Wicked Problems in Public Policy

Front matter

© Wicked Problems in e Public Policy g- Understanding and f Responding to Complex Challenges

Wicked Problems in Public Policy

“The concept of wicked problems has become very commonly used, and abused, in contemporary studies of public policy. While expressing some appropriate skepticism about the concept, Brian Head uses the idea to analyse the numerous difficult problems facing governments in the 21st century. He demonstrates ways in which governments can, and should, address these pressing problems, which makes this essential reading for both scholars and practitioners.”

Introduction to Problem Framing

Simple and Complex Problems

Knowledge and Expertise for Policy Improvement Concluding Comments

The Rise of ‘Wicked Problems’—Uncertainty, Complexity and Divergence

Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning

The Diffusion of the Concept

Linking Problem Types and Policy Responses

Arguments for a Sliding Scale—Degrees of Intractability

Political Governance of Wicked Problems Introduction Governmental Responses to Wicked Problems—Seven Strategies Avoidance, Denial and Minimal Responsibility Coercive Controls Compartmentalised Micro-Management Technocratic Problem-Solving vi CONTENTS

Incremental and Pragmatic Adjustment Stakeholder Collaboration Coping and Prevention Policies

4 Complexity, Crises and Coping Strategies Introduction Complexity Analysis for Public Policy Types of Crises Shaping Wicked Problems Strategic Risk Management—The Example of COVID-19 Prevention, Coping and Adaptive Strategies Conclusions: Coping with Complexity

5 Managing Environmental and Sustainability Challenges Introduction Integrated Policy Planning or Pluralist Innovation? Science and the Construction of Environmental Policy Issues Managing Risks—Precaution, Resilience and Environmental Standards Wicked Dimensions of Environmental Policymaking Climate Change as a Wicked Policy Arena Using Collaborative Approaches for Environment Policy

6 Improving Social Well-Being and Social Equity Introduction Contested Framings of Inequality Homelessness as a Wicked Problem Drugs Policy as a Wicked Problem Concluding Comment: Knowledge for Tackling Wicked Problems

7 Policy Innovation in Turbulent Times Introduction: Competing Sources of Policy Knowledge Innovation, Experimentation and Policy Transitions

ating Innovation—The Digital Economy rechnologies

Partisanship and Populism in Public Policy

Index

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 2.1 Complexity uncertainty and value divergence dimensions

(Source Head, 2008, p. 104; 2010b, p. 22) 34 Fig. 4.1 Interconnected crises (Source Future Earth [2020] Risk

Perceptions Report, p. 5) 73 vil

The democratic context of policymaking is central to this book. It is about policy debates and stakeholders in democracies. And while all countries share some important common challenges in problem-solving and effective governance, this book has little to say directly about policymaking in authoritarian political systems and militarised autocracies.

In democracies, most of the ‘big’ issues of modern life—social, economic, environmental, technological—are likely to be controversial. The big issues are indeed very real—they shape our lived worlds. Many of these issues seem messy and intractable. And in most cases, there are no ‘correct’ and comprehensive answers. Everyone has an opinion about some aspects of the problem, and about what needs to be done.

This explains why commentaries on the big complex issues often come not from scholarly experts but from engaged practitioners—such as politicians, journalists, media celebrities, lobbyists, advocates, inventors, think tank analysts, planners and service delivery managers. They provide a range of insights, and simplifications, to make sense of these complexities.

The big issues are framed, debated and managed by politicians and other powerful stakeholders. These practitioners do the key work of interpreting and deciding. They offer narratives about the nature of the problem and options for tackling the problem. They highlight their preferred normative stance (economic growth? social equity? ecological health? social stability?). Some are attracted to technological innovation to tackle key parts of the problem. Others want better social regulation and funding. The practitioners and stakeholders often disagree about what can or should be done. This is the everyday politics of wicked problems.

These practitioners generally have few connections with the world of scholarly research. What, then, could be the contribution of research and analysis about wicked policy problems? Indeed, why write a book? This book is more about offering an approach to analysis and reflection rather than offering a set of policy solutions.

Social scientists are not in the same business as political ideologues. Good social science research does not promote ready-made solutions and magical cures. Although good social science research inevitably embodies social values (such as the value of reducing avoidable harms), it is primarily focused on explaining past patterns and mapping future possibilities for improvement. In democratic systems, government ministers enjoy majority support in the legislature, and are formally accountable for determining the key choices in public policy. Ministers may receive advice from several sources, although they usually rely on narrow circles of trusted political advisors. Government agencies generally respect the need to gather and analyse a wide range of evidence, and they attempt to incorporate relevant expertise into their advisory and evaluative systems. This may include findings from academic and corporate research. Good research can also improve the quality of public debate and stimulate new thinking about feasible options. But the systematic and nuanced contributions of scientists, historians and policy scholars are often crowded out in public debate by the more strident views of media commentators and partisan advocates.

