Recent studies by Hood have underscored the significance of the desire of decision-makers to avoid blame for poor policy initiatives, highlighting the importance to policy-making of learning about how best to avoid policy failure. This article examines several different concepts of policy failure in the literature on the subject, such as policy accidents, errors, mistakes, and anomalies, along with recent work by McConnell and his colleagues on the general types and sources of such failures. The article distinguishes between ‘thin’ (technical-strategic) and ‘thick’ (political-experiential) policy learning and links them to McConnell’s three categories of political, programme, and process failures. The analysis points to the significant and underappreciated roles played by process and political problems in the analysis of policy failure and the need to draw lessons in these areas as well as in more technically oriented programme-related ones if the prospects of policy success are to be enhanced.
AllenCRGundersonLH (2011) Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management92(5): 1379–84.
2.
AndersonG (1996) The new focus on the policy capacity of the federal government. Canadian Public Administration39(4): 469–88.
3.
AnderssonSHeywoodPM (2009) The politics of perception: Use and abuse of Transparency International’s approach to measuring corruption. Political Studies57: 746–67.
4.
AnheierHK (1999) When Things Go Wrong: Organizational Failures and Breakdowns, 1st edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5.
AscherW (1999) Why Governments Waste Natural Resources: Policy Failures in Developing Countries. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
BaggottR (2012) Policy success and public health: The case of public health in England. Journal of Social Policy41(2): 391–408.
7.
BanksJS (1995) The design of institutions. In: WeimerDL (ed.) Institutional Design. Boston, MA: Kluwer, pp. 17–36.
8.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BennettCJ (1990) The formation of a Canadian privacy policy: The art and craft of lesson-drawing. Canadian Public Administration33(4): 551–70.
10.
BennettCJHowlettM (1992) The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences25(3): 275–94.
11.
BrinkerhoffDWCrosbyBL (2002) Managing Policy Reform: Concepts and Tools for Decision-Makers in Developing and Transitional Countries. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
12.
BovensMt’HartP (1995) Frame multiplicity and policy fiascos: Limits to explanation. Knowledge and Policy8(4): 61–83.
13.
BovensMt’HartP (1996) Understanding Policy Fiascos. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
14.
BovensMt’HartPPetersBG (eds) (2001) Success and Failure in Public Governance: A Comparative Analysis, new edn.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
15.
BrandstromAKuipersS (2003) From ‘normal incidents’ to political crises: Understanding the selective politicization of policy failures. Government and Opposition38(3): 279–305.
16.
CaplanN (1976) Factors associated with knowledge use among federal executives. Policy Studies Journal4(3): 229–34.
CobbRWPrimoDM (2003) The Plane Truth: Airline Crashes, the Media, and Transportation Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
ConnaughtonB (2010) ‘Glorified gofers, policy experts or good generalists’: A classification of the roles of the Irish ministerial adviser. Irish Political Studies25(3): 347–69.
20.
CornerARandallA (2011) Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Global Environmental Change21(3): 1005–14.
21.
DeLeonP (1988) The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal17(2): 297–309.
22.
DrorY (1969) The prediction of political feasibility. Futures, June: 282–8.
23.
DunleavyP (1995) Policy disasters: Explaining the UK’s record. Public Policy and Administration10(2): 52–70.
24.
EichbaumCShawR (2008) Revisiting politicization: Political advisers and public servants in Westminster systems. Governance21(3): 337–63.
25.
ElligJLavoieD (1995) The principal–agent relationship in organizations. In: FossP (ed.) Economic Approaches to Organizations and Institutions: An Introduction. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
26.
ElliottD (2009) The failure of organizational learning from crisis: A matter of life and death?Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management17(3): 157–68.
27.
EriksenSS (2011) ‘State failure’ in theory and practice: The idea of the state and the contradictions of state formation. Review of International Studies37(1): 229–47.
28.
FawcettPMarshD (2012) Policy transfer and policy success: The case of the gateway review process (2001–10). Government and Opposition47(2): 162–85.
29.
FeldmanM (1989) Order Without Design: Information Production and Policy Making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
FischerFForesterJ (1987) Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
31.
FischerFForesterJ (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
FlynnG (2011) Rethinking policy capacity in Canada: The role of parties and election platforms in government policy-making. Canadian Public Administration54(2): 235–53.
33.
