Reducing child marriage and increasing girls’ schooling in Bangladesh  provides an explanation of the research methodology without becoming mired in too much detail. The author favours simple language and a straightforward overview of the numbers instead of using jargon or complex statistics. The research results are discussed in the following section, an effective choice for research that requires a good deal of data analysis to contextualize the findings.

Discussion/analysis of research findings

This section should interpret the data in a way that is accessible and clearly connected to your policy advice. Express ideas using active language and strong assertions. The goal is to be convincing, but ensure that your analysis is balanced and defensible. Explain the findings and limitations of the research clearly and comprehensively. For example, if the original hypothesis was abandoned, explain why.

• Express research findings in terms of how they relate to concrete realities (instead of theoretical abstractions) so the reader will have a clear idea of the potential effects of policy initiatives.

The “Key findings” section of  How to grow women-owned businesses  provides a brief overview of the findings before breaking down the results. Each research finding is presented independently and with clear headings. Even if a reader only skims the document, the headings provide a general understanding of the research findings. The graphics in this section quickly convey information from the research findings and they help to visually break up the text on the page.

Conclusion or recommendation

This final section of the policy brief should detail the actions recommended by the research findings. Draw the link for your readers between the research findings and your recommendations. Use persuasive language to present your recommendations, but ensure that all arguments are rooted firmly and clearly in evidence produced by the research. You want your readers to be completely convinced that yours is the best advice.

Examine the  implications  and the  recommendations  produced by the research.  Implications  are the effects that the research could have in the future. They are a soft but persuasive approach to describe the potential consequences of particular policies. This is a good opportunity to provide an overview of policy alternatives by presenting your reader with the full range of policy options.

Follow up the implications with your  recommendations . Beyond being descriptive, your recommendations should act as a call to action by stating precise, relevant, credible, and feasible next steps. It may strengthen your argument to demonstrate why other policies are not as effective as your recommendations.

• Think of the conclusion as a mirror to your introduction: you are once again providing an overview of your argument, but this time you are underlining its strength rather than introducing it.

”Lessons for policy and practice”, the conclusion of  Unpaid care and women’s empowerment: Lessons from research and practice , presents a series of broad policy recommendations that are clearly linked back to the research. Each recommendation has its own section and heading to make them easy to identify and understand.

Designing your policy brief

A policy brief should be convincing and interesting to read. The design and presentation of your brief are important considerations and can help keep the reader engaged. Use compelling titles and headings, sidebars featuring interesting details, bulleted lists to summarize your points, and graphics such as charts and images.

Titles and headings

A title should act as a reference point for readers and entice them to read the brief. A good policy brief should also include sub-titles or headings to break up the text and draw the reader’s attention to the main topic of each section. Using verbs can make headings more dynamic, while phrasing them as questions can spark a reader’s curiosity. The best titles contain relevant information without being too long or cumbersome.

Sidebars add greater depth to the main discussion and hook a reader’s attention. An effective sidebar should be short, descriptive, engaging, and action-oriented. The goal is to add extra detail and depth to help the reader understand and engage with the topic. Sidebars also visually break up the brief and make the document easier to read. Sidebars, like all other content in the policy brief, should advance the main argument.

Lists are an effective and visually interesting way to simplify dense content. They are useful for highlighting important information because they draw the reader’s eye. Lists should be no longer than five to seven bullet points (if lists are too short they may seem pointless, if they are too long they may be daunting). Each bullet point should express complete thoughts (avoid using bullet points that are only one or two words in length).

Visuals are easily one of the best ways to make policy briefs more interesting for readers. Choose effective visuals for the type of information you would like to communicate. For example, pie charts and bar graphs are preferable to data tables to illustrate findings. Include captions for photos and other visuals that explain the content to the reader. Every visual should serve a purpose and help to illustrate your argument.

Revising your policy brief

Once the policy brief has been drafted, reflect once again on its purpose, audience, content, and structure. Will your brief help to achieve your goals? Test it by trying to explain it in a twenty-second elevator pitch and assessing what information stands out. Revise the brief to make it as user-friendly as possible by removing jargon and statistics that make it less approachable. Ask a colleague with no prior knowledge of the issue to read the brief and provide feedback. What points do they draw from it, and do they match your intentions?

Using your policy brief

A good policy brief can play double duty by standing on its own or as an effective accompaniment to a presentation. Tailor any accompanying visual presentation to your brief by focusing only on the key points and answering important questions. Your audience can refer to the document when needed, so avoid repeating all of the brief’s text in your presentation. When distributing your policy brief, it is often a good idea to develop a short question-and-answer package and a section for further reading.

Library electronic resources outage May 29th and 30th

Between 9:00 PM EST on Saturday, May 29th and 9:00 PM EST on Sunday, May 30th users will not be able to access resources through the Law Library’s Catalog, the Law Library’s Database List, the Law Library’s Frequently Used Databases List, or the Law Library’s Research Guides. Users can still access databases that require an individual user account (ex. Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg Law), or databases listed on the Main Library’s A-Z Database List.

• Georgetown Law Library

Policy Research Guide

Getting started.

• Government Resources
• Think Tanks and Public Opinion

Key to Icons

• Georgetown only
• On Bloomberg
• More Info (hover)
• Preeminent Treatise

Introduction

This research guide is designed to serve as a starting point for conducting research in policy analysis. It will include both print and electronic resources available in the Georgetown Law Library. 

The Georgetown Law Library also has a collection of research guides on many topics closely impacted by public policy:

• Banking Law Research Guide by Daniel Donahue Last Updated Aug 29, 2023 51 views this year
• Education Law Research Guide by Jill Smith Last Updated Nov 2, 2023 1994 views this year
• Environmental Law Research Guide by Rachel Jorgensen Last Updated Feb 29, 2024 412 views this year
• Health Law Research Guide by Jill Smith Last Updated Aug 23, 2023 309 views this year
• National Security Law Research Guide by Law Library Reference Last Updated Apr 10, 2023 984 views this year
• Poverty Law Research Guide by Law Library Reference Last Updated Feb 7, 2024 356 views this year
• Securities Law (U.S. and International) Research Guide by Jill Smith Last Updated Aug 28, 2023 1130 views this year
• Statistics and Empirical Legal Studies Research Guide by Sara E. Burriesci Last Updated Feb 22, 2024 1369 views this year
• Tax Research - Federal Guide by Law Library Reference Last Updated Apr 6, 2023 3143 views this year

Please also refer to the Lauinger Library's research guides related to public policy:

• Environmental Policy
• Public Opinion and Polling
• Public Policy
• PAIS Index Covers issues in the public debate through a wide variety of international sources including journal articles, books, government documents, statistical directories, grey literature, research reports, conference papers, web content, and more.
• Policy File Index Indexes research and publications from public policy think tanks, university research programs, research organizations, and publishers. Each item includes an abstract and, where available, access to the full-text of the report and/or the homepages and email addresses of the authoring institution.
• ProQuest Congressional Bills & Public Laws 1987-present; Committee Prints & misc. publications 1817-present; Congressional Record Bound Edition & predecessors 1789-2001; Congressional Record Daily Edition 1985-present; Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports 1916-present; Hearings 1817-present; House & Senate Documents 1817-present; House & Senate Reports 1789-present; Serial Set publications 1789-present; Serial Set Maps 1789-1969; CIS Legislative Histories 1969-present.
• ProQuest Political Science Covers the literature of political science and international relations, including such topics as comparative politics, political economy, international development, environmental policy, and hundreds of related topics.

Williams Library Reference

Reference Desk : Atrium, 2nd (Main) Floor (202) 662-9140 Request a Research Consultation  

Update history.

Links 6/14 (MK) Updated 9/15 (MK) Updated 3/21 (CMC) Updated 4/23 (SB)

• Next: Books >>
• © Georgetown University Law Library. These guides may be used for educational purposes, as long as proper credit is given. These guides may not be sold. Any comments, suggestions, or requests to republish or adapt a guide should be submitted using the Research Guides Comments form . Proper credit includes the statement: Written by, or adapted from, Georgetown Law Library (current as of .....).
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 2:21 PM
• URL: https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/policyresearch

• View sidebar

A Political Science Guide

For students, researchers, and others interested in doing the work of political science.

Policy Paper

What is a policy paper.

Policy papers are different from the standard research papers in several respects:

• They are usually addressed at a non-academic audience , such as a particular official, agency, or organization
• They often focus on prescriptive questions. They may begin by diagnosing a particular issue or situation, and typically argue for a solution that will address that issue or situation
• Often, policy papers are focused on being persuasive . The intention is to convince the target audience that your position is the correct one.
• Evidence in support of a position is crucial. This is also important for research papers, but it tends to be absolutely critical in policy papers.
• Policy papers are written efficiently. The audience often does not have much time and does not want to read a book on the subject. Indeed, often policy papers are accompanied by policy briefs which summarize the papers in a page or less.

Policy Paper Components

As with research papers, there is not just one way to write a policy paper.The University of Texas has a nice website with a detailed model, “Suggestions for Writing Policy Analysis” .

The basic elements of a policy paper include:

• It is helpful to careful define the problem and frame it as a specific question to be answered.
• These are the choices for addressing the policy problem.
• This is the step that often is missed in policy analysis. Writers often fail to be explicit and may even assume that everyone shares the same ideas of what the criteria for making a choice should be. This is a mistake. Indeed, it is an important service to the reader (and to the decision-maker) to know the reasons for recommending one policy (or set of policies) over others. There often is major debate about criteria that should be used.
•   In his book, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis , Eurgene Bardach helpfully notes that such criteria are best thought of as applied to “the projected outcomes ” of a policy choice. He makes the useful distinction between evaluative criteria, such as efficiency and fairness, and practical criteria, such as legality and political acceptability.
• Ideally, the policy recommendation should flow from the logical application of your criteria to your policy choices. This is illustrated in the hypothetical example (see table) below.
• In this example, the researcher was able to make clear outcomes about how the policy choices met some criteria (Policy Choice A fails to meet the first criteria of legality). However, it there is some uncertainty about others. For instance, it is unclear how Policy Choice B would affect the criteria of inclusiveness, or how to judge the cost effectiveness of Policy Choice C. In the real world, we may need to incorporate such uncertainty into our policy judgments. But it is important for the policy analyst to be clear to readers and decision-makers where that uncertainty exists.
• Another thing to note is that not all criteria are equal. It may be useful to rank the importance of criteria. Many of us would likely consider legality a necessary criterion. This would allow us to immediately remove Policy Choice A from our list of choices without any further consideration.

Policy Paper Examples

• Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Policy Briefs”
• UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy. “Working Paper Series.”
• Many articles in the journal Foreign Affairs are policy papers.
• Oxfam International. “Policy & Research.”
• Bardach, Eugene and Eric M. Patashnik. 2015. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. CQ Press.
• Eóin Young and Lisa Quinn. “Writing Effective Policy Papers: A guide for policy advisers in Central and Eastern Europe.” Open Society Institute .
• “The Policy Analysis Process”, Professor Michelle A. Saint-Germain (CSULB)
• Overseas Development Institute. “Writing Policy Papers.”
• UN Food and Agriculture Organization. “Writing Effective Reports, Section 4: Preparing Policy Briefs”
• “How to inform policy makers in a briefing memo or opinion”
• “Tasks for writing briefing memos or opinions”
• Checklists for communicating the policy process

updated July 12, 2017 – MN

Share this:

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

40 The Unique Methodology of Policy Research

Amitai Etzioni is a university professor and Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University. He served as a Senior Advisor at the Carter White House; taught at Columbia University, Harvard University, and University of California, Berkeley; and served as president of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (SASE). A study by Richard Posner ranked him among the top 100 American intellectuals. Etzioni is the author of many books, including Security First (2007), Foreign Policy: Thinking Outside the Box (2016), and Avoiding War with China (2017). His most recent book, Happiness is the Wrong Metric: A Liberal Communitarian Response to Populism, was published by Springer in January 2018.

• Published: 02 September 2009
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article provides a unique methodology of policy research, focusing on the various factors that differentiate policy research from basic research. It identifies malleability as a key variable of policy research, and this is defined as the amount of resources that would have to be expended to cause change in a given variable or variables. The scope of analysis/factors of policy research is shown to encompass all the major facets of the social phenomenon it is trying to deal with. Basic research, on the other hand, fragments the world into abstract and analytical slices, which are then studied individually. The last two differentiating factors of policy research and basic research, which are privacy and communication, are studied in the last two sections of the article.

Policy research requires a profoundly different methodology from that on which basic research relies, because policy research is always dedicated to changing the world while basic research seeks to understand it as it is. 1 The notion that if one merely understands the world better, then one will in turn know how to better it, is not supported by the evidence.

Typical policy goals are the reduction of poverty, curbing crime, cutting pollution, or changing some other condition (Mitchell and Mitchell 1969, 393) . Even those policies whose purpose is to maintain the status quo are promoting change—they aim to slow down or even reverse processes of deterioration, for instance that of natural monuments or historical documents. When no change is sought, say, when no one is concerned with changing the face of the moon, then there is no need for policy research in that particular area.

Moreover, although understanding the causes of a phenomenon, which successful basic research allows, is helpful in formulating policy, often a large amount of other information that is structured in a different manner best serves policy makers. 2 Policy researchers draw on a large amount of information that has no particular analytical base or theoretical background (of the kind that basic research provides). 3 In this sense medical science, which deals with changing bodies and minds, is a protypical policy science. It is estimated that about half of the information physicians employ has no basis in biology, chemistry, or any other science; but rather it is based on an accumulation of experience. 4 This knowledge is passed on from one medical cohort to another, as “these are the way things are done” and “they work.”