Universities have recently found it necessary to re-affirm that they support ‘research relevance and impact’. However, in practice, there is still relatively little incentive in the university sector to research the ‘big’ issues and to engage deeply with non-academic stakeholders. University scholars are mainly rewarded for excellence in narrow technical research. In general, specialised projects that promise commercial benefits are more likely to attract funding. Performance evaluation systems within universities thus tend to celebrate research specialisation, which is reinforced by much of the data about research revenue, commercial linkages, and related scientific publications.

By contrast, my own professional background has spanned several sectors—universities, government, not-for-profit, and consulting—and enabled me to work on complex and wicked problems throughout my professional career. My approach to public policy has highlighted the need to strengthen links between practitioners and researchers, promote collaborative networks, and focus on complex interconnected issues. The desired outcome is to develop and refine evidence-informed policy ideas that might contribute to new policy thinking and better governance. Arguing the case for policy improvement is always challenging, and requires continuous engagement with practitioners and stakeholders, and indeed with dissenters who promote different agendas. This is tough work, especially in a world swirling with ideological slogans, political myths, nostalgic remedies and panaceas.

This book on Wicked Problems in Public Policy was a long time in the making. The list of issues worthy of discussion has continued to multiply. Every policy problem could be potentially relevant to the theme of policy complexity and contestation. Over recent decades I have examined many policy case studies, with the welcome assistance of a host of colleagues and co-authors. I have also undertaken thematic analyses exploring the pros and cons of collaboration, the value and limits of community engagement, and the positive contributions of social research expertise for evidence-informed policy programs. The book attempts to provide a conceptual lens for thinking about all these large themes. It refers to many policy examples, but a short book unfortunately had no space for many detailed cases.

The recent pandemic crisis caused extensive long-term disruptions in every sector. This crisis reinforced our appreciation of the delicate balance in policymaking between public trust, democratic legitimacy, effective programs, and the (ambivalent) roles of expert knowledge. These recent experiences will doubtless prove instructive for scholars and practitioners seeking to understand and respond to wicked problems.

My thanks to numerous colleagues and friends in many countries who have helped me clarify these ideas over many years. I also acknowledge the support of substantial research funding from several sources, but especially from grant DP140101532 of the Australian Research Council.

This book is dedicated to John Alford, with whom I began discussing wicked problems at an international conference in 2007. We subsequently convened panels at several conferences and co-authored some papers which contributed to reconsidering the research agenda for wicked problems. I am very grateful to a host of local and international scholars who have greatly enhanced my understanding. In 2013 my commitment to this field of research was reinforced by participating in a major conference organised in Berkeley (the home base of Rittel and Webber) to celebrate and explore the significance of their 1973 classic article. Subsequent workshops and conferences in Singapore, Hong Kong, Montreal, Edinburgh and Wageningen also deepened my appreciation of different ways to assess the relative success (and failure) of policies addressing complex issues, and to understand the value of diverse forms of knowledge in the policy process. In writing this book I have inevitably drawn on ideas in previously published papers; but I have tried to develop a fresh argument about contested policy problems and their political resolution. While the long delays in completing this book may have disappointed some friends and colleagues, the extended opportunities for discussion with researchers and policy practitioners have helped me navigate the inherent difficulties of understanding complex and contested policy matters.

The structure of the book is straightforward. Chapter 1 provides a brief background about public policy analysis, especially the central importance of how issues are ‘framed’ or portrayed in policy debates. Divergent frames or perceptions generate conflict about the nature of the policy problems and about how to address them. Competing views are shaped not only by evidence-based expertise but also by ideologies, economic interests, political identities and institutional legacies.

Chapter 2 notes that complex problems are abundant, but that some problems are made even more intractable by differences in the values, economic interests and cultural viewpoints of participants. This divergence underpins the realm of wicked problems, as first sketched in Rittel and Webber’s classic 1973 article. After a slow start, the terminology of ‘wicked’ problems became increasingly popular from the 1990s onward, and was diffused across a wide variety of economic, social, environmental and technological policy issues. In summarising this conceptual framework, I critically reconsider the orthodox classification of problems as being either simple, complex or wicked. This chapter explores the factors that help us explain the different degrees of difficulty or intractability that arise in various policy fields and institutional contexts. The chapter also notes some robust criticisms of how the term wicked problems has been applied and supports the case for greater precision.

