The binary categorization of policy outcomes as either ‘successes’ or ‘failures’ has long dominated political discourse and guided policy practice. However, this approach often overlooks the nuanced and contested realities of the policymaking process, especially in the context of ‘super wicked problems’ such as climate change. This paper argues that public contestation serves as a vital diagnostic tool for assessing the quality of policymaking, transcending conventional metrics and providing deeper insights into the dynamics of climate governance.
Drawing on more than 60 interviews with policymakers and practitioners regarding hard climate policies in OECD countries over the period 2009-2022, this study demonstrates that policies encountering significant public contestation -- rather than being deemed outright failures -- can reflect the vibrancy of a political system and is indicative of its ‘health status’. Contestation signals robust democratic engagement, even as the magnitude and intensity of such resistance highlight potential systemic weaknesses or areas of improvement. Policies that pass through intense scrutiny and public feedback often emerge more robust, benefitting from the legacy of previous policy failures. This feedback effect challenges the conventional wisdom that successful policies are those that sail through unchallenged. Instead, true policy success may lie in weathering the ‘storm’ of public contestation, adapting to real-world dynamics, and addressing substantive concerns rather than merely fulfilling bureaucratic or politically predefined targets.
At the same time, the research critiques the notion of policy acceptance as the ultimate goal of policymaking. High levels of policy acceptance may mask pathological symptoms of a political system, such as intentional manipulation, the concealment of dissent, or other forms of democratic erosion. The paper departs from the simplistic success-failure dichotomy, advocating for a richer understanding of policies as dynamic entities shaped by public interaction, institutional feedback, and socio-political context.
Building on policy studies literature and politics of climate policymaking scholarship, this research aspires to bridge the distinction between the so-called ‘programmatic’ (i.e., efficiency and effectiveness) and ‘political’ (i.e., evaluations by various actors) perspectives on success to enrich the policy process. By integrating public responses into the analysis, the paper moves beyond technocratic evaluations of policy design and implementation, offering a comprehensive view that reflects real-world complexities.
Ultimately, this research contributes to redefining policy success and failure in ways that acknowledge contestation as both a challenge and a vital component of policymaking. It underscores the necessity of understanding mass public responses as integral to governance, fostering a more inclusive and substantive approach to policy evaluation and climate policymaking more broadly.