The same holds true for other policy sciences. For instance, criminologists who inform a local government that studies show that rehabilitation works more effectively in minimum security prisons than in maximum security prisons (a fact that can be explained by sociological theoretical concepts based on basic research) 5 know from long experience that they had better also alert the local authorities that such a reduction in security could potentially lead some inmates to escape and commit crimes in surrounding areas. Without being willing to accept such a “side effect” of the changed security policy, those governments who introduced it may well lose the next election and security in the prison will be returned to its previously high level. There is no particular sociological theoretical reason for escapes to rise when security is lowered. It is an observation based on common sense and experience; however it is hardly an observation that policy makers, let alone policy researchers should ignore. (They may though explore ways of coping with this “side effect,” for instance by either preparing the public ahead of time, introducing an alert system when inmates escape, or some other such measure.)

The examples just given seek to illustrate the difference between the information that basic research generates versus information that plays a major role in policy research. That is, there are important parts of the knowledge on which policy research draws that are based on distilled practice and are not derivable from basic research. Much of what follows deals with major differences in the ways that information and analysis are structured in sound policy research in contrast to the ways basic research is carried out.

One clarification before I can proceed: Policy research should not be confused with applied research. Applied research presumes that a policy decision has already been made and those responsible are now looking for the most efficient ways to implement it. Policy research helps to determine what the policy decision ought to be.

1. Malleability

A major difference between basic and policy research is that malleability is a key variable for the latter though not the former (Weimer and Vining 1989; 4) . Indeed for policy researchers it is arguably the single most important variable. Malleability for the purposes at hand ought to be defined as the amount of resources (including time, energy, and political capital) that would have to be expended to cause change in a given variable or variables. For policy research, malleability is a cardinal consideration because resources always fall short of what is required to implement given policy goals. Hence, to employ resources effectively requires determining the relative results to be generated from different patterns of allocation (Dunn 1981, 334– 402) . In contrast, basic research has no principled reason to favor some factors (or variables) over others. For basic research, it matters little if at all whether a condition under study can be modified and if it can how much it would cost. To illustrate, many sociological studies compare people by gender and age and although these variables may seem relevant, they are of limited value to policy research. Other variables used, such as the levels of income of various populations, the extent of education of various racial and ethnic groups, and the average size of cities, are somewhat more malleable but still not highly so. In contrast, perceptions are much more malleable.

One may say that basic research should reveal a preference for variables that have been less studied; however, such a consideration concerns the economics and politics of science rather than methodology. Because all scientific findings are conditional and temporary and often subject to profound revision and recasting, for basic researchers, retesting old findings can be just as valuable as covering new variables. In short, although in principle for basic research the study of all variables is legitimate, in a given period of time or amongst a given group of scientists, some may consider certain variables as more “interesting” or “promising” than others. In contrast, to reiterate, for policy research, malleability is the most important variable as it is directly related to its core reason for being: Promoting change.

Given the dominance of basic research methodology in the ways policy research is taught, it is not surprising to find that the question of which variables are more malleable than others is rarely studied in any systematic way. Due to the importance of this issue for policy research, some elaboration and illustrations are called for. Economic feasibility is a good case in point. Many policy researchers' final reports do not include any, not even crude estimates of the costs involved in what they are recommending. 6 Even less common is any consideration of the question of whether such changes can be made acceptable to elected representatives and the public at large; that is, political feasibility (Weimer and Vining 1989, 292– 324) . For instance, over the last decades several groups favored advancing their policy goals through constitutional amendments, ignoring the fact that these are extremely difficult to get passed.

In other cases, feasibility is treated as a secondary “applied” question to be studied later, after policy makers adopt the recommended policy. However, the issue runs much deeper than the assessments of feasibility of one kind or another. The challenge to policy research is to determine the relative resistance to change according to the different variables that are to be tackled. And this question must be tackled not on an ad hoc basis, but rather as a major part of systematic policy research. Moreover, if the variables involved are studied from this viewpoint, they themselves may be changed; that is, feasibility is enhanced rather than treated as a given.

Another example of the cardinal need to take malleability into account when conducting policy research concerns changing public attitudes. Policy makers often favor a “public education' campaign when they desire to affect people's beliefs and conduct. Policy makers tend to assume that it is feasible to change such predispositions through a way that might be called the Madison Avenue approach, which entails running a series of commercials (or public service announcements), mounting billboards, obtaining celebrity endorsements, and so on.

For example, the United States engaged in such a campaign in 2003 and 2004 to change the hearts and minds of “the Arab street” through what has also been termed “public diplomacy.” 7 The way this was carried out provides a vivid example of lack of attention to feasibility issues. American public diplomacy, developed by the State Department, included commercials, websites, and speakers programs that sought to “reconnect the world's billion Muslims with the United States the way McDonald's highlights its billion customers served” (Satloff 2003, 18) . It was based on the premiss that “blitzing Arab and Muslim countries with Britney Spears videos and Arabic‐language sitcoms will earn Washington millions of new Muslim sympathizers” (Satloff 2003, 18) . A study found that the results were “disastrous” (Satloff 2003, 18) . Some countries declined to air the messages and many Muslims who did see the material viewed it as blatant propaganda and offensive rather than compelling.

Actually, policy researchers bent on studying feasibility report that the Madison Avenue approach works only when large amounts of money are spent to shift people from one product to another when there are next to no differences between them (e.g. two brands of toothpaste) and when there is an inclination to use the product in the first place. However, when these methods are applied to changing attitudes about matters as different as condom use, 8 the United Nations, 9 electoral reform, and so forth, they are much less successful. Changing people's behavior—say to conserve energy, drive slower, cease smoking—is many hundreds of times more difficult. This is a major reason why totalitarian regimes, despite intensive public education campaigns, usually fail. The question of what is most feasible is determined by fiat by policy makers and their staffs rather than by studies that are reported to the policy makers by policy researchers. Hence decisions are often based on a fly‐by‐the‐seat‐ of‐your‐pants sense of what can be changed rather than on empirical evidence. 10 One of the few exceptions is studies of nation building in which several key policy researchers presented the reasons why such endeavors can be carried out at best only slowly while at the same time many policy makers claimed that it could be achieved in short order and at low cost. 11

In a preliminary stab at outlining the relative malleability of various factors, one may note that as a rule the laws of nature are not malleable; social relations, including patterns of asset distribution and power, are of limited malleability; and symbolic relations are highly malleable. Thus any policy‐making body that would seek to modify the level of gravity, for example, not for a particular situation (for instance a space travel simulator) but in general, will find this task at best extremely difficult to advance. In contrast, those who seek to change a flag, a national motto, the ways people refer to one another (e.g. Ms Instead of girl or broad), have a relatively easy time of doing so. Changes in the distribution of wealth among the classes or races—by public policy—are easier than changes involving the laws of nature, but more difficult than changing hearts and minds.

When policy researchers or policy makers ignore these observations and enact laws that seek grand and quick changes in power relations and economic patterns, the laws are soon reversed. A case in point is the developments that ensued when a policy researcher inserted into legislation the phrase “maximum feasible participation of the poor.” This Act was used to try to circumvent prevailing local power structures by directing federal funds to voluntary groups that included the poor on their advisory boards, which thus helped “empower the poor.” The law was nullified shortly thereafter. Similarly, when a constitutional amendment was enacted that banned the consumption of alcohol in the United States, it had some severely distorted effects on the American justice and law enforcement systems and did little actually to reduce the consumption of alcohol. It was also the only constitutional amendment ever to be repealed.

Among social changes, often legal and political reduction in inequality is relatively easier to come by than are socioeconomic changes along similar lines. Thus, African‐Americans and women gained de jure and de facto voting rights long before the differences in their income and representation in the seats of power moved closer to those of whites (in the case of African‐Americans) and of men (in the case of women). Nor have socioeconomic differences been reduced nearly as much as legal and political differences, although in both realms considerable inequalities remain. The same is true not just for the United States, but for other free societies and those that have been recently liberated.

In short, there are important differences in which dedication of resources, commitment of political capital, and public education are needed in order to bring about change. Sound policy research best makes the determination of which factors are more malleable than others, which is a major subject of study.

2. Scope of Analysis

Another particularly important difference between basic research and policy research methodology concerns the scope of factors that are best encompassed. Policy research at its best encompasses all the major facets of the social phenomenon it is trying to deal with. 12 In contrast, basic research proceeds by fragmenting the world into abstract, analytical slices which are then studied individually.

A wit has suggested that in economics everything has a price; in sociology, nothing has a price. Policy makers and hence researchers are at a disadvantage when they formulate preferred policy alternatives without paying attention to the longer‐run economic and budgetary effects—or the effect of such policy on social relations including families (e.g. tax preferences for singles), socioeconomic classes (e.g. estate taxes), and so on.

To put it in elementary terms, a basic researcher may well study only the prices of flowers (together with other economic factors); a physiologist the wilting processes; a social psychologist the symbolic meaning of flowers; and so forth. But a community that plans to grow flowers in its public gardens must deal with most, if not all of these elements and the relations between them. Flowers that are quick to wilt will not be suitable for its public gardens; the community will be willing to pay more for flowers that have a longer life or those that command a positive symbolic meaning, and so on.

Medicine provides another model of a policy science. It cannot be based only on biology, chemistry, anatomy, or any one science that studies a subset of variables relating to the body. Instead physicians draw on all these sciences and add observations of interaction effects among the variables. This forms a medical knowledge base and drives “policy” recommendations (i.e. medical prescriptions). Indeed doctors have often been chastised when they do not take into account still other variables, such as those studied by psychologists and anthropologists. Similarly, international relations is a policy science that best combines variables studied by economists, political scientists, law professors, and many others.

In short, the scope of variables that basic research encompasses can be quite legitimate and effective but also rather narrow. Policy researchers must be more eclectic and include at least all the variables that account for a significant degree of variance in the phenomenon that the policy aims to change.

3. Private and Confidential

Basic research is a public endeavor. As a rule its results are published so that others can critically assess them and piece them together with their findings and those of still others in order to build ever more encompassing and robust bodies of knowledge. Unpublished work is often not considered when scientists are evaluated for hiring and promoting, for prizes, or for some other reason, especially not if the work is kept secret for commercial or public security reasons. Historically, scientific findings were published in monographs, books, and articles in suitable journals. These served as the main outlets for the findings of basic research both because only by making scientific findings public could they become part of the cumulative scientific knowledge base and also because publication indicates that they have already passed some measure of peer review. It is only through peer review that evidence can be critically scrutinized. In recent years findings are still made public but increasingly they are often posted on websites, most of which lack peer review foundations, which is one reason why they are less trusted and not treated as a full‐fledged publication. Publication is still considered an essential element of basic research.

In contrast, the findings of policy research are often not published—they are provided in private to one policy maker or another (Radin 1997, 204– 18) . The main purpose of policy research is not to contribute to the cumulative process of building knowledge but rather to put to service available knowledge. In that profound sense policy research is often not public but client oriented. 13 Although some policy research is conducted in think tanks and public policy schools that may treat it similarly to basic research, more often than not it is conducted in specialized units in government agencies, the White House, corporate associations, and labor unions. And often tools of policy research are memos and briefings, not publications.

Often the findings of policy researchers are considered confidential or are governed by state secret acts (which is the case in many nations that have a less strong view of civil liberties than does the United States). That is, the findings are merely aimed at a specific client or a group of clients, and sharing them with the public is considered an offense. 14

4. Communication

Basic researchers, as a rule, are much less concerned with communicating, especially with a larger, “secular” public than are policy researchers. This may at first seem a contradiction to the previously made point that science (in the basic research sense) is public while policy research is often “private” (even when conducted for public officials). The seeming contradiction vanishes once one notes that basic researchers are obligated to share their findings with their colleagues , often a small group, and that they seek feedback from this group for both scientific and psychological validation. However, as a rule basic researchers have little interest in the public at large. Indeed, they tend to be highly critical of those who seek to reach such an audience—as did scholars such as Jay Gould and Carl Sagan (Etzioni 2003, 57– 60) .

In contrast, policy researchers often recognize the need to mobilize public support for the policies that their findings favor and hence they tend to help policy makers to mobilize such support by communicating with the public. James Fishkin developed a policy idea he called “deliberative democracy,” which entailed bringing together a group of people who constitute a living sample of the population for a period of time during which they are exposed to public education and presentations by public figures, and they are given a chance to have a dialogue. By measuring the changes in the views of this living sample, Fishkin found that one is able to learn how to change the public's mind. Fishkin did not just develop the concept and publish his ideas, but conducted a long and intensive campaign through radio, TV, newspapers, visits with public leaders, and much more, until his living sample was implemented in several locations (Fishkin 1997) . Indeed, according to Eugene Bardach, policy researchers must prepare themselves for “a long campaign potentially involving many players, including the mass public” (Bardach 2002, 115– 17) .

Hence, basic researchers are more likely to use technical terms (which may sound like jargon to outsiders), mathematical notations, extensive footnotes, and other such scientific features. On the other hand, policy researchers are more likely to express themselves in the vernacular and avoid technical terms.

One can readily show numerous publications of professors at schools of public policy and even think tanks that are rather similar if not indistinguishable from those of basic researchers. 15 But this is the case because these schools conduct mostly basic, and surprisingly little policy research. For example, on 28 April 2004 Google search found only 210 entries for “policy research methodology,” the good part of which referred to university classes by that name. But on closer examination, most entries were referring to basic, not policy research methodology. For instance, a course titled “Cultural Policy Research Methodology” at Griffith University in Australia includes in its course description “basic research techniques, particularly survey methodologies, qualitative methods and a more in depth approach to statistics.” 16 Many other entries were for classes in policy or research methodology (usually basic). The main reasons for this are ( a ) because few places train people in the special methodologies that policy research requires and ( b ) the reward structure is closely tied to basic research. Typically, promotions (especially tenure) at public policy schools are determined by evaluations and votes by senior colleagues from the basic research departments at the same universities or at other ones. Thus the future of an economist at the Harvard Business School may depend on what her colleagues in the Harvard Economics department think of her work. More informally, being invited to become a member of a basic research department is considered a source of prestige and an opportunity to shore up one's training and research. Conversely, only being affiliated with a policy school (like other professional schools) indicates a lack of recognition, which may translate into objective disadvantages. This pecking order, which favors basic over policy (considered “applied”) research, is of considerable psychological importance to researchers in practically all universities. Even in think tanks dedicated to policy research, many respect basic research more than policy research and hope to conduct it one day or regret that they are not suited to carry it out. 17

People who work for think tanks, which are largely dedicated to policy research, often seek to move to universities, in which tenure is more common and there is a greater sense of prestige. Hence many such researchers are keen to keep their “basic” credentials, although often they are unaware of the special methodology that policy research requires or are untutored in carrying it out in the first place because they were trained in basic research modes instead.

