Institutional analysis for energy policy Page: 6 of 182
View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
3.3 TAKING THE ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.3.1 Institutional Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.3.2 Organizational Characteristics . . . . . . . . 94
3.3.3 The Policy Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.4 ACHIEVING THE OUTCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.4.1 Coercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.4.2 Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.4.3 Donation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.4.4 Reorganization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
CHAPTER 4: INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.2 GUIDANCE FOR OPERATING WITHIN THE EXISTING CONTEXT 110
4.2.1 Keep Your Focus on the Ultimate Objectives . 111
4.2.2 Consider the Full Range of Alternatives . . 112
4.2.3 Keep Solutions Simple and Direct . . . . . . 115
4.2.4 Build in Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.2.5 Use History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.3 INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 119
4.3.1 Organizations and Decisions Processes . . . 120
4.3.2 Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.3.3 Objectives and Criteria for Institutional
Design Objectives for the Design
of Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.3.4 Designing Institutional Alternatives . . . . 124
4.3.5 Predicting the Performance of an
Institutional Alternative . . . . . . . . . 128
4.3.6 Other Analytic Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
CHAPTER 5: POLICY ANALYSIS AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS . . . 133
5.1 THE BASIC POLICY ANALYSIS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . 133
5.1.1 Defining Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.1.2 Designing Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.1.3 Predicting Consequences . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.1.4 Evaluating Consequence . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.1.5 Choosing An Alternative . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.1.6 Implementing the Chosen Alternative . . . . 136
5.1.7 Monitoring the Results.. . . . . . . . . . 137
5.1.8 The Fit Between Policy Analysis and
Government Process . . . . . . . . . . r 137
5.2 PROBLEMS OF THE BASIC POLICY ANALYSIS PROCESS 137
5.2.1 Limited Resources . . . . . ... . . .. 139
5.2.2 The Implementation Problem . . . . . . . . . 139
5.2.3 The Output Fallacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.3 SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS OF THE BASIC POLICY
ANALYSIS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.3.1 "Muddling Through" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.3.2 "Multiple Perspectives" . . . . . . . . . . 141
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Morris, F.A. & Cole, R.J. Institutional analysis for energy policy, report, July 1, 1980; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1060482/m1/6/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.