The concept of 'wicked problems' is a major current in the fields of policy analysis and planning. However, the basis of the concept has been insufficiently examined. This re-examination of its conceptual basis explains the origins of the limitations and flaws in the wicked problems concept. This paper analyses and rejects the notion of 'wicked problems' on philosophical and practical grounds. We argue instead that the policy sciences already had better conceptualizations of public problems before Rittel and Webber's flawed formulation. We return to this literature, and build upon it by reframing 'wickedness' in terms of higher and lower levels of problematicity in problem structuring efforts. In doing so, we offer an alternative, novel combination of the philosophy of questioning and the policy work approach to policy practice. 'Wickedness' is re-conceptualized as problematicity, conceived as the distance between those who question or inquire into a policy problem. This is primarily a political distance, articulated in terms of ideas, interests, institutions and practices. High problematicity arises only when wide political distances are explicitly maintained, such that partial answers cannot be reached. Practitioners deal with problematicity by a dual practical strategy of balancing closing-down and opening-up sub-questions to the problem in order to structure them such that they become amenable to action through partial answers. This simultaneously incorporates a politics of negotiating political distance via partisan adjustment and serial strategic analysis. The argument constitutes a theoretically and practically superior alternative to the 'wicked problems' perspective.

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

The concept of policy problem informs the scholarly study of policymaking as well as policy practice. But the problem solving theory of policymaking has many conceptual shortcomings. The problem solving concept is flawed because it defines complex problems univocally, obscuring differences of opinion; focuses on problem solving at the expense of problem setting; and represents the policy process scientifically to disguise and/or suppress the contingent nature of political reasoning. The propositional basis of theories of the policy process excludes problematicity and produces a fragmented theory which misrepresents the political nature of policymaking. By building upon an epistemology of questioning we can address these shortcomings by revising and expanding the problem concept in policy theory. Such a conception implies that policy studies is not distinctive because it is applied and should therefore be integrated with political theory. The word "solution" doesn't exist in the dictionary of politics. What you do is get a settlement of an issue that lasts for some time. Then the battles reopen.

No abstract

No abstract

Policy design has re-appeared on the scholarly agenda. This special issue investigates the assumptions of the policy design concept, questioning its theoretical coherence and relevance for practitioners. The conventional idea of policy design implies an instrumental-rational theoretical model which is out of place in contemporary governance arrangements. While the concept appeals to academic sensibilities, it has less utility in practice. It can also become caught up in the political aspect of policymaking by being used to generate legitimacy for the actions of public managers via rationalising accounts. Contributors to this issue argue that the design idea should be reconsidered from the ground up. An alternative orientation is put forward, which regards policy design as something that emerges from policymaking practice.

The election of the Howard Government has marked a paradigm shift in welfare policy with the implementation of far reaching reforms around the concept of mutual obligation. At the same time, there has been media speculation about the Government's use of ‘wedge politics’ to sustain its political agenda with respect to welfare and other policies. Wedge politics, however, is yet to receive detailed analysis in Australian political science. We define wedge politics to be a calculated political tactic aimed at using divisive social issues to gain political support, weaken opponents and strengthen control over the political agenda. The purpose of this paper is thus twofold: to develop a definition of wedge politics and to investigate how the Howard Government's welfare reform agenda might be understood as an example of such politics, drawing out its longer‐term implications.

No abstract