At annual meetings of one's discipline, in which findings are presented and evaluated, jobs are negotiated and information about them shared, and prestige scoring is rearranged, policy researchers will typically attend those dominated by their basic research colleagues. And attendance at policy research associations (such as the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management) is meager. Most prizes and other awards available to researchers go to those who conduct basic research.

In short, although the logic of policy research favors it to be more communicative than basic research, this is often not the case because the training and institutional formations in which policy research is largely conducted favor basic research.

Bardach, E. ( 2002 ). Educating the client: an introduction.   Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 21 (1): 115–17. 10.1002/pam.1044

Google Scholar

Berelson, B. , and Steiner, G.   1964 . Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings . New York: Harcourt Brace and World.

Google Preview

Carothers, T.   1999 . Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

DeJong, W. , Wolf, R. C. , and Austin, S. B.   2001 . US federally funded television public service announcements (PSAs) to prevent HIV/AIDS: a content analysis.   Journal of Health Communication , 6: 249–63. 10.1080/108107301752384433

Dunn, W. N.   1981 . Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Etzioni, A.   1968 . The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes . New York: Free Press.

——  1971 a . A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations , rev. edn. New York: Free Press.

——  1971 b . Policy research.   American Sociologist , 6 (supplementary issue: June): 8–12.

——  2003 . My Brother's Keeper: A Memoir and a Message . Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

——  2004 . A self‐restrained approach to nation‐building by foreign powers.   International Affairs , 80: 1–17. 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2004.00362.x

Fishkin, J. S.   1997 . The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy . New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Free Expression Project   2003 . The Progress of Science and Useful Arts: Why Copyright Today Threatens Intellectual Freedom , 2nd edn. New York: Free Expression Project; available at: www.fepproject.org/policyreports/copyright2dconc.html (accessed 27 Apr. 2004).

Inglefinger, F. J. , Relman, A. S. , and Findland, M.   1966 . Controversy in Internal Medicine . Philadelphia: W. B. Saunder.

Lasswell, H. , and Lerner, D.   1951 . The Policy Sciences . Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Miller, D. W. 2001. Poking holes in the theory of broken windows. Chronicle of Higher Education (Feb.): A14.

Miller, J. 2004. Censored study on bioterror doubts U.S. preparedness. New York Times (29 Mar.): A15.

Mitchell, J. , and Mitchell, W.   1969 . Policy‐Making and Human Welfare . Chicago: Rand McNally.

Nelson, B.   1999 . Diversity and public problem solving: ideas and practice in policy education.   Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 18: 134–55. 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199924)18:1<134::AID-PAM9>3.0.CO;2-6

Radin, B. A.   1997 . The evolution of the policy analysis field: from conversation to conversations.   Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 16: 204–18. 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199721)16:2<204::AID-PAM1>3.0.CO;2-M

Raver, C.   2002 . Emotions matter: making the case for the role of young children's emotional development for early school readiness.   Social Policy Report , 16 (3): 3–19.

Roe, E.   1998 . Taking Complexity Seriously: Policy Analysis, Triangulation, and Sustainable Development . Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Satloff, R.   2003 . How to win friends and influence Arabs.   Weekly Standard , 18 Aug: 18–19.

Schön, D.   1983 . The Reflective Practitioner . New York: Basic Books.

Scott, J. 1994. Condom ads get direct: use them and get sex. Atlanta Journal and Constitution (3 Oct.): B1.

Star, S. A. , and Hughes, H. M.   1950 . Report on an educational campaign: the Cincinnati plan for the United Nations. American   Journal of Sociology , 55: 389–400.

Weimer, D. L. , and Vining, A. R.   1989 . Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weiss, C.   1983 . Ideology, interests and information: the basis of policy positions. Pp. 213–45 in Ethics, the Social Sciences and Policy Analysis , ed. D. Callahan and B. Jennings . New York: Plenum.

Wilson, J. Q. , and Kelling, G.   1982 . Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety.   Atlantic Monthly , 249 (3: Mar.): 29–38.

The first book to deal with policy sciences and consequently often cited is Lasswell and Lerner's The Policy Sciences (1951) . However this book does not address the methodological issues at hand. For an early treatment of these issues, see Etzioni 1971 b , 1968 .

For an example of how to structure and present policy research and analysis, see Dunn 1981, 322 .

For example many policy makers subscribe to George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson's criminology theories because they make sense, despite the fact that they are not grounded in academic research. See Wilson and Kelling 1982 . For criticisms of this approach to criminology, see Miller 2001 .

“Much” of medicine is not scientifically supported (Inglefinger, Relman, and Findland 1966) . “85 percent of the problems a doctor sees in his office are not in the book” (quoted from a physician in Schön 1983, 16) .

See Etzioni 1971 a , 246– 7 .

See for example Free Expression Project 2003 ; Raver 2002, 3– 19 .

See, for instance, The Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World, “Changing minds, winning peace: a new strategic direction for U.S. public diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim world,” Oct, 2003, Edward P. Djerejian, chair.

For instance, the Centers for Disease Control conducted a ten‐year ad campaign to educate Americans about condoms and to encourage their use to prevent HIV transmission. After spending millions of dollars on these ads, a CDC study found that only 45 % of sexually active high school students used a condom the last time they had sex: see Scott 1994 . A recent evaluation of the program issued an unqualified “no” in answer to the question, “Has the U.S. federal government's HIV /AIDS television [public service announcement] campaign been designed not only to make the public aware of HIV /AIDS but also to provide appropriate messages to motivate and reinforce behavior change?” See DeJong, Wolf, and Austin 2001, 256 . Of the fifty‐six ads reviewed, fifty were created by the CDC, the other six were created by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Star and Hughes 1950 , quoted in Berelson and Steiner 1964, 530 .

Indeed unlike science, Carol Weiss has argued that in the policy field it may be impossible to separate objective knowledge from ideology or interests: see Weiss 1983 .

See Carothers 1999 ; Etzioni 2004 .

Roe 1998 . For an academic policy research perspective, see Nelson 1999 .

See “Professional practice symposium: educating the client,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 21 (1: 2002): 115– 36.

For instance, the Defense Department has prohibited a Washington think tank from publishing a complete report about the lack of government preparedness for bioterror attacks: see Miller 2004 .

See for instance the reports of the family research division of the Heritage Foundation, available at www.heritage.org/research/family/issues2004.cfm (accessed 29 Apr. 2004). See also “The war on drugs: addicted to failure,” Recommendations of the Citizens' Commission on US Drug Policy, available at www.ips‐dc.org/projects /drugpolicy.htm (accessed 29 Apr. 2004).

See Griffith University course catalog. Available at: www22.gu.edu.au/STIP/servlet/STIP?s=7319AMC (accessed 28 Apr. 2004).

This section is based on my personal observations of organizations such as the John F. Kennedy School of Government, the American Enterprise Institute, RAND, CATO, the Heritage Foundation, and many others.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review

Ishani mukherjee.

1 School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University, 90 Stamford Road, Level 4, Singapore, 178903 Singapore

M. Kerem Coban

2 GLODEM, Koc University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450 Istanbul, Turkey

Azad Singh Bali

3 The School of Politics & International Relations; The Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, University Avenue, Acton, ACT 2600 Australia

Associated Data

Upon request.

Not applicable.

Effectiveness has been understood at three levels of analysis in the scholarly study of policy design. The first is at the systemic level indicating what entails effective formulation environments or spaces making them conducive to successful design. The second reflects more program level concerns, surrounding how policy tool portfolios or mixes can be effectively constructed to address complex policy objectives. The third is a more specific instrument level, focusing on what accounts for and constitutes the effectiveness of particular types of policy tools. Undergirding these three levels of analysis are comparative research concerns that concentrate on the capacities of government and political actors to devise and implement effective designs. This paper presents a systematic review of a largely scattered yet quickly burgeoning body of knowledge in the policy sciences, which broadly asks what capacities engender effectiveness at the multiple levels of policy design? The findings bring to light lessons about design effectiveness at the level of formulation spaces, policy mixes and policy programs. Further, this review points to a future research agenda for design studies that is sensitive to the relative orders of policy capacity, temporality and complementarities between the various dimensions of policy capacity.

Introduction: capacity considerations for effective policy design

The heart of policy design resides in the act of devising policy alternatives that meet stated government goals. While it is understood that not all policies can be carefully crafted, the policy sciences have been motivated by questions about why some policy alternatives are often developed well, while others are less so. Why do some policy choices, once formulated, effectively go forth through subsequent policymaking processes while others do not? How do some policies arise from meticulously crafted modes of formulation while others are shaped by partisan processes such as electoral or legislative bargaining (Howlett, 2011 ). Understanding factors that enable how deliberate designing of policy occurs and how superior designs can be achieved in complex issue-areas is central to the research agenda of the modern policy sciences (Howlett, 2014a , 2014b ; Howlett et al., 2017 ). The critical need to acknowledge, engage with and fully understand the capabilities underlying this exercise of good design, is also constantly escalating, especially in the face of widespread public crises.

Over the last few decades, a growing curiosity about the feasibility of formulation processes and the context within which policy choices unfold, has allowed policy scholars to gain a comparative perspective on policy design realities. Policy design is now generally defined as the purposive action of linking policy instruments with distinctly stated policy goals (Bobrow, 2006 ; Linder & Peters, 1984 ; Majone, 1975 ; May, 2003 ), stemming from the systematic endeavor to analyze how targets react or change their behaviors in response to instruments of governance. Effective design subsequently involves applying the knowledge gained about instrument-target relationships, to the creation of policies that can then predictably lead to desired policy outcomes (Bobrow & Dryzek, 1987 ; Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012 ; Peters, 2018 ; Sidney, 2007 ; Weaver, 2009a , 2009b ). These activities are prefaced on the assumption that feasible polices can be realistically generated through effective design processes only when, firstly, contradictions internal to the substantive content of policy are resolved or minimized, and secondly, when the necessary capacities and capabilities to enact design procedures are in place (Bali et al., 2019 ; Mukherjee & Bali, 2019 ).

The recent scholarship in the policy sciences recognizes the first of these two emphases. For instance, studies anchored in the new design orientation explicitly focus on policy tools, how they are sequenced and assembled in mixes, how these mixes are calibrated, and their relative efficacies in meeting policy goals (del Río & Howlett, 2013 ; Howlett & Lejano, 2013 ). However, these studies have to a lesser degree raised issues about the capacity that is essential for effective policy design. In other words, experience from a variety of sectors and jurisdictions have alluded to what ‘effectiveness’ or ‘best practices’ imply for the activity of policy design, but lesser so about what capacities enable effectiveness.

Discussion of this latter topic is a largely scattered body of knowledge in the theoretical and empirical contribution of policy studies scholarship. For instance, the contemporary frameworks and theories of the policy process do not explicitly operationalize capacity as an independent variable in explaining policy outcomes (see for example Howlett et al., 2020a , 2020b for a recent review of the theories of the policy process). Here, we do not claim a ceteris paribus condition in which policy capacity is the only explanatory factor determining policy design effectiveness. While recognizing that many different determinants of policy design effectiveness exist, the article surveys the extant literature to specifically highlight the state of the knowledge on policy capacity requisites of policy design effectiveness. In doing so, the article brings to light the capacity ‘gap’ that exists in the policy design literature and draws lessons on not only what ‘effectiveness’ means at multiple levels of design but what is known to date about the capacities necessary for its enabling. The central question thus motivating this review asks what types of capacity are needed for effective policy design ? And to this aim, the article presents findings of a critical review synthesizing the existing scholarship on policy capacity and design in the policy sciences.

The article follows with an examination of the conceptual correspondence between the literatures on policy design effectiveness and policy capacity. The methodology informing this review is outlined next. In the fifth section that forms the core of our review, we consolidate the findings of our research on effective policy design spaces and instrument mixes and critically analyze these in the context of four emerging yet under-theorized themes from the scholarship on policy capacity, namely (1) the potential hierarchies in types of policy capacity, (2) the temporal dynamics within policy capacity, (3) task and agency-specific capabilities, and (4) complementarities among different types of capacities. We conclude by discussing avenues to advance a research agenda on effective design spaces and policy instrument mixes, which rigorously engages with these four themes of policy capacity.

Through this process, the paper makes two novel contributions focusing on the intersection of the policy design and policy capacity literatures. Firstly, it synthesizes the growing body of research in the policy sciences on effective policy design in terms of how particularly it discusses the necessary policy capacities that enable it. And secondly, by anchoring the review in the policy design orientation, the paper is able to identify four themes arising from the scholarly work on policy capacity that have yet to receive requisite theoretical and empirical scrutiny in the policy sciences. In doing so, we respond to repeated calls in the literature on the need to advance the scholarship and develop meaningful research questions on policy design effectiveness and the capacities that it necessitates. (Howlett & Lejano, 2013 ; Howlett et al., 2015a , 2015b ).

Understanding policy effectiveness

Policy effectiveness can be understood at three nested levels (Peters et al., 2018 ). The first relates to creating a conducive design space or an environment for policy formulation, which allows for effective policy design to occur (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2018a , 9). The second refers to developing effective policy mixes that are capable of addressing problems, and the third involves effectively designing and deploying individual policy instruments .