FreudenbergWR (2004) Can we learn from failure? Examining US experiences with nuclear repository siting. Journal of Risk Research7(2): 153–69.
34.
GleesonDLeggeDO’NeillD. (2011) Negotiating tensions in developing organizational policy capacity: Comparative lessons to be drawn. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice13(3): 237–63.
35.
GrantW (2009) Intractable policy failure: The case of bovine TB and badgers. British Journal of Politics and International Relations11: 557–73.
HallPA (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic policy making in Britain. Comparative Politics25(3): 275–96.
38.
HawkeGR (1993) Improving Policy Advice. Wellington: Victoria University Institute of Policy Studies.
39.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
HicklinAGodwinE (2009) Agents of change: The role of policy managers in public policy. Policy Studies Journal37(1): 13–20.
41.
HoodC (2002) The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition37(1): 15–54.
42.
HoodC (2007) What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?Public Management Review9(2): 191–210.
43.
HoodC (2010) The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
HoodCBaldwinRRothsteinH (2000) Assessing the Dangerous Dogs Act: When does a regulatory law fail?Public Law, summer: 282–305.
45.
HowlettM (2009) Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration52(2): 153–75.
46.
HowlettM (2011) Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York: Routledge.
47.
HowlettMRaynerJ (2004) (Not so) ‘smart regulation’? Canadian shellfish aquaculture policy and the evolution of instrument choice for industrial development. Marine Policy28(2): 171–84.
48.
HowlettMRameshMPerlA (2009) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
49.
IngramHMMannDE (1980) Policy failure: An issue deserving analysis. In: IngramHMMannDE (eds) Why Policies Succeed or Fail. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 11–32.
50.
JonesBD (1994) Re-conceiving Decision-making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51.
KearnsALawsonL (2009) (De)constructing a policy ‘failure’: Housing stock transfer in Glasgow. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice5: 449–70.
52.
KerrDH (1976) The logic of ‘policy’ and successful policies. Policy Sciences7(3): 351–63.
53.
KingdonJW (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
54.
LandryRLamariMAmaraN (2003) The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review63(2): 192–205.
55.
LindblomCE (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review19(2): 79–88.
56.
McConnellA (2010a) Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy30(3): 345–62.
McConnellAStarkA (2002) Bureaucratic failure and the UK’s lack of preparedness for foot and mouth disease. Public Policy and Administration17(4): 39–54.
59.
McCubbinsMDLupiaA (1994) Learning from oversight: Fire alarms and police patrols reconstructed. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization10(1): 96–125.
60.
MajoneG (1975) On the notion of political feasibility. European Journal of Political Research3(3): 259–74.
61.
MarshDMcConnellA (2010) Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration88(2): 564–83.
62.
MayPJ (1992) Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy12(4): 331–54.
63.
MayntzR (1983) The conditions of effective public policy: A new challenge for policy analysis. Policy and Politics11: 123–43.
64.
MeierKJBohteJ (2003) Not with a bang, but a whimper: Explaining organizational failure. Administration and Society35(1): 104–21.
65.
MeltsnerAJ (1972) Political feasibility and policy analysis. Public Administration Review32: 859–67.
66.
MeltsnerAJ (1976) Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
67.
MeltsnerAJ (1980) Creating a policy analysis profession. In: NagelSS (ed.) Improving Policy Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 235–49.
68.
MertonRK (1936) The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review6: 1894–904.
69.
MichaelEPlowmanG (2002) Mount Stirling: The politics of process failure. Journal of Sustainable Tourism10(2): 154–69.
70.
MoranM (2001) Not steering but drowning: Policy catastrophes and the regulatory state. Political Quarterly72: 414–27.
71.
NutleySMWalterIDaviesHTO (2007) Using Evidence: How Research can Inform Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.
72.
OhCHRichRF (1996) Explaining use of information in public policymaking. Knowledge and Policy9(1): 3–35.
73.
PerrowC (1984) Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.
74.
PetersBG (1996) The Policy Capacity of Government. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development.
75.
PetersBGHogwoodBW (1985) The Pathology of Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
76.
RadaelliCM (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy2(2): 159–83.
77.
RadaelliCM (2009) Measuring policy learning: Regulatory impact assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy16(8): 1145–64.
78.
RichRF (1981) Social science information and public policy making. Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series, NORC Series in Social Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
79.
