Why Specificity Is a High Leverage Point in Policy Design
This week: Why policy & program design need to be more specific and how to amplify specificity.
An exploration of how putting people—not systems—at the center of policy design leads to more targeted, impactful, and measurable social outcomes.
Insight
When businesses create products, they start with two foundational questions:
1. Who is it for? 2. What is it for?
Instead of starting with the people it’s meant to help, policy often starts with the system it needs to satisfy—legacy rules, deadlines, and layers of approvals.
The result: solutions designed to serve everyone that serve no one well.
This isn’t about intent. Social impact leaders operate within real constraints—limited time, shifting political priorities, and institutional inertia. However, enhancing specificity increases an initiative’s chances of success and makes its impact easier to measure.
Insight in Practice
To design policies and programs that drive real outcomes, consider the following:
Define the end user early. Policy is often designed for abstract populations rather than clearly defined communities or individuals. Clarity starts with identifying the desired future state—whose lives should be different, in what way, and what it will take to get there.
Engage end users early. Co-designing with the people who will implement and experience a policy ensures it is feasible, implementable, and adaptable. Engaging users and key stakeholders before decisions are made—not after—reduces friction and increases the likelihood of success.
Clarify the problem you’re solving. Is the policy designed to address root causes or symptoms? Misdiagnosing the problem leads to band-aid solutions that may reinforce the status quo. Tools like the 13 Questions That Matter resource can help policy teams diagnose systemic barriers before designing interventions.
Align incentives and execution. Systems deliver what they are designed to produce. To get different outcomes, policymakers can align incentives with execution so that solutions deliver specific results.
Case Study
The Smart Policy Design and Implementation (SPDI) framework, developed by Harvard Kennedy School, emphasizes asking "Who is it for?" and "What is it for?" at every stage of the policy process.
The SPDI framework was applied in Indonesia to improve the effectiveness of its Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program, Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH), which targets low-income families. Initially, the program faced challenges, including poor targeting of beneficiaries and inadequate understanding of how cash transfers would impact recipients' behaviors and outcomes.
How specificity improved results:
Identifying End Users Program leaders revisited the question of "Who is it for?" to refine beneficiary selection criteria. They used data-driven methods to identify and prioritize families most in need, ensuring resources reached the intended population.
Defining Purpose The question "What is it for?" led to a sharper focus on improving health and education outcomes for children. This clarity guided adjustments to program conditions, such as requiring school attendance and health check-ups.
Iterative Refinement The SPDI framework emphasized testing and refinement. Policymakers incorporated feedback from beneficiaries and local administrators, adjusting program delivery mechanisms to address logistical barriers (e.g., simplifying payment processes).
As a result, the program achieved measurable improvements in child health and education outcomes, and reduced leakage of funds to non-eligible households.