Chapter 3 examines the options and strategies used by democratic governments in managing policy conflicts and in responding to complex and contested issues. Wicked problems are managed politically. I outline seven approaches that have actually been used by diverse political leaders in managing and responding to wicked problems. In practice, leaders may choose to avoid or deflect the difficult issues, or they may decide to impose their own strong interventions. They may choose to take relatively familiar pathways, or alternatively, they may seek new approaches—to build partnerships, manage conflicts, tackle knowledge uncertainties and invest in preventative approaches.

Chapter 4 examines the complex social crises and natural disasters that form the context for how policy actors understand and manage wicked problems. The complexity dimension of wicked problems is often emphasised in the policy literature, and complexity is central for understanding the ‘governability’ of crises and challenges. The chapter distinguishes between different types of crisis—ranging from acute and urgent, on the one hand, to slow and creeping, on the other hand. The impacts of crisis may be abrupt and immediately tangible, or may reflect the cumulative effects of multiple gradual changes that reach critical thresholds. It is difficult to assess the risks and urgency of an emerging crisis under conditions of great uncertainty. The chapter argues that, rather than ‘solving’ the problem in a definitive way, policy responses may settle on ‘coping’ strategies to mitigate and stabilise the problems. This chapter includes a brief study of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the final chapters, these concepts and frameworks are further developed and applied in two major policy fields—sustainability policies and social policies. The case examples are brief and illustrative vignettes rather than comprehensive guides to the problems under discussion. Chapter 5 considers selected major issues in climate response policy, environmental sustainability and related environmental issues. Similarly, Chapter 6 applies the concepts and frameworks to selected areas of social policy, including inequality, homelessness and drugs policy. Taken together, Chapters 5 and 6 provide case examples for further reflection on broader questions of policy analysis, such as the appropriate criteria for judging policy success, the role of expertise (in its various forms), and the continuing debates between those who seek rapid and transformative change, and those who promote steady incremental improvements through long-term prevention policies.

Finally, Chapter 7 offers some brief concluding remarks on policy innovation and the contemporary politics of populism and opinion-based policy ideas, which frame so many debates about wicked policy issues in the age of digital media. Given the pluralisation of the public sphere, it remains inherently difficult to negotiate ‘effective and acceptable’ policy responses. The search for more innovative approaches has become widespread in recent years, although evidence-informed policymaking remains difficult to achieve. Political leaders who can achieve better outcomes while maintaining broad stakeholder support are relatively rare. Policy success is seldom complete or enduring—it is more likely to be provisional and qualified and iterative. Even successful programs require adaptive management and regular review. And many stakeholders will remain disgruntled, and feel overlooked and resentful, perhaps persuaded that their interests and identities were more secure in earlier times.

This book reflects both my strong interest in policy improvement and my scepticism about simplistic partisan solutions. The book is often conceptual in tone, but this is necessary for providing a lens to understand complex and contested issues.

CHAPTER 1 Debates in Public Policy—Problem Framing, Knowledge and Interests

Abstract There are different types of public policy problems. In democratic political systems, policy problems arise in very diverse political and institutional contexts. These influence how the problems are debated and resolved. Policy decision-making is structured through organisational processes that reflect historical institutional arrangements. Complex policy problems often involve conflicting interests and divergent perceptions among various stakeholder groups. Disagreements about problems and policies arise from many factors, including material interests, sociocultural values and political (dis)trust. The framing of problems and solutions is expressed in different ways, through the language of economic benefits, ideological outlooks, group values and political loyalties. Leaders of political, economic and social organisations argue for the priority of some issues over others, depending on their judgements about threats, rewards and opportunities. Leaders typically offer simplified and persuasive narratives about problems and solutions, in order to attract wide support for their preferred approach. Evidence and expertise are mobilised selectively by policy actors to influence the perceived credibility of their own favoured policy options. However, rigorous evidence is not privileged in everyday politics—policy debates are structured through the interplay of many forms of knowledge, values, emotions and interests. Expertise can assist in managing complex problems but never determines the outcomes.