Effectiveness in design spaces

The essential idea is that the nature of the overall policy design space can significantly influence how effectively intended design activities occur and thus upon the likely resulting effectiveness of policy designs that emerge from them. These spaces reflect existing policy styles within a sector, are shaped by political conditions, reflect policy legacies (Howlett & Tosun, 2021 ), and therefore constrain (or enable) options available for designers. Developing policymaking spaces that are amenable to design activities involves a constant and concurrent stock-taking exercise of potential public capacities that might be pertinent in any problem-solving situation (Anderson, 1975 ). However, having an intention to be formal and analytical in designing and evaluating policy alternatives is not enough in itself to promote a design-centered process, since this also depends on the government’s ability to undertake such an analysis and to alter the status quo (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2018b ). Capacity challenges plaguing a design situation can lead to the generation of alternatives which are tenuously ‘patched’ together rather than deliberately packaged to uphold coherence and consistency (Howlett & Rayner, 2013 ).

Effectiveness in instrument mixes

While considerations for the design environment’s bearing on effective formulation have occupied the research agenda of policy tool studies in recent years, the new design orientation has contributed to a discourse on how to effectively incorporate policy mixes of policy goals and means (Briassoulis, 2005 ; Doremus, 2003 ; Gunningham et al., 1998 ; Hood, 2007 ; Howlett, 2011 ; Jordan et al., 2011 , 2012 ; Peters et al., 2005 , 2018 ; Yi & Feiock, 2012 ).

Selecting and deploying multiple instruments in the context of dedicated policy mixes ‘are all about constrained efforts to match goals and expectations both within and across categories of policy elements’ (Howlett, 2009a , 74). Achieving effectiveness with respect to deploying such mixes or policy portfolios relies on ensuring that mechanisms, calibrations, objectives and settings display ‘coherence’, ‘consistency’ and ‘congruence’ with each other (Howlett & Rayner, 2007 ). Scholars steeped in the new design orientation who are concerned with effectiveness have cautioned about how some policy mixes that are not designed in a planned fashion, can be plagued by internal inconsistencies, whereas others can be more successful in creating an internally supportive combination (del Río, 2010 ; Grabosky, 1994 ; Gunningham et al., 1998 ; Howlett & Rayner, 2007 ). This depends on how well they are able to adapt and support changing policy circumstances, as Thelen ( 2004 ) noted how the organization of macro-institutions has usually not resulted through calculated planning but rather has emerged out of processes of incremental adjustments such as ‘layering’ or ‘drift’ (Sewerin et al., 2020 ).

Effectiveness at the instrument level

While most of the research in the contemporary policy sciences have focused on issues around design spaces and instrument mixes, these has been limited, if any, comparative research on the efficacy of individual instruments and how they are calibrated (Capano and Howlett, 2020 ). At the most granular level, this third level of effectiveness focusses on the efficacy of individual policy tools and how these individual instruments are calibrated. Within this, we also need to differentiate between substantive instruments such as taxes, licenses, and subsidies; and the more indirect procedural instruments (such as competition, network structure, and royal commissions) which include administrative processes for selecting and deploying substantive tools (Capano and Howlett, 2020 ; Howlett, 2000 ).

There are at least three factors that condition the effectiveness of individual instruments and how they are calibrated. First, the extent to which substantive policy tools is supported by their procedural counterparts. Second, the extent to which critical institutional pre-requisites that condition the performance of instruments are present in policy mixes. Third, the extent of how far particular components of instruments or their calibrations can be easily adjusted in the short run and long run. This refers to changes in the settings of instruments such as adjusting tax rates or contribution rates for a pension fund. In some cases, there are sufficient ‘degrees of freedom’ to make these changes, or for them to be auto adjusting such as cost of living stabilizers, but in many cases calibrating instruments are difficult thereby undermining the effectiveness of an instrument.

Policy capacity: a brief review

Policy capacity, defined as a set of skills, competencies, and resources across government agencies to design and pursue policy goals (Rotberg, 2014 ; Howlett, 2015 ; Tiernan & Wanna, 2006 ; Wu et al., 2010 , 2015 ), has been a central research theme in public policy in recent years (Howlett and Ramesh, 2015 ; Newman et al., 2017 ; Karo & Kattel, 2018 ; Daugbjerg et al., 2018 ; Bali & Ramesh, 2019 ). In a notable first contribution, Wu et al. ( 2015 ) offer a framework to conceptualize policy capacity at multiple levels of governance. They argue that capacity can be understood as skills and competencies existing across government agencies at three nested levels: the individual (e.g., policymakers, decision-makers), the organization (e.g., an agency or a program), and at the systemic level (e.g., the whole of government or the macro level institutional, structural contexts) (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ).

Dimensions and levels of policy capacity.

Source : Adapted from Wu et al. ( 2015 ) and Howlett and Ramesh ( 2015 )

At the level of individuals occupied with policy formulation, those striving for effective design require technical know-how to conduct practical policy analysis and disseminate knowledge, while leadership and negotiation abilities are additionally relevant for those in managerial positions. Analysts also need political savvy and acumen for incorporating and accounting for various stakeholder interests and assessing political feasibility. At the level of government organizations , information mobilization capabilities to enable timely and relevant policy analysis, administrative capital for ongoing coordination between policymaking agencies, and political backing all fundamentally build overall policy capacity. At the system level, effective policy design requires institutions for knowledge creation and utilization, alongside mechanisms to coordinate across different levels of government, and overall trust and political legitimacy (Mukherjee & Howlett, 2016 ).

Howlett and Ramesh ( 2015 ) extend Wu et al.’s ( 2015 ) work on capacity drawing on the metaphor of an ‘Achilles’ Heel.’ That is, how certain types of capacities can become critical to the sustaining policy efforts and outcomes in specific modes of governance, and how any weaknesses in these ‘critical’ capacities can undermine policy efforts (Menaheim and Stein 2013 ).

Technical knowledge, for example, is a critical capacity required for the sustainable functioning of policy systems based on market-based governance. Analytical skills at the level of individual analysts and policy workers are key, and the ‘policy analytical capacity’ (Rayner et al., 2013 ; Wellstead et al., 2011 ) of government needs to be especially high to deal with complex quantitative economic and financial issues involved in regulating and steering the sector and preventing crises (Bakır & Çoban, 2019 ; Rayner et al., 2013 ; Woo et al., 2016 ). Similarly, undertaking policy design within legal systems of governance relying heavily on high levels of managerial capacities that can deter against diminishing returns of compliance or mounting non-compliance with government directives (Coban, 2020a ; May, 2005 ). Capacities at the systemic level can be especially critical in this case as governments find it difficult to enact traditional command-and-control instruments in the absence of overall public trust.

The appeal of Wu et al.’s ( 2015 ) framework lies in its inherent simplicity. Each of the nine capabilities lend themselves to, in principle, being empirically operationalized and allows analysts to assess strengths and weaknesses of governments across different types of capabilities (e.g., Bajpai and Chong, 2019 ; Saguin et al., 2018 ). Yet such simplicity also generates concerns.

First, the contribution by Wu et al. ( 2015 ) does not lend itself to drawing causal inference or developing a theory of policy capacity. Moreover, as our review demonstrates below, the mechanisms that connect indicators with specific types of capacities are not explicitly mentioned. Secondly, the current literature seems to adopt a benevolent approach to incumbents relying on or mobilizing policy capacity. 1 That is, policy capacity could also facilitate the ‘dark side’ of policymaking (Howlett, 2020 ), by advancing policymakers’ self-interested, political and/or economic ‘rent-seeking’ objectives (see Chindarkar et al., 2017 ; Howlett and Mukherjee, 2016 ). Furthermore, it can be instrumental for developing ‘placebo policies’ as ‘agenda management safety valves’ (McConnell, 2020 , 965) or for ‘hidden agendas’ (McConnell, 2018 ) to further political goals rather than addressing the core of policy problems. These represent unchartered areas, especially if we consider the challenges generated by the rise of populism and autocratization around the world (Kelemen, 2017 ; Maerz, 2020 ; Norris & Inglehart, 2019 ).

This review relies on building and scrutinizing a database of peer-reviewed journal articles that are located at the intersection of policy capacity, policy design, and effectiveness. A keyword search based on these themes was conducted on Scopus, and Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science (WoS). Scopus and WoS are two major repositories of scientific knowledge published in various forms: conference proceedings, edited book chapters, peer-reviewed journal articles. The search protocol was conducted similarly on both databases to cross-check for any duplicate journal articles, and avoided selection bias that can result from extracting data from a single database. The search covered three collections of WoS citation indexes: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). We explicitly included ESCI and A&HCI along with SSCI given our concerns for inclusivity.

The data collection and sample selection process had four steps. The first involved searching for, ‘policy design’, ‘capacity’, ‘effectiveness’, as keywords for the topic of an article. In this focused search, we omitted a set of alternative keywords such as ‘capability’, which are mostly used in public management scholarship. More importantly, the focused search as conducted through these keywords allowed us to capture a range of terms, such as ‘governance capacity’ and ‘administrative capacity’, in which capacity has been used in the context of policy design and/or design effectiveness. As such, it should be noted that articles that incorporated such varieties of capacity, but did not directly discuss policy design were excluded from the final database. In this light, we are aware that the search focused on a designated subset in the existing policy design literature. However, this scope allowed us to fully capture the dispersed attempts made so far to deliberately link policy capacity and design effectiveness and address our express interest in showcasing the current state of the literature that is located at the intersection of policy capacity, policy design, and design effectiveness. Additionally, the search was designed to be as inclusive as possible given the time period, disciplines, and multiple databases that it incorporates.

While acknowledging the limitations of the search logic described herein, we maintain that additional keywords would result in extra layers that dilute the task of specifically exploring the policy capacity requisites for policy design effectiveness. We also note that detecting journal articles on WoS and Scopus required us to run the search several times with various combinations of these keywords. This is because research that is positioned at the intersection of policy capacity, policy design, and effectiveness is in its adolescence. We therefore combined the results of multiple searches while removing duplicate entries. Our search covered the period between 1900 and May 17, 2020, the date we ran the search on WoS and Scopus. This time period allowed for construction of an inclusive database. This search yielded a sample of 9382 sources. The second step involved filtering our initial search for journal articles that are published in English. 2 The result of this process reduced the sample to 7441 articles. In the third step, we further refined our search by filtering the articles according to various relevant (inter)disciplinary areas: ‘political science’, ‘public administration’, ‘economics’, ‘management’, ‘international relations’, ‘sociology’, ‘social sciences interdisciplinary.’ In so doing, we included articles that are not only published in political science and public administration but also in other main social science disciplines and those that were classified in the interdisciplinary social sciences category. This choice was mainly driven by inclusivity concerns and an expectation of capturing articles that may empirically or conceptually refer to policy design, policy capacity, and/or effectiveness. The result of the second stage to limit our search to relevant fields yielded 1431 journal articles.

Following the above-mentioned steps, we read titles, abstracts, and full texts to further refine the most relevant articles. Articles that had the main keywords in the topic, but were not directly related to our research questions were omitted based on a reading of their introductory sections and research questions. We omitted articles that used different forms of capacity without an explicit interest in operationalizing capacity for design effectiveness. We also omitted articles that attempted to measure or evaluate effectiveness of an instrument or program. In this regard, as our interest in this article is to make sense of what capacity for ‘effectiveness’ means at multiple levels of design, our exclusion criteria meant that we eliminated articles which presented only nominal links between policy design and policy capacity. Consequently, the final sample included 146 articles. As for coding, the sample included articles that discuss policy design as well as effectiveness. Therefore, coding had to sort according to levels of policy design and dimensions of policy capacity. This process involved two tracks. First, we coded articles to capture dimensions of policy capacity according to parameters suggested by Wu et al. ( 2018 , 6–14). Second, reading the articles served to code an article whether it did examined design space, discussing design effectiveness of a policy instrument, policy mixes reading the articles led us to code articles whether it was about design space, discussing design effectiveness of a policy instrument, policy mixes/programs, or combinations levels of policy design.

Table ​ Table2 2 and Fig.  1 summarize the results of the coding process. Articles on design space, policy mixes and programs have the highest share among those referring to level of policy design. A main observation at the outset is that there is a significant gap in the literature on studies discussing policy design and capacity at the level of individual instruments. The review included explicitly those scholarly contributions that engage with capacity considerations. Undoubtedly, the field of environmental policy (and for that matter social policy and financial policy) is replete with the discussion of singular instrument types such as taxes, social security schemes, emissions trading schemes, among others. But this review could not identify articles that expressly deal with the question of capacity and what is needed on the part of policy designers to formulate these instruments, which is a significant void that needs to be filled in future studies. Even the studies that distill the state of knowledge on effective program design, rarely discuss individual constituent policy tools.

Levels of policy design and dimensions of policy capacity

Dimensions of policy capacity and levels of policy design

On the dimensions of policy capacity, articles address analytical and political capacity more so than operational, while there is a more equal distribution of articles referring to individual, organizational, or systemic scales. In addition, our observations point to a limited number of studies that look at both organizational and individual policy capacity, as well as both political and operational policy capacities. Finally, we note that only a few studies attempt to relate policy capacity with effective design space for global public policies, instruments, and mixes/programs (Bernstein & Cashore, 2012 ; Cashore et al., 2019 ; Dare, 2018 ; Dorsch & Flachsland, 2017 ; Jordan & Huitema, 2014 ; Stone & Ladi, 2015 ; Vince & Nursey-Bray, 2016 ).

Policy capacity requisites for effective policy design: emerging trends and existing gaps

In this section, we discuss the main findings on the link between policy design effectiveness and policy capacity as revealed through the review of the literature. While these findings are discussed at the level of effective policy design spaces and effective instrument mixes, we critically examine them through the perspective of four overarching emphases that that are developing within the scholarship on policy capacity and policy design (Bali & Ramesh, 2018 , 340–341; Howlett and Ramesh, 2015 ; Capano & Howlett, 2020 ; Howlett et al., 2015a , 2015b ). These are, namely:

• Hierarchies or ‘orders’ among specific types of capacities, which indicate what kinds of capabilities are more pre-requisite and foundational to others that are more ‘second-tier’ and aspirational.
• Temporality of policy capacity endowments, or the time needed for policy capacity investments to achieve actual effectiveness outcomes.
• The distinction between task-specific and agency-specific policy capacities and how to reconcile between them; and
• The synergies and complementarities between different policy capacities.

