Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssues7:1ForumWhy policies succeed or fail: the...

Forum

Why policies succeed or fail: the importance of 'policy consonance'

Federico Toth

Abstract

This article takes stock of the literature on policy success and policy failure. The huge amount of studies on the subject does not provide a clear and agreed answer to the question: what determines the success or failure of a policy?

The paper attempts to answer this question by introducing the analytical scheme of the 'policy pentagram'. The proposed framework conceives of public policies as consisting of five basic components: 1) policy goals; 2) policy instruments; 3) the organizational structure in charge of implementation; 4) the recipients of the policy; 5) policy communication.

For a policy to be successful, there must be 'consonance' between its five components. Consonance does not indicate generic compatibility or the absence of contradictory elements: it indicates synergy and a high degree of complementarity between policy components, which thus end up mutually reinforcing each other.

To show the practical usefulness of the policy pentagram framework, a concrete example is given: the experience of the Bologna breast milk bank.

Top of page

Author's notes

No funding was received for conducting this study.

The author has no conflicts of interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Full text

1.Introduction

1There is essentially one question that policy makers ask policy scholars: what do we have to do for our policies to succeed? The question can also be declined to the negative: why do many policies fail?

2This question is evidently of paramount importance in the field of policy studies. This is confirmed by the fact that the contributions on policy failure and policy success are innumerable. Many of the 'founding fathers' of the discipline dealt specifically with the analysis of policies that did not produce the desired outcomes. Over the decades, the topic has continued to be crucial within the discipline, and in recent times seems to be attracting renewed interest.

3However, this impressive body of literature does not provide unambiguous and widely accepted indications as to the key factors that determine the success or failure of public policies. What, in the end, is the crucial ingredient that leads a public program to success? What, conversely, is the lethal mistake that must not be made if a policy fiasco is to be avoided?

4This article tries to address these questions, proposing a parsimonious analytical framework which brings together strands of literature that have so far had little dialogue with each other. Central to the framework presented here is the concept of 'consonance' between the elements of the 'policy pentagram', which will be illustrated in the following sections.

5The article is structured as follows. Section 2 is devoted to an essential literature review on the topics of policy failure and policy success. In section 3, the concept of ‘policy consonance’ is defined and the five components of the ‘policy pentagram’ are presented. Section 4 provides a practical application of the policy pentagram. The concluding section aims to discuss the limitations and future perspectives of the proposed analytical framework.

2. The literature on policy success and policy failure

Factors leading to policy failure

6Since the seminal contributions of authors such as Selznick (1949) or Pressman & Wildavsky (1973), a rich strand of policy studies has focused on the failure of public programs (Kerr, 1976; Hall, 1982; McConnell, 2010a; Howlett, 2012; King & Crewe, 2013; Howlett et al., 2015; McConnell, 2015; Bovens et al., 2001; Schuck, 2014; Leong & Howlett, 2022).

7In most cases, unsuccessful policies are called ‘policy failures’ (Bovens et al., 2001; McConnell, 2010a; Howlett, 2012; McConnell, 2015) but also 'policy disasters' (Hall, 1982; Dunleavy, 1995; Gray & ‘t Hart, 1998), ‘policy blunders’ (King & Crewe, 2013) and 'policy fiascos’ (Bovens & ‘t Hart, 1996; Oppermann & Spencer, 2016), among other terms. Bringing together a huge number of concrete experiences (in various countries, at various times, at various levels of government), this strand of literature focuses on the dynamics and factors that determine the failure of public programs.

8Policies can fail for a myriad of reasons, including: the policy goals are ambiguous and contradictory (Selznick, 1949; Matland, 1995); the objectives of the policies are evil in themselves, normatively not justifiable and immoral, and therefore not acceptable (Kerr, 1976; Leong & Howlett, 2022); the public programs are approved, but then lack the necessary political and social support (Matland, 1995; McConnell, 2010b); the policies are based on policy frames and problem diagnoses that turn out to be fallacious (Bovens & ‘t Hart, 1995); there is no good matching between goals and policy instruments, with the latter proving unsuitable for achieving the desired objectives (Salamon, 2002; McConnell, 2010b); the policy measures have unforeseen, perverse and undesirable effects (Merton, 1949); there is a lack of resources – both material and immaterial – to implement fully the policies adopted (Kerr, 1976); implementation is slowed down and boycotted by the resistance of street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980) and more generally by all those who have no interest in the implementation of the program (Selznick, 1949; Bardach, 1977); the policy makers underestimate the peculiarities of the context in which public policies are to be implemented (Linder & Peters, 1989; Matland, 1995); there is a lack of policy leadership (Milward, 1980; Roberts, 1992). And the list could go on and on. It can take only one of the factors listed above to determine the unsatisfactory outcome of a policy. But, typically, it is the interaction of more than one factor that amplifies the failure of a public policy and turns it into a complete disaster (Perrow, 1984).

