Abstract
This paper investigates the technical dimension of policy goals or their structural properties. The paper challenges the idea that policy goals can be conceptualized within a unidimensional hierarchy. It aims to contribute to policy theory by classifying goals based on systematic empirical research. Qualitative content analysis of 11 governmental strategies was conducted by focusing on the overlap of six technical features of policy goals: level of specification, mode of accomplishment, presence of time frames, quantifiable indicators, beneficiaries, and responsible actors. Based on the analysis, the paper distinguishes seven technical types of policy goals: broad, mode-centered, direction-centered, beneficiary-centered, actor-centered, semi-structured, and structured. Technical types of policy goals do not form a hierarchy with clear-cut levels, but can be placed on a continuum, from broad to structured, with the mixed types in between. This insight could enhance policy design theory by introducing a more sophisticated tuning of policy goals, potentially leading to better advice for practical policy planning and, in turn, to more successful policy implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Data availability
The dataset (in NVivo software) generated and analyzed during the project is available from the corresponding author on request.
Notes
For examples of how goals are a constitutive part of policy definitions, see (Althaus et al., 2007; Anderson, 2006; Birkland, 2015; Colebatch, 2004; Hill, 2010; Hogwood & Gunn, 1984; Howlett, 2011; Howlett & Cashore, 2014; Howlett et al., 2009; Kraft & Furlong, 2007; Smith & Larimer, 2013; Stone, 1997; Wildavsky, 1992).
Several major policy theories incorporate goals into their propositions. For rational decision-making models, see (Allison & Zelikow, 1999); for policy design theory, see (Birkland, 2015; Howlett, 2011; Schneider, 2013; Smith & Larimer, 2013); for a “top-down” understanding of policy implementation, see (Hill, 2010); for advocacy coalition frameworks, see (Weible & Jenkins-Smith, 2016); for governance networks, see (Sørensen & Torfing, 2007).
Although clear boundaries cannot be drawn between these somewhat synonymous terms, if one looks at their different semantic accents and connotations, goal, etymologically probably of Germanic origin, simply indicates an end point, or figuratively a desirable future state; aim somewhat more strongly suggests a process of calculation (cf. Latin aestimare), while purpose appears to be somewhat vague and abstract, referring to a general thematic focus or proposal (old French porposer, equivalent to the Latin propositium). See www.etymonline.com.
The dimensions were derived primarily through the inductive coding of governmental strategies and systematic empirical analysis. First, we inductively extracted the diverse characteristics of policy goals, then we merged them into broader categories, sector-, process-, evaluation-, value-, and instrument-oriented goals, and finally we merged those categories into an even broader thematic dimension (for details, see Petek et al., 2021a). The thematic dimension of policy goals already demonstrates that there is no singular coherent hierarchy for all terms related to policy goals. Apparently, values are a specific thematic type of policy goals. Our inductive classification also shows a place where the concepts of policy goals and policy instruments overlap. Namely, the introduction of a new policy instrument or reforming an existing instrument represents a specific thematic type of policy goals which we term instrument-oriented goals.
Document analysis was selected as a data gathering method because documents are easily accessible and very cost-effective; they are relatively comprehensive sources that allow systematic comparison across diverse policies; and they are suited for the descriptive purposes of our research. Even though documents are a practical and convenient data source, the limitations of document analysis must be kept in mind. Documents present just one of many aspects of policymaking and provide only a fractional insight into rich and complex policy cycle.
Document selection was executed according to four criteria: We took governmental documents containing proclaimed positions of policy goals determined by state actors (not the critical positions of the non-state actor about the goals some policy should have) to examine the official and active goals that frame policymaking; we then took strategic documents (strategies, action plans, programs) because they comprise much information on the goals of a policy sector, especially when compared with laws or other types of regulation; we took the most recent and still valid strategic documents, to observe a single point in time; finally, we tried to create a diverse sample that incorporates all types of public policies. For more details on the document selection criteria, see also (Petek et al., 2021a).
