Abstract
The article empirically tests the theoretical propositions on instrument choice articulated by Linder and Peters and their followers. It examines whether decision makers tend to prefer some policy instruments over others, what the patterns of these preferences are, and how they can be explained.
Using a survey of Czech ministerial and regional public officials involved in strategic policymaking (N = 1,112), the findings confirm that individuals exhibit clear patterns of instrument preference that are similar to theoretical typologies. However, the data do not confirm most other theoretical expectations: decision makers do not tend to prefer some instruments over others and their preference of policy instruments cannot be explained by educational background or the organization in which they work.
Other factors so far unnoticed in theory (such as sex, age, or job task) seem to play a more significant role, which calls for reconsideration of instrument choice theory.