The key factors associated with policy success

9More recently, a strand of studies focusing not so much on the failure, but on the success, of public policies has also taken shape (McConnell, 2010b; Marsh & McConnell, 2010; Compton & ‘t Hart, 2019; Compton et al., 2019; Luetjens et al., 2019; de la Porte et al., 2022; Lindquist et al., 2022). Scholars focusing on policy success have tried to reverse the perspective. They started from policy experiences considered successful and tried to go to the source of this success. Again, multiple factors that may contribute to the success of a policy were outlined.

10Luetjens et al. (2019), analyzing many cases of successful public policy in Australia and New Zealand, identify six 'emerging patterns' that lead to success: 1) problems must be well defined and broadly acknowledged from the outset; 2) ample time must be allowed for policies to 'mature' (policy solutions need to be debated and developed over a reasonable period); 3) strong support is needed from policy entrepreneurs; 4) policy responses are considered appropriate by government and presented at the right time; 5) there is bipartisan and broad stakeholder support; and 6) constant attention is paid to the various stages of the implementation process.

11In their analysis of successful policies in the Nordic countries, de la Porte et al. (2022) identify four 'enablers of success': 1) inclusive policymaking, aiming at building a broad consensus; 2) an anticipatory approach, taking a long-term perspective; 3) policy narratives that make policies legitimate on the basis of widely shared values; 4) lesson-drawing and coupling with pre-existing programs.

12Engaging in the same kind of analytical exercise, but with reference to the Canadian experience, Lindquist et al. (2022) identify the following factors as crucial: policy leadership; independent legal authority and fiscal capacity on the part of the government; skillful administrative professionalism and government capacity; broad popular support; and the concomitance of contingent and fortuitous elements.

13These (and other) scientific contributions on the topic each propose a different list of 'determinants' of policy success. These factors are manifold and must be combined for policies to have a better chance of success. Despite the differences between the individual lists, some 'factors' recur more than others: 1) the need for inclusive processes that build broad coalitions to support policy (Compton et al., 2019; Luetjens et al., 2019; de la Porte et al., 2022; Lindquist et al., 2022); 2) a step-by-step approach, based on incremental solutions, policy learning and a slow pace of change (Compton et al., 2019; Luetjens et al., 2019; de la Porte et al., 2022); 3) the crucial role played by policy entrepreneurs (Luetjens et al., 2019; Lindquist et al., 2022).

What is meant by policy success

14This paper adopts the conceptualization proposed by McConnell (2010a; 2010b) – taken up and further developed by other authors (including Newman, 2014; Goyal, 2021; Leong & Howlett, 2022; Lindquist et al., 2022) – according to which, policy success can be disaggregated into three dimensions: programmatic, process and political success. The programmatic dimension is essentially about achieving goals, producing desired outcomes and creating benefits for the target group. The process dimension pertains to conferring legitimacy in the formation of choices, preserving policy goals and instruments and building a sustainable coalition. The political dimension is related to achieving high levels of social, political and administrative support. Since success in one of these three dimensions of policy does not always go hand in hand with success in another (McConnell, 2010b; Goyal, 2021), it must be concluded that the overall success of a policy comes from achieving and maintaining over time high levels of programmatic, process and political efficacy (Lindquist et al., 2022).

15Such conceptualization suggests thinking not in binary terms (a policy program is either a success or a failure), but in terms of a continuum (McConnell, 2010a; 2010b; 2015): most public programs in fact turn out to be neither a complete success nor a total failure. Between the two extremes of the continuum, there are many 'grey areas' (McConnell, 2010a) in which success is partial or not recognized as such by all (Lindquist et al., 2022).

16This last aspect deserves special attention, as it raises the important methodological and epistemological issue concerning 'success by whom' (Marsh & McConnell, 2010). Public programs can indeed be evaluated on the basis of objective indicators, but the judgment with respect to the overall success of a policy always has an inevitable subjective component (Newman, 2014). As McConnell puts it, 'success is in the eye of the beholder' (McConnell, 2010a, 351). Evaluation regarding the success or failure of a public program is fatally influenced by contextual, cultural and political factors (Bovens et al., 2001). In short, we are well aware that evaluation regarding the success of a policy may always be contested to some degree (Marsh & McConnell, 2010).