Croatia is used as an example of a European country whose government produces numerous strategic documents, often as a result of a Europeanization process and policy transfer, which have not been previously subjected to systematic empirical analysis. It was also chosen because we have no language barrier and are familiar with the functioning of the Croatian political system. This allowed us to understand the details of the documents in their context and constitutes a natural selection bias. Documents are included from 2011 to 2017. This period was predominantly run by a coalition government led by social-democrats (from December 2011 till January 2016). The short experimental government led by a non-party prime minister was then in power (from January till October 2016), and then, the main center-right party formed a new coalition government (from October 2016 till June 2020).
Our previous research which focused on thematic dimension of goals demonstrated how concepts of policy goals and policy instruments overlap in practice in instrument-oriented goals, that seek the reform and adjustment of an existing instrument or the invention and the introduction of some new policy instrument (see Petek et al., 2021a). This corresponds with Dunn who stresses how some lower-level objectives seem to be policy purposes and the means of their achievement at the same time (Dunn, 1994). This is evident in the structure of goals, through their mode.
Various social groups and their organizations and collectivities (e.g., youth associations, wood industry) were coded as beneficiaries. Professional groups were also coded here, within the state hierarchy or outside of it (e.g. police officers, teachers, lawyers). Governmental bodies or public institutions (e.g., schools, judicial bodies) were not coded here, as they are coded under actors.
This code gathers data on actors within a state and/or within supranational organizations. Therefore, Croatia and European Union are not coded as actors if Croatia/state/EU are mentioned only generally.
The whole codebook, with general coding rules and with definitions of categories and subcategories, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and examples for each code (in the original language), is available on request. See Appendix 2 for an excerpt from the codebook (with translated examples).
The subsample for test coding contained 56 coding units for disability, 22 for education, 7 for employment, 7 for family violence, 12 for gender equality, 19 for justice, 9 for reading enhancement, 5 for security, 47 for transport, 24 for the wood industry, and 14 for youth policy.
For 222 coding units, eight coders assigned codes 3108 times, and 2878 were assigned identically in two waves of test coding.
The coding consistency for each strategy was as follows: 94% for disability, 86% for education, 86% for employment, 88% for domestic violence, 90% for gender equality, 94% for justice, 94% for reading enhancement, 100% for security, 91% for transport, 99% for the wood industry, and 92% for youth policy.
The category beneficiary was additionally discussed in detail after the test coding, which resulted in further specification of the coding rules that were applied (see Appendix 2: Selection from the codebook).
The coding consistency for each main category was as follows: specification 90%, mode 90%, time frame 98%, quantifiable indicator 94%, beneficiary 87%, and responsible actor 98%. Complete test coding material is available on request.
The type of data source is a limitation of these findings as strategies belong to one specific category among many other relevant policy documents, and, if we subscribe to the stages heuristics model, pertain to the earlier phases of the broader policymaking cycle. As one of the reviewers put it, looking at government strategies is like looking through “a window on a specific segment of the policy cycle.” Additionally, strategies are supposed to be the most general, broadest documents, and accompanying action plans are supposed to offer more specific, detailed operationalization. Still, there is the reasonable question of the functionality of poorly operationalized strategies, especially when they are set for a period of five years, as most in our sample were. Furthermore, most strategies from our sample are not accompanied by action plans.
This is neither a bias from the sampling process, nor the result of including target-group-specific strategies (disability, youth, gender equality). We have compared all strategies in NVivo, and the findings showed how those three strategies did not contain bigger shares of beneficiary-focused goals than other groups dealing with core policy sectors or narrower policy issues.
It seems that the initial lower result for the beneficiary category in test coding, which was accommodated by adding more detailed coding rules, was partly due to the high spread and variation of beneficiary-centered goals.
The goal is followed by some directly connected policy instruments, such as the education of educators or announcing tenders for program design (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2017c, p. 21).
For the details on thematic dimension, see Petek et al. (2021a).
References
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). The essence of decision. Longman.
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2007). The Australian policy handbook. Allen & Unwin.
