The ‘Wicked Problem’ of Wellbeing: Theorising the Prospects for Policy Change
In the past decade there has been an increasing focus at both national and international levels on the extent to which governments can improve the wellbeing of citizens. At the core of these developments has been concern with GDP as the dominant indicator of societal progress, leading to a plethora of initiatives that have sought alternative or complementary measures of progress. A pivotal moment in developments was the report of the influential ‘Stiglitz Commission’ (CMEPSP 2009), which argued for the use of subjective wellbeing (SWB) indicators alongside more widely used objective indicators of progress, such as employment rates and life expectancy. This feature of developments has proved highly controversial and the issues it raises are central to our discussion here.
KeywordsWicked Problem Order Change Policy Learning Policy Entrepreneur Measurement Agenda
- Austin, A. (2014). Defining and measuring national well-being: Are we capable of questioning the hegemony of happiness? (Working Paper). Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
- Bache, I. (2008). Europeanization and multi-level governance. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Bache, I. (2015). Measuring quality of life: An idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in Britain and the European Union. In J. H. Søraker, J. Boer, J. De Rijt, P. Wong, & P. Brey (Eds.), Well-being in contemporary society (pp. 197–214). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Beaumont, J. (2012). Measuring national well-being: Report on consultation responses on proposed domains and measures. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
- Bjørnskov, C. (2012). Wellbeing and the size of government. In P. Booth (Ed.), …and the pursuit of happiness: Wellbeing and the role of government (pp. 160–178). London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
- Brazier, J. (2014) Paper given at the seminar on Governance and Public Policy as part of the ESRC seminar series on the politics of wellbeing, Imperial College, London, September 23rd.Google Scholar
- CMEPSP. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm. Accessed May 2015.
- Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Costanza, R., Hart, M., Posner, S., Talberth, J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The need for new measures of progress (The Pardee Papers, No 4). Boston: Boston University. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/6/42613423.pdf. Accessed May 2015.
- De Vos, M. (2012). The unbearable lightness of wellbeing policy. In P. Booth (Ed.), …and the pursuit of happiness: Wellbeing and the role of government (pp. 181–204). London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
- Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2007). Should national happiness be maximised?, Institute for Empirical Research Institute, University of Zurich Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 306.Google Scholar
- Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Head, B. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
- Kingdon, J. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (4th ed.). London: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
- Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
- Nef. (2012). nef response: Well-being and the role of government. London: Nef.Google Scholar
- Phillips, C., & Thompson, G. (2009). What is a QALY? www.whatisseries.co.uk. Accessed May 2015.
- Schon, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: NY Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Weber, E., & Khademian, A. (2008, March|April). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 334–349.Google Scholar