Capacities for effective policy design spaces

Developing effective design spaces is fundamentally about ensuring that policy tools are anticipated to fit or cohere with broad governance arrangements, while delivering a means to address certain policy goals. It is argued, for example, that several variables are critical for effectiveness within collaborative modes of governance, including reconciling with ‘prior history of conflict or cooperation, the incentives for stakeholders to participate, power and resource imbalances, leadership and institutional design’ (Ansell & Gash, 2008 , 543). Similarly, the absence of clear property rights and mechanisms to enforce contracts stymie the effectiveness of hybrid governance arrangements to design suitable public–private partnerships (PPPs) in service delivery (Virani, 2019 ).

An enabling design space that is able to support the design of its constituent policy instruments signifies an environment that is marked by high analytical, operational and political capacity (Capano, 2018 ; Chindarkar et al., 2017 ). Determining exactly what capacities are required in order to develop the political and administrative spaces needed to carry out complex policy design processes is currently a subject of much interest in the field (Considine, 2012 ). In order to address these issues, it is recognized that policy designers need to be cognizant about the internal mechanisms of their polity and constituent policy sectors which can boost or undermine their ability to think systematically about policy and develop effective policies (Braathen, 2007 ; Braathen & Croci, 2005 ; Grant, 2010 ; Skodvin et al., 2010 ).

In this vein, organizations and individual policymakers need political support from the policy design spaces or environments that they occupy. For this, they derive legitimacy and authority from system-level political capacity, which subsequently creates a favorable milieu for the application of individual and organizational political capacities during the design process (Woo et al., 2015 ; Xiarchogiannopoulou, 2015 ). Political support to policymakers and interactions between policymakers and politicians have been argued as being non-substitutable when it comes to overcoming ambiguous goals and promoting managerial effectiveness, by supplying organizations with a clear understanding of their overall mandate (Meckling & Nahm, 2018 ; Stazyk & Goerdel, 2011 ).

At more individual and organizational levels, political capacity is essential for maneuvering effectively within the constraints of the design space (Hartley et al., 2015 ) and is embodied in the levels of trust, especially political trust and legitimacy within the public sector. Individual and organizational political capacity is also necessary to garner strategic stakeholder support that is vital both before and during the design process, as well as in subsequent stages of policy implementation (Bali & Ramesh, 2019 ). For example, in the case of macro-prudential policy, a suitable financial policy mix is possible in an enabling design space that is characterized by capable, analytically skilled individual central bankers that have coalition-building skills, a government committed to evidence-informed policy, and presence of inter-organizational collaboration mechanisms at system level (Bakır & Çoban, 2019 ).

This example also highlights the importance of ‘legitimation capacity’ in effective design environments (Woo et al., 2015 ; see also Pal & Clark, 2015 ). Policymakers and organizations that are highly regarded by key societal actors and receive sustained political support are able design effective policies with more accountability (Busuioc & Lodge, 2016 ; Rimkuté, 2018 ). For example, as is visible in the case of health and safety regulation in the UK, the regulatory agency’s outreach and engagement with policy targets increases its political acumen by helping to overcoming citizens’ biases, and furthering its legitimacy by shoring up societal support for future policy design (Dunlop, 2015 ). This case also underscores the dilemma that may exist between expertise-led, technocratic, and less accountable design on the one hand; and participatory, more accountable design processes on the other, and the relative effectiveness of either situation (Montpetit, 2008 ). Yet, overall high levels of trust and political support at the system level are shown in most cases to allow the design process to be endowed with necessary information and access to critical resources at the outset (Chindarkar et al., 2017 ; Hartley et al., 2015 ).

An example of this latter context is the rise of ‘big data’ analytics that has also necessitated a parallel emphasis on big data readiness at all three levels of capacity (Clarke & Craft, 2017 ; Giest, 2017 ; Giest & Mukherjee, 2018 ; Golan et al., 2017 ). For example, policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemics in countries like Singapore have included combining mobile-phone-tower data and machine learning to develop social graphs that track propinquity to improve contact-tracing (The Economist, 2020 ; see also Woo, 2020 on the Singapore case). Big data has also been used for network analysis in policy formulation (Giest, 2017 ). But, the availability of data, network analysis and modeling necessitate complex skills such as making use of software, models to produce insights that inform policy design. Moreover, related studies have repeatedly underlined that policymakers should take into consideration behavioral dimensions of policies, which becomes more likely when organizational infrastructure allows for the participatory collection as well as engagement with behavioral data and analysis (Leong & Howlett, 2020 ; Mukherjee & Mukherjee, 2018 ).

Hierarchies within types of capacities

Studies in this review of effective design spaces implicitly operationalize specific types of capacities as a spectrum of independent variables and argue that they shape policy outcomes. While this advances our understanding of how capacity is connected with notions of effectiveness, the causal mechanisms that undergird such links have not always been made clear. This can be explained to some extent by the tendency in the literature to operationalize capacity in a straightforward, often univariate manner, while ignoring possible orders or hierarchies among specific types of capacities. In other words, policy capacity can be multi-dimensional with notable interaction between foundational, first-order and more aspirational or ‘second-order’ capacities. Lodhi ( 2018 ) and Hartley and Zhang ( 2018 ), for instance, suggest a comprehensive measurement of policy capacity. Such efforts can then allow for multiple orders of capacities to be observed while and better locate the interactions between them. A focus on how policy capacities at one level can enable, prevail over those, or constrain capacities at the other two levels are neglected factors when theorizing the link between policy capacity and policy design effectiveness.

For example, if system-level policy capacity is more crucial as it constitutes the environment in which an organization or an individual policymaker operates, can it be postulated that without the acquisition of system-level capacities, even high individual or organizational policy capacity might not be sufficient for effective policy design? More research along this vein is warranted to advance our understanding about any hierarchy or orders of policy capacity and the role they play in developing effective design spaces.

Along the same lines, most studies in this review focus on operationalizing a specific type of capacity rather than considering how combinations or interactions between different types of capacities shape policy outcomes. For instance, in a context wherein system-level policy capacities are high but individual policy capacities cannot uphold organizational capacities, one may observe sub-optimal design or even non-design. Such a case could indicate that while we may consider the presence of system-level policy capacity to be detrimental for on-the-ground mobilization of organizational and/or individual policy capacity, the reverse dynamic may also be important for effective policy design.

Further, while most studies in the review have considered political capacity to play a more critical role than operational and analytical capacities, they have stopped short of developing hypothesis or propositions to attribute plausible reasons for its significance. This, in turn, stagnates any advancement in how specific types of capacities can explain and beget design effectiveness.

Temporal dynamics of capacity

There is a gap in our understanding on the temporal dynamics and change within the policy design literature (see, e.g., Capano & Howlett, 2020 ; Bali & Ramesh, 2018 ), and this lacuna is also evident in this review of necessary capacities for effect design. Temporality in the context of capacities for effective design explores changes in specific types of capacity endowments over time, to their sustained or ultimate impacts on policy outcomes. It also includes a consideration of how investments in capacity building have a latent gestation period before which they begin to affect outcomes. None of the studies in this review explicitly dwelled on the temporal dimensions of capacities, echoing the popular refrain on the largely atheoretic discussion on policy tools and capacity (Howlett & Ramesh, 2015 ; Howlett et al., 2015a , 2015b ).

Temporality in the context of effective policy design can be conceptualized in two ways. The first is to consider the impact and scope of changes in capacity on effectiveness at different stages of design process. For example, what are the causal mechanisms by which changes in capacities contribute to changes in policy outcomes? That is, do interventions at time t 0 affect outcomes by time t n . Is the lag between t n –t 0 standardized across different types of capacities? Such lines of enquiry can inform about how individual, organizational, or system-level policy capacities change over time and result in fluctuations in the effectiveness of policy designs. For instance, the National Sample Survey Organizations of India in the 1950s was recognized globally as a center for excellence and pioneering statistical sampling techniques and methodologies, but in recent years has become mired in controversy on the quality of its statistical estimates (Banerjee et al., 2017 ).

Secondly, a discussion on temporality also implicates concerns about robustness and resilience of policy design. Robustness over time can enable policymakers, organizations or a system to endure shocks, policy surprises, and turbulence, while allowing them flexibility (Ansell et al., 2016 ; Capano & Woo, 2017 ; Howlett et al., 2018 ; Mergel et al., 2021 ). Endurance could be achieved with adaptability to structural, institutional and actor-level changes and/or evolution of existing policy capacities over time (e.g., Alaerts, 2020 ; Capano & Pavan, 2019 ; Van Der Steen et al., 2018 ). And subsequent adaptability could arise on improvements in complementarities among different types and levels of critical capacity requisites. These are particularly relevant to anticipatory policy design (Bali et al., 2019 ; Huitema et al., 2018 ; Kimbell & Vesnić-Alujević, 2020 ), especially in cases of high contextual uncertainty, as is exemplified by numerous examples of climate change impacts on agriculture or water policy domains (Nair & Howlett, 2017 ). While such a conceptualization seems plausible, the existing literature lacks a systematic understanding of what types of capacities enable design spaces to endure substantial changes in the structural and institutional contexts of policies as, for example, the Covid-19 crisis has already demonstrated (Walter, 2020 ; Weible, 2020 ).

These considerations also call for a discussion on the temporal nature of acquiring or engendering policy capacities and which of these are necessary earlier on in the design process. For example, effective policy design could be the outcome of initial improvements in individual and organizational capacities, which may later require the build-up and/or mobilization of system-level capacities. These are propositions that need to be examined to advance our understanding of whether or not individuals, organizations, or systems need to build particular capacities first for effective policy design to subsequently unfold.

Capacities for effective instrument mixes and programs

The growing intractability of contemporary challenges that governments face in areas such as health and urban planning among others has necessitated the use of multiple policy tools to be carefully and deliberately assembled in policy mixes or portfolios (Howlett & Lejano, 2013 ). This has made the task of effective policy design more challenging, as designers have to match not only policy goals and aims, but also instrument mixes and governance modes (Peters & Pierre, 2015 ; Tosun & Lang, 2017 ; Wen, 2017 ). In turn, this effort towards striving for compatibility requires a spectrum of analytical capacities that enables policymakers, organizations and political systems to employ skills pertaining to the accurate articulation of operational objectives, which in turn require an accurate interpretation of context relevant information and data. These analytical skills become fundamental to the success of sector-wide programs that may otherwise suffer from a mismatch between stated objectives and the policy tool collections that are constructed as a response. In other words, and as reported in many program-level studies, the more (or less) policymakers resemble analytically capable policy designers, the more (or less) likely they are to construct an effective mix of policies through a program. For instance , Siwale and Okoye ( 2017 ) argue that microfinance program initiatives in Zambia were ineffective largely due to limitations in policymakers’ analytical capabilities.

Besides individual and organizational policy capacities, reforms buttressed on the tenets of New Public Management (NPM) marked administrative changes in the late 1990s, which embodied a large, albeit skewed, emphasis on the kinds of capabilities that are necessary for policy success. With this transformation, policy capacity to design and steer policies became truncated, as states increasingly contracted out the delivery of public services to the private sector and civil society. This has been argued to have resulted in loss of policy capacity within government, in the reform era, in the form of declining skilled human resources which affect both organizational and system-level analytical and operational capacity within the state apparatus (Bakvis, 2002 ; Baskoy et al., 2011 ; Craft & Daku, 2017 ; Donahue et al., 2000 ; Howlett, 2000 , 2009b ; Lodge, 2013 ). Put differently, with the ‘hollowing out’ of the state, the changing role of the state as the primary actor in the design process has evolved into that of a policy navigator that steers the policy process and coordinates the interactions between non-state actors and those between the state and non-state actors (Lindquist, 1992 ). Policy capacity in this sense has been often supplemented by external expertise, knowledge, know-how supplied by variegated epistemic communities, think tanks, business, international organizations, scientists, non-governmental organizations, or civil society groups among others can supply (Haas, 1992 ; Stone, 2003 ).

With the externalization of knowledge and related capacities, many studies have alluded to greater participation being fundamental for effective program design that needs to be shaped in a way that is more notably open to stakeholder input and learning from that input (Borrás, 2011 ; Hoppe, 2011 , 2018 ; Jordan & Huitema, 2014 ; Vince & Nursey-Bray, 2016 ). The water quality program in the European Union (EU) is a case in point. Brown ( 2000 ) examines the EU’s operational and analytical capacity to design effective directives when it faces scientific uncertainty in the given policy area, and most importantly fluid number and quality of staff (see also Jensen, 2018 on policy capacity requisites for effective water policy in developing countries).

This case and others demonstrate that input from international organizations and local stakeholders generally tend to increase the supranational organization’s operational and analytical capacity. Echoing the call for greater participation, Mukherjee and Mukherjee ( 2018 ) determine citizen participation to be fundamental in co-production in rural sanitation programs in India, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Lang ( 2014 ) studies analytical capacity in PPPs in which the private sector brings its own expertise to complement goals set out by policymakers. Similarly, Bengston et al. ( 2004 ) sheds light on participation of citizens and other stakeholders in urban policy in making formulation more effective. These studies all suggest that when policymakers have a tendency to underestimate or even ignore stakeholder participation and input, the effectiveness of policy design and implemented policies can decline considerably. While a few recent studies have now begun to look at particular types of capacities that different stakeholders, especially interest groups, can contribute (see Coban, 2020b ; Daugbjerg et al., 2018 ) they still fall short of addressing the benefits or challenges they can bring specifically to policy design effectiveness, thus calling for further research in this area.

Additionally, when non-state actors participate actively in the design process, this understandably has implications for the governance capacities that are available for effective policy formulation. Studies highlighting polycentric policy design processes have emphasized policy capabilities for enabling the coordination and collaboration of multiple actors. Political capacity to manage collaboration and coordination has also been called ‘collaborative capacity’ in some public management literature, within organizations or specific programs (Ansell & Gash, 2008 ; Braun, 2008a , 2008b ; Schout & Andrew, 2008 ; Weber et al., 2007 ).

