Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
, , ,
doi:10.1017/S0143814X10000152
ABSTRACT
Policy protagonists are keen to claim that policy is successful while
opponents are more likely to frame policies as failures. The reality is that
policy outcomes are often somewhere in between these extremes. An
added diculty is that policy has multiple dimensions, often succeeding
in some respects but not in others, according to facts and their
interpretation. This paper sets out a framework designed to capture the
bundles of outcomes that indicate how successful or unsuccessful a policy
has been. It reviews existing literature on policy evaluation and
improvement, public value, good practice, political strategy and policy
failure and success in order to identify what can be built on and gaps that
need to be lled. It conceives policy as having three realms: processes,
programs and politics. Policies may succeed and/or fail in each of these
and along a spectrum of success, resilient success, conicted success,
precarious success and failure. It concludes by examining contradictions
between dierent forms of success, including what is known colloquially
as good politics but bad policy.
Key words: policy success, policy failure, policy evaluation
McConnell
McConnell
governance likewise argue that success has two dimensions. The rst is
programmatic, the eectiveness, eciency and resilience of the specic
policies being evaluated (Bovens, t Hart and Peters b p. ). The
second is political, the way policies and policy makers become
evaluated in the political arena (Bovens, t Hart and Peters b
p. ). Some writings mention non-failure (Bovens et al. c), mixed
success (ONeill and Primus ) and partial success (Pollack ),
but these are typically ad hoc terms used to describe specic cases, and
are not located within a broader framework that is able to capture the
diversity of outcomes produced by policies. Some case studies dene a
programmes success according to the value judgements of the author
being the standard. Others focus on standards such as goal achievement and benets to key sectoral interests (see for example Schwartz
, Hulme ; Gupta and Saythe ).
Finally, there is an extensive literature on failure, including policy
ascos (Dunleavy ; Bovens and t Hart ), scandals (Tien ;
Thompson ), crises (Boin et al. ) and disasters (Handmer and
Dovers ; McEntire ). However, the debates more or less
mirror those dealing with aspects of success and its surrogates. Some,
particularly those writings dealing with organisational pathologies and
human error (e.g. Reason ; Auerswald et al. ) and critical
infrastructure breakdown tend to treat failure as an objective fact while
others dealing with policy ascos (e.g. Bovens and t Hart ) focus
heavily on competing constructions of goals to the point that failure is
largely in the eye of the beholder. There is also little recognition of
forms or degrees of failure, other than an implicit assumption (for
example) that failures get worse as we move from emergencies and
crises, to disasters and catastrophes.
McConnell
McConnell
Conferring
legitimacy on the
policy.
Building a
sustainable
coalition.
Symbolizing
innovation and
inuence.
Opposition to
process is virtually
non-existent
and/or support is
virtually universal.
Resilient Success
Process Failure
Preferred goals
and instruments
proving
controversial and
dicult to
preserve. Some
revisions needed.
Some challenges
Dicult and
to legitimacy but
contested issues
of little or no
surrounding
lasting
policy legitimacy,
signicance.
with some
potential to taint
the policy in the
long-term.
Coalition intact,
Coalition intact,
despite some signs although strong
of disagreement.
signs of
disagreement and
some potential for
fragmentation.
Not ground
Neither innovative
breaking in
nor outmoded,
innovation or
leading at times to
inuence, but still criticisms from
symbolically
both progressive
progressive.
and conservatives.
Governments
goals and
preferred policy
instruments hang
in the balance.
Termination of
government policy
goals and
instruments.
Serious and
potentially fatal
damage to policy
legitimacy.
Irrecoverable
damage to policy
legitimacy.
Coalition on the
brink of falling
apart.
Inability to
produce a
sustainable
coalition.
Appearance of
being out of touch
with viable,
alternative
solutions.
Opposition to
process is stronger
than anticipated,
but outweighed by
support.
Opposition to
process outweighs
small levels of
support.
Symbolizing
outmoded, insular
or bizarre ideas,
seemingly
oblivious to how
other jurisdictions
are dealing with
similar issues.
Opposition to
process is virtually
universal and/or
support is virtually
non-existent.
