ABSTRACT Instrument‐centered policy design has refined the study of tools, policy mixes, sequencing, coherence, and delivery. This article argues, however, that this strand of scholarship has developed richer vocabularies for conflict around instruments and implementation than for the political constitution, prioritization, and provisional stabilization of collective purpose. Through a conceptual reconstruction of policy design in conversation with agenda‐setting, problem definition, governance, public value, and policy feedback scholarship, the article identifies an analytical asymmetry in how different locations of political conflict are theorized. It makes three contributions. First, it conceptualizes conflict displacement: the recurrent recoding of unresolved purposive conflict into managerial categories such as coordination, implementation, coherence, and performance. Second, it repositions agendas as a key unit of political design linking purpose, instruments, and delivery. Third, it distinguishes purposive coherence from delivery coherence. The article thus offers a framework for diagnosing where policy instability originates. Related Articles Ralston, Shane. 2008. “Intelligently Designing Deliberative Health Care Forums: Dewey's Metaphysics, Cognitive Science, and a Brazilian Example. ” Politics & Policy 36 (6): 1155. https: //onlinelibrary. wiley. com/doi/10. 1111/j. 1747‐1346. 2008. 00157₁1. x/abstract. Considine, Mark. 2012. “Thinking Outside the Box? Applying Design Theory to Public Policy. ” Politics & Policy 40 (4): 704–724. https: //doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1747‐1346. 2012. 00372. x. Alvariño, Manuel. 2025. “Care at the Crossroads: How Policy Feedback Shaped Competing Feminist Advocacy for Parental Leave Reform in Spain. ” Politics & Policy 53 (1): e70005. https: //doi. org/10. 1111/polp. 70005.
Ruben Junca (Wed,) studied this question.