Anderson, J. E. (2006). Public policymaking. An introduction. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Bickers, K. N., & Williams, J. T. (2001). Public policy analysis. A political economy approach. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process. Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Routledge.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2021). Causal logics and mechanisms in policy design: How and why adopting a mechanistic perspective can improve policy design. Public Policy and Administration, 36(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076719827068
Colebatch, H. K. (2004). Policy [in Croatian]. Faculty of Political Science.
Compston, H. (2004). Handbook of public policy in Europe. Britain, France and Germany. Palgrave Macmillan.
Daugbjerg, C., & Kay, A. (2019). Policy feedback and pathways: When change leads to endurance and continuity to change. Policy Sciences, 53, 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09366-y
Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Prentice Hall.
Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public policy analysis. Routledge.
Esmark, A., & Triantafillou, P. (2007). Document analysis of network topography and network programmes. In P. Bogason & M. Zølner (Eds.), Methods in democratic network governance (pp. 99–124). Palgrave Macmillan.
Fink-Hafner, D. (2007). The science of public policy and for public policy. In D. Fink-Hafner (Ed.), Introduction to policy analysis. Theories, concepts, principles (pp. 9–30). Faculty of Social Sciences.
Hill, M. (2010). The public policy process [in Croatian]. Faculty of Political Science.
Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press.
Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42, 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1
Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies. Routledge.
Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2014). Conceptualising public policy. In I. Engelli, C. Rothmayr Allison (Eds.), Comparative policy studies. Conceptual and methodological challenges (pp. 17–34). Palgrave Macmillan.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policies. Oxford University Press.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Capano, G. (2022). The role of tool calibrations and policy specifications in policy change: Evidence from healthcare reform efforts in Korea 1990–2020. Journal of Asian Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2022.2030276
Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2007). Public policy. Politics, analysis, and alternatives. CQ Press.
Kustec Lipicer, S. (2012). Policy evaluation [in Croatian]. Disput.
Petek, A., Baketa, N., Kekez, A., Kovačić, M., Munta, M., Petković, K., Šinko, M., & Zgurić, B. (2021a). Unboxing the vague notion of policy goals: Comparison of Croatian public policies. European Policy Analysis, 7(2), 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1106
Petek, A., Baketa, N., Kekez, A., Kovačić, M., Munta, M., Petković, K., Šinko, M., & Zgurić, B. (2021b). Unboxing the vague notion of policy goals: Comparison of Croatian public policies. Methodological supplemental. European Policy Analysis, 7(2): supporting information. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1106
Petek, A., & Petković, K. (Eds.). (2014). Public policy glossary [in Croatian]. Faculty of Political Science.
Rein, M. (2006). Reframing problematic policies. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 389–405). Oxford University Press.
Schneider, A. (2013). Policy design and transfer. In E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 217–228). Routledge.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.
Smith, K. B. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classifications. Policy Studies Journal, 30(3), 379–395.
Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2013). The public policy theory primer. Westview Press.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Introduction. Governance network research: Towards a second generation. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 1–21). Palgrave Macmillan.
Spicker, P. (2008). Policy analysis for practice. The Policy Press.
Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. W. W. Norton & Company.
Vedung, E. (2013). Six models of evaluation. In E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 387–400). Routledge.
Weible, C. M., & Smith-Jenkins, H. C. (2016). The advocacy coalition framework: An approach for the comparative analysis of contentious policy issues. In B. G. Peters & P. Zittoun (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to public policy. Theories, controversies and perspectives (pp. 15–35). Palgrave Macmillan.
Wildavsky, A. (1992). Speaking truth to power. Transaction Publisher.
Funding
This study is a part of the project that was funded by the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the paper’s conception and design. AP, BZ, MŠ, KP, MM, MK, AK, and NB performed material preparation, data collection, segmentation, coding, and analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AP, and all authors commented on all previous versions of the manuscript, including the rewrites after the reviews. All authors read and approved the second version of final manuscript resubmitted as a research note. All authors read and approved the third version of final manuscript resubmitted as a research note after major revisions. All authors read and approved the fourth version of final manuscript resubmitted as a research note after minor revisions.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This paper was produced within a research project conducted in cooperation of the Faculty of Political Science and the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb. The project was funded by the University of Zagreb. The first version of the paper, based on the test coding, was presented at the 5th International Conference on Public Policy (Barcelona/virtual, June 5–9, 2021, organized by the International Public Policy Association), at the panel Investigating the Pillars of Policy Design: Modes, Spaces and Calibrations. We thank panel discussant Moshe Maor for constructive comments on the paper and anonymous reviewers of the journal for their help in improving the overall quality the paper.