3.The conceptual framework: the ‘policy pentagram’

17The above-mentioned literature does not seem to provide a clear answer to the following questions: what determines the success or failure of a policy? What do policies considered successful have in common with each other?

18This article tries to reason about such questions – crucial for all policymakers – by applying the concept of 'consonance' to public policy. This involves the adoption of a new conceptual framework. This framework conceives of public policies as consisting of five components:

  1. policy goals;

  2. policy instruments;

  3. the organizational structure in charge of implementation;

  4. the recipients of the policy;

  5. policy communication.

Figure 1 – The ‘policy pentagram’

Figure 1 – The ‘policy pentagram’

Source: the Author

Policy consonance

19The argument made in this article is simple: the success and failure of a policy depends on the degree of consonance between its five components. A high degree of consonance leads to policy success, while a low degree of consonance results in policy failure.

20The framework presented here is largely inspired by management studies, and in particular by the concepts of 'business idea' and 'service management systems' introduced by Richard Normann (1977; 2001). The business idea is defined by Normann (1977, p. 25) as the ‘degree of consonance between a market segment, the product that the company has on offer, and the company’s internal organization’. Central to Normann's conceptualization is the concept of 'consonance'. "The company's structure," Normann (1977, p. 16) argues, “can be seen as a number of interdependent subsystems […]. We are going to describe relations between subsystems in terms of their degree of consonance or fit. If subsystems support one another’s functions, we say that there is fit between them; if not, there is misfit’.

21Concepts and models borrowed from managerial theories – focusing on business companies aiming to gain an advantage over competitors and dominate the market – cannot be translated literally into the field of public policy. They must necessarily be adapted.

22We propose to use the expression 'policy consonance' to indicate the degree of fit and complementarity between different components of a policy. In policy studies, similar concepts have already been proposed (Howlett & Rayner, 2006; 2013; Kern & Howlett, 2009; Rogge & Reichardt, 2016; Migone et al., 2023): ‘coherence’, ‘consistency’, ‘congruence’, ‘alignment’, and others. The concept of 'policy consonance' therefore doesn’t come out of the blue. As conceived by Normann, consonance is more than a generic compatibility and affinity: it indicates synergy and a high degree of complementarity between the elements, which thus end up being mutually reinforcing. There is consonance when the pieces of a mosaic fit together perfectly and complement each other.

The five components

Policy goals

23Policy goals constitute the objectives that policy makers aim to achieve. As confirmed by empirical research, however, the analysis of policy objectives can prove slippery. Indeed, it cannot be taken for granted that policies have clear, unambiguous objectives that perfectly match those officially stated. In fact, policy programs may have multiple, ambiguous, conflicting objectives (Selznick, 1949; Matland, 1995). Policymakers may declare policy objectives that they do not really intend to pursue (Gustafsson, 1983), policy objectives may change over time (Migone et al., 2023), or policy makers may have an interest in not publicly stating their real goals while declaring others (Edelman, 1964). Thus, there are various reasons why policy goals may be ambiguous, and why officially stated goals may not coincide with actual goals.

24This consideration regarding the ambiguity of policy goals does not limit the usefulness of the analytical framework presented here. The policy pentagram scheme lends itself to application from the perspective of policy makers as well as from the perspective of the policy analyst or policy recipients. Each will attribute to the policy program the goals they deem appropriate, assessing accordingly the consonance between these goals and the other components of the policy pentagram. As noted above, policy success is a subjective assessment: a program may be considered a success from the perspective of the individual policy maker (who fully achieves his or her tacit goals), but a failure in the eyes of a policy analyst (who assesses the achievement of officially stated goals). And vice versa.

Policy instruments

25Policy instruments are the means – both substantive and procedural, as Howlett (2000; 2011) puts it – through which policy makers intend to pursue policy goals. Much has already been written about policy instruments (Hood, 1983; Doern & Phidd, 1983; Schneider & Ingram, 1990; Vedung, 1998; Salamon, 2002; Howlett, 2011; Capano & Howlett, 2020). It is rare for a public program to include only a single instrument; more frequently, decision makers assemble ‘instrument mixes' that include instruments of a different nature (Howlett & Rayner, 2007; Kern & Howlett, 2009).

Implementation structure

26The implementation structure is the network of actors in charge of implementing policy measures. Studies on policy implementation attach great importance to the 'organizational structure' in charge of implementing public programs (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973; Bardach, 1977; Hjern & Porter, 1981; Lipsky, 1980). Policies can fail because the 'implementers' do not have the resources, capabilities or will to implement fully the planned policy measures. The dimensions of politics and agency are critical to understanding the implementation process, but the organizational and institutional arrangements also play an important role (Sager & Gofen, 2022). The analysis of the implementation structure therefore also includes the institutional setting and the specific organizational design within which the implementation process takes place. In the simplest cases, the implementers all belong to the same public agency. More frequently, the implementation of a public program requires the collaboration of multiple public and private actors (Hjern & Porter, 1981).

