The literature on policy instrument selection typically describes a linear process by a set of rational policy makers (Weimer and Vining, 2004). What is omitted by this economic perspective is the political conflict that precedes and shapes the choice of policy instruments. Because policy instrument selection has consequences for the distribution of benefits and costs in society, it cannot be a politically neutral choice. The political factors that affect the initial choice of policy tools also shape the life cycle of these policies from design to implementation, continuation, modification, or termination (Peters, 2002).
This essay review of the literature on the politics of policy instrument at the local level building from the political market to advance a framework for instrument selection and bundling. The literature captures the political dynamics of policy instruments throughout their life cycle from the design and adoption of specific policy instruments, to bundling and interactions among multiple instruments in implementation, to decisions to continue or terminate use of an instrument. Directions for future research are discussed in conclusion.
Policy Design at the Intersection of Energy, Environment, Development and Sustainability
Energy consumption and GHG emissions have become a complex, multidimensional, and differentiated policy arena that requires policies with multifaceted functions, collaboration between local governments as well as coproduction between governments and citizens. Currently, we have multiple ongoing projects studying energy policy and customer behavior, including: (a) finding best route to reduced carbon footprint in local electricity system; (b) demand side energy consumption analysis; and (c) individual consumption behavior and change.
Planning Processes, Instrument Choices and Outcomes
Public policy instrument selection has consequences for the distribution of benefits and costs in society. Not only do politics shape the choice of policy and the specific instruments of government action but the policy arena and nature of the problems also shape politics (Peters 2002; Ostrom 1990). For instance, solar photovoltaic installations have been growing rapidly in the United States over the last few years. The complex relationships between solar policies at multiple levels of government and solar deployment are questions of importance to policy makers and scholars. Several ongoing projects try to understand the impact of different models of solar panel policies across the state, including the form of government, policy rationale, effectiveness and redistribution outcome, and the relationships among solar policy at the household (rooftop), neighborhood (solar gardens and co-ops) and city (solar farm) scale.
Policy Instrument Design and Individual Energy Consumption Behavior
The idea of coproduction is that government and individuals work together to jointly produce a public good. This new conceptualization identifies three forms of coproduction: enabled, voluntary, and incentivized. Previous research (Curley, 2013) suggests that information and the source of that information along with the monetary costs of participation are the largest barriers to participation in programs that result in coproduction and that the magnitude of these impacts change according to the form of coproduction. We are currently looking at how messaging (bill-inserts from city utility) impacts customers’ energy consumption behavior in Tallahassee, FL and Fort Collins, MN. We are seeking to better understand how comments from audits translate into citizens’ energy saving behavior in Tallahassee, FL.
- Deslatte, A., Feiock, R. C., & Wassel, K. (2017). Urban Pressures and Innovations: Sustainability Commitment in the Face of Fragmentation and Inequality. Review of Policy Research.
- Deslatte, A., & Swann, W. L. (2017), Context matters: A Bayesian analysis of how organizational environments shape the strategic management of sustainable development. Public Administration.
- Cheng, Q., & Yi, H. (2017). Complementarity and substitutability: A review of state level renewable energy policy instrument interactions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 683-691.
- Swann, W. L. (2017). Examining the Impact of Local Collaborative Tools on Urban Sustainability Efforts: Does the Managerial Environment Matter? The American Review of Public Administration, 47(4), 455-468.
- Krause, R. M., Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2016). Applying policy termination theory to the abandonment of climate protection initiatives by US local governments. Policy Studies Journal, 44(2), 176-195.
- Deslatte, A., Tavares, A., & Feiock, R. C. (2016). Policy of Delay: Evidence from a Bayesian Analysis of Metropolitan Land‐Use Choices. Policy Studies Journal.
- Deslatte, A., & Swann, W. L. (2016). Is the price right? Gauging the marketplace for local sustainable policy tools. Journal of Urban Affairs, 38(4), 581-596.
- Hongtao Y., Feiock, R. C. (2015) "Climate action plan adoptions in the US states." International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 7(3), 375-393.
- Zheng, S., Yi, H., & Li, H. (2015). The impacts of provincial energy and environmental policies on air pollution control in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49, 386-394.
- Siddiki, S., Dumortier, J., Curley, C., Graham, J. D., Carley, S., & Krause, R. M. (2015). Exploring Drivers of Innovative Technology Adoption Intention: The Case of Plug‐In Vehicles. Review of Policy Research, 32(6), 649-674.
- Yi, H. (2015). Clean-energy policies and electricity sector carbon emissions in the US states. Utilities Policy, 34, 19-29.
- Deslatte, A., Wassel, K., & Feiock, R. C. (2015) Inequality as a Barrier to Green Building Policy Adoptions in Cities. Sustainable Human–Building Ecosystems, 231-244.
- Yi, H. (2014). Green businesses in a clean energy economy: Analyzing drivers of green business growth in US states. Energy, 68, 922-929.
- Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2014). Renewable energy politics: policy typologies, policy tools, and state deployment of renewables. Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), 391-415.
- Kwon, M. J., Jang, H. & Feiock, R. (2014). Climate Protection and Energy Sustainability Policy in California Cities: What Have We Learned?. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(5), 905-924.
- Li, H., & Yi, H. (2014). Multilevel governance and deployment of solar PV panels in US cities. Energy Policy, 69, 19-27.
- Yi, H. (2013). Clean energy policies and green jobs: An evaluation of green jobs in US metropolitan areas. Energy Policy, 56, 644-652.
- York, A., Feiock, R. & Steinacker, A. (2013). Dimensions of Economic Development and Growth Management Policy Choices. State and Local Government Review 45(2), 86-97.
- Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2012). Policy tool interactions and the adoption of state renewable portfolio standards. Review of Policy Research, 29(2), 193-206.
- Lubell, M., Feiock, R., & Handy, S. (2009). City adoption of environmentally sustainable policies in California's Central Valley. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(3), 293-308.
- Feiock R. C., Tavares A. F., & Lubell, M. (2008) Policy instrument choices for growth management and land use regulation. Policy Studies Journal, 36, 461-480.
- Feiock, R., & Kang, I. (2006). Politics, Institutions, and the Adoption of Innovative Growth Management Policy. Journal of Public Administration and Management (Korea), 16(3), 293-320.
- Feiock, R., & Kang, I. (2006). Implementation of Growth Management Policy in Florida Cities: Zoning Approval and Regulatory Policy Enforcement. International Review of Public Administration, 11(1), 85-99.
- Feiock, R., Jeong, M., & Kim, J. (2003). Credible Commitment and Council Manager Government: Implications for Policy Instrument Choice. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 568-577.
- Cable, G., Feiock, R., & Kim, J. (1993). The Consequences of Institutionalized Access for Economic Development Policymaking in U.S. Cities. Economic Development Quarterly, 7, 91-97.
- Clingermayer, J. & Feiock, R. (1992). Development Policy Choice: Four Explanations for City Implementation of Economic Development Policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 49-65.
- Feiock, R. C., & Haley, M. M. (1992). The political economy of state environmental regulation: The distribution of regulatory burdens. Review of Policy Research, 11(1), 158-164.
- Swann, W. L. (2016). Governing and managing sustainable cities: Collaboration, innovation, and entrepreneurship in urban sustainability (Doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
- Cruz, R. B. (2014). Renewable Energy Generation and Demand-Side Management of Electric Utilities: Politics, Policy, and Performance (Doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
- Yi, H. (2012). Policy networks, environmental impacts and economic consequences of clean energy in the U.S.: A national, state and local investigation (Doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
- Kassekert, A. J. (2010). Policy tool bundling: Predicting the selection of policy instruments using bayesian multivariate probit analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
- Kang, I. (2005). Politics, Institutions, and the Implementation of Growth Management Policy in Florida Cities (Doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
- Clingermayer, J., & Feiock, R. (2001). Institutional Constraints and Local Policy Choices: An Exploration of Local Governance. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Feiock, R. and Yi, H. (2017) Politics and Policy Instrument Choice. In Ken Richards and Josephine van Zeben (Eds.), Policy Instruments in Environmental Law, forthcoming.
- Feiock, R. (2002). The Implications of Local Government Structure for Manager Turnover and Policy Choice. In H. George Fredrickson, & John Nalbandian (Eds.), The Future of Local Government Administration: A Tribute to William Hansel. Washington DC: ICMA.