The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between
Abstract
Policy protagonists are keen to claim that policy is successful while opponents are more likely to frame policies as failures. The reality is that policy outcomes are often somewhere in between these extremes. An added difficulty is that policy has multiple dimensions, often succeeding in some respects but not in others, according to facts and their interpretation. This paper sets out a framework designed to capture the bundles of outcomes that indicate how successful or unsuccessful a policy has been. It reviews existing literature on policy evaluation and improvement, public value, good practice, political strategy and policy failure and success in order to identify what can be built on and gaps that need to be filled. It conceives policy as having three realms: processes, programs and politics. Policies may succeed and/or fail in each of these and along a spectrum of success, resilient success, conflicted success, precarious success and failure. It concludes by examining contradictions between different forms of success, including what is known colloquially as good politics but bad policy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
The Science of “Muddling Through”
Lindblom, C. E. (1959) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.2307/973677 · Cited by 8,513
Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents
Reason, J. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315543543 · Cited by 4,430
Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making
Stone, D. A. (1997) · Cited by 3,886
A Systems Analysis of Political Life
Albrow, M. C., & Easton, D. (1966) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/589063 · Cited by 3,333
(1965) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,109
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400826339 · Cited by 2,657
Creating public value: strategic management in government
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-4147 · Cited by 2,552
Cairney, P. (2012) · doi:10.1007/978-0-230-35699-3 · Cited by 2,378
Creating public value : strategic management in government
Moore, M. H. (1995) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,350
Cited by
On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation
Biesbroek, G. R., Klostermann, J. E. M., Termeer, C. J. A. M., & Kabat, P. (2013) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y · Cited by 677
Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design
Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013) · Politics and Governance · doi:10.17645/pag.v1i2.95 · Cited by 353
The lessons of failure: learning and blame avoidance in public policy-making
Howlett, M. (2012) · International Political Science Review · doi:10.1177/0192512112453603 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- McCONNELL, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Policy
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-11-04
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 345-362
- ISSN
- 0143-814X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7815
- OpenAlex
- W2162758154
- Cited by
- 639
- References
- 76
- FWCI
- 21.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0143814x10000152
- The paper
- McCONNELL, A. (2010). Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between. Journal of Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x10000152
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.