Policy recipients

27Interactions between policy instruments, types of target, and compliance by policy takers is a topic still largely under-examined in the literature (Howlett, 2018; Capano & Howlett, 2020). Many policy makers tend to consider the recipients of public programs as passive subjects, as if citizens have to abide supinely by the authoritative decisions of lawmakers, and can only express their approval (or dissent) towards adopted policies at election time. This is a naive, distorted picture of the policy-making process. Citizens – at least in most policies – are not passive recipients (Alford, 2009). On the contrary, policy recipients are actors who must be activated, convinced and motivated (Profeti & Toth, 2025). Most policies require – to be successful and to achieve policy goals – the participation, cooperation and support of policy recipients (Ostrom & Ostrom, 1977; Whitaker, 1980; Alford, 2009). As has been widely argued (Osborne et al., 2016), policy making is involving – increasingly – processes of co-design and co-production, with the active involvement of users at all stages of the policy process. For this reason, the success of policies depends on the degree of compliance by policy recipients. And to obtain their effective compliance, the target population must be engaged, motivated and supported.

28In conceptualizing the recipients of a policy, it is useful to distinguish between primary (or direct) recipients, ultimate (or indirect) recipients and beneficiaries (Capano & Toth, 2023). These categories sometimes coincide, but sometimes do not. Primary recipients are those to whom the policy measure is directly addressed and on whose activation the achievement of the objective depends. Ultimate (or indirect) recipients are those whose behavior the policy ultimately wants to influence. Let's take an example: a policy initiative that incentivizes employees to cycle to work by providing a reward to the respective company. In a case such as this, the policy maker's assumption is that the primary recipients (the company's management) have an interest in acting to influence the behavior of their subordinates (the ultimate recipients). The entire community (including primary and ultimate recipients) will benefit from the policy.

29Within the policy pentagram, consonance must be assessed with respect to both primary and ultimate recipients, as the success of a policy program descends from its ability to activate both categories.

Policy communication

30Many policies do not have the desired effect simply because the target audience is not aware of them, or because the measures taken by policy makers are misunderstood and miscommunicated. Policy communication can be understood as the way in which policy makers publicly present the content and purpose of a policy package. To emulate Normann, one could talk about the 'image' of the policy package. Image ‘may be a good or bad representation of reality, but whatever it may be it is always significant because it guides behaviour’ (Normann, 2001, p. 149).

31How policies are communicated is an obviously crucial, yet still largely unexplored, issue in policy studies (Spitzer, 1993; Koch-Baumgarten & Voltmer, 2010). Policy scholars have traditionally paid much more attention to 'problem framing' (i.e., how policy problems are interpreted and represented) (Schön & Rein, 1994; Bacchi, 2009) than to 'policy communication' (the public presentation and justification of policy measures actually adopted).

32Partial exceptions in this regard are those contributions on crisis management that attach great importance to ‘meaning making’ (Boin et al., 2005; Ansell et al., 2010; Boin et al., 2021), i.e., the ability to provide a credible narrative of the situation and communicate it effectively to the public. Of course, meaning making does not apply only in crisis situations. All policy measures require some narrative, public justification, and political rhetoric to make them legitimate and appropriate in the eyes of the policy recipients and the public. Just like marketable goods and services, public policies also need a marketing component, as nudge studies have pointed out well (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Sunstein, 2014; John, 2018). We are not, therefore, talking only about 'policy narratives' (Jones & McBeth, 2010; Shanahan et al., 2011) or ‘policy arguments’ (Majone, 1989 Dunn, 2017). Policy communication may use ‘policy narratives’ and usually incorporates some form of ‘policy argument’, but it is a broader concept.

33In Normann's conceptualization, a company's communication strategy is conceived as dual: in addition to external image, great importance is also attached to 'internal marketing' (Berry et al., 1976; Normann, 2001). This distinction also applies to public programs. Alongside external communication (aimed at the public and policy recipients), there is also 'internal' communication, aimed specifically at the public administration and the actors that make up the implementation structure. To achieve a high degree of policy success, both external and internal communication will need to be 'consonant' with the other four components of the policy pentagram.