© The Author(s) 2022 7 B. W. Head, Wicked Problems in Public Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0_1

Keywords Policy framing - Policy agendas - Policy debates - Simple and complex problems - Expertise - Gun violence - Road congestion - Refugees

INTRODUCTION TO PROBLEM FRAMING

This chapter provides a brief background about public policy in democratic political systems, and especially the central importance of how policy problems are ‘framed’ by various actors in policy debates. This background sets the scene for the main discussion (in Chapter 2) of the ‘wicked problems’ framework. It also provides a foundation for later analysis (in Chapter 3) of policy instruments for achieving policy goals and the institutional capacities required for successfully tackling complex problems.

Disagreements arise among stakeholders about the nature of policy problems and how to address them. These divergent viewpoints are shaped by different assumptions, values, and interests. These differences of perspective have major impacts on policy decision-making and implementation, because the way a problem is defined or interpreted tends to correlate with particular remedial actions to address the identified problem.

The fundamental proposition in this chapter is that divergent ‘framing’ of policy problems generates conflict about the nature of these problems and about how to address them. Competing policy perspectives and viewpoints are inevitable. These differences are often entrenched or resistant to change, owing to their complex anchoring in values, interests, emotions and ideological assumptions. Such perspectives about the nature of the issue, and about actions to be taken, are not derived from the ‘agreed facts’ about an issue — they are more likely to be influenced by a combination of ideological orientations, economic interests, political identities, professional or managerial assumptions, and past institutional legacies (Edelman, 1988; Majone, 1989; Head, 2010a; Cairney, 2016). The role of ‘evidence-informed’ analysis and expertise can be important, but is only part of the policy process (Head, 2016).

In democratic systems, public policy debates are focused on the ‘problems’ that stakeholders claim require greater public attention. Deborah Stone argues that an issue only becomes a public policy ‘problem’ when l1 DEBATES IN PUBLIC POLICY... 9 groups demand that action be taken; and when plausible stories are advanced concerning the causes and remedies for the problem (Stone, 1989, p. 299). The agenda-setting aspects of public policy debates are essentially arguments about the nature and urgency of policy problems and how to address them. Scoping the problems, proposing feasible solutions, and mobilising support for priority actions, are three important and closely related dimensions of the policy development process (Crowley et al., 2020; Kingdon, 1995; Majone, 1989). In every jurisdiction, diverse political actors, stakeholders and advocates are continually striving to place their key issues on the policy agenda for further debate and thus the consideration of decision-makers. The types of problems that attract public attention shift over time, depending on changes in leadership, changes in socio-economic conditions, changes in communication technologies, and changes in the design of policy programs and service systems.

The modern policy analysis literature—whether in health, education, criminology or environment—emphasises the importance of problem definitions or perceptions in influencing how policy debates unfold. ‘Framing’ here refers to how an issue or problem is defined and presented to wider audiences, as part of the process of setting policy agendas and priorities. Problem framing is about how actors attempt to persuade other citizens and decision-makers about the nature and significance of issues under discussion (van Hulst & Yanow, 2016). It is clear that very different stories tend to emerge about the causes and severity of the problems (and therefore the preferred actions to tackle the problems). ‘Framing’ is about how actors’ understandings of problems, contexts and responses are articulated, represented through narratives, and further shaped through interaction (Fischer, 2003, p. 144). Schön and Rein consider framing ‘a way of selecting, organising, interpreting and making sense of a complex reality to provide guideposts for knowing, analysing, persuading and acting’ (Schön & Rein, 1994, p. 146). Framing is also central for articulating the core values and identities that underlie social movements seeking policy change—for example, those advocating for substantive civil rights and non-discrimination on the basis of gender, religion or ethnicity (Benford & Snow, 2000). Under modern conditions in a democratic society with diverse media channels and technologies available to citizens, the fragmentation of media framings may generate ‘preference-based reinforcement’ (or group-think) among each of these media audiences (Cacciatore et al., 2016) rather than generalised impacts across the mass population.

Rittel and Webber argued that problem framing had become more difficult under modern conditions of social pluralism and political communication.

By now we are all beginning to realize that one of the most intractable problems is that of defining problems (of knowing what distinguishes an observed condition from a desired condition) and of locating problems (finding where in the complex causal networks the trouble really lies). In turn, and equally intractable, is the problem of identifying the actions that might effectively narrow the gap between what-is and what-ought-to-be. (Rittel & Webber 1973, p. 159)

The dynamics of problem framing are important for many reasons, including the close connection generally found between how a problem is defined (or ‘structured’) by stakeholders and the preferred solutions they propose (Dery, 1984; Gusfield, 1989). Peters demonstrates that specific policy ‘problems’ (such as environmental pollution) emerge under specific political conditions and institutional contexts (Peters, 2005). He shows how the problems are interpreted by various actors in the light of issue histories, the balance of key participants, and their dominant ideologies and interests. The way a problem is framed by stakeholders and decision-makers is strongly correlated with their preferences for specific policy tools (e.g. market-based instruments vs state regulation).

