Policy learning and policy failure: definitions, dimensions and intersections1 Claire A. Dunlop, c.a.dunlop@ex.ac.uk University of Exeter, UK Policy failures present a valuable opportunity for policy learning, but public officials often fail to learn valuable lessons from these experiences. The studies in this volume investigate this broken link. This introduction defines policy learning and failure, and then organises the main studies in these fields along the key dimensions of: processes, products and analytical levels. We continue with an overview of the
449 Key words policy failure • housing • Glasgow © The Policy Press • 2009 • ISSN 1744 2648 Evidence & Policy • vol 5 • no 4 • 2009 • 449-70 • 10.1332/174426409X478789 de ba te (De)constructing a policy ‘failure’: housing stock transfer in Glasgow Ade Kearns1 and Louise Lawson The most significant housing stock transfer in the UK took place in Glasgow in 2003. It has been widely and repeatedly depicted as a policy ‘failure’, by both journalists and informed critics. This article evaluates the specific claims of failure by looking at developments to date and
reported an average 52 per cent rise in demand for its food banks in areas where UC had been rolled out (Trussell Trust, 2018 ). Though reputed by government at the time, in February 2019 the sixth Secretary of State for Work and Pensions presiding over UC – Rt Hon Amber Rudd – conceded that its introduction had contributed to increased food insecurity (HC Deb, 11 February 2019, c593). As we can see, though policy failures present valuable and multiple opportunities for policy learning, as the case of UC demonstrates, this potential is very difficult to exploit. In
First published as a special issue of Policy & Politics, this updated volume explores policy failures and the valuable opportunities for learning that they offer.
Policy successes and failures offer important lessons for public officials, but often they do not learn from these experiences. The studies in this volume investigate this broken link. The book defines policy learning and failure and organises the main studies in these fields along the key dimensions of processes, products and analytical levels. Drawing together a range of experts in the field, the volume sketches a research agenda linking policy scholars with policy practice.
87 Policy & Politics • vol 45 • no 1 • 87–101 • © Policy Press 2017 • #PPjnl @policy_politics Print ISSN 0305 5736 • Online ISSN 1470 8442 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14743685010425 Policy failures, policy learning and institutional change: the case of Australian health insurance policy change Adrian Kay, adrian.kay@anu.edu.au Australian National University, Australia This article presents an institutionalist perspective on the relationship between policy failure and policy learning. It contributes both to our understanding of different patterns
103 Policy & Politics • vol 45 • no 1 • 103–18 • © Policy Press 2017 • #PPjnl @policy_politics Print ISSN 0305 5736 • Online ISSN 1470 8442 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14788776017743 Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty Sreeja Nair, sreeja.nair@u.nus.edu National University of Singapore, Singapore Michael Howlett, howlett@sfu.ca Simon Fraser University, Canada A critical challenge policy-makers deal with in responding to problems concerns gaps and reliability issues with respect to
19 Policy & Politics • vol 45 • no 1 • 19–37 • © Policy Press 2017 • #PPjnl @policy_politics Print ISSN 0305 5736 • Online ISSN 1470 8442 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14780920269183 article Pathologies of policy learning: what are they and how do they contribute to policy failure?1 Claire A. Dunlop, c.a.dunlop@exeter.ac.uk University of Exeter, UK We analyse policy failure as a degeneration of policy learning. Analytically, we drill down on one type – epistemic learning. This is the realm of evidenced-based policymaking (EBPM), where experts advise
Introduction Although policy learning may stem from assessments of policy failure (Ingold and Monaghan, 2016 ), establishing such a relationship is not straightforward. As is well known, the drivers of policy change and observations of policy change are not necessarily closely linked across time; indeed, the temporal link between cause and effect may be stretched over relatively long periods in patterns of change (McCashin, 2016 ). The chapter seeks to introduce a temporal perspective to catalogue the institutional constraints and opportunities embedded
Introduction As Chapter 1 highlights, the literature on policy failure is growing (Dunlop, 2017 ). A good deal of attention has been focused on defining what we mean by failure. The most complete and best-used typology comes from McConnell who identifies three main types – process, programme and political (McConnell, 2010 ). The failure to link policy ideas to reality is either a failure of: process – the management of the policy-making process (for example, examination of policy options, managing experts and stakeholders and commanding legitimacy
success of one country is exported to another. In a more or less rational process of decision-making, importing governments recognise policy failures or shortcomings within their borders and through processes of evaluation and learning, as well as peer review, seek solutions and adopt reforms based on successful experience elsewhere. The discussion moves away from ‘orthodox’ policy transfer studies – where there is often assumed to be a motivated importer and a willing exporter country – abandoning the linear perspectives of country ‘A’ sending policy to ‘B’ and