In a multi-level design situation, such as policy programs, horizontal and vertical coordination of parties similarly demand high political capacity (Peters, 2015 ). Golan et al. ( 2017 ), for example, show that lack of effective coordination between the central authorities and the local authorities in the design of rural cash transfer programs that omit a considerable share of the target population, lead to reduced effectiveness of the program’s objectives. Similarly, Wen’s ( 2017 ) study on social policy in China indicates that when the central state does not coordinate policy design with the local authorities that lack policy capacity, policy design effectiveness faces substantial challenges at all levels.

Collaboration and coordination challenges have been significant in developing countries as well as in advanced economies. Williams and McNutt ( 2013 ), focusing on policy programs for climate change adaptation in the Canadian finance sector, assert network management capacities for aligning the targets of local and federal and provincial agencies to be built into the design of the programs and well before their implementation. Additionally, Skeete ( 2017 ) examines policy instrument mixes that regulate carbon emissions emanating from diesel use in the European Union (EU). The author finds that lack of coordination between member states and EU authorities, besides leading to inherent flexibilities of the regulatory framework, also leads to fuel taxes failing to achieve original climate policy goals. Similarly, Spendzharova ( 2016 ) maintains that disconnect between EU member states and EU authorities in the design of banking structure reforms after the global financial crisis leads to a mismatch in design processes in terms of prioritizing domestic reforms vis-à-vis EU level financial reforms.

Complementarities in policy capacities

Such studies on policy instrument mixes and programs highlight the primary role of analytical capacity in developing and deploying effective instrument mixes. However, it can be insufficient if not operating alongside suitable organizational and political capacities, which ultimately determine how successfully they are implemented (Bali et al., 2019 ; Mukherjee & Bali, 2019 ). In other words, analytical capabilities are enhanced or sharpened by operational and political capacity endowments at the level of organizations. This is not surprising as policy design is ultimately a political activity and requires individual policymakers to strategically operate within a broad community of policy stakeholders and organizations (Peters, 2015 ).

For example, Mukherjee and Giest ( 2019 ) show how individual policy entrepreneurs’ capacity to form and maintain coalitions has enabled effective use of individual, organizational and system-level capacities in digital transformation in the EU. Similarly, Ramesh and Bali ( 2019 ) demonstrate how operational capabilities in Singapore’s health system were amplified by sustained political capacity and trust in government. However, these studies and others in this review do not develop generalizable propositions that can be empirically examined on the complementarities and synergies among different types of capacities in different contexts. That is, the aggregate impact of a series of specific capacity endowments is larger than their individual impacts (Wu et al., 2015 ). Similarly, do critical deficits in capacities affect outcomes? (Howlett & Ramesh, 2015 ). These theoretical gaps are particularly visible given that developing policy designs that harness synergies and complementarities among tools is a central theme in the new design orientation (Howlett et al., 2015a , Howlett et al., 2015b ).

One way to address this missing link is to canvass the recent advances around policy success in the public management literature. For instance, design effectiveness is intrinsically related to policy success, as ‘successful policy often resides in policy design and the diligent work undertaken’ (McConnell, 2017 , 17). These themes have been interrogated further in a series of studies that aim to advance what is described as ‘positive public administration’ (Compton & ‘t Hart, 2019 ; Luetjens et al., 2019 ; Douglas et al., 2019 ), which define success across four broad dimensions: if it achieves its goals (i.e., programmatic success), produces largely supported socially appropriate outcomes (i.e., process success), contributes to problem-solving capacity and enhance legitimacy (i.e., political success), and is robust (i.e., endurance) (Ibid, 5).

Connecting groups of capacities with specific dimensions of success can allow analysts to develop proposals around complementarities in capacities to be then examined empirically. For example, policy success could be less likely when operational capacity at system level in the form of coordination mechanisms both within the state and between the state and non-state actors is not established and/or mobilized. Testable claims that emerge from this debate are that if these conditions are not met, enabling political and processual success may not emerge leading to incongruent policy goals and tools. Cumulatively, these outcomes may result in failures in programmatic and endurance terms, bringing about policy (instrument) fiascos (Bovens & ‘t Hart, 2016 ). This in turn provides a richer understanding of the types of capacities required for developing and deploying effective mixes.

Task and agency-specific capacities

There is a tendency in the literature and in contemporary debates to use ‘policy capacity’ as a catchall phrase (Wu et al., 2015 ). An avenue to overcome this simplification is to engage rigorously with the ‘capacity for what’ question (Bali & Ramesh, 2018 ). That is, to identify, ex ante, and theorize task-specific and agency-specific capacities needed for routine but complex tasks in contemporary service delivery such as contracting, managing PPPs, and administering pension funds; and accomplishing these effectively during periods of extreme uncertainties and volatility such as crises (Capano et al., 2020 ; Stirling, 2010 ).

The new design orientation has set up a tall order for effectiveness in program designs whereby designs must be coordinated, coherent, reduce contingent liabilities, and avoid Type 1&2 errors, among others (Bali & Ramesh,  2017 ; 2018 ; Howlett, 2018 ). For example, while network governance may be well suited to policy design for sensitive issues such as elderly care or parental supervision (Pestoff et al., 2012 ) in other situations, civil society may not be well enough organized or endowed in order to generate beneficial network modes of governance off-the-ground and without initial regulatory support (Tunzelmann, 2010 ). Networks, for example, ‘will fail when governments encounter capability problems at the organizational level such as a lack of societal leadership, poor associational structures and weak state steering capacities which make adoption of network governance modes problematic’ (Howlett & Ramesh, 2014 , 324).

However, in our review there is limited, if any, theoretical discussion on the types of capacities needed to achieve these outcomes. That is, the range of capacities required to accomplish tasks such as contracting, commissioning, and collaboration while all under the umbrella of network governance require a variety of distinct capabilities and skillsets (O’Flynn, 2019 ). Failing to recognize these variations and invest in task-specific capabilities has played a key role in failed social policy reforms in many developing economies (Maurya & Ramesh, 2019 ; Virani, 2019 ). Along the same lines, variations in the capacities of agencies within government to pursue such tasks must be recognized (Bardhan, 2016 ).

Conclusion: avenues to advance the research agenda on capacity and design

This paper addresses a scattered body of knowledge in the policy sciences and aims to advance our understanding of the relationship between policy capacity and effective policy design. To this end, this paper presents a review of the existing literature that studies effective policy design through the lens of policy capacity, and argues that such a perspective offers an important starting point for scrutinizing the role of complementarities among organizational, individual, and system-level analytical, operational, and political capacities, within the broader policy sciences.

Clarifying the relationship between design effectiveness and policy capacities is central to advancing the research agenda of the new design orientation in the policy sciences. The theoretical union of these two bodies of literature, at its core, is about reiterating the problem-solving approach in the policy sciences. That is, it inspires building on the research questions surrounding how specific policy interventions are devised to address specific types of problems, with notions of what is fundamentally needed to enable these designs. The most well-intentioned efforts at policy design can be constrained by the capabilities of governments, and those involved in the design process (Mukherjee & Bali, 2019 ). Forwarding such a research agenda can further refine the generalizable hypotheses to investigate and improve policy deliberations regarding effective policy formulation, which already inform the policy sciences (Howlett & Lejano, 2013 ; Howlett et al., 2015a , Howlett et al., 2015b ). To this end, this review has provided several starting points for infusing policy design research with policy capacity concerns.

Our central thesis is that the growing body of research on policy design effectiveness, which is synthesized in this paper, remains largely descriptive and tends to confound rather than clarify the relationship between policy capacity and effective policy design. Our review points to several outstanding questions that need to be highlighted: Do individual, organizational, or system-level policy capacity change over time? Does effectiveness of policy designs and success of policies vary over time with changes in policy capacity of various types ‘spilling over’ and at different levels? Thirdly, do orders of policy capacity exist? And can we distinguish between hierarchies or levels of policy capacity, which have serious implications for effective policy design and thereby policy success (or failure). Specifically, this strand of reasoning can help distil those capacities that are fundamental at the start of policy design (t 0) before successive ones are developed at subsequent stages of policy design (at t 1 and expectedly later at t n ). Is there a hierarchy among levels of policy capacity? If yes, then what is the nature of that hierarchy and are there causal inferences that can be drawn between more fundamental ‘enabling’ capacities and more aspirational ‘second-tier’ capacities? And, how does such a hierarchy impact effectiveness of policy design and determine policy success (or failure)? Finally, given the lack of focus on policy capacity requisites for effective individual policy instrument design, does, and if so, how policy capacity enable effective policy instruments?

Scholarly efforts to engage with these questions can be a generative exercise, signposting new areas for theoretical exploration and empirical testing. In this concluding section, we briefly comment on two avenues to synthesize our critique, by engaging with the two respective levels of policy effectiveness that have been explored in this paper.

Effective policy design spaces: situating capacity in theories of the policy process

A central theme in the policy design literature, which pervades all studies covered in this review, is that an enabling design space provides a platform for successful policy design, as such spaces are supported by significant capacity endowments, which not only improve policy deliberation but also allows designers to best navigate changing and often volatile design contexts (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2018a , 2018b ; Howlett et al., 2018 ; Peters et al., 2018 ; Rahman et al., 2019 ). However, most of this discussion remains largely divorced from mainstream theories and frameworks of the policy process, especially those that explain policy formulation and deliberation styles of governments. If our goal is to advance our understanding of effective design spaces, and what capacities engender them, we need to locate capacity within frameworks and theories of the policy process that are focused on them. For instance, interrogating the role of capacity in incrementalism, the policy narrative framework, or the advocacy coalition framework can generate theoretically grounded propositions and empirical testing on specific mechanisms through which capacity shapes design spaces.

Effective instrument mixes and programs: developing capacity as an independent variable

Another avenue to engage with questions relating to hierarchies, complementarities and temporal dynamics of specific types of capacities raised earlier in this paper is to explicitly canvass policy capacity as a system of independent variables, and to examine its causal impact on policy outcomes. However, as Peters ( 2020 ) states, this is challenging to do especially in the context of policy design as its impact is intermediated by many exogenous factors (Peters, 2020 ). And, as has been noted earlier, the links between specific types of capacities and how they are empirically operationalized are not always clear. Nonetheless, these methodological shortcomings can be managed to some extent by through in-depth critical case studies (see Yee & Liu, 2021 ), or focusing on comparisons among most similar cases (see Yan & Saguin, 2021 ), and avoiding sweeping comparisons that are characteristic in studies of comparative public policy. Similarly, limitations around how capacity is empirically operationalized can be managed by encouraging problem or policy-specific capacity studies. For example, Bajpai and Chong ( 2019 ) extend Wu et al.’s ( 2015 ) framework to study foreign policy capacity. Similarly, Bali and Ramesh ( 2021 ) operationalize different types of capacities to sustain health reform.

Dealing with capacity as explanatory variables would allow analysts to engage with questions around hierarchies, complementarities, and temporal dynamics raised in this review. Specifically, studies can test claims that without system-level political capacity (i.e., trust in government, accountability, legitimacy), having high operational and analytical capacities at individual and/or organizational levels may have less impact on design since mobilization of these capacities might not deliver legitimate, widely supported policies at later stages of policy design. Forthcoming research could also explore whether or not system-level political capacity is indeed the most fundamental type of capacity, while the remaining are more secondary or complementary. It may also be the case that any ‘secondary’ capacities at individual or managerial levels can be observed to contribute to solidifying political capacity at system level, and research on these directional relationships between different orders of policy capacity would greatly enrich the discussion on policy process and more specifically policy design.

These questions reveal a certain degree of agitation and urgency with wanting to find critical answers about how to match publicly salient goals with means that are effective, durable, equitable and also flexible in erratic policy contexts. Joining together concerns about capacity and how to design policy answers effectively signifies a promising, and perhaps also a vital avenue of further academic enquiry, and especially so in times marked by unprecedented public crises.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Kidjie Saguin for his support in preparation of earlier versions of this paper. Kerem gratefully acknowledges the organizational support of Sabanci University and GLODEM, Koc University, as part of the paper was written during his Part-time lectureship at Sabanci University.

Availability of data and material

Code availability, declarations.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

1 We thank an anonymous referee for raising this essential point.

2 We are aware of two major caveats. Firstly, our database only covers journal articles written in English. In addition, our database excluded monographs and edited book chapters. Studies that are written in other languages and those published as monographs and edited book chapters are likely to offer additional insights to the findings in the article, which demands further research.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Ishani Mukherjee, Email: gs.ude.ums@minahsi .

M. Kerem Coban, Email: [email protected] .

Azad Singh Bali, Email: [email protected] .