4.The framework in action: the case of the Bologna breast milk bank

34To show the practical usefulness of the policy pentagram framework, a concrete example is given: the experience of the breast milk bank in Bologna (Italy).

35Let's start with the policy problem. Scientific literature agrees that human milk increases the chance of survival of premature infants by aiding their growth and development (Arslanoglu et al., 2010; Haiden & Ziegler, 2016; Moro et al., 2019). Often, however, the mothers of premature infants are unable to provide milk in sufficient quantity (Kim & Unger, 2010; Haiden & Ziegler, 2016).

36The policy solution recommended by WHO and UNICEF (1979), and adopted in many countries around the world (Haiden & Ziegler, 2016; Weaver et al., 2019), is the 'breast milk bank'. The objective of milk banks is to select, collect, process and distribute breast milk from donor mothers, to be used for breastfeeding infants hospitalized in neonatal intensive care units. About 40 local milk banks currently operate in Italy.

37The Bologna milk bank is the result of a public-private partnership between a public hospital (the Sant'Orsola Polyclinic, one of Italy's largest hospitals), a private company (Granarolo, Italy's largest dairy group) and a non-profit voluntary association. Breast milk is periodically collected by volunteers directly from the donor mothers' homes. Once collected, the breast milk is taken to a special laboratory within the Granarolo company's production facility. Here the milk is pasteurized and stored in special refrigerators, waiting to be taken to the neonatal intensive care units that request it. About a decade after its establishment, the Bologna milk bank is proving a success: the volume of milk collected makes it possible to meet the needs not only of the Sant'Orsola Polyclinic, but also of other regional hospitals. This success is due to a high degree of consonance between the five elements of the ‘policy pentagram’.

38First, there is alignment between policy goals and policy instruments. The families of the beneficiary infants pay no cost for the milk received, in accordance with the universalist aims of the Italian health service (Toth, 2016; Toth, 2021). The 'milk bank' model relies on volunteer lactating mothers. Beyond ethical and moral considerations, the voluntary donation model is considered to provide superior guarantees – in terms of the safety of the collected milk – compared with other models in which women give up their milk in exchange for an economic reward (Gribble, 2013; Haiden & Ziegler, 2016). In the milk bank model, donor women receive only intrinsic and intangible rewards, i.e. the knowledge that they are helping infants in need. When a baby bottle of milk is delivered to a hospitalized baby, the donor mother receives a text message: a detail with great symbolic significance.

39Second, the Bologna milk bank relies on an 'implementation structure' perfectly functional in terms of the policy goals and policy instruments. The Sant'Orsola Polyclinic is responsible for identifying premature infants who are most in need of donated breast milk. The collection, processing and delivery activities are carried out, at no cost to the public health service, by the Granarolo company. The latter – unlike the public hospital – has the expertise and instrumentation to process and store fresh milk. The Granarolo company bears the costs of running the laboratory, the staff processing the milk, the van transporting the baby bottles and some public communication initiatives. The dairy company carries out these activities 'pro bono', motivated by the desire to have a positive impact on its community and to increase its social reputation. The service of collecting and distributing milk bottles is carried out by volunteers. The non-profit association takes care – free of charge – of 'recruiting' donor mothers and promoting awareness-raising and support activities for both donor mothers and the families of the premature babies. The hospital staff is thus relieved of many tasks which are carried out by the association's volunteers. The actors involved thus end up contributing to the program by each pursuing their own mission: the public hospital treats premature infants free of charge; the private company gains social reputation by serving the community; the volunteers provide support to the families of particularly vulnerable infants.

40Thirdly, we turn to the policy recipients. Hospitalized premature infants constitute the beneficiaries of the program. The milk bank, to be successful, requires the activation and full cooperation of the donor mothers (who constitute the 'primary recipients' of the program). As it is intended for premature and vulnerable infants, the breast milk distributed by the bank must meet high safety standards. Therefore, the selection of healthy and reliable donors is essential for the program’s success (Arslanoglu et al., 2010). Selected donor mothers undergo an initial blood test and are asked to adhere to strict lifestyle and dietary requirements (no drugs, no smoking, a limited amount of alcohol and caffeine consumption, etc.). Adherence to the project therefore requires strong motivation and continuous commitment on the part of the donor mothers. This is why it is important that mothers freely decide to join the program, without coercion or financial pressure. The consonance between policy instruments and the target population can also be seen in the fact that the formula adopted in Bologna strives to limit the costs and inconveniences for donors. The latter can extract milk while remaining at home. The equipment needed to extract and store the milk is provided free of charge by the dairy company. The examinations that donor mothers must undergo are totally free of charge for them. The mothers therefore do not have to bear any costs and this is clearly an incentive to join the project.

