1

DATE DETERMINING POLICY SUCCESS OR FAILURE

Student’s Name

Course
Professor’s Name
University
City
 2

Understanding the meaning of a policy and why it is implemented is vital in determining

its success or failure. A public policy is a tool used by authorities to distribute value across
communities (Easton, 1965). They are the means through which concerned officials bring about
ends that affect how societal members interact as their behaviors change as desired. Three
fundamental elements govern public policies, i.e., they should be standardized practices, they
must be authoritative, and policymakers should have some knowledge or expertise to make the
required decisions. As much as the ultimate goal of policymaking is achieving public value,
stakeholders do not have a universal definition of what constitutes a public value. Typically,
many people place a lot of focus on failures than on success. Failure takes the ubiquitous aspect
in scholarly discussions (Casey, 2018). Success, quite the opposite, is hardly noted. Spotting a
failure is easier than noting a success. Even in everyday life, drivers rarely note when their cars
function correctly. However, when something goes wrong, their attention is immediately drawn
to it with little or no hesitation. The success or failure of a policy can be established by its
outcomes. For example, the faults of the Irish Water policy in implementing water bills meant
that the law significantly failed. However, judging the efficiency of policy based merely on the
fact that the new Irish Government elected in May 2016 suspended it is inappropriate. Evaluation
should focus on justifying that its failures were observable in its inability to achieve many of its
goals. Besides, the policy was not funded adequately by the regime (FitzGerald et al., 2019). It
could have failed due to inadequate support from concerned authorities. A few of the positive
outcomes of the policy included reduced leakages and lowered number of citizens affected by
water outages. Evidently, policy success or failure is significantly unclear.
The difficulty in assessing policy success or failure is also facilitated by the notion that
‘success’ and ‘failure’ are perspectival. Policy evaluators work in a ‘grey area,’ not absolutes. It
is highly challenging to execute objective benchmarking and precise measurements (McConnell,
2010). Policies incorporate politics, programs, and procedures, all of which cannot be weighted
equally. For politicians, policies are a means of strengthening political influence. They largely
support only those policies that can make them more appealing to a wider range of the eligible
voting demography. Politicians also believe that successful polices are those that appeal to
external donors and investors. A typical example of such extreme political correlation with
policies was seen during Gordon Brown’s 1997 commitment to meeting the needs of the
Conservative spending strategies to propel the ‘tax bomb’ critique of Labor’s economic theories
 3

(Daddow, 2019). Such behaviors are exhibited by politicians globally. When a policy fails, no
government official wants to be held accountable. They are only vocal on laws that manage to
increase public value and improve citizens’ welfare. By contrast, academics and scholars
evaluate policies using a broader chronological perspective. They ask relevant questions about
processes and outcomes for short- and long-term periods. They allocate greater emphasis in the
assessment to the views of the involved parties that are negatively affected by a particular policy.
In doing so, scholars and academics make informed conclusions that show the merits and
demerits of policies justly.
Policies involve risks to one or more stakeholders. It is necessary to analyze such risks to
determine whether a policy’s benefits outweigh its costs correctly. Despite the integral role
played by risk in policy assessment, evaluators struggle to incorporate it into forecasting given
that risks are mere predictions and not the actual occurrences (Chadha, 2017). The main
challenge to revealing policy risks is political backlash. Politicians do not appreciate being tied
to failed policies. They tend to use their considerable influence in silencing policy evaluators to
protect their names. Politicians can also be resistant to organizing public awareness to give
warning signs that a structural, existential crisis is looming. They blame each other whenever a
project fails to become fruitful (Howlett, 2012). When the Global Financial Crisis broke out in
2008, the United Kingdom Treasury failed to warn investors of its full potential implications.
The treasury let the businesspeople continue operating, hoping that the crisis would neutralize
itself shortly. Denying the public such critical information solely led to tremendous economic
downfall in the country. Generally, publicly communicating risks is barely done despite the fact
that it is integral to good policy-making. It is high time politicians should stop being self-
centered and start considering the welfare of the public while overseeing policy implementations.
They must work with scholars, academics, and policymakers in assessing the consequences of
every policy before, during, and after their implementation and sharing the observations with the
citizens. Policymakers will not struggle to make effective policies, and public resources will not
be wasted if the necessary collaboration is achieved among all the concerned parties.
It is debatable that just because nobody would want to overturn a policy does mean that it
was a success. Former President Trump’s wall along the United States-Mexican border has done
very little in controlling immigrants illegally entering the US. Nonetheless, nobody has requested
the government to tear down the expensive infrastructure that consumed millions of taxpayers’
 4

