The need to shift toward the greater use of network management tools and activities put forward by adherents of the argument that states have moved ‘from government to governance’ as a result of changes in society and the way in which government interacts with it, is also lacking a great deal of empirical evidence (Howlett, Rayner and Tollefson 2009; Schout, Jordan and Twena 2010). While it is clear that the development of modern information and communications technologies have had a serious impact on the way in which individuals and organizations interact and organize themselves in contemporary societies, it is not clear that these developments have had an equally direct effect in altering traditional governance practices or policy designs (Hood 2006; Hood and Margetts 2007b).
Governing involves the establishment of a basic set of relationships between governments and their citizens which can vary from highly structured and controlled to arrangements that are monitored only loosely and informally, if at all. In its broadest sense, ‘governance’ is a term used to describe the mode of coordination exercised by state actors in their interactions with societal actors and organizations (de Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof 1995; Kooiman 1993 and 2000; Rhodes 1996; Klijn and Koppenjan 2000). ‘Governance’ is thus about establishing, promoting and supporting a specific type of relationship between governmental and non-governmental actors in the governing process.
Changes in governance modes entail both alterations in the abilities of various state and non-state actors to prevail in policy formulation disputes and decisions, as well as shifts in the choices of policy instruments used to implement public policy (Scharpf 1991; Weaver and Rockman 1993; March and Olson 1996; Offe 2006). But much is unclear about the application of the [...]

Looking at the use and promotion of authority-based substantive policy tools, it is clear that regulations are compatible with most modes of governance, depending on how state directed they are. Many policy designs have indeed changed over the past two decades in this tool area. Within an existing governance mode, for example, many regulatory activities have shifted from ‘enforcement’ to ‘compliance’ regimes (Hawkins and Thomas 1989; Doern and Wilks 1998). But these activities remain compatible with pre-existing modes of governance and do not necessarily infer a shift towards market or network forms of governance as proponents of phenomena such as deregulation – often linked to patterns of globalization and networkization – have alleged.
Nevertheless, it is true that many governments in recent years have made varying levels of effort, albeit often more in formulation than implementation, to deregulate important sectors of their economies; that is, to shift from earlier legal or corporatist governance modes to a more market or network mode. Many such efforts have however failed to produce qualitatively superior results than the regimes they replaced, leading to a movement back towards ‘re-regulation’ in the policy designs adopted or proposed in many jurisdictions (Jordana and Levi-Faur 2004; Ramesh and Howlett 2006).
In addition to these developments in the substantive area, with respect to procedural authoritative instruments, it is crucial to underscore the development of demands for enhanced participation and consultation in government policy-making driven by domestic groups (Kernaghan et al. 2000). But this is not a new phenomenon and there has been substantial growth in the use of consultative forums and mechanisms in many sectors and countries over the past half century. This extends from the increased use of public hearings to the increased [...]

Add Here

Add here

Examples of Design organizational instruments:

Product Oriented Environmental Management Systems (POEMS)