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of coded documents
Croatian Parliament. (2011). National policy for gender equality from 2011 to 2015. Official Gazette Narodne Novine, 88.
Croatian Parliament. (2012). Strategy for justice system development from 2013 to 2018. Official Gazette Narodne Novine, 144.
Croatian Parliament. (2014). Strategy of education, science and technology. Official Gazette Narodne Novine, 124.
Croatian Parliament. (2017). Strategy for national security of the Republic of Croatia. Official Gazette Narodne Novine, 75.
Government of the Republic of Croatia. (2017a). National strategy for development of wood processing and furniture production of Republic of Croatia from 2017 to 2020. Official Gazette Narodne Novine, 44.
Government of the Republic of Croatia. (2017b). National strategy for equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities from 2017 to 2020. Official Gazette Narodne Novine, 42.
Government of the Republic of Croatia. (2017c). National strategy for reading support from 2017 to 2020. https://min-kulture.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Nacionalna%20strategija%20poticanja%20%C4%8Ditanja_tekst.pdf
Ministry for Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy. (2017). National strategy for protection from domestic violence from 2017 to 2022.
Ministry for Social Policy and Youth. (2014). National program for youth from 2014 to 2017.
https://demografijaimladi.gov.hr/istaknute-teme/mladi-4064/nacionalni-program-za-mlade-4072/4072
Ministry of Labor and Pension System. (2017). Guidelines for the development and implementation of active employment policy in the Republic of Croatia from 2018 to 2020 https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//2016/Sjednice/2017/12%20prosinac/73%20sjednica%20VRH//73%20-%201.pdf
Ministry of Sea, Transport, and Infrastructure. (2017). Strategy of transport development of the Republic of Croatia (2017–2030).
Appendix 2: Selection from the codebook
11. Beneficiary
The code beneficiary refers to the dimension of goals identifying specific individuals or groups that benefit from the achievement of goals.
We primarily code social groups as beneficiaries but also their respective organizations or collective forms (e.g., youth associations, the wood industry). Professional groups are also coded here, within the state hierarchy or outside of it (e.g., police officers, teachers, lawyers). Governmental bodies or public institutions (e.g., schools, judicial bodies) are not considered here.
A crucial criterion for determining whether there is a beneficiary of the goal achievement is the direct and explicit naming of the type of individuals or the specific social or professional groups that are directly positively affected by the goal and for whom the goal represents well-being and prosperity.
The code beneficiary is coded based on data at the single level of the goal in question, and the surrounding textual context (paragraph before or after the coding unit) is scanned as well but only if the context is explicitly and directly related to the goal in question. If several elements which could be coded differently are present in the coding unit, the more concrete or more precise is the element being coded.
11.1. Existent beneficiary
The code existent beneficiary gathers all mentions of goals in which one or more groups that benefit from the goal achievement in any form are discussed. All citizens/every citizen stated as a beneficiary is coded here.
Examples: veterans, citizens, young people, men and women, persons with disabilities, employers, students, employees, women belonging to national minorities, women with disabilities, women in rural areas, girls, teachers, vulnerable groups, seasonal workers, the elderly, and victims of violence and sexual assault.
Examples: Raise awareness about the importance of ensuring access to culture for youth; the social position of women with disabilities will be improved.
11.2. Nonexistent beneficiary
The code nonexistent beneficiary relates to all goals that do not speak about any group of beneficiaries in any form.
Examples: Strengthening the capacity to implement health education; all buildings used by the Croatian government will be recorded, and the level of accessibility will be marked for each building.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Petek, A., Zgurić, B., Šinko, M. et al. From hierarchy to continuum: classifying the technical dimension of policy goals. Policy Sci 55, 715–736 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09476-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09476-0