Thus, the way problems are interpreted is closely tied to proposed solutions recommended by various government agencies, business groups and community stakeholders. To take an everyday example, poverty and economic inequality are widely seen as conditions of life in most countries. However, despite apparent agreement that poverty is a ‘real’ and ongoing problem, there are very different underlying narratives about the causes of poverty, the degree of urgency, and the proposed solutions. If poverty is seen as an individual-centred problem (generated by deficits in personal skills and motivation), the proposed solutions will be oriented towards encouraging individuals to take more responsibility for their unfortunate situation and challenging them to develop their work skills and their ‘achievement orientation’. However, if poverty is seen as an enduring structural feature of society (generated by impersonal market forces which primarily benefit wealthy elites), the solutions proposed might be oriented

1 DEBATES IN PUBLIC POLICY ... 1l towards political action to improve employment security and the public funding of social services. In the same way, people enmeshed in long-term unemployment can be seen either as unwilling to grasp opportunities to develop new skills, or alternatively can be seen as the unfortunate victims of structural and technological change.

Debates about the nature and causes of problems provide the foundations for considering policy solutions and governance arrangements. Bacchi argues that the assumptions underlying policy arguments need to be carefully scrutinised. Policy dynamics can best be understood by ‘problematising’ the assumptions, interests and values underlying each viewpoint, and by identifying the likely impacts of adopting one position rather than another (Bacchi, 2009). Her critical analysis of social policy fields reveals some of the hidden interests and value assumptions embedded in mainstream social policy programs, including youth welfare, drugs policy, immigration, education and equal opportunity.

According to the policy analysis literature, policy debates always include key moments when the nature and scope of problems are intensely disputed and redefined (Dery, 1984). The contest over problem definitions and priorities evolves over time, constituting the contemporary public policy agenda. This agenda-setting process is crucial, because it shapes the selection of issues deemed worthy of attention, the manner in which they are considered, the nature of solutions regarded as feasible and supportable, and ultimately the pattern of winners and losers in various policy fields (Kingdon, 1995; Stone, 2012). Agenda-setting involves the exercise of power and influence, conducted through a contest of ideas and interests. For example, in responding to crises and emergencies, political leaders seek to influence how the media portray the nature of the challenges and how the proposed solutions are publicly defined, in order to avoid blame and to mobilise coalitions of support for particular policy outcomes (Boin et al., 2009).

In filtering out some proposed courses of action and favouring others, framing contests have real impacts on the policy process. A classic example of why problem-framing matters is to consider how the phrase ‘sustainable development’—originally a policy framework critical of the status quo—became a mainstream goal endorsed across a wide spectrum. Nevertheless, goals and methods of ‘sustainable development’ have become interpreted in radically different ways by corporate interests (who promote business profitability and continuous economic growth) and by ecological activists (who regard protection of natural assets as paramount). Thus the policy debate over how to interpret ‘sustainable development’ has been bitterly polarised between pro-growth advocates and those seeking to protect environmental values (Dovers & Hussey, 2013; Schandl & Walker, 2017).

Framing of policy problems and solutions occurs in specific contexts, necessarily linked to policy histories and the local array of political and economic stakeholders. For example, the problem of ‘gun violence’ has been handled in very different ways internationally. Policy diversity regarding gun control has been evident, even within the OECD group of liberal democracies. In a study of three federal countries—the USA, Canada and Australia—Newman and Head (2017b) showed how political and ideological factors led to very different outcomes. In the USA, a coalition of economic and political stakeholders have entrenched a permissive ‘gun culture’ that allows widespread civil access to weapons. This permissive outcome has been facilitated by an expansive reading of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, and buttressed through intensive political lobbying by the financially powerful firearms industry. Canada and Australia have been different, despite having had strong rural lobbies advocating for the rights of hunters and sporting shooters. Regulatory controls have been more acceptable in those two countries, and in the case of Australia those controls were significantly tightened through a concerted political and legislative response to mass shootings in 1998. The Australian regulatory approach was recently influential in New Zealand, which suffered a mass shooting in a mosque in 2019 (Every- Palmer et al., 2020). Response to a tragedy can generate diverse policy pathways, dependent on the interplay between actors in various political and institutional contexts and their contest of ideas (Béland & Cox, 2011).