Opposition to
process and
support are
equally balanced.
McConnell
Resilient Success
Implementation in Implementation
line with
objectives broadly
objectives.
achieved, despite
minor renements
or deviations.
Minor progress
towards
implementation as
intended, but
beset by chronic
failures, proving
highly
controversial and
very dicult to
defend.
Achievement of
Outcomes broadly Some successes,
Some small
desired outcomes. achieved, despite but the partial
outcomes
some shortfalls.
achievement of
achieved as
intended
intended, but
outcomes is
overwhelmed by
counterbalanced
controversial and
by unwanted
high prole
results, generating instances or
substantial
failure to produce
controversy.
results.
Creating benet
A few shortfalls
Partial benets
Small benets are
for a target group. and possibly some realised, but not
accompanied and
anomalous cases, as widespread or
overshadowed by
but intended
deep as intended. damage to the
target group
very group that
broadly benets.
was meant to
benet. Also likely
to generate high
prole stories of
unfairness and
suering.
Meets policy
Not quite the
Partial
A few minor
domain criteria.
outcome desired, achievement of
successes, but
but close enough goals, but
plagued by
to lay strong
accompanied by
unwanted media
claim to fullling failures to achieve, attention e.g.
the criteria.
with possibility of examples of
high prole
wastage and
examples e.g.
possible scandal
ongoing wastage
when the criterion
when the criterion is eciency.
is eciency.
Opposition to
Opposition to
Opposition to
Opposition to
program aims,
program aims,
program aims,
program aims,
values, and means values, and means values, and means values, and means
of achieving them of achieving them of achieving them of achieving them,
is virtually
is stronger than
is equally
outweighs small
non-existent,
anticipated, but
balanced with
levels of support.
and/or support is outweighed by
support for same.
virtually universal. support.
Program Failure
Implementation
fails to be
executed in line
with objectives.
Failure to achieve
desired outcomes.
Damaging a
particular target
group.
Clear inability to
meet the criteria.
Opposition to
program aims,
values, and means
of achieving them
is virtually
universal, and/or
support is virtually
non-existent.
There are departures from one or more of the bundle of goals across
the process, program and political realms.
Resilient process success means that government achieves its policy
in broad terms notwithstanding small modications and setbacks, for
example, some opposition amendments are added to a bill. Resilient
programs are survivors. Shortfalls, although not insignicant, do not
undermine their core achievements. For example, a program in
countries to vaccinate against measles, mumps and rubella, has led to
a substantial reduction in the incidence of the disease(s), despite
exposing a small number of children to health risks. Insofar as political
bargaining leads to compromise, politics must be prepared to settle for
a second best outcome or else see their aims frustrated for a lack of
agreement.
Conicted success is a struggle for government. It achieves its policy
making goals in some respects, but has to backtrack or make signicant
modications along the way. Conicted program successes are not
what was intended. Proponents are troubled by substantial time delays,
considerable target shortfalls, resource shortfalls, and communication
failures. The program generates substantial controversy, galvanizing
opposition parties and forcing government into a defence of core values
and aims of the program, often coupled with program reviews and
amendments.
Notwithstanding conicts, political outcomes for government certainly have elements of success, even if accompanied by substantial
controversy. Conicted politics, as Lasswell () recognized, is in part
a product of competing values. Fischers () work indicates that to
achieve political stability requires resolving value conicts by advocates
of a program backtracking and accepting a modicum of conicted
success. In sum, conicted successes allow government partially to
achieve its goals, but it gets less than it bargained for in terms of
outcomes, and more that it expected in terms of opposition.
Precarious success operates on the edge of failure. Policies do exhibit
small achievements, but departures from goals and levels of opposition
outweigh small levels of support. They often amount to a pyrrhic
victory for policymakers. Initially government does fulll some of its
policy making goals, but the costs of doing so become such that
short-term success cannot be sustained.