RichRF (1997) Measuring knowledge utilization: Processes and outcomes. Knowledge and Policy10(3): 11–24.
80.
RidderHGBrunsHJSpierF (2006) Managing implementation processes: The role of public managers in the implementation of accrual accounting – evidence from six case studies in Germany. Public Management Review8(1): 87–118.
81.
RootsRI (2004) When laws backfire: Unintended consequences of public policy. American Behavioral Scientist47(11): 1376–94.
82.
RoseR (1993) Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning across Time and Space. Chatham: Chatham House Publishing.
83.
RusselDJordanA (2007) Gearing-up governance for sustainable development: Patterns of policy appraisal in UK central government. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management50(1): 1–21.
84.
ScharpfFW (1986) Policy failure and institutional reform: Why should form follow function?International Social Science Journal108: 179–90.
85.
SchneiderAIngramH (1988) Systematically pinching ideas: A comparative approach to policy design. Journal of Public Policy8(1): 61–80.
86.
SchudsonM (2006) The trouble with experts – and why democracies need them. Theory and Society35: 491–506.
87.
SchultzD (2007) Stupid public policy ideas and other political myths. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
88.
SheingateAD (2006) Promotion versus precaution: The evolution of biotechnology policy in the United States. British Journal of Political Science36: 243–68.
89.
ShipmanBStojanovicT (2007) Facts, fictions and failures in integrated coastal zone management in Europe. Coastal Management35: 375–98.
90.
ShulockN (1999) The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management18(2): 226–44.
91.
Sulitzeanu-KenanRHoodC (2005) Blame avoidance with adjectives? Motivation, opportunity, activity and outcome. Paper for the ECPR Joint Sessions, Blame Avoidance and Blame Management Workshop. Granada, Spain, 14–20 April.
92.
SvaraJH (2006) Complexity in political-administrative relations and the limits of the dichotomy concept. Administrative Theory and Praxis28(1): 121–39.
93.
TenbenselT (2004) Does more evidence lead to better policy? The implications of explicit priority-setting in New Zealand’s health policy for evidence-based policy. Policy Studies25(3): 190–207.
94.
ThompsonVA (1965) Modern Organization. New York: Knopf.
95.
TommasiM (2011) Latin America: How state capacity determines policy success. Governance24(2): 199–203.
96.
TreismanD (2007) What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research?Annual Review of Political Science10: 211–44.
97.
TurnpennyJRadaelliCMJordanA. (2009) The policy and politics of policy appraisal: Emerging trends and new directions. Journal of European Public Policy16(4): 640–53.
98.
ViningARWeimerDL (1990) Government supply and government production failure: A framework based on contestability. Journal of Public Policy10(1): 1–22.
99.
WalshJI (2006) Policy failure and policy change. Comparative Political Studies39(4): 490–518.
100.
WarwickPV (2006) Policy Horizons and Parliamentary Government. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
101.
WeaverRK (1986) The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy6(4): 371–98.
102.
WebberDJ (1986) Analyzing political feasibility: Political scientists’ unique contribution to policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal14(4): 545–54.
103.
WeissCH (1977) Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social science research. Policy Analysis3(4): 531–45.
104.
WeissCH (1986) The circuitry of enlightenment: Diffusion of social science research to policymakers. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization8(2): 274–81.
105.
WeissCH (1992) Organizations for Policy Analysis: Helping Government Think. London: Sage Publications.
106.
WeissCHBucuvalasMJ (1980) Social Science Research and Decision-Making. New York: Columbia University Press.
107.
WhitemanD (1985a) The fate of policy analysis in Congressional decision making: Three types of use in committees. Western Political Quarterly38(2): 294–311.
108.
WhitemanD (1985b) Reaffirming the importance of strategic use: A two-dimensional perspective on policy analysis in Congress. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization6(3): 203–24.
109.
WildavskyAB (1979) Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
110.
WolfCJr (1979) A theory of nonmarket failure: Framework for implementation analysis. Journal of Law and Economics22(1): 107–39.
111.
WolfCJr (1987) Markets and non-market failures: Comparison and assessment. Journal of Public Policy7(1): 43–70.
112.
WolmanH (1981) The determinants of program success and failure. Journal of Public Policy1(4): 433–64.
113.
WuXRameshMHowlettM. (2010) The Public Policy Primer: Managing Public Policy. London: Routledge.