41Finally, we come to communication. The Bologna milk bank project is publicized on the promoters' websites. Posters and information material concerning the initiative are placed in public health facilities. The initiative is also presented to pregnant women participating in pre-natal courses organized by the local health authority. Institutional communication emphasizes the solidaristic and voluntary purpose of the project, aimed at treating and supporting particularly vulnerable new-born babies. Institutional communication tools are complemented by direct and informal communication (which proves very effective in 'persuading' donor mothers). Many women learn about the project through word of mouth: mothers who have donated milk in the past convince other lactating mothers to do the same. The fact that the entire process is supervised by the medical team at the Sant’Orsola Polyclinic (a hospital considered to be of excellence at national level) is a guarantee for both the donors and the beneficiary babies. The public image of the program and the way it is communicated are therefore highly congruent with the altruistic motivations of the donor mothers and the program’s aims.

42It is not intended to argue here that the Bologna breast milk bank experience, as described, is a 'perfect' public program. It is, more simply, a local program that is achieving its goals, thanks to good policy design and a high degree of consonance between policy components.

5.Concluding discussion

43We started with the question: what factors determine the success or failure of a policy? The answer given in this article is simple: success or failure depends on the degree of 'consonance' between the essential components of each policy (goals, instruments, implementation structure, policy recipients and communication). The author of this article is well aware that he is not reinventing policy studies, nor does he believe he has found the Holy Grail. More modestly, this article – openly inspired by the work of Richard Normann – attempts to assemble elements already present in previous studies (some dimensions have already been extensively analyzed, while others are under-explored), adapting and reorganizing them into a different conceptualization. The present article limits itself to the presentation of a provisional framework, with the intention of making a modest contribution to the debate on a topic (the determinants of success and failure of public policies) that is evidently crucial, but still controversial.

An agenda for future research

44The framework presented here opens up multiple avenues for future research, on both the empirical and theoretical levels.

45On the practical application front, it is evident that the analytical scheme proposed in this article needs to be empirically tested. Practical applications of the analytical scheme may provide useful feedback on how to improve the 'policy pentagram'. It may be that, in addition to the five already identified, there are other components to be included in the scheme, or that the components need to be defined differently than in Section 3. The policy pentagram is, in short, only a first formulation, open to criticism and suggestions, to be further refined.

46On the theoretical reflection front, some exciting scenarios open up. We see at least four challenges ahead.

47The first challenge concerns the relationship between the policy pentagram and the most established theoretical approaches to policy process research, such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, etc. The framework proposed here – as pointed out in the previous sections – is inspired by managerial studies and starts from assumptions different from those of many policy theories. Future research may investigate how to combine the policy pentagram with the most established theories of the policy process: is the framework proposed here complementary, orthogonal or alternative to them?

48The second challenge concerns the transfer of policies from one context to another, stemming from Normann's clarification regarding the non-replicability of business ideas. Indeed, Normann believes that every business idea is unique and non-replicable. To be successful, it is not enough to copy sic et simpliciter the 'recipe for success' of some other company. The business idea works in relation to a precise temporal and geographical context. The same can be said of public policies. As confirmed by the case of the breast milk bank, policies are also largely context-specific (Linder & Peters, 1989; Matland, 1995; Gofen et al., 2023) and the policy formula that works in one context may not work in other settings. This builds an interesting bridge to research on lesson drawing and policy transfer.

49A third challenge concerns policy change and relates to a further attribute of the business idea: according to Normann, consonance between the components of the business idea is necessarily dynamic. The business idea must evolve continuously, so as not to lose alignment between elements (the market, technology, workforce, etc.) that are constantly changing. This characteristic can also be attributed to public policies. When a 'policy formula' is successful, it is difficult to assume that it will be successful forever. To remain successful over time, policies must be able to evolve. It will then be interesting to understand to what extent the policy pentagram framework can contribute to research on policy change.

50The fourth challenge concerns the link with studies on policy success and policy failure. Research on policy success attaches great importance to factors such as policy leadership, political-administrative capabilities and contingent and fortuitous elements. These factors, evidently very relevant in determining the success of a public program, do not find a place among the components of the policy pentagram as presented in the previous sections. Future research may explore to what extent, and in which ways, the 'determinants' of policy success identified in the existing literature affect the consonance between the five components of the policy pentagram.

Top of page

Bibliography

Alford, J. (2009). Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-production. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ansell, C., Boin, A., & Keller, A. (2010). Managing transboundary crises: Identifying the building blocks of an effective response system. Journal of contingencies and crisis management18(4), 195-207.

