You set me thinking about general language versus jargon common to a  community of scientists or whatever practitioners - or whichever subculture at large. (One of the many uses of Kuhn's paradigm concept comes to mind.) Within this community there is consensus about all but the controversial meanings of words. In fact this agreement on jargon is an important defining element of any particular community.       

Your question is about the meaning of the word 'instrument' within a specific context. So my question is: to whom is this question addressed?          

Are we to assume there is a 'jargon'-agreement about its meaning? If yes by which community? I wouldn't know, policy makers perhaps? Or a particular segment of them? Furthermore is the meaning of the word instrument part of its agreed upon jargon? If so, lets hope one of its members reads your question and answers it. 

If this is not the case (no such community exists and if it does, the meaning of 'instrument' is 'free' and, moreover, not part of an ongoing dispute) then it's up to anyone to try and answer your question. In that case I would suggest one can use the word 'instrument' interchangeably with 'tool' for any measure intended to further the realization of a policy or part of it, be it inside or outside a program or any other place.     

Hello Flip and thank you very much for your comments, they are highly pertinent.

In fact my quest right now is to find out if I am dealing with one or two different paradigms. I am a biologist and am used to the environemntal jargon here in Brazil, including the jargon that is used to compose public policies. In this case instruments are very well defined and categorized. My difficulty is that now I am also dealing with education public policies.

At first I assumed the jargon (and specifically the use of the word instrument) was the same for both, but I am getting the feeling, based on some brief talks with people in this field that it is not. To them, instruments refer to pedagogic instruments, such as exams and so on. Then I am being led to conclude that the jargon is different, that in the education field they talk about plans and programs instead of instruments. The reason why I am in this crossroad is that I am studying environmental education public policies and therefore I am dealing with two different fields that are merging and creating a new one, thus the confusion. As environmental education public policies are normally in Brazil designed by environmental related professionals, they are relying on environmental policies as blueprints, and putting forth a language that many environmental educators (who come from the field of education) do not understand, or designing policies which are, from the viewpoint of environmental educators, incomplete (since they do not carry plans and programs).  

Thank you very much indeed for your collaboration, it has helped me give shape to thoughts that were disperse. Obviously (now), different fields will demand different action estrategies. Thank you. Best wishes from Brazil. 

I'm delighted to have contributed to some illumination; that's what this forum is about after all. If you have texts digitally you might do a little content analysis through the search function into plans, programs, instruments, tools...

You could also circumscribe the intended meaning by saying something like "what in biology would be called 'an instrument'" and/or put in a (repeated) footnote to that effect. A field which I assume has multidisciplinary ambitions should welcome such  bridging attempts...      

Hello again Flip, yes, this is what I am doing right now. Comparing policies from different fields to understand the differences of language and action, in the hope of establishing them and who knows, create categories, so that we can start building bridges. Next week I am talking to a professor from the education field. Thank you very much again for your support. 

Since we're practically alone here, a little thing I noticed on my site, where I used the word 'vehicle' for what we discussed here. (In http://goo.gl/iNpCKe)

I don't know the article you cite but a commonly cited categorisation of policy instruments is offered by Hood (1986, The Tools of Government) as follows: nodality (the fact that government tends to hold a central strategic position in terms of flow of information); authority (to make and enforce regulations and laws); treasure (money which can be distributed or exchanged for other resources); and organisation (administrative capacity and expertise).

If this is the 'theory', then I think it is 'program' that may be the term that can be interpreted in different ways according to the particular field. In my own field, I can certainly identify 'programmes' that utilised more than one policy instrument. 

From a Project Management point of view, a Programme is a basket of projects. A basket of programmes makes a portfolio. But from a public policy perspective, you use programmes and projects to execute (government) policy. Groups or individuals can also execute their policies through  programmmes and projects. From my time when I was a civil servant, a policy instrument was the actual method used by the Government to articulate the policy in the form of regulatory instruments (working hours, minimum wage legislation) or economic instruments (exchange rate, tax reform etc). 

Dear Daniel

A good question. I would be very honest and note here than in practical terms, in understanding what the programme aims to do, i see various roles for various actions including instrumental roles. If the programme objectives or approach are written in such a way that suggest  a direct role in changing behaviour or moving in a direction vs another, then it has an instrumental role even if it is not called an instrument. I often tend to think as you do that programmes are instruments of policy or at leas they should be. If it isnt playing that role, then what is its purpose?

There is jargon related to specific fields - Economics and Environmental Management have some very specific terminology while social sciences do not necessarily or they are used in different ways.

I would argue against boxing things in too tightly. In some cases,  the degree of separation between some of the elements we use every day is not so great.   For example, even though a programme is a series of projects - it ends up in being seen in some management and financial systems as a high-level project. Equally, a programme can have one project broken into a series of sub-projects and activities.  For policy coherence, one might actually prefer the latter.

Whatever you decide on finally, the usual explanation of your thinking backed by some examples of a similar approach, should put you in good shape. 

Hello Leisa Perch, thank you very much for your answer. Your answer reflects very much the way I see things right now. I am actually considering, in a broad sense, which is the sense I think I am going to adopt, that an instrument, instead of a very narrow definition, as has been put forth by some of the authors that I have consulted, may be understood also as having a sort of a holographic feature, that is, instruments can demand instruments that can demand instruments. In this case, a programme can be seen as one of these instruments which will have or create other instruments within it. Would you agree with that? Would you by any chance have some readings on this issue to suggest. Thank you very much again. Best wishes from Brazil.  

Daniel,

Glad to help (meu prazer). I am writing from Rio :-).

I think your approach has a lot of merit. Not too readings off the bat  to recommend but I can think and send you some in a short while. There is one but I am trying to remember the name of the author.

Whats your deadline? I travel this weekend for two weeks so I may not be able to do before the 17th.

You are most welcome. Thats what this network is for. And sometimes it can be as simple as - you are not alone in your thinking :-).

Att,

Leisa

Hello Leisa Perch, thank you again. I don´t really have a deadline, so far this is mostly out of curiosity. I am planning to take this on to a next level and design a research project but I am only speculating at the moment, learning more about the field and shaping ideias. Your  thoughts above, as well as the other's, have already been very helpful.

Safe travel.

Daniel