money. This does not mean that the policy was a success. Another example is the DC Parking
Garage. The project’s budget was originally estimated at $40 million. However, sixteen years
later, the cost escalated to over $120 million, and it is yet to be completed (Ehley, 2014).
Auditors have identified shoddy jobs, lax oversight, and serious mismanagement as being
accountable for the shortcomings. As much as the project’s cost continues to add up, county
officials are still forging ahead. Continued funding of the project does not mean that it is a
success. The difficulty is analyzing policy success or failure is also enhanced by other factors.
Most policies have diversified objectives. They might accomplish some and fail in attaining
others. Unfortunately, desired results are sometimes not indicated clearly and shared among
stakeholders. Moreover, the few policies with defined goals prove to have implementation
methods that are loosely related to the predetermined objectives.
Different people can also interpret the performance of particular policies differently.
Whereas person A might believe that a machine is working appropriately, person B might think
that the machine needs a few replacements and repairs to work even better. It all depends on
what the subjects what to see. Additionally, new designs and models tend to work better than
existing versions. As a result, a policy might be deemed effective until an improved version is
implemented, turning the original one into obsolete. It is vital to determine a public policy’s
success or failure by noting whether it is criticized by most concerned stakeholders and if its
support from the public and authorities is durable (Fitzgerald, 2019). Thus, although there was a
notable criticism of the ban on smoking in public bars and restaurants in Ireland from the
citizens, the policy quickly gained massive popular back up once it was implemented. No
organized group has tried to overturn the law since its introduction in the country. The policy can
be deemed successful since it limited air pollution in social amenities across the country
(Goodman et al., 2007). It also did not establish unforeseen negative consequences. The law
might have enhanced long-term positive spillover merits that were recognized by concerned
authorities and the public. Clearly, policies can become successful when they have clear and
attainable goals. The United States’ involvement and performances in Iraq War I and II also
illustrate policy failure and success. The United States had clear and limited goals during the first
war, and it succeeded in achieving them. However, during the second war, its objectives were
indeterminate, which increased the chances of failing.
 5

Whether a policy has succeeded or failed can be examined when the policy cycle is
finished. Policymakers often use various implementation approaches to establish policies.
However, the final stage of almost all the professional approaches usually entails evaluation. It is
only during policy evaluation that the process can be analyzed deeper to identify existing flaws
and strengths. Policymakers must use a reputable evaluation system to effectuate an examination
coherently. All the relevant variables needed to measure whether the desired objectives were
achieved must be incorporated into the evaluation. Nonetheless, policy evaluation can be very
complex as it is challenging to measure success (Cairney, 2012). It is almost impossible to
quantify policy success or failure. Various techniques enable the estimation of policy
performance. Categorizing the implementation procedures and analyzing their achievements
improves the likelihood of knowing whether a given policy is excelling or failing in meeting its
desired goals. The success or failure can be determined in the implementation by looking ahead
(before the implementation was actualized) or retrospectively (after the implementation stage is
completed). Policymakers must use the correct variables to determine the strengths and
weaknesses of a given policy if the evaluation approach chosen is ahead. The variables should be
measurable, specific, timely, and achievable. Otherwise, analysis results would communicate
wrong information pertaining to the actual achievements of the evaluated policy. Whether
analysis is done before or after the implementation, policymakers must use appropriate
mechanisms to determine the correct performance of examined policies.
Different factors can facilitate the success or failure of public policy or its
implementation. Such factors are known as implementation success determinants. They include
the type of policy tools utilized, simplicity and efficiency of policy design, control structures,
institutional layout, executive abilities, and social approval (Knill & Tosun, 2012). How the
factors above are executed directly determines the achievements and shortcomings of evaluated
policies. For example, the Brazilian Ministry of Environment formulates public policies to
conserve the Amazon rainforest. The policies should protect the forest against devastation by
loggers and farmers. Nevertheless, such public policies have tremendously failed in their
implementation over the years. The Brazilian government lack enough federal police resources,
particularly funds and labor force, to oversee the adherence of community members in
preserving the ecosystem (Paiva, 2018). There are also insufficient public servants to protect the
trees from loggers and farmers. As the Amazon rainforest is persistently destroyed yearly, it is
 6

reasonable to claim that the public policies implemented by the Ministry of Environment to
preserve the ecosystem have failed. Implementation can also fail due to bad execution, bad
policy, or bad luck. Bad execution happens when policymakers do not implement the laws as
originally intended or as professionally expected. Bad policy is experienced when
implementation is carried out, but it fails to obtain the predetermined objectives. Lastly, bad luck
occurs when it is performed in the right way, and it should succeed, but factors beyond
policymakers’ control constrain it.
The success of any given policy can be predicted even before implementation. This can
be done by examining particular factors or variables. The clarity, consistency, and simplicity of a
policy’s objectives would reveal the likelihood of the policy meeting its desired objectives. It is
also critical to determine whether the required resources will be availed and committed to the
law. Besides, the success rate is escalated if policymakers source skillful and compliant officials
to oversee implementation. Putting the new law in the hands of professionals increases the
chances of excellence as they will use approved techniques to ensure the program works.
Dependency relationships should also be minimal to reduce the likelihood of failing. The lesser
complicated dependency relationships associated with a particular policy, the higher the
possibility of the law meeting its goals. Additionally, whether support from influential groups is
maintained would directly prove the potential success or failure of new policies (Paiva, 2018).
Policymakers can increase the possibility of new policies being successful by inviting
government officials to actively support the implementation process. Gaining politicians’ support
would encourage supporters to embrace the new policies as desired. Lastly, a new law would
probably fail if conditions beyond the control of policymakers significantly undermine the
implementation process.
It is also worth discussing observations to be made while evaluating the merits and
shortcomings of policies after implementation. It is critical to define what constitutes successful
and unsuccessful policies in simple terms when evaluation is done after implementation. Policies
are usually implemented after the formulation stage, where interested stakeholders share their
ideas and come up with a common ground on how to address the prevailing situation. As such,
this policy implementation can be deemed successful if the policy attains the terms agreed upon
by the concerned stakeholders. Conversely, it can be perceived as a failure if it does not meet the
formulation stage's underlying targets. It is more reliable and rational to evaluate the
 7

performance of any given policy after its implementation than to examine its various
implementation stages. It is possible to realize successful implementation at a particular stage,
yet there is no successful implementation in the desired outcome for society. For example, if one
of the procedures in implementing conservancy laws in the Amazon rainforest entailed evicting
people residing in the forest, successfully doing so would not guarantee the achievement of the
ultimate goal of conserving the ecosystem. The evictees can still come back to the forest and
destroy it even if they do not live there. The policy’s success or failure would only be determined
accurately after the whole policy implementation process is finished.
Policy evaluation serves three fundamental purposes. Firstly, it is done to identify
policies and governance techniques at every level that has demonstrated an impact and can
potentially be replicated in another region. Secondly, it reveals the need for further action by
enhancing the effectiveness of the identified policies. The assessment improves the
quantification of the law’s effectiveness as much as possible to guide concerned authorities on
how to inculcate progress. It indicates how much or how often an evaluated policy has an effect,
not only focusing on how and why. Thirdly, it enables establishing mechanisms and the best
utilization of the best available knowledge for assessing relatable laws and programs. The
comparison between empirical observations and a counterfactual scenario forms the central
ground for evaluating and quantifying the effectiveness of different policies. However, in many
cases, developing such experiments or scenarios is constrained by the complexity of the objects
of policy intervention social systems. For instance, markets’ reactions cannot be anticipated in
the absence of policy interventions. Besides, control groups are not easily identifiable in most
cases, and it is unethical to intentionally withhold the merits of a policy. Policy evaluators must
be attentive to identify and use the right assessment tools to keep the public updated on a
policy’s performance. Borrowing excellent policy evaluation methods improves the evidence
base of policymaking and thereby strengthens public policies (Jacob et al., 2019). It is also costly
to research and adopt new evaluation methods for every policy. Imitating the approach used in
evaluating various successful public policies saves on resources, both time and money.
Evaluators can use theoretical assumptions and empirical pieces of evidence of policy
influence as the key ground for assessing policy success or failure. Theory-based examination
utilizes an explicit theory of modification that reveals changes along the causal chain (Blamey &
Mackenzie, 2007). Still, attributing causality to policies is very extensive and extremely
 8

elaborate. It must be done with a lot of attention and professionalism to ensure accuracy. A
conceptual framework is integral in limiting attribution problems. Jacob et al. (2019) proposed
two approaches based on a conceptual framework for evaluating policy success or failure: a top-
down and a bottom-up perspective. The top-down perspective traces policy performance from
the policy itself down to its implications through causal chains. Conversely, the bottom-up
approach entails assessing the observed outcomes and using policy-relevant indicators to trace
causality back to particular policies. The two techniques enable analysts to examine the effects of
policy mixes excellently. They are also associated with a few shortcomings. The top-down
perspective can overemphasize the implications of policies when weighed against other relatable
factors. On the other hand, the bottom-up technique tends to overemphasize the consequences of
contextual factors. Policy evaluators can combine the two approaches to form a conceptual
mechanism that mitigates the identified drawbacks. Despite the notable faults, this dual approach
is the best available option for examining policy failure or success (Jacob et al., 2019).
Concerned researchers should do further studies to identify better evaluation approaches with
even fewer shortcomings and more efficiency.
The top-down evaluation technique starts with the identification of policies and
governance tactics and related cases. A maximum of five promising policy types or governance
arrangements are selected for every thematic area. Evaluators must be keen to ensure only those
policy types or governance arrangements with demographic diversity and big datasets are chosen
for analysis. The identified elements are then examined using the existing proficiency based on
peer-reviewed publications, official reports, and statistics (Jacob et al., 2019). Next, each chosen
policy type of governance tactic is weighed against a case exemplifying the implementation of
the policy. The evaluators emphasize policy effectiveness and perform an evaluation based on a
common research protocol incorporating the goals of stated objectives or improvements of
relevant indicators. They also consider the quality criteria of policymaking and implementation
by noting the degree of participation and the contextual needs for the effectiveness. The top-
down evaluation method overlooks the mere notion that policy effectiveness is solely dictated by
the achievement of policy goals at any cost. The method allows evaluators to track down policy
goals from the finish line to the starting line. That way, all the benefits and costs reported
throughout the implementation are noted and weighed to determine success or failure. Only those
policies whose benefits outweigh costs are considered successful. For instance, a given private
 9

elementary school might decide to eliminate all co-curricular activities so that students can
dedicate 100% of their school time to studies. However, a lack of co-curricular activities would
deprive learners of developing creative thinking, improving social and organizational skills, and
stimulating interests and talents. Eventually, the students will be worse off upon graduating from
the school when compared to their peers from other schools with both curricular and co-
curricular activities.
Policy evaluators obtain the criteria for evaluating policies from the literature on policy
design and effectiveness. The criteria are descriptive in nature. Methods, data, policy
instruments, and causal chains are extensively detailed, and each aspect of relatable knowledge is
stipulated clearly. Discretion is adopted since a secondary data analysis approach entirely guides
the analysis. For example, the identified policy could be evaluated against a control group or a
counterfactual scenario. Since there are no specific assessment methods for each policy, scholars
have developed a few guidelines to help in selecting relevant evaluation approaches for various
policies. During analysis, evaluators should identify the exact effects of the studied policy on the
targeted problem. They must note the unintended outcomes of the policy and their implications.
The intersection between the new policy and the existing laws must also be examined to identify
potential conflicts of interest. Evaluators are encouraged to find external factors that are likely to
constrain the desired policy outcomes. The economic costs and benefits of the policy should also
be stated clearly and shared with the public to enhance transparency and support. Other
fundamental elements to consider include transformative potential, intergenerational effects,
transboundary implications, and socio-political effects of the policy. The top-down evaluation
mechanism can be complemented by the bottom-up assessment approach to obtain better insight
about policy success or failure.
According to the bottom-up evaluation methodology, indicators must be contracted to
measure the degree of complexity of elaborate systems that may not be comprehended easily.
Evaluators measure particular aspects based on thematic considerations, evidence, and
conclusions to determine the state of the overall program. The bottom-up evaluation method
entails assessing each thematic area and cross-cutting issues using indicator-based approach to
provide evidence on the quantification of policy effectiveness (Bauler, 2012). Measuring policy
success or failure requires explicit understanding of the theory regarding how policies and the
chosen indicators correlate. Indicators relatable to the state of ecological or economic systems
 10

