Abstract
This paper aims to reinforce the importance of looking at ‘design for policy’ in an enlarged perspective, encompassing the entirety of the public policy cycle. This is substantiated with a re-examination of ‘design for policy’ foundational literature, by highlighting a narrative which we argue to have set its expectations mostly on processes for (co-)creating new policies. In turn, the later stages of the policy cycle have not been getting sufficient attention, leading to an unbalanced ‘design for policy’ approach. We also contrast this interpretation with recent literature, further attesting to its fragmentation. Furthermore, this is analysed considering evidence emerging within the New European Bauhaus policy, while also seeing it as an opportunity to further strengthen a ‘design for policy’ approach. Ultimately, this fragmentation seems to lie both on the incipient nature of ‘design for policy’, but also on how design is understood, and is translated to the policy making process.
Keywords
design, design for policy, new European Bauhaus
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.817
Citation
Monteiro, R., Giesteira, B., Boddington, A., and Farinha, C. (2022) On the importance of an enlarged ‘design for policy’ framework within the public policy cycle, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.817
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Conference Track
Research Paper
Included in
On the importance of an enlarged ‘design for policy’ framework within the public policy cycle
This paper aims to reinforce the importance of looking at ‘design for policy’ in an enlarged perspective, encompassing the entirety of the public policy cycle. This is substantiated with a re-examination of ‘design for policy’ foundational literature, by highlighting a narrative which we argue to have set its expectations mostly on processes for (co-)creating new policies. In turn, the later stages of the policy cycle have not been getting sufficient attention, leading to an unbalanced ‘design for policy’ approach. We also contrast this interpretation with recent literature, further attesting to its fragmentation. Furthermore, this is analysed considering evidence emerging within the New European Bauhaus policy, while also seeing it as an opportunity to further strengthen a ‘design for policy’ approach. Ultimately, this fragmentation seems to lie both on the incipient nature of ‘design for policy’, but also on how design is understood, and is translated to the policy making process.