Policy & Politics Journal Blog

by Liz Richardson, Catherine Durose, Lucy Kimbell and Ramia Mazé

In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Liz Richardson, Catherine Durose, Lucy Kimbell and Ramia Mazé explore how the fields of policy and design relate to one another — and why the common framing of ‘design for policy’ may be too narrow to capture the full range of interactions between the two. While design has become an increasingly visible feature of policymaking practice in recent years, the authors argue that existing accounts tend to list design methods (such as prototyping or visualisation) without fully exploring the purpose and politics behind their use.

To address this, the article proposes a new typology of three distinct relationships: instrumental, improvisational and generative. These relationships are differentiated by their purpose, their assumptions about the policymaking process, and the terms on which design and policy actors interact. Each type, the authors argue, offers a different answer to the question of what design is doing in a policy context — and what it makes possible.

In an instrumental relationship, design is seen as a tool to help deliver existing policy goals more efficiently or effectively. Here, design is used to solve defined problems, optimise service delivery, or improve compliance, often through methods such as user journey mapping or co-design workshops.

In an improvisational relationship, design becomes a practice of navigating complexity. It helps policymakers respond to emerging problems through more open, adaptive, and iterative approaches. Rather than delivering a pre-set agenda, design here supports sense-making, negotiation, and learning within fluid and contested environments.

In a generative relationship, design takes on a more transformative role. It unsettles dominant framings and opens space for alternative ways of thinking about policy problems and responses. This includes speculative or counterfactual approaches that help imagine new futures, highlight hidden assumptions, or bring excluded perspectives into the policy process.

By distinguishing these relationships, the authors aim to shift the debate away from overly general or prescriptive accounts of ‘design for policy’. Instead, they show how the same design techniques can be mobilised differently depending on the policy context, actors involved, and underlying values at play. For instance, a prototype might be used in one context to streamline service delivery and in another to provoke political debate.

This typology also helps clarify what kinds of knowledge are recognised in each relationship, and who counts as a ‘designer’. In instrumental settings, professional design expertise may dominate. Improvisational relationships often include the lived experience of users and frontline actors. Generative approaches may draw on more diverse, emergent, or even oppositional knowledges — challenging both technocratic assumptions and traditional policy hierarchies.

By bringing conceptual clarity to the varied roles of design in policymaking, the article makes a valuable contribution to interdisciplinary scholarship at the intersection of design studies and political science. It also offers practical insights for policymakers, designers and researchers seeking to work across these boundaries with greater critical awareness.

….

You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at

Richardson, L., Durose, C., Kimbell, L., and Mazé, R. (2025). How do policy and design intersect? Three relationships. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2025), available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2025D000000072>

If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading

Cordoncillo Acosta, C., and Borrell-Porta, M. (2025). Fostering innovation through collaboration: a comparison of collaborative approaches to policy design. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2025), available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000058>