are largely not directly impacted by policies. Instead, cultural, structural, and political elements
may interact to reveal the degree of correlation. For example, three different countries might
want to reduce water pollution from manufacturers. One country may impose fines, another ban
usage of pollutants, and the other demand that manufacturers do not release wastes to water
bodies. Evidently, the indicator is influenced by the industrial structure, natural conditions, and
other factors that are not directly impacted by policies. Therefore, the methodology requires that
the assessment should have a transparent underlying theory on how policies would influence the
chosen indicators. Three fundamental objectives guide the data analysis for the identified
indicators. Firstly, it is necessary to analyze progress in achieving predetermined objectives.
Secondly, the evaluators should identify programs demonstrating high levels of efficiency.
Thirdly, it is critical to quantify policy implications and note areas requiring rectifications. The
methodology is systematic and chronological. It studies the impacts of a policy from an early
stage to identify weaknesses and enable the implementation of necessary actions to prevent
unnecessary losses and drawbacks.
Bottom-up evaluation methodology uses indicators picked based on specific rationale.
The indicators must have a causal relationship revealing their variation to policy instruments.
They should be directly relevant to the chosen thematic area. Lastly, the indicators must have
sufficient data sets needed to complete the evaluation. The guidelines above are crucial in
ensuring that the assessment is highly inclusive and informative. The methodology recognizes
the complexity of evaluating policy success or failure. It allows evaluators to appreciate the
politicization of public policies. Overlooking the link between politics and policies hinders
effective evaluation. Besides, assessing a policy from the bottom and heading upward reveals the
root cause of political intervention in policy implementation. Understanding such relationships
enables a better comprehension of phenomena like ‘good politics but bad policy’ (McConnell,
2017). Recognizing the politicization of policy implementation allows holding politicians
accountable whenever a given policy fails to achieve desired objectives. Evaluators equally
emphasize scrutinizing policy success and failure and communicating the observations with the
public without political influence.
In a nutshell, evaluating policy success or failure is challenging. Policies are implemented
to add value to the public and improve citizens’ well-being. However, the difficulty in evaluating
policies is triggered by the fact that what constitutes public value is unclear. It is impossible to
 11

quantify the outcomes of policies accurately. Nonetheless, evaluators must assess various
programs to determine their suitability. Policies can be evaluated before, during, or after
implementation. Assessments before implementation entail anticipating the potential
consequences of a given policy using relevant determinants. Evaluation during implementation is
about examining various stages of implementation on a short-term basis to determine whether
the program is headed in the right direction. Finally, policy evaluation at the end of
implementation involves identifying the outcomes of a given policy and weighing them against
the predetermined objectives to reveal success or failure. Evaluation at the end of
implementation is superior to the other two approaches. A conceptual framework comprising a
combination of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms is the best available policy evaluation tool.
It weighs the benefits of a policy with its shortcomings to determine its effectiveness.
Government officials should work closely with policy evaluators to ensure the correct
information pertaining to policy performance is relayed to the public.
 12

References
Bauler, T. (2012). An analytical framework to discuss the usability of (environmental)
indicators for policy. Ecological Indicators, 17, 38-45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.013
Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation.
Evaluation, 13(4), 439-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007082129
Cairney, P. (2012). Introduction: Theories and issues. Understanding Public Policy, 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-35699-3_1
Casey, C. M. (2018). Policy failures and the Irish economic crisis (1st ed.). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Chadha, J. S. (2017). Why forecast? National Institute Economic Review, 239, 4-9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002795011723900103
Daddow O. (2019). Policy Success and Failure: Embedding Effective Learning in
Government. Bennett Institute for Public Policy, 1-13. Retrieved May 18, 2022, from
https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/
Policy_success_and_failure_pdf.pdf
Ehley, B. (2014, June 4). 5 government projects that are costing us billions. CNBC.
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/04/5-government-projects-that-are-costing-us-
billions.html
FitzGerald, C., O’Malley, E., & Broin, D. Ó. (2019). Policy success/policy failure: A
framework for understanding policy choices. Administration, 67(2), 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.2478/admin-2019-0011
Goodman, P., Agnew, M., McCaffrey, M., Paul, G., & Clancy, L. (2007). Effects of the Irish
smoking ban on respiratory health of bar workers and air quality in Dublin pubs.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 175(8), 840-845.
https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200608-1085oc
Howlett, M. (2012). The lessons of failure: Learning and blame avoidance in public policy-
making. International Political Science Review, 33(5), 539-555.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512112453603
 13

Jacob K., King P., & Mangalagiu D. (2019). Approach to Assessment of Policy
Effectiveness. In Global environment outlook - GEO-6: Healthy planet, healthy
people (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). Public policy: A new introduction (1st ed.). Macmillan
International Higher Education.
McConnell, A. (2010). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of
Public Policy, 30(3), 345-362. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x10000152
McConnell, A. (2017). Policy success and failure. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.137
Paiva P. (2018, February 21). How we determine policy success (or failure) in regard to the
implementation of policy? LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-
determine-policy-success-failure-regard-paiva