Precarious program successes have some merits for proponents but
outcomes fall well short of intentions and controversy is substantial,
Even supporters seriously question the future of the policy. Precarious
successes are often transient, en route to failure and termination. For
example, the Child Support Agency in the UK, introduce in ,
struggled, with its achievement in making absent fathers pay coun-
McConnell
Resilient Success
Policy obtains
strong support
and opposition,
working for and
against electoral
prospects and
reputation in
fairly equal
measure.
Controlling policy Despite some
Policy proving
agenda and easing diculties in
controversial and
the business of
agenda
taking up more
governing.
management,
political time and
capacity to govern resources in its
is unperturbed.
defence than was
expected.
Political Failure
Favourable to
electoral prospects
and reputation
enhancement,
with only minor
setbacks.
Despite small
signs of benet,
policy proves an
overall electoral
and reputational
liability.
Damaging to the
electoral prospects
or reputation of
governments and
leaders, with no
redeeming
political benet.
Sustaining the
broad values and
direction of
government.
Some renements
needed but broad
trajectory
unimpeded.
Opposition to
political benets
for government is
virtually
non-existent
and/or support is
virtually universal.
Opposition to
political benets
for government is
stronger than
anticipated, but
outweighed by
support.
Opposition to
political benets
for government
outweighs small
levels of support.
Opposition to
political benets
for government is
virtually universal
and/or support is
virtually
non-existent.
Direction of
government very
broadly in line
with goals, but
clear signs that
the policy has
promoted some
rethinking,
especially behind
the scenes.
Opposition to
political benets
for government is
equally balanced
with support for
same.
McConnell
McConnell
Boin A., t Hart P., Stern E. and Sundelius B. () The politics of crisis management: Public leadership
under pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bovens M. () A comment on Marsh and McConnell: Towards a framework for understanding
policy success, Public Administration, (): .
Bovens M. and t Hart P. () Understanding policy ascoes. New Brunswick, Transaction.
Bovens M., t Hart P. and Peters B. G. (eds.) (a) Success and failure in public governance: A comparative
analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bovens M., t Hart P. and Peters B. G. (b) Analysing governance success and failure in six
european states. In Bovens M., t Hart P. and Peters B. G. (eds.), Success and failure in public
governance: A comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, .
Bovens M., t Hart P., Peters B. G., Albk E., Busch A., Dudley G., Moran M. and Richardson
J. (c) Patterns of governance: Sectoral and national comparisons. in Bovens M., t Hart P.
and Peters B. G. (eds.), Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, .
Boyne G. A. () What is public sector improvement? Public Administration, (): .
Boyne G. A. () Explaining public service improvement: Does management matter? Public Policy
and Administration, (): .
Braybrooke D. and Lindblom C. E. () A strategy of decision: Policy evaluation as social process. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Butler D., Adonis A. and Travers T. () Failure in British government: The politics of the poll tax.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carson L. and Martin B. () Random selection in politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Committee on Foreign Aairs () Extraordinary rendition in US counterterrorism policy: The
impact on transatlantic relations. Joint hearing before the subcommittee on international
organizations, human rights, and oversight and the subcommittee on europe of the committee on
foreign aairs. House of Representatives: Washington, DC.
Crick B. () In defence of politics. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Davidson E. J. () Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Dunleavy P. () Policy disasters: Explaining the UKs record. Public Policy and Administration, ():
.
Dye T. R. () Understanding public policy. th edition, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Easton D. () The political system. New York, NY: Knopf.
Easton D. () A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Edelman () Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Edelman M. () Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fischer F. () Evaluating public policy. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Fischer F. () Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gastil J. () Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goldnch S. () Rituals of reform, policy transfer, and the national university corporation
reforms of Japan. Governance, (): .
Gupta D. and Sathye M. () Turnaround of the Indian railways: a public ownership saga.
International Journal of Public Policy, (): .
Gupta D. K. () Analyzing public policy: Concepts, tools, and techniques, Washington, DC:
CQ Press.
Gutmann A. and Thompson D. () Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Hall P. G. () Great planning disasters. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Handmer J. and Dovers S. () Handbook of disaster and emergency policies and institutions. London:
Earthscan.
Harlow C. () Accountability, new public management, and the problems of the child support
agency. Journal of Law and Society, (): .
