Advertisement

The ‘Wicked Problem’ of Wellbeing: Theorising the Prospects for Policy Change

  • Ian Bache
  • Louise Reardon
Part of the Creative Economy book series (CRE)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Wicked Problem Order Change Policy Learning Policy Entrepreneur Measurement Agenda 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72–89. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2011.520879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bache, I. (2008). Europeanization and multi-level governance. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bache, I., & Reardon, L. (2013). An idea whose time has come? Explaining the rise of well-being in British politics. Political Studies, 61(4), 898–914. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bache, I., Reardon, L., & Anand, P. (2015). Wellbeing as a wicked problem: Navigating the arguments for the role of government. Journal of Happiness Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10902-015-9623-y.Google Scholar
  8. Beaumont, J. (2012). Measuring national well-being: Report on consultation responses on proposed domains and measures. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2008). Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin paradox? Journal of Development Economics, 86(1), 22–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duncan, G. (2010). Should happiness-maximization be the goal of government? Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2), 163–178. doi: 10.1007/s10902-008-9129-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Durant, R., & Legge, J. (2006). “Wicked Problems”, public policy, and administrative theory: Lessons from the GM food regulatory Arena. Administration and Society, 38(3), 309–334. doi: 10.1177/0095399706289713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296. doi: 10.2307/422246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Head, B. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
  23. Head, B., & Alford, J. (2013). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration and Society, XX(X), 1–29. doi: 10.1177/0095399713481601.Google Scholar
  24. Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–46. doi: 10.1080/13876980802648144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kingdon, J. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (4th ed.). London: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  27. Nef. (2012). nef response: Well-being and the role of government. London: Nef.Google Scholar
  28. Phillips, C., & Thompson, G. (2009). What is a QALY? www.whatisseries.co.uk. Accessed May 2015.
  29. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schon, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: NY Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations