Harold Thomas (2001) has identified four tasks involved in policy formulation which each involve some element of formal policy analysis and which highlight how some options are carried forward while others are set aside: appraisal, dialogue, formulation or assessment, and consolidation.
In appraisal activity, data and evidence are identified and considered. This may take the form of research reports, expert testimony, stakeholder input, or public consultation on the policy problem that has been identified. Here, government both generates and receives input about policy problems and solutions.
Dialogic activity seeks to facilitate communication between policy actors with different perspectives on the issue and potential solutions. Sometimes, open meetings are held where presenters can discuss and debate proposed policy options. In other cases, the dialogue is more structured, with experts and societal representatives from business and labour organizations, for example, getting invited to speak for or against potential solutions.1
At the core of deliberations, formulation or assessment activity sees public officials weighing the evidence on various policy options and drafting some form of proposal that identifies which of these options will be advanced to the ratification stage. This can take the form of draft legislation or regulations, or it could identify the framework for a subsequent round of public and private policy actors’ deliberation in order to negotiate a more specific plan of action. This stage often involves formal techniques or instruments such as environmentalor regulatory impact assessments designed to focus attention to, and provide data on, certain key considerations of potential policy alternatives (Bregha et al. 1990; Franz and Kirkpatrick 2008; Lawrence 2001; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler 2005; Radaelli 2005; Turnpenny et al. 2008; 2009).
Making recommendations about which policy options to pursue will often yield [...]

 
Substantive authoritative instruments
There are many types of ‘authoritative’ instruments. All involve, and rely primarily on, the ability of governments to direct or steer targets in the directions they would prefer them to go through the use of the real or perceived threat of state-enforced sanctions. While treasure resources, discussed in the next chapter, are often used to encourage ‘positive’ behaviour – that is, behaviour which is aligned with government goals – authoritative actions can be used for this purpose, but are often also used in a ‘negative’ sense, that is, to prevent or discourage types of behaviour which are incongruent with government expectations (Ajzen 1991).
The use of the coercive power of the state to achieve government goals through the control or alteration of societal (and governmental) behaviour is the essence of regulation, the most common type of governing instrument found in this category and the one most compatible with legal forms of governance. In general, all types of regulation involve the promulgation of more or less binding rules which circumscribe or alter the behaviour of particular target groups (Hood 1986a; Kiviniemi 1986). As it has been succinctly described by Barry Mitnick, this involves the ‘public administrative policing of a private activity with respect to a rule prescribed in the public interest’ (Mitnick 1978). Rules take various forms and include standards, permits, prohibition, and executive orders. Some regulations, like ones dealing with criminal behaviour, are laws and involve the police and judicial system in their enforcement. Most regulations, however, are administrative edicts created under the terms of enabling legislation and administered on a continuing basis by a government department or a specialized, quasi-judicial government agency (Rosenbloom 2007). In relatively rare cases the [...]

Law is an important tool of modern government and the very basis of legal modes of governance (Ziller 2005). Several different types of laws exist, however. These include distinctions often drawn by legal scholars between private and public law; private civil or tort law and common law; public criminal and administrative law; and hybrids such as class action suits which combine features of public and private law. These different types of law vary substantially in terms of what kinds of situations they can be applied to, by whom and to what effect (Keyes 1996; Scheb and Scheb 2005).
All of these laws can be thought of as ‘regulations’ since all involve the creation of rules governing individual behaviour (Williamson 1975; 1996; Ostrom 1986). However, in the form it is usually discussed by policy scholars, ‘regulation’ is typically thought of as a form of public law; although even then it can also involve criminal and individual or civil actions (Kerwin 1994; 1999; West 2005).
Keyes (1996) has usefully described the six types of legal instruments which can be used by governments when they wish to invoke their authority to try to direct societal behaviour (see also Brandsen et al. 2006). These are shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Six types of legal instruments
1 Statutes
2 Delegated legislation between levels of government
3 Decisions of regulatory bodies and courts
4 Contracts or treaties
5 Quasi-legislation such as tax notices and interpretative bulletins
6 Reference documents such as background papers, other legislation, standing orders, etc.
Source: Keyes, J. M. 1996. ‘Power Tools: The Form and Function of Legal Instruments for Government Action’. Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice 10: 133–74. .
While laws can prohibit [...]

The failure of governments to respond to public issues to the satisfaction of their citizens is often rooted in lapses originating in the agenda setting stage. Firstly, many critical policy problems fail to feature in official policy agendas as compared to relatively minor concerns. Secondly, the poor framing of public problems often preoccupies policymakers with ineffective and/ or wasteful policy solutions. Though public managers are well positioned to tackle these issues; in reality this potential remains largely untapped for many reasons. This includes the common view that their responsibility lies outside the purview of political and technical considerations that characterize agenda setting and is instead limited to administrative and organizational tasks. Agenda setting concerns the process by which governments decide which issues need their attention, and focuses on, among other things, the determination and definition of what constitutes the problem that subsequent policy actions are intended to resolve.

Agenda setting is sometimes also defined as the process by which public demands are translated into items that governments consider for action. Empirical evidence however has shown that the source of this demand has largely been from within the government rather than social groups. In either case, however public managers must understand how demands for policy action can arise and are placed on the formal agenda of government. Three key features characterize agenda setting: (1) the process is non-linear, (2) is both political as well as technical and (3) it takes places within a complex network of state and societal actors (Xun et al, 2010). Tools such as initiation of consultations, surveys and setting indicators can aid in agenda setting.

Voluntary or incentive regulation

Another form of indirect or ‘self-regulation’ has a more recent history than
delegated regulation and has been extended to many more areas of social and
economic life. This is typically a form found in market governance systems in
which, rather than establish an agency with the authority to unilaterally direct
targets to follow some course of action with the ability to sanction those actors
who fail to comply, instead a government tries to persuade targets to voluntarily
adopt or conform to government aims and objectives.

Although these efforts often exist ‘under the shadow of hierarchy’ (Heritier
and Lehmkuhl 2008) – that is, where a real threat of enhanced oversight exists
should voluntary means prove insufficient to motivate actors to alter their
behaviour in the desired fashion – they also exist in realms where hierarchies
don’t exist, such as the international realm when a strong treaty regime, for
example, cannot be agreed upon (Dimitrov 2002; 2005; 2007). A major advantage
often cited for the use of voluntary standard-setting is cost savings, since
governments do not have to pay for the creation, administration, enforcement
and renewal of such standards, as would be the case with traditional command and control regulation whether implemented by departments or independent
regulatory commissions. Such programmes can also be effective in international
settings, where establishment of effective legally based governmental regimes
can be especially difficult (Schlager 1999; Elliott and Schlaepfer 2001; Cashore
et al. 2003; Borraz 2007).

Moffet and Bregha set out the main types of voluntary regulation (see
Table 6.3) found in areas such as environmental protection.

These tools attempt such activities as inducing companies to exceed pollution
targets by excluding them from other regulations or enforcement actions;
establishing [...]