Head B. W. () Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy (): .
Hood C. C. and Margetts H. Z. () The tools of government in the digital age. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Howlett M. ( forthcoming). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Hulme D. and Moore K. () Why has micronance been a policy success in Bangladesh? in
Development success: Statecraft in the south (ed.) A. Bebbington and W. McCourt . Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ingram H.M., and. Mann D.E (eds.) () Why policies succeed or fail. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kerr D. H. () The logic of policy and successful policies. Policy Sciences, (): .
Lasswell H. D. () The decision process. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.
Lasswell H. D. () A pre-view of policy sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier.
Lindblom C. E. () The intelligence of democracy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Lindblom C., E () The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, XIX():
.
Machiavelli N. () The prince. Middlesex: Penguin.
Marsh D. and McConnell A. (a) Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public
Administration, (): .
Marsh D. and McConnell A. (b) Towards a framework for establishing policy success: A reply
to Bovens. Public Administration (): .
May P. J., Sapotichne J. and Workman S. () Widespread policy disruption: Terrorism, public
risks, and homeland security. Policy Studies Journal (): .
McConnell A. () Understanding policy success: Rethinking public policy. Basingstoke Palgrave
Macmillan.
McEntire D. A. () Disaster response and recovery. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Miller G. J. and Robbins D. () Cost-Benet Analysis. in Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory,
politics, and methods. F. Fischer, G. J. Miller and M. S. Sidney. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
.
Mintrom M. () People skills for policy analysts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Moore M. H. () Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Nagel S. () Series editors introduction. in Ingram H. M. and Mann D. E. (eds.), Why policies
succeed or fail. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, .
ONeill M. K. and Primus W. E. () Recent data trends show welfare reform to be a mixed
success: Signicant policy changes should accompany reauthorization. Review of Policy Research,
(): .
Osborne S. P. (ed.) () The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public
governance. Routledge: Abingdon.
Patashnik E. M. () Reforms at risk: What happens after major policy changes are enacted? Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Pawson R. () Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.
Pollack H. () Learning to walk slow: Americas partial policy success in the arena of intellectual
disability. Journal of Policy History, (): .
Reason J. () Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, Ashgate.
Rhodes R. A. A. and Wanna J. () The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government
from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, (): .
Rhodes R. A. A. and Wanna J. () Stairways to heaven: A reply to Alford. Australia Journal of
Public Administration, (): .
Rhodes R. A. A. and Wanna J. () Bringing the politics back in Public value in Westminster
parliamentary government. Public Administration, (): .
Rittel H. W. W. and Webber M. M. () Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,
(): .
Rose Richard () Understanding big government. London: Sage Publications.
Sanderson I. () Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, (): .
Schneider A. L. and Ingram H. () Policy design for democracy. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Schn D. A. and Rein M. () Frame reection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies.
New York: Basic Books.
Schwartz H. () Explaining Australian economic success: Good policy or good luck? Governance,
(): .
Shapiro I. () Enough of deliberation: Politics is about interest and power. in S. Macedo (ed.),
Deliberative Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, .
Steenhuisen B. and van Eeten M. () Invisible trade-os of public values: Inside Dutch railways.
Public Money & Management, (): .
McConnell
Stoker G. () Why politics matters: Making democracy work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stone D. () Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. nd edition, New York, NY: W.W.
Norton.
Stringer J. K. and Richardson J. J. () Managing the political agenda: Problem denition and
policy making in Britain. Parliamentary Aairs, (): .
Taylor D. and Balloch S. (ed.) () The politics of evaluation: Participation and policy implementation.
Bristol: The Policy Press.
Thompson J. B. () Political scandal: Power and visibility in the modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tien R. () Scandals, media, politics and corruption in contemporary Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press.
van Gestel N., Koppenjan J.Schrijver I., van de Ven A. and Veeneman W. () Managing public
values in public-private networks: A comparative study of innovative public infrastructure projects.
Public Money & Management, (): .
Weimer D. L. and Vining A. R. () Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. th edition, Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Wildavsky A. () Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. nd edition, New
Brunswick: Transaction.
ALLAN MCONNELL