SIMPLE AND COMPLEX PROBLEMS

Some types of policy problems are more simple or straightforward than others. Simple problems are defined exactly or narrowly. Owing to their narrow scope, they are more likely to be managed and resolved with a high level of agreement. In short, simple policy problems tend to be defined precisely by the policy actors and stakeholders. The latter agree on the knowledge base for understanding the problem, relevant technical parameters, cost-effective options and the locus of responsibility and capacity for addressing the problem. These apparently simple policy

1 DEBATES IN PUBLIC POLICY ... 13 issues are unlikely to be overlaid with moral judgements, thus making issue-management more straightforward. The analogy with laboratory experiments is useful—much of science is focused on precise measurement of narrowly specified variables and their observable interaction.

And yet the notion that some policy problems are ‘inherently simple’ can be misleading, because seeing a problem as simple might be strongly influenced by the availability of widely accepted solutions to manage the problem. Consider the challenges of traffic mobility in a large city. One of the (many) identified problems for improvement might be the high incidence of collisions and related injuries on public roads; thus, the (apparently simple) policy challenge would be to reduce collisions. Several possible solutions to improve road traffic safety have had wide support, ranging from regulatory to engineering approaches. Regulatory solutions with low costs include restrictions on driver behaviour (e.g. licensing tests; ban on use of intoxicants; and specific maximum vehicle speeds designated for various locations). Other regulatory solutions, though with higher costs, include requirements for vehicles to meet safety performance standards. Infrastructure redesign provides decision-makers with other avenues for reducing the incidence of collisions and injuries. For example, the construction of dedicated walkways and bike paths can reduce the co-mingling of pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.

By focusing on one specific aspect of urban transportation (e.g. high incidence of traffic accidents and injuries), policy analysis is likely to focus on various technical solutions for reducing that problem. However, if the urban transportation problem is instead characterised as ‘traffic congestion’ rather than road injuries, a different range of considerations emerge. Traffic systems engineers will lobby for installing coordinated traffic signalling systems with digitised traffic flow technologies. This optimises existing traffic flow, especially benefiting private drivers. On the other hand, major construction contractors will lobby for building more freeways and bridges, which aim to deliver increased road capacity and connectivity, and create significant employment on major projects. But these supply-side options can be very expensive and, even if successful in reducing congestion in the short term, may soon induce larger volumes of private traffic.

A third way of framing the key policy problems in urban transport is to emphasise the importance of access to affordable and efficient mass transit systems (provided by or heavily subsidised by government authorities). The policy problem is here framed as an historical over-reliance l4 B.W. HEAD on private vehicles and lack of alternative transport services. On the supply-side of mass transit facilities, provision of new equipment and infrastructure for new services may be expensive and public funding may be constrained. On the demand-side, the main challenge is to provide financial incentives and service improvement incentives for commuters to switch towards mass transit. The above examples all show that a policy field such as urban transport comprises a nested series of simple and complex issues. The focus of debate shifts according to whether the ‘problem’ demanding attention is seen as safety, travel time or mass transit efficiency. A related series of debates will focus on who pays—e.g. whether government authorities will carry the costs of new investment or whether private citizens will contribute through a user-fee approach to accessing services and infrastructure facilities.

Within the category of complex problems, some are more intractable and controversial, and therefore much more difficult to manage successfully. These intractable problems, described by Rittel and Webber (1973) as ‘wicked’ problems, are likely to be ongoing and recurrent, rather than being resolvable on the basis of scientific evidence, expert plans and competent project management. Many of these ‘big’ problems are manifested across different levels or scales—such as institutional complexity, geographical breadth and historical evolution. At the national level, intractable and complex policy problems might include the persistence of domestic or family violence, criminal behaviour, environmental degradation, natural disaster management and effective responses to health pandemics. At the international level, the United Nations formulated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (see https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/sdgs), all of which qualify as complex and intractable challenges at global scale, including climate change, food security, water and energy security, biodiversity protection, gender equality, and peaceful resolution of major disputes. These problems typically provoke divergent views about the nature of each problem, responsibilities for addressing the problem, and the design and funding of policy responses.

As noted previously, a common policy problem is the persistence of poverty. Its complex, contested and ubiquitous nature implies that it takes many forms and has many causes. Hence, no single policy lever can ‘fix’ the problem, even in those rare situations where governmental and community leaders wish to take strong action. As many analysts have noted: