The Best of Intentions, Potentially Harmful Policies: A Comparative Study of Scholarly Complexity and Failure

Abstract

This article argues that conditions will favour the adoption of good policy when there is a consensus on goals, as well as a clear understanding of how these relate to the core values of society and underlying theories of human behaviour. This is especially true when advice takes the form of inter-related, complex recommendations. Failure to ensure the presence of such a consensus produces a strong likelihood that complex policy advice will only be accepted to the degree that it fits the meta-policy paradigm informed by the dominant ideology. This can result in the creation of poor, even harmful, policies. This likelihood increases even further in that complex policies often end up being resolved at the major site of political contestation (the point in the political system where the meta-policy paradigm exercises its greatest sway). In the absence of such a consensus, four strategies are available: only make recommendations that conform to the meta-policy paradigm; design recommendations so that they are not inter-related and each is capable of producing positive outcomes on its own; work to assemble a constituency that builds consensus on the need for complex reform; or finally make simpler recommendations that can be adopted without crossing the major site of political contestation but which have knock-on effects. However, there are significant drawbacks to this final approach that should lead to caution in its use. Evidence to support this argument is presented from a comparative study of Canadian medical human resource policy and social assistance policy in the United States.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.