LIST OF PANELS

This Panel is concerned with conceptualisations of wicked problems and the range of policy responses to wicked problems. Some types of policy problems have been described as messy, complex, intractable, open-ended and ‘wicked’. The policy literature since the 1970s (starting with Rittel & Webber, 1973) has increasingly recognised that many issues are inherently difficult to manage or resolve, owing to increasing complexity in areas of social policy, significant differences in values, interests and perceptions, and uncertainty of outcomes and consequences that had previously gone unrecognised. What are the key features of such problems? And are they really very different in nature from more routine problems? Are we developing better ways to address these wicked problems? How do approaches vary across different policy issues? How do different political-administrative cultures respond to complex challenges? Are some issues more ‘manageable’ in some institutional settings and political contexts than in other settings? Papers are encouraged on any themes and issues related to these important matters.

In the postwar decades of the 1950s and 1960s there was a strong push to develop more rigorous and systematic forms of social science, which would provide research-based evidence for improvements in public policy. It was assumed that better evidence would enable more accurate policy advice, leading to better policy design and thus improved social outcomes. However, since the 1970s and 1980s many of these rationalist and scientific aspirations have been called into question. Firstly, ‘politics’ usually seemed to get in the way of rational evidence-based policymaking. Policy responses were limited by partisan political debates, media framing of issues, strident lobbying by stakeholders, and trends in popular opinion. Policy analysts might have tried to use research and evaluation evidence, but larger forces seemed to constrain the influence of objective research-based information. But secondly, some of the most difficult policy problems seemed to be beyond the reach of a scientific orientation to policy analysis and design. Some problems were described as messy, complex, intractable, open-ended and ‘wicked’. The policy literature since the 1970s (since Rittel & Webber, 1973) has increasingly recognised that many issues are inherently difficult to manage or resolve, owing to increasing complexity in areas of social policy, significant differences in values, interests and perceptions, and uncertainty of outcomes and consequences that had previously gone unrecognised. These questions raise important challenges for both researchers and practitioners in their ongoing efforts to engage with how complex and controversial policy issues are framed, managed and resolved (or otherwise). Standard public management responses to complexity and uncertainty (such as a greater reliance on markets and outsourcing, and an increasing use of formal coordination mechanisms across public agencies) may now seem to be inadequate. New and broader process responses are increasingly being tested (such as cross-sectoral collaboration, participatory forums, mediation and conflict reduction). We appear to require some new approaches, and we can learn from the experiences and insights across policy issues and institutional contexts.