On Somewhat Simpler Taxonomies

by Nick Charney

---

A few weeks ago I shared some of the thinking I was doing with my team about new policy instrument taxonomies (See: On Possible Taxonomies of New Policy Instruments and Approaches); since then I've come up with a more plain language version that I wanted to share.

I've already had a couple of conversations with folks about it and while it's closer to being about outcomes it still doesn't quite crack the nut:


I want to use government's ...

	Nodality	Authority	Treasure	Organization
Substantive	convening power to create public value E.g. social networks, information networks, coordinating bodies, etc.	legal authorities to create public value E.g. law, regulations, standards, taxation, etc.	financial resources to create public value E.g. grants, contributions, transfer payments, etc.	non-financial resources to create public value E.g. people, skills, land, buildings, technologies, etc.
Procedural	convening power to explore how public value is defined and/or created E.g. social networks, information networks, coordinating bodies, etc.	legal authorities to explore how public value is defined and/or created E.g. law, regulations, standards, taxation, etc.	financial resources to explore how public value is defined and/or created E.g. grants, contributions, transfer payments, etc.	non-financial resources to explore how public value is defined and/or created E.g. people, skills, land, buildings, technologies, etc.

Essentially it breaks down the approach vector into wanting to innovate within the current confines of the system (substantive) and innovating on the system itself, which in my mind is an important distinction. That said, upon reflection, this is akin to the policy innovator's dilemma I've articulated previously (See: Policy Innovator's Dilemma).

It needs another iteration, but like I said, I wanted to share and solicit additional feedback. So, your thoughts?