• Alaerts GJ. Adaptive policy implementation: Process and impact of Indonesia’s national irrigation reform 1999–2018. World Development. 2020; 129 :104880. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson JE. Public policymaking. Praeger; 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2008; 18 (4):543–571. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansell C, Trondal J, Øgård M, editors. Governance in turbulent times. Oxford University Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bajpai K, Chong B. India's foreign policy capacity. Policy Design and Practice. 2019; 2 (2):137–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakır C, Çoban MK. How can a seemingly weak state in the financial services industry act strong? The role of organizational policy capacity in monetary and macroprudential policy. New Perspectives on Turkey. 2019; 61 :71–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakvis H. Rebuilding policy capacity in the era of the fiscal divident: A report from Canada. Governance. 2002; 13 (1):71–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bali AS, Capano G, Ramesh M. Anticipating and designing for policy effectiveness. Policy and Society. 2019; 38 (1):1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bali AS, Ramesh M. Designing effective healthcare: Matching policy tools to problems in China. Public Administration and Development. 2017; 37 (1):40–508. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bali AS, Ramesh M. Policy capacity: A design perspective. In: Howlett M, Mukherjee I, editors. Routledge handbook of policy design. Routledge; 2018. pp. 331–344. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bali AS, Ramesh M. Assessing health reform: Studying tool appropriateness and critical capacities. Policy and Society. 2019; 38 (1):148–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bali AS, Ramesh M. Governing healthcare in India: A policy capacity perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2021 doi: 10.1177/00208523211002605. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banerjee AV, Bardhan PK, Somanathan R, editors. Poverty and income distribution in India. Juggernaut; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bardhan P. State and development: The need for a reappraisal of the current literature. Journal of Economic Literature. 2016; 54 (3):862–892. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baskoy T, Evans B, Shields J. Assessing policy capacity in Canada’s public services: Perspectives of deputy and assistant deputy ministers. Canadian Public Administration. 2011; 54 (2):217–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bengston DN, Fletcher JO, Nelson KC. Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004; 69 (2–3):271–286. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein S, Cashore B. Complex global governance and domestic policies: Four pathways of influence. International Affairs. 2012; 88 (3):585–604. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bobrow DB. Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In: Peters BG, Pierre J, editors. Handbook of public policy. Sage; 2006. pp. 75–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bobrow DB, Dryzek JS. Policy analysis by design. University of Pittsburgh Press; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Borrás S. Policy learning and organizational capacities in innovation policies. Science and Public Policy. 2011; 38 (9):725–734. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bovens M, ‘t Hart P. Revisiting the study of policy failures. Journal of European Public Policy. 2016; 23 (5):653–666. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braathen NA. Instrument mixes for environmental policy: How many stones should be used to kill a bird? International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics. 2007; 1 (2):185–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braathen NA, Croci E. Environmental agreements used in combination with other policy instruments. In: Croci E, editor. The handbook of environmental voluntary agreements: Design, implementation and evaluation issues. Springer; 2005. pp. 335–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun D. Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy. 2008; 34 (4):227–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun D. Lessons on the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy. 2008; 34 (4):289–298. [ Google Scholar ]
• Briassoulis H. Policy integration for complex environmental problems. Ashgate; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown ML. Scientific uncertainty ad learning in European Union environmental policymaking. Policy Studies Journal. 2000; 28 (3):576–596. [ Google Scholar ]
• Busuioc EM, Lodge M. The reputational basis of public accountability. Governance. 2016; 29 (2):247–263. [ Google Scholar ]
• Capano G. Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: The dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands. Higher Education. 2018; 75 (4):675–694. [ Google Scholar ]
• Capano G, Howlett H, Jarvis DSL, Ramesh M, Goyal N. Mobilizing policy (in)capacity to fight COVID-19: Understanding variations in national responses. Policy and Society. 2020; 39 (3):285–308. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 . 10.1177/2158244019900568.
• Capano G, Pavan E. Designing anticipatory policies through the use of ICTs. Policy and Society. 2019; 38 (1):96–117. [ Google Scholar ]
• Capano G, Woo JJ. Resilience and robustness in policy design: A critical appraisal. Policy Sciences. 2017; 50 (3):399–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cashore B, Bernstein S, Humphreys D, Visseren-Hamakers I, Rietig K. Designing stakeholder learning dialogues for effective global governance. Policy and Society. 2019; 38 (1):118–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chindarkar N, Howlett M, Ramesh M. Introduction to the special issue: Conceptualizing effective social policy design: Design spaces and capacity challenges. Public Administration and Developmentv. 2017; 37 (1):3–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke A, Craft J. The vestiges and vanguards of policy design in a digital context. Canadian Public Administration. 2017; 60 (4):476–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coban MK. Diffuse interest groups and regulatory policy change: Financial consumer protection in Turkey. Interest Groups an Advocacy. 2020; 9 (2):220–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coban MK. Compliance forces, domestic policy process, and international regulatory standards: Compliance with Basel III. Business and Politics. 2020; 22 (1):161–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton M, ‘t Hart P. How to ‘see’ great policy successes. In: Compton M, ‘t Hart P, editors. Great policy successes. Oxford University Press; 2019. pp. 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Considine M. Thinking outside the box? Applying design theory to public policy. Politics and Policy. 2012; 40 (4):704–724. [ Google Scholar ]
• Craft J, Daku M. A comparative assessment of elite policy recruits in Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2017; 19 (3):207–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dare L. From global forests to local politics: Unwrapping the boundaries within forest certification. Australian Journal of Political Science. 2018; 53 (4):529–547. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daugbjerg C, Fraussen B, Halpin D. Interest group and policy capacity: Models of engagement, policy goods and networks. In: Wu X, Howlett M, Ramesh M, editors. Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice. Springer; 2018. pp. 243–261. [ Google Scholar ]
• del Río P. Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and energy efficiency support schemes: The impact of different instruments and design elements. Energy Policy. 2010; 38 (9):4978–4989. [ Google Scholar ]
• del Río, P., & Howlett, M. (2013). “Beyond the ‘Tinbergen rule’ in policy design: Matching tools and goals in policy portfolios.”SSRN Scholarly Paper. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247238 . Last accessed 11 June 2020).
• Donahue AK, Selden SC, Ingraham PW. Measuring government management capacity: A comparative analysis of city human resources management systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2000; 10 (2):381–412. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doremus H. A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy. 2003; 6 (3):217–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorsch MJ, Flachsland C. A polycentric approach to global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics. 2017; 17 (2):45–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas, S., Hart, P. T., Ansell, C., Anderson, L., Flinders, M., Head, B., & Moynihan, D. (2019). Towards positive public administration: A manifesto . Available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336362499_Towards_Positive_Public_Administration_A_Manifesto .
• Dunlop CA. Organizational political capacity as learning. Policy and Society. 2015; 34 (4–5):259–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giest S. Big data for policymaking: Fad or fasttrack? Policy Sciences. 2017; 50 (3):367–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giest S, Mukherjee I. Behavioral instruments in renewable energy and the role of big data: A policy perspective. Energy Policy. 2018; 123 :360–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilabert P, Lawford-Smith H. Political feasibility: A conceptual exploration. Political Studies. 2012; 60 (4):809–825. [ Google Scholar ]
• Golan J, Sicular T, Umapathi N. Unconditional cash transfers in China: Who benefits from the rural minimum living standard guarantee (Dibao) program? World Development. 2017; 93 :316–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grabosky PN. Green markets: Environmental regulation by the private sector. Law and Policy. 1994; 16 (4):419–448. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant W. Policy instruments in the common agricultural policy. West European Politics. 2010; 33 (1):22–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunningham N, Grabosky PN, Sinclair D. Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Clarendon Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haas PM. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization. 1992; 46 (1):1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J, Alford J, Hughes O, Yates S. Public value and political astuteness in the work of public managers: The art of the possible. Public Administration. 2015; 93 (1):195–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley K, Zhang J. Measuring policy capacity through governance indices. In: Wu X, Howlett M, Ramesh M, editors. Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice. Springer; 2018. pp. 67–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood C. Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance. 2007; 20 (1):127–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoppe R. Institutional constraints and practical problems in deliberative and participatory policy making. Policy and Politics. 2011; 39 (2):163–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoppe R. Heuristics for practitioners of design: Rule-of-thumb for structuring unstructured problems. Public Policy and Administration. 2018; 33 (4):384–408. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration. 2000; 43 (4):412–431. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences. 2009; 42 (1):73–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policymaking: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration. 2009; 52 (2):153–172. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Routledge; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences. 2014; 47 (3):187–207. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. Policy design: What, who, how and why? In: Halpern C, Lascoumes P, Patrick LG, editors. L’instrumentation et ses effets. Presses de Sciences Po; 2014. pp. 281–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government. Policy and Society. 2015; 34 (3–4):173–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. The criteria for effective policy design: Character and context in policy instrument choice. Journal of Asian Public Policy. 2018; 11 (3):245–266. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M. Dealing with the dark side of policy-making: Managing behavioural risk and volatility in policy designs. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. 2020; 22 (6):612–625. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Capano G, Ramesh M. Designing for robustness: Surprise, agility and improvisation in policy design. Policy and Design. 2018; 37 (4):405–421. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Lejano RP. Tales from the Crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration and Society. 2013; 45 (3):357–381. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Mukherjee I. An Asian perspective on policy instruments: Policy styles, governance modes and critical capacity challenges. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration. 2016; 38 (1):24–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Mukherjee I. The importance of policy design: Effective processes, tools and outcomes. In: Howlett M, Mukherjee I, editors. Routledge handbook of policy design. Routledge; 2018. pp. 3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Mukherjee I. The contribution of comparative policy analysis to policy design: Articulating principles of effectiveness and clarifying design spaces. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. 2018; 20 (1):72–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Mukherjee I, Rayner J. The elements of effective program design: A two-level analysis. In: Howlett M, Mukherjee I, editors. Handbook of policy formulation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2017. pp. 129–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Mukherjee I, Woo JJ. From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: The new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy and Politics. 2015; 43 (2):291–311. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Ramesh M. The two orders of governance failure: Design mismatches and policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society. 2014; 33 (4):317–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Ramesh M. Achilles’ heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation and Governance. 2015; 10 (4):301–313. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Ramesh M, Capano G. Policy-makers, policy-takers and policy tools: Dealing with behavioural issues in policy design. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. 2020; 22 (6):487–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A. Studying public policy: Principles and processes. 4. Oxford University Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Ramesh M, Wu X. Understanding the persistence of policy failures: The role of politics, governance and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration. 2015; 30 (3–4):209–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Rayner J. Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’ Policy and Society. 2007; 26 (4):1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Rayner J. Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance. 2013; 1 (2):170–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howlett M, Tosun J, editors. Routledge handbook of policy styles. Routledge; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huitema D, Jordan A, Munaretto S, Hildén M. Policy experimentation: Core concepts, political dynamics, governance and impacts. Policy Sciences. 2018; 51 (2):143–159. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen O. Designing effective water policy: Capacity and effectiveness of reforms in developing countries. Policy and Society. 2018; 38 (1):77–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan A, Benson D, Wurzel R, Zito A. Policy instruments in practice. In: Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D, editors. Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 537–549. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan A, Benson D, Wurzel R, Zito A. Environmental policy: Governing by multiple policy instruments? In: Richardson JJ, editor. Constructing a policy state? Policy dynamics in the EU. Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 105–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan A, Huitema D. Innovations in climate policy: The politics of invention, diffusion, and evaluation. Environmental Politics. 2014; 23 (5):715–734. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karo E, Kattel R. Innovation and the state: Towards an evolutionary theory of policy capacity. In: Wu X, Howlett M, Ramesh M, editors. Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice. Springer; 2018. pp. 123–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelemen RD. Europe’s other democratic deficit: National authoritarianism in Europe’s Democratic Union. Government and Opposition. 2017; 52 (2):211–238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimbell L, Vesnić-Alujević L. After the toolkit: Anticipatory logics and the future of government. Policy Design and Practice. 2020; 3 (2):95–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lang A. Government capacities and stakeholders: What facilitates ehealth legislation? Globalization and Health. 2014; 10 (4):1–14. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leong Ch, Howlett M. Theorizing the behavioral state: Resolving the theory-practice paradox of policy sciences. Public Policy and Administration. 2020 doi: 10.1177/0952076720977588. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linder SH, Peters BG. From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy. 1984; 4 (3):237–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindquist EA. Public managers and policy communities: Learning to meet new challenges. Canadian Public Administration. 1992; 35 (2):127–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lodge M. Crisis, resources and the state: Executive politics in the age of the depleted state. Political Studies Review. 2013; 11 (3):378–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lodhi, I. (2018). Policy capacity: Introducing a comprehensive index. Paper prepared for the international workshop on public policy—Pittsburgh 2018 , June 26–28, Pittsburgh, United States.
• Luetjens J, Mintrom M, ‘t Hart P, editors. Successful public policy: Lessons from Australia and New Zealand. Australian National University Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maerz S, et al. State of the world 2019: Autocratization surges–resistance grows. Democratization. 2020; 27 (6):909–927. [ Google Scholar ]
• Majone G. On the notion of political feasibility. European Journal of Political Research. 1975; 3 (2):259–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maurya D, Ramesh M. Program design, implementation and performance: The case of social health insurance in India. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2019; 14 (4):487–508. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• May PJ. Policy design and implementation. In: Peters BG, Pierre J, editors. Handbook of public administration. Sage Publications; 2003. pp. 223–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• May PJ. Regulation and compliance motivations: Examining different approaches. Public Administration Review. 2005; 65 (1):31–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• McConnell A. Policy success and failure. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 2017 doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McConnell A. Hidden agendas: Shining a light on the dark side of public policy. European Journal of Public Policy. 2018; 25 (12):1739–1758. [ Google Scholar ]
• McConnell A. The use of placebo policies to escape from policy traps. Journal of European Public Policy. 2020; 27 (7):957–976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meckling J, Nahm J. The power of process: State capacity and climate policy. Governance. 2018; 31 (4):741–757. [ Google Scholar ]
• Menahem G, Stein R. High-capacity and low-capacity governance networks in welfare services delivery: A typology and empirical examination of the case of Israeli municipalities. Public Administration. 2013; 91 (1):211–231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mergel I, Ganapati S, Whitford AB. Agile: A new way of governing. Public Administration Review. 2021; 81 (1):161–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montpetit É. Policy design for legitimacy: Expert knowledge, citizens, time and inclusion in the United Kingdom’s biotechnology sector. Public Administration. 2008; 86 (1):259–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukherjee I, Bali AS. Policy effectiveness and capacity: Two sides of the design coin. Policy Design and Practice. 2019; 2 (2):103–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukherjee I, Giest S. Designing policies in uncertain contexts: Entrepreneurial capacity and the case of the European emission trading scheme. Public Policy and Administration. 2019; 34 (3):262–286. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukherjee I, Howlett M. An Asian perspective on policy instruments: Policy styles, governance modes and critical capacity challenges. AsiaPacific Journal of Public Administration. 2016; 38 (1):24–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukherjee I, Mukherjee N. Designing for sustainable outcomes: Espousing behavioural change into co-production programmes. Policy and Society. 2018; 37 (3):326–346. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nair S, Howlett M. Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: Adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. Policy and Politics. 2017; 45 (1):103–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman J, Cherney A, Head BW. Policy capacity and evidence-based policy in the public service. Public Management Review. 2017; 19 (2):157–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Norris P, Inglehart R. Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Flynn J. Rethinking relationships: Clarity, contingency, and capabilities. Policy Design and Practice. 2019; 2 (2):115–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pal LA, Clark ID. Making reform stick: Political acumen as an element of political capacity for policy change and innovation. Policy and Society. 2015; 34 (3–4):247–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pestoff VA, Brandsen T, Verschuere B. New public governance, the third sector and co-production. Routledge; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters BG. Policy capacity in public administration. Policy and Society. 2015; 34 (3–4):219–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters BG. Can we be casual about being causal? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. 2020 doi: 10.1080/13876988.2020.1793327. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters BG, Eliadis P, Hill M, Howlett M. Conclusion: The future of instruments research. In: Eliadis P, Hill MM, Howlett M, editors. Designing government: From instruments to governance. McGill-Queen’s University Press; 2005. pp. 353–363. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters BG, et al. Designing for policy effectiveness: Defining and understanding a concept. Cambridge University Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters BG, Pierre J. Governance and policy problems: Instruments as unitary and mixed modes of policy intervention. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration. 2015; 37 (4):224–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahman M, Wellstead A, Howlett M. From adaptive capacity to policy capacity adaptation assessments: Insights from the policy sciences. In: Keskitalo ECH, Preston BL, editors. Research handbook on climate change adaptation policy. Edward Elgar; 2019. pp. 291–309. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramesh M, Bali AS. The remarkable healthcare performance in Singapore. In: Compton M, ‘t Hart P, editors. Great Policy Successes. Oxford University Press; 2019. pp. 42–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rayner J, McNutt K, Wellstead AM. Dispersed capacity and weak coordination: The challenge of climate change adaptation in Canada’s forest policy sector. Review of Policy Research. 2013; 30 (1):66–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rimkuté D. Organizational reputation and risk regulation: The effect of reputational threats on agency scientific outputs. Public Administration. 2018; 96 (1):70–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rotberg RI. Good governance means performance and results. Governance. 2014; 27 (3):511–518. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saguin K, Ramesh M, Howlett M. Policy work and capacities in a developing country: Evidence from the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration. 2018; 40 (1):1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schout A, Andrew J. The European Union’s governance ambitions and its administrative capacities. Journal of European Public Policy. 2008; 15 (4):957–974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewerin S, Béland D, Cashore B. Designing policy for the long term: Agency, policy feedback and policy change. Policy Sciences. 2020; 53 (2):243–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidney MS. Policy formulation: Design and tools. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS, editors. Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods. CRC Taylor & Francis; 2007. pp. 79–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siwale J, Okoye O. Microfinance regulation and social sustainability of microfinance institutions: The case of Nigeria and Zambia. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. 2017; 88 (4):611–632. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skeete J. Examining the role of policy design and policy interaction in EU automotive emissions performance gaps. Energy Policy. 2017; 104 :373–381. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skodvin T, Gullberg AT, Aakre S. Target-group influence and political feasibility: The case of climate policy design in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy. 2010; 17 (6):854–873. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spendzharova AB. Regulatory cascading: Limitations of policy design in European banking structural reforms. Policy and Society. 2016; 35 (3):227–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stazyk EC, Goerdel HT. The benefits of bureaucracy: Public managers’ perceptions of political support, goal ambiguity, and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2011; 21 (4):645–672. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stirling A. Keep it complex. Nature. 2010; 468 (7327):1029–1031. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone D. The “knowledge bank” and the global development network. Global Governance. 2003; 9 (1):43–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone D, Ladi S. Global public policy and transnational administration. Public Administration. 2015; 93 (4):839–855. [ Google Scholar ]
• The Economist. (2020). Countries are using apps and data networks to keep tabs on the pandemic . March 26.
• Thelen K. How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiernan, A., & Wanna, J. (2006). Competence, capacity, capability: Towards conceptual clarity in the discourse of declining policy skills. Paper presented at the govnet international conference . Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
• Tosun J, Lang A. Policy integration: Mapping the different concepts. Policy Studies. 2017; 38 (6):553–570. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Der Steen M, Scherpenisse J, Van Twist M. Anticipating surprise: The case of the early warning system of Rijkswaterstaat in the Netherlands. Policy and Society. 2018; 37 (4):473–490. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vince J, Nursey-Bray M. Policy capacity in oceans governance: Rio+20 and Australia’s outcomes. Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs. 2016; 8 (3):165–179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Virani A. Notions of policy effectiveness and implications for policy design: Insights from public–private partnerships in India. Policy Design and Practice. 2019; 2 (2):198–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• von Tunzelmann N. Technology and technology policy in the postwar UK: Market failure or“network failure?” Revue D’économie Industrielle. 2010; 129–130 :237–258. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walter J, et al. Policy capacity in disruptive times. Australian Journal of Political Science. 2020; 55 (1):72–85. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weaver, K. (2009a). If you build it, will they come? Overcoming unforeseen obstacles to program effectiveness . The Tansley Lecture, University of Saskatchewan.
• Weaver K. Target compliance: The final frontier of policy implementation. Brookings Institution Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber EP, Lovrich NP, Gaffney MJ. Assessing collaborative capacity in a multidimensional world. Administration and Society. 2007; 39 (2):194–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weible CM, et al. COVID-19 and the policy sciences: Initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sciences. 2020; 53 (2):225–241. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wellstead AM, Stedman RC, Howlett M. Policy analytical capacity in changing governance contexts: A structural equation model (SEM) study of contemporary Canadian policy work. Public Policy and Administration. 2011; 26 (3):353–373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wen Z. Government purchase of services in China: Similar intentions, different policy designs. Public Administration and Development. 2017; 37 (1):65–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams RA, McNutt K. Climate change adaptation and policy capacity in the Canadian finance sector: A meso analysis. Review of Policy Research. 2013; 30 (1):91–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woo JJ. Policy capacity and Singapore’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy and Society. 2020; 39 (3):345–362. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woo JJ, Ramesh M, Howlett M. Legitimation capacity: System-level resources and political skills in public. Policy and Society. 2015; 34 (3–4):271–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woo JJ, Ramesh M, Howlett M, Coban MK. Dynamics of global financial governance: Constraints, opportunities, and capacities in Asia. Policy and Society. 2016; 35 (3):269–282. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu X, Ramesh M, Howlett M. Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society. 2015; 34 (3–4):165–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu X, Ramesh M, Howlett M. Policy capacity: Conceptual framework and essential components. In: Wu X, Howlett M, Ramesh M, editors. Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice. Springer; 2018. pp. 1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu X, Ramesh M, Howlett M, Fritzen S. The public policy primer: Managing public policy. Routledge; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiarchogiannopoulou E. Reform technology and consensus in building in discursive institutionalism: The integration of knowledge in policy formulation in Greek pension reform, 1990–2002. Critical Policy Studies. 2015; 9 (4):416–433. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yan Y, Saguin K. Policy capacity matters for capacity development. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2021 doi: 10.1177/0020852320983867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yee W, Liu P. Governance capacity and regulatory enforcement: The case of food safety regulatory reform in Beijing. International Review of Administrative Sciences; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yi H, Feiock RC. Policy tool interactions and the adoption of state renewable portfolio standards. Review of Policy Research. 2012; 29 (2):193–206. [ Google Scholar ]

• Research & Outlook

World Bank Policy Research Working Papers

The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series encourages the exchange of ideas on development and quickly disseminates the findings of research in progress. This series is aimed at showcasing World Bank research—analytic work designed to produce results with wide applicability across countries or sectors. The authors are exclusively World Bank staff and consultants.

Recent Papers by theme

• Infrastructure

Search the Entire Series

You can search the series by author, country, region, title, topic...etc.

Series Hubs

INSIDE THIS SERIES

⇰ Working Papers with Reproducibility Packages

⇰ Working Papers on COVID-19

⇰ Working Papers on Impact Evaluation

⇰ Working Papers funded by KCP

• Development Economics Department

• Transparency Seal
• Citizen's Charter
• PIDS Vision, Mission and Quality Policy
• Strategic Plan 2019-2025
• Organizational Structure
• Bid Announcements
• Site Statistics
• Privacy Notice

• Research Agenda
• Research Projects
• Research Paper Series
• Guidelines in Preparation of Articles
• Editorial Board
• List of All Issues
• Disclaimer and Permissions
• Inquiries and Submissions
• Subscription
• Economic Policy Monitor
• Discussion Paper Series
• Policy Notes
• Development Research News
• Economic Issue of the Day
• Annual Reports
• Special Publications

Working Papers

Monograph Series

Staff Papers

Economic Outlook Series

List of All Archived Publications

• Other Publications by PIDS Staff
• How to Order Publications
• Rate Our Publications
• Press Releases
• PIDS in the News
• PIDS Updates
• Legislative Inputs
• Database Updates
• GIS-based Philippine Socioeconomic Profile
• Socioeconomic Research Portal for the Philippines
• PIDS Library
• PIDS Corners
• Infographics
• Infographics - Fact Friday
• Infographics - Infobits

The Policy Notes are observations/analyses written by PIDS researchers on certain policy issues. The treatise is holistic in approach and aims to provide useful inputs for decisionmaking. The Notes are circulated to the highest levels of decisionmakers in the country.

• How to Order Publications?
• Opportunities

Market Power in Artificial Intelligence

This paper surveys the relevant existing literature that can help researchers and policy makers understand the drivers of competition in markets that constitute the provision of artificial intelligence products. The focus is on three broad markets: training data, input data, and AI predictions. It is shown that a key factor in determining the emergence and persistence of market power will be the operation of markets for data that would allow for trading data across firm boundaries.

Joshua Gans has drawn on the findings of his research for both compensated speaking engagements and consulting engagements. He has written the books Prediction Machines, Power & Prediction, and Innovation + Equality on the economics of AI for which he receives royalties. He is also chief economist of the Creative Destruction Lab, a University of Toronto-based program that helps seed stage companies, from which he receives compensation. He conducts consulting on anti-trust and intellectual property matters with an association with Charles River Associates and his ownership of Core Economic Research Ltd. He also has equity and advisory relationships with a number of startup firms. Thanks to Andrei Haigu, Chad Jones and the participants at the Rochester Antitrust Workshop for their helpful comments. All errors remain my own. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Psychological Transformation in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs): Focus on Teachers and Learners

Developing Community of Inquiry using Educational Blog in Higher Education of Bangladesh Perspective Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, social networking, podcasting etc. have received concentration in educational research over the last decade. Blogs enable students to reflect their learning experiences, disseminate ideas, and participate in analytical thinking. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework has been widely utilized in educational research to understand and enhance online and blended learning environments. There is insufficient research evidence to demonstrate the impact of educational blogging utilizing the CoI model as a framework. This paper explores how blogs can be used to support collaborative learning and how such interaction upholds CoI through enhancing critical thinking and meaningful learning in the context of Higher Education (HE). An exploratory mixed method research approach has been followed in this study. A convenience sampling method was employed to choose 75 undergraduate students from Dhaka University for a 24-week blogging project. Every publication on the blog was segmented into meaningful units. Whole texts of posts and comments are extracted from the blog and the transcripts are analyzed in Qualitative manner considering CoI framework, more specifically, through the lens of cognitive, social, and teaching presence. In addition, the semi-structured questionnaire is used to collect data from students whether blogging expediated students' learning or not. The research findings indicate that cognitive presence, namely the exploration component, is dominant in blog-based learning activity. Moreover, this research has demonstrated that blogs build reliable virtual connections among students through exchanging ideas and information and by offering opportunities for reflective practice and asynchronous feedback. This study also revealed challenges related to blogging in the context of developing countries, including lack of familiarity with blogs, restricted internet connectivity, limited access to devices, and low levels of social interaction. It is recommended that different stakeholders including policy makers, curriculum developers and teachers may take the initiative to synchronize the utilization of educational blogs with the formal curriculum, guaranteeing that blog activities supplement and improve traditional teaching-learning activities.

Keywords: web 2.0, Community of inquiry (COI), Blog, Collaborative Learning, Learning outcome

Received: 26 Sep 2023; Accepted: 25 Mar 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Chowdhury and Siddique. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mr. Sabbir A. Chowdhury, University of Dhaka, Institute of Education and Research (IER), Dhaka, Bangladesh

People also looked at

Retraction Note: The effect of energy consumption on the environment in the OECD countries: economic policy uncertainty perspectives

• Retraction Note
• Published: 25 March 2024

Cite this article

• Abdulrasheed Zakari 1 , 2 ,
• Festus Fatai Adedoyin 3 &
• Festus Victor Bekun   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0464-4677 4  

The Original Article was published on 18 May 2021

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Retraction Note: Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021) 28:52295-52305

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14463-8

The Publisher has retracted this article in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief. An investigation by the publisher found a number of articles, including this one, with a number of concerns, including but not limited to compromised peer review process, inappropriate or irrelevant references, containing nonstandard phrases or not being in scope of the journal. Based on the investigation's findings the publisher, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.

The authors disagree with the retraction.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China

Abdulrasheed Zakari

Alma Mater Europaea ECM, Maribor, Slovenia

Department of Computing and Informatics, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK

Festus Fatai Adedoyin

Faculty of Economics Administrative and Social Sciences, Department of International Logistics and Transportation, Istanbul Gelisim University, Istanbul, Turkey

Festus Victor Bekun

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Festus Victor Bekun .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Zakari, A., Adedoyin, F.F. & Bekun, F.V. Retraction Note: The effect of energy consumption on the environment in the OECD countries: economic policy uncertainty perspectives. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33077-4

Download citation

Published : 25 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33077-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research