Arslanoglu, S., Bertino, E., Tonetto, P., De Nisi, G., Ambruzzi, A. M., Biasini, A., ... & Moro, G. E. (2010). Guidelines for the establishment and operation of a donor human milk bank. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine23(S2), 1-20.

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What’s the problem represented to be?. Frenchs Forest, Pearson Australia.

Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. MIT Press.

Berry, L. L., Hensel, J. S., & Burke, M. C. (1976). Improving retailer capability for effective consumerism response. Journal of Retailing52(3), 3-14.

Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2005). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Boin, A., McConnell, A., & ‘t Hart, P. (2021). Governing the Pandemic: The Politics of Navigating a Mega-Crisis. Palgrave-Macmillan.

Bovens, M., & ‘t Hart, P. (1995). Frame multiplicity and policy fiascoes: Limits to explanation. Knowledge and Policy8(4), 61-82.

Bovens, M. A., & ‘t Hart, P. (1996). Understanding policy fiascoes. Transaction.

Bovens, M. A., ‘t Hart, P., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2001). Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Edward Elgar.

Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2020). The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis: Policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. Sage Open.

Capano, G., & Toth, F. (2023). Health policy under the microscope: a micro policy design perspective. Frontiers in Public Health11, 1180836.

Compton, M. E., & ‘t Hart, P. (Eds.) (2019). Great policy success. Oxford University Press.

Compton, M. E., Luetjens, J., & ‘t Hart, P. (2019). Designing for policy success. International Review of Public Policy1(2), 119-146.

de la Porte, C., Eydal, G. B., Kauko, J., Nohrstedt, D., ‘t Hart, P., & Tranøy, B. S. (2022). Successful Public Policy in the Nordic Countries: Cases, Lessons, Challenges. Oxford University Press.

Doern, G. B., & Phidd, R. W. (1983). Canadian Public Policy: Ideas, Structure, Process. Methuen.

Dunleavy, P. (1995). Policy disasters: explaining the UK's record. Public Policy and Administration10(2), 52-70.

Dunn, W. N. (2017). Public policy analysis: An integrated approach. Routledge.

Edelman, M. J. (1964). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. University of Illinois Press.

Gofen, A., Wellstead, A. M., & Tal, N. (2023). Devil in the details? Policy settings and calibrations of national excellence-centers. Policy Sciences56(2), 301-323.

Goyal, N. (2021). Explaining policy success using the multiple streams framework: political success despite programmatic failure of the solar energy policy in Gujarat, India. Politics & Policy49(5), 1021-1060.

Gray, P., & ‘t Hart, P. (Eds.). (1998). Public Policy Disasters in Western Europe. Routledge.

Gribble, K. D. (2013). Peer-to-peer milk donors' and recipients' experiences and perceptions of donor milk banks. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing42(4), 451-461.

Gustafsson, G. (1983). Symbolic and Pseudo Policies as Responses to Diffusion of Power. Policy Sciences15(3), 269-287.

Haiden, N., & Ziegler, E. E. (2016). Human Milk Banking. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism69(S2), 8-15.

Hall, P. (1982). Great Planning Disasters. University of California Press.

Hjern, B., & Porter, D. (1981). Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis. Organization Studies, 2(3), 211-227.

Hood, C. C. (1983). The Tools of Government. Palgrave Macmillan.

Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration43(4), 412-431.

Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policy: Principles and instruments. Routledge.

Howlett, M. (2012). The lessons of failure: learning and blame avoidance in public policy-making. International Political Science Review33(5), 539-555.

Howlett, M. (2018). Matching policy tools and their targets: beyond nudges and utility maximisation in policy design. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 101-124.

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society26(4), 1-18.

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013), Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design. Politics and Governance1(2), 170-182.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Wu, X. (2015). Understanding the persistence of policy failures: The role of politics, governance and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration30(3-4), 209-220.

John, P. (2018). How far to nudge?: Assessing behavioural public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong?. Policy Studies Journal38(2), 329-353.

Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences42, 391-408.

Kerr, D. H. (1976). The logic of ‘policy’ and successful policies. Policy Sciences7(3), 351-363.

Kim, J. H., & Unger, S. (2010). Human milk banking. Paediatrics & Child Health, 15(9), 595-598.

King, A. & Crewe, I. (2013). The Blunders of Our Governments. Oneworld.

Koch-Baumgarten, S., & Voltmer, K. (Eds.) (2010). Public policy and the mass media: The interplay of mass communication and political decision making. Routledge.

