پیامدهای ناخواسته خط‌مشی‌های عمومی؛ یک چارچوب مفهومی نظام‌مند

نوع مقاله : مقاله مروری

نویسندگان

1 دکتری مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

2 استاد مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

4 استادیار مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

5 استادیار برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت، مرکز مطالعات مدیریت و توسعه فناوری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

10.22059/jppolicy.2026.106383

چکیده

در عصر حاضر، بواسطه محدودیت‌های ظرفیت شناختی انسان، پیچیدگی، عدم‌قطعیت و پویایی‌های محیط‌های اجتماعی، پیامدهای ناخواسته بیش از هر زمان دیگر بر خط‌مشی‌های عمومی سایه افکنده و حکمرانی را به چالش کشیده است. این در حالی است که اندیشمندان علوم خط‌مشی به شکل منسجم به این مفهوم نپرداخته‌اند و ادبیات پژوهشی این حوزه از تبیین چیستی، چرایی و چگونگی مواجهه با این مفهوم، عاجز است. از این رو، مطالعه حاضر، با شناسایی و فهم سازه‌های مفهومی پیامدهای ناخواسته خط‌مشی‌های عمومی در ادبیات موجود، و ترکیب آن، در پی ایجاد بینش‌های جدید در این حوزه است. برای تحقق این هدف، پس از مرور ادبیات نظام‌مند و تحلیل محتوای مطالعات منتخب، چارچوب مفهومی پیامدهای ناخواسته خط‌مشی‌های عمومی، مبتنی بر 4 سازه مفهومی مفهوم‌سازی، عوامل ایجاد، ارزشیابی و عوامل اجتناب/کاهش، بدست آمد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

مراجع

  1. Al-Thaqeb, S. A., & Algharabali, B. G. (2019). Economