Institutional role mapping
Founding instruments, statutes and organisation charts are coded to show each body's mandate, powers, reporting lines and dependencies, so gaps and overlaps in responsibility for a risk become visible and comparable.
GRF · Governance Nexus
Policy science for institutional governance
Policy, institutional and decision science is the core discipline of this platform. It studies how mandates are written, how institutions coordinate and how decisions are implemented and answered for, and it identifies where responsibility for compounding risk is unclear. Its tools are comparative, documentary and evaluative rather than experimental.
01Register
Key facts.
Method recordSTEM method
- MethodPolicy, institutional and decision science
- StewardPolicy Nexus
- Applied inGovernance Nexus
- Data5 inputs
- Checks4 validation steps
- Canonical pageSTEM Commons
02Application
What policy, institutional and decision science does here.
Policy, institutional and decision science studies how public decisions are made, implemented and evaluated. It examines how institutions coordinate across sectors and levels of government when facing shared risks. In governance and institutions and risk management and systemic risk, policy science identifies governance gaps where responsibility for cross-sector risk is unclear. It supports the design of mandates, coordination mechanisms and accountability. The canonical description is on the STEM Commons.
Comparative governance case studies
Cases of governance failure and recovery are reconstructed from inquiry reports, minutes and audit records with a common protocol, so lessons can be compared across sectors and jurisdictions.
Evaluation of governance reforms
Reforms such as new regulators, integrity rules or coordination bodies are evaluated against their stated objectives, with comparison cases and attention to implementation rather than adoption alone.
03Monitor
Survey analysis.
The screen a team would use to follow this method: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Survey analysis
Governance · Policy science for institutional · Run R-0409
Estimates stableGRF · Governance Nexus
Estimates
robust standard errors
| Decisions recorded with reasons | −0.19 | 0.18 | [−0.1, 1.0] | No |
| Conflicts declared | −0.09 | 0.12 | [−0.5, 0.4] | Yes |
| Board risk reviews held | 0.51 | 0.17 | [−0.3, 0.5] | No |
| Capture safeguards in place | 0.27 | 0.19 | [0.0, 0.4] | No |
Method card
- Method
- Policy, institutional and decision science
- Sample
- 9881 obs
- Design
- stratified, weighted
- Label
- MODELLED
Residuals by group
04Data
What the method consumes.
Datasets and records used by policy, institutional and decision science on this platform, with the role each plays and the label its values carry. Sources are listed in the source register.
| Data | Role | Label |
|---|---|---|
| Legislation and founding instruments | Mandates, powers and appointment rules | Published statistics |
| Supreme audit institution reports | Evidence of implementation and control | Published statistics |
| Public inquiry reports | Case reconstruction | Published statistics |
| Expert-coded governance datasets such as V-Dem | Comparative context with measurement uncertainty | MODELLED |
| Perception-based composite indices | Comparative context with stated standard errors | ESTIMATED |
05Policy scenarios
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page's map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Governance Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Governance Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Governance Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
06Validation
How results are checked.
Conclusions are tested through comparative cases, counterfactual evaluation and peer review. Implementation outcomes are monitored against stated objectives.
| Check | How it is done |
|---|---|
| Coding reliability | Two coders map the same instruments independently; disagreements are reconciled and reported |
| Case selection | Cases are chosen by stated criteria, including cases where failure was averted, to limit hindsight bias |
| Source triangulation | Each claim in a case is traced to at least two independent records, or labelled as single-source |
| Peer review | Methods and cases are reviewed by governance specialists outside the authoring team |
Findings are often context specific and difficult to transfer. Political dynamics can override technically preferred options.
07Implementation
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Governance Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Governance Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Governance Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
09Instruments and commitments
How policy science for institutional governance is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on policy science for institutional governance, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction · UNDRRParis Agreement · UNFCCC2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals · United NationsInternational Health Regulations · WHO
10Stewardship
Who maintains the method.
Policy Nexus stewards policy, institutional and decision science for the Consortium and reviews how it is applied across platforms.
11Connected
Where this page leads across the Consortium.
12Questions
Questions and answers.
What are the limits of policy, institutional and decision science in this field?
Findings are often context specific and difficult to transfer. Political dynamics can override technically preferred options.
How are results checked?
Conclusions are tested through comparative cases, counterfactual evaluation and peer review. Implementation outcomes are monitored against stated objectives.
Are the values on this page real?
The data names, roles and checks are real descriptions of practice. The canvas shows a design of the method's use, not a run; no result is reported here.
Where else is this method applied?
The canonical method page lists every platform that applies it.
ReportsContribute
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
Global Risks ForumGovernance NexusPortfolio and ReadinessUniverse Annual Synthesis
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Governance Nexus
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.