A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems

Abstract

The evaluation of policy strategies to tackle wicked policy problems inevitably involves a paradox of trying to judge solutions for problems that have no solutions and for which additional efforts might increase the chances of finding better responses. This paper analyzes how the concept of small wins can contribute to evaluating progress in wicked problem areas in a way that energizes a variety of stakeholders instead of paralyzing them and embraces complexity instead of reverting to taming and overestimation. It presents a small wins evaluation framework that is rooted in the underlying policy perspective of making progress through accumulating small wins. It comprises three steps: 1) identifying and valuing small wins; 2) analyzing whether the right propelling mechanisms are activated so as to accumulate into transformative change; 3) organizing that results feed back into the policy process to activate new small wins. This framework will inevitably clash with unrealistic expectations of addressing wicked problems rapidly, radically and comprehensively.

A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice

“…Two contrasting ideas underlie these responses that are expected to bring more intelligence to the imperfection of contemporary policy intervention: modest acceptance on the one hand and radical questioning on the other hand. Termeer and Dewulf (2019) argue that their small wins framework can be used as intervention perspective for dealing with wicked problems. Small wins are concrete, small-scale, in-depth and positive changes which can lead to transformative change when they accumulate.…”

“…Perfect solutions do not exist, only clumsy solutions, or intelligently imperfect ones, as Bannink and Trommel (2019) argue. A recurring argument (Bannink & Trommel, 2019;Noordegraaf et al, 2019;Turnbull & Hoppe, 2019;Termeer & Dewulf, 2019) is that partial solutions to wicked problems are the only feasible way forward. This goes against the moral principle proposed by Churchman (1967, p. B-141) that 'whoever attempts to tame a part of a wicked problem, but not the whole, is morally wrong'.…”

“…Some have argued that the notion of wicked problems results in revision of existing theories (e.g. Termeer & Dewulf, 2019, on policy evaluation), but the majority of articles uses the concept as starting point for a particular type of problem for their analysis. The contributions from this special issue therefore seem to suggest that the concept of wicked problems has had a limited direct impact on policy theories.…”

“…The concept of wicked problems was not intended to be merely an academic ontology, but to support policy and decision makers in understanding and designing meaningful governance interventions to deal with them. Both Noordergraaf et al (2019) and Termeer and Dewulf (2019) emphasize that wickedness theory suffers from a paradox. Framing problems as wicked, academically, politically or publicly, in and of itself, generates obstacles for addressing wicked issues.…”

“…According to Turnbull and Hoppe (2019), 'wicked' is a rhetorical term 'used by scholars to help them think about the most difficult, unstructured policy problems and used by practitioners to label persistently problematic distances between stakeholders to a problem, a labelling which itself has political aims ' (p. 19). Termeer and Dewulf (2019) explicitly address the uneasiness of policymakers who face wicked problems. Paralysis occurs when people experience or define the wickedness as so overwhelming that it discourages them and prevents them from doing anything about it.…”