Skip to content

GRF · Policy Nexus

Policy science at Policy Nexus

Policy, institutional and decision science is the core discipline of this platform. It studies how mandates are assigned, how rules are made and assessed, how institutions coordinate across sectors and levels of government, and how designs become delivered policy, so that comparisons of governance arrangements rest on method rather than impression.

01Register

Policy science at Policy Nexus on the record.

Method recordSTEM method
  1. MethodPolicy, institutional and decision science
  2. StewardPolicy Nexus
  3. Applied inPolicy Nexus
  4. 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 policy, 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.

Mandate mapping for a cross-sector risk

Laws, decrees, budgets and organisational charts are coded to show which body holds each function for a risk, from assessment to recovery, revealing gaps, overlaps and unfunded mandates.

Review of regulatory impact assessments

Published impact assessments are read against regulatory impact assessment guidance: problem definition, options, consultation, distributional effects and monitoring plans, with the quality of each element recorded.

Comparative case study of national strategies

Cases are selected on stated criteria, documents and interviews are coded with a shared scheme, and differences in design and implementation are traced to institutional conditions.

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

Policy · Policy science at Policy Nexus · Run R-9132

Estimates stableGRF · Policy Nexus

Estimates

robust standard errors

Policies tracked−0.280.07[−0.4, 0.6]No
In consultation−0.220.17[−0.3, 0.5]No
Implementation milestones met0.270.17[−0.2, 0.9]No
Evaluations scheduled−0.230.04[0.1, 1.0]Yes

Method card

Method
Policy, institutional and decision science
Sample
739 obs
Design
stratified, weighted
Label
MODELLED

Residuals by group

Survey analysis: the screen's structure, terms and states for Policy.Example names and illustrative values; a design, not a record or a live system.
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.

DataRoleLabel
Legislation and regulatory textsMandates and duties as enactedPublished statistics
Regulatory impact assessment registersEx ante and ex post assessmentsPublished statistics
Budgets and audit reportsResources and performancePublished statistics
Interviews and dialogue recordsPractice beyond the textREPORTED
Composite governance indicesComparative contextESTIMATED
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
YearBaselineRegulationEconomic incentiveInformation and capacity
0100.099.598.899.1
1102.0101.2100.199.8
2104.0102.5101.199.9
3106.1103.5101.6100.0
4108.2103.7101.8100.7
5110.4103.2101.7102.1
6112.6102.0101.6103.9
7114.9100.4101.6105.9
8117.299.2102.1108.0
9119.598.6102.9110.1
10121.998.9104.2112.3
11124.399.7105.7114.5
12126.8101.1107.4116.8
13129.4102.7109.4119.2
14131.9104.5111.4121.6
15134.6106.5113.5124.0
16137.3108.5115.7126.5
17140.0110.7118.0129.0
18142.8112.9120.4131.6
19145.7115.1122.8134.2
20148.6117.4125.2136.9

Methods

  1. Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
  2. Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
  3. Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
  4. Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
  5. 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
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information. Illustrative teaching model: it runs on the values set by the controls, not on measured data. 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).
06Validation

How results are checked.

Conclusions are tested through comparative cases, counterfactual evaluation and peer review. Implementation outcomes are monitored against stated objectives.

CheckHow it is done
Coding reliabilityTwo analysts code a sample of documents independently; disagreements are reconciled and the agreement is recorded
Case selectionCriteria for choosing cases are stated before analysis, and cases that contradict the argument are reported
Source triangulationClaims about practice rest on more than one source type: legal text, administrative records and interviews
Factual review by institutions describedInstitutional descriptions are returned to the bodies described so factual errors can be corrected before publication

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.

  1. 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)
  2. Evidence and system model Foundry
    The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2
  3. Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
    Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983)
  4. Exercise with stakeholders Universe
    The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3
  5. Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
    What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process
  6. 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)
  7. Capacity and training Risk Academy
    Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2
  8. Monitoring and public report Reports
    Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5
  9. Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
    Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)

Methods

  1. Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
  2. Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
  3. Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar: the steps as recorded, each with its pillar; sources as cited on each step.
09Instruments and commitments

How Policy science at Policy Nexus 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 at Policy Nexus, by level of government and cooperation.

Instrument typeLocalNationalRegionalGlobal
RegulatoryZoning, building codesLaws, standards, licensingHarmonised rulesConventions and treaties
EconomicLocal levies, grantsBudget lines, taxes, insurance schemesRisk pools, regional fundsFinancing mechanisms
InformationLocal warningsDisclosure, early warning, statisticsData sharing arrangementsGlobal monitoring and reporting
InstitutionalLocal committeesLead agencies, coordination councilsRegional bodies and secretariatsMultilateral mandates
CooperativeCommunity agreementsPartnership compactsMemoranda and joint programmesAgreements and joint commitments
A typology after the OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Critical Risks; examples of instrument types, not an inventory of any country's measures.
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.

11Questions

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 ForumPolicy NexusEvidence BriefPortfolio and Readiness
Policy 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.