Leong, C., & Howlett, M. (2022). Policy learning, policy failure, and the mitigation of policy risks: Re-thinking the lessons of policy success and failure. Administration & Society54(7), 1379-1401.

Linder, S. H., & Peters B. G. (1989). Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35-58.

Lindquist, E., Howlett, M., Skogstad, G., Tellier, G., & t Hart, P. (Eds.) (2022). Policy Success in Canada: Cases, Lessons, Challenges. Oxford University Press.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. Sage Publications.

Luetjens, J., Mintrom, M., & ‘t Hart, P. (Eds.) (2019). Successful public policy: lessons from Australia and New Zealand. ANU Press.

Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. Yale University Press.

Marsh, D., & McConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration88(2), 564-583.

Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory5(2), 145-174.

McConnell, A. (2010a). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy30(3), 345-362.

McConnell, A. (2010b). Understanding Policy Success: Rethinking Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan.

McConnell, A. (2015). What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. Public Policy and Administration30(3-4), 221-242.

Merton, R.K. (1949). Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press.

Migone, A., Howlett, A., & Howlett, M. (2023). The politics of military megaprojects: discursive struggles in Canadian and Australian naval shipbuilding strategies. Policy and Society, 42(2), 226-244.

Milward, H.B. (1980). Policy Entrepreneurship and Bureaucratic Demand Creation. In H.M. Ingram & D. E. Mann (Eds.), Why Policies Succeed or Fail (pp. 257-277). Sage.

Moro, G. E., Billeaud, C., Rachel, B., Calvo, J., Cavallarin, L., Christen, L., ... & Picaud, J. C. (2019). Processing of donor human milk: update and recommendations from the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA). Frontiers in Pediatrics (7), 49.

Newman, J. (2014). Measuring policy success: Case studies from Canada and Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration73(2), 192-205.

Normann, R. (1977). Management for growth. John Wiley & Sons.

Normann, R. (2001). Service management: strategy and leadership in service business (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Oppermann, K., & Spencer, A. (2016). Telling stories of failure: Narrative constructions of foreign policy fiascos. Journal of European Public Policy23(5), 685-701.

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?. Public Management Review18(5), 639-653.

Ostrom, V. & Ostrom, E. (1977). Public Goods and Public Choices. In E. S. Savas (Ed.), Alternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance (pp. 7-49). Westview Press.

Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents. Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. University of California Press.

Profeti, S., & Toth, F. (2025). Leading targets to comply. Uncertainty issues in the design of “intrinsic motivation-driven policies. Policy Design and Practice, 1-15.

Roberts, N. C. (1992). Public Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Policy Studies Review, 11(1), 55-74.

Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy45(8), 1620-1635.

Sager, F., & Gofen, A. (2022). The polity of implementation: Organizational and institutional arrangements in policy implementation. Governance, 35(2), 347-364.

Salamon, L. (Ed.). (2002) The Tools of Government. A Guide to New Governance. Oxford University Press.

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics52(2), 510-529.

Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Book.

Schuck, P. H. (2014). Why Government Fail So Often. And How It Can Do Better. Princeton University Press.

Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. University of California Press.

Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2011). Policy narratives and policy processes. Policy Studies Journal39(3), 535-561.

Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudging: a very short guide. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 583-588.

Thaler, R., & C.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge. Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. Yale University Press.

Toth, F. (2016). The Italian NHS, the public/private sector mix and the disparities in access to healthcare. Global Social Welfare3, 171-178.

Toth, F. (2021). Comparative Health Systems: A New Framework. Cambridge University Press.

Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and Theories. In M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation (pp. 21-58). Transaction Publishers.

Weaver, G., Bertino, E., Gebauer, C., Grovslien, A., Mileusnic-Milenovic, R., Arslanoglu, S., ... & Picaud, J. C. (2019). Recommendations for the establishment and operation of human milk banks in Europe: a consensus statement from the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA). Frontiers in Pediatrics, 7, 53.

Whitaker, G. (1980). Co-production: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. Public Administration Review, 40(3), 240-246.

WHO/UNICEF (1979). Joint WHO/UNICEF Meeting on Infant and Young Child Feeding: statement, recommendations, list of participants. World Health Organization.

Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Figure 1 – The ‘policy pentagram’
Credits Source: the Author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/irpp/docannexe/image/4957/img-1.png
File image/png, 130k
Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Federico Toth, Why policies succeed or fail: the importance of 'policy consonance'International Review of Public Policy [Online], 7:1 | 2025, Online since 01 March 2025, connection on 21 June 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/irpp/4957; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/13zeu

Top of page

About the author

Federico Toth

Università di Bologna, Italy
federico.toth@unibo.it

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search