Tackling Wicked ProblemsHome page
> Publications > Tackling Wicked Problems > Characteristics of Wicked Problems > Next: Possible strategies for tackling wicked problems
> Employment policy and advice
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 25 October 2007
Tackling Wicked Problems : A Public Policy Perspective
2. Characteristics of Wicked Problems
The term ‘wicked’ in this context is used, not in the sense of evil, but as a crossword puzzle addict or mathematician would use it—an issue highly resistant to resolution. The terminology was originally proposed by H. W. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber, both urban planners at the University of California, Berkeley, USA in 1973.1 In a landmark article, the authors observed that there is a whole realm of social planning problems that cannot be successfully treated with traditional linear, analytical approaches. They called these issues wicked problems and contrasted them with ‘tame’ problems. Tame problems are not necessarily simple—they can be very technically complex—but the problem can be tightly defined and a solution fairly readily identified or worked through. The original focus of the wicked problem literature was on systems design at a more ‘micro’ level, but the concept has gradually been applied to broader social and economic policy problems.
Wicked problems are difficult to clearly define. The nature and extent of the problem depends on who has been asked, that is, different stakeholders have different versions of what the problem is. Often, each version of the policy problem has an element of truth—no one version is complete or verifiably right or wrong. The debate concerning the causes, the extent and the solutions to climate change is a good example.
Wicked problems have many interdependencies and are often multi-causal. There are also often internally conflicting goals or objectives within the broader wicked problem. In dealing with the use and effects of illicit drugs, for example, there is tension between the goal of minimising harm to existing drug users via measures such as the provision of safe injecting rooms and clean needles, and the goal of sending a clear message that illicit drug use is illegal. It is the interdependencies, multiple causes and internally conflicting goals of wicked problems that make them hard to clearly define. The disagreement among stakeholders often reflects the different emphasis they place on the various causal factors. Successfully addressing wicked policy problems usually involves a range of coordinated and interrelated responses, given their multi-causal nature; it also often involves trade-offs between conflicting goals.
Attempts to address wicked problems often lead to unforeseen consequences. Because wicked policy problems are multi-causal with many interconnections to other issues, it is often the case that measures introduced to address the problem lead to unforeseen consequences elsewhere. Some of these consequences may well be deleterious. It has been asserted, for example, that the success of policies designed to reduce atmospheric pollution in the USA and Western Europe may be partly responsible for an apparent increase in global warming due to the impact of a reduction in sulphur particles in the atmosphere on the formation of clouds that trap heat in the atmosphere.2
Wicked problems are often not stable. Frequently, a wicked problem and the constraints or evidence involved in understanding the problem (e.g. legislation, scientific evidence, resources, political alliances), are evolving at the same time that policy makers are trying to address the policy problem. Policy makers have to focus on a moving target.
Wicked problems usually have no clear solution. Since there is no definitive, stable problem there is often no definitive solution to wicked problems. Problem-solving often ends when deadlines are met, or as dictated by other resource constraints rather than when the ‘correct’ solution is identified. Solutions to wicked problems are not verifiably right or wrong but rather better or worse or good enough. In some cases, such as the challenge of illicit drug use, the problem may never be completely solved. To pursue approaches based on ‘solving’ or ‘fixing’ may cause policy makers to act on unwarranted and unsafe assumptions and create unrealistic expectations. In such cases, it may be more useful to consider how such problems can be managed best.
Wicked problems are socially complex. It is a key conclusion of the literature around wicked problems that the social complexity of wicked problems, rather than their technical complexity, overwhelms most current problem-solving and project management approaches. Solutions to wicked problems usually involve coordinated action by a range of stakeholders, including organisations (government agencies at the federal, state and local levels), nonprofit organisations, private businesses and individuals.
Wicked problems hardly ever sit conveniently within the responsibility of any one organisation. Even if the solution to achieving safer communities is opaque, it is clear that it involves many organisations beyond the police. It is also clear, for example, that environmental issues cannot be dealt with at any one level of government. They require action at every level— from the international to the local—as well as action by the private and community sectors and individuals.
Wicked problems involve changing behaviour. The solutions to many wicked problems involve changing the behaviour and/or gaining the commitment of individual citizens. The range of traditional levers used to influence citizen behaviour—legislation, fines, taxes, other sanctions—is often part of the solution but these may not be sufficient. More innovative, personalised approaches are likely to be necessary to motivate individuals to actively cooperate in achieving sustained behavioural change.
Some wicked problems are characterised by chronic policy failure. Some longstanding wicked problems seem intractable. Indigenous disadvantage is a clear example—‘Its persistence has not been forwant of policy action. Yet it has to be admitted that decades of policy action have failed.’3
Climate Change—A Wicked Problem
One issue that illustrates many of the characteristics of wicked problems is the current debate about the causes of and solutions to climate change. The debate has been simplified into three competing ‘stories’ which emphasise different aspects of the climate change issue.4 Each ‘story’ tends to define itself in contradistinction to the other two policy stories and proposes different policy solutions.
- Profligacy. This is the story that sees prevailing structural inequalities, particularly between countries, as having led to increasingly unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. In this story, urgent fundamental reform of political institutions and unsustainable lifestyles is required. Decision-making needs to be decentralised down to the grass roots level and citizens need to dramatically simplify their lifestyles to conserve the earth’s resources. The onus is on advanced capitalist states to take action.
- Lack of global planning. This story sees the underlying problem as the lack of global governance and planning that would rein in global markets and factor into prices the costs to the environment. It makes no sense for any household, firm or country to unilaterally reduce its emissions, as each individual contribution is too small to make a difference. Remedying climate change would require all governments and parliaments to formally agree on the extent to which future emissions should be cut, and how and when. States would then impose these formal intergovernmental agreements on the multitude of undiscerning consumers and producers within their borders.
- Much ado about nothing. This story sees much of the debate as scaremongering by naïve idealists who erroneously believe the world can be made a better place (profligacy story), or by international bureaucrats looking to expand their budgets and influence (lack of global planning). Some with this view are sceptical about the diagnosis of climate change itself, while others are convinced that, even if correct, the consequences will be neither catastrophic nor uniformly negative. Technological progress, adaptation and dynamic markets are the solution to the negative effects of climate change.
The three stories tell plausible but conflicting tales of climate change. None of thestories are completely wrong, yet at the same time none are completely right—each story focuses on some partial aspect of the debate.The stories’proponents are unlikely to agree on the fundamental causes of and solutions to the global climate change issue. And since these stories contain normative beliefs (either in egalitarian structures, in hierarchical bureaucracies, or in markets) they tend to be immune to enlightenment by scientific facts.This leaves the policy maker with a dynamic,plural and argumentative system of policy definition—typical of many wicked policy problems.
In reality, many policy problems lie somewhere on a continuum between tame and wicked. They may display some but not all of the characteristics of wicked problems. Some policy problems move along the continuum over time. Tobacco control is a good example. In Australia, there is broad agreement among all levels of government and NGOs on the scope of the problem of tobacco use and the shape of the comprehensive strategy that needs to be implemented to successfully control it. The National Tobacco Strategy includes regulation to control promotion, place of sale and place of use, taxation, warnings on packaging, as well as cessation services, pharmacotherapies and information campaigns. There is broad acceptance among a large majority of the general population that tobacco smoking is harmful, and that even though tobacco is a legal product for those aged over 18 years, it is legitimate for governments to aim to influence and regulate the behaviour of citizens in regard to tobacco use.
However, this broad agreement among governments, NGOs and the majority of citizenson the nature of and solutions to tobacco control has developed and strengthened over time. When tobacco control was first conceived of in Australia 30 years ago, smoking was entrenched in the social fabric of Australian society. The evidence base concerning health effects was just developing, the tobacco industry was in denial about the safety and addictive nature of its product, and many scientists and some governments were ambivalent about the issue.Tobacco use in some form or another is centuries old and the concept that it could be implicated in the development of disease was received with scepticism by many in theAustralian community. Strengthening of the medical evidence on the harmful effects oftobacco, increased public awareness of the harmful effects of smoking (in part due to the educational and mass media activities undertaken by governments and NGOs), the denormalisation of smoking, and the sharing of tobacco control measures between nations have been the major factors in the current high levels of agreement around this complex issue.
Even today, there are aspects of tobacco control that remain wicked, including tackling the persistent high smoking rates for particular groups such as Indigenous people, pregnant teenagers and people with a mental illness. Debate remains around the most effective balance among the policy objectives of prevention, cessation and protection. There are those within the tobacco control community, for example, who advocate the use of reduced harm nicotine products and others who advocate phasing out or banning the retail of combustible tobacco products. There is also disagreement on whether the focus of government spending should remain on cessation or whether an increased focus on prevention and/or harm reduction should occur.
We can only speculate about the reasons behind the rise and recognition of wicked policy problems at this point in time. It is a complex subject in itself and the following ideas merely scratch the surface of the debate. The expansion of democracy, market economies, globalisation, travel and social exchanges may have highlighted value differences, weakened traditional authority and control mechanisms, and promoted dissensus rather than consensus in the problem-solving process. Perhaps the technological and information revolutions we have experienced enable more people to become active participants in problem-solving and, in so doing, increase the complexity of the process. Perhaps the same technological and information revolutions also increase the expectations of citizens in many countries for higher standards of living and that governments should take responsibility for managing a greater range of complex problems. In any case, since Rittel and Webber first coined the term in the 1970s, there has been a steady increase in the literature and research around wicked problems.
1 H. W. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber, ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, June 1973, pp. 155–69.
2 Discussed in L. Briggs and R. Fisher, ‘Fashions and Fads in Public Sector Reform’ (Paper prepared for the CAPAM Conference, Sydney, October 2006), p. 18.
3 K. Henry, ‘Managing Prosperity’ (Address to the Economic and Social Outlook Conference, Melbourne, 2 November 2006), p. 5.
4 The three different stories of climate change are identified in M. Thompson and M. Verweij 2004, ‘The Case for Clumsiness’ (Singapore Management University, Humanities and Social Sciences Working Paper Series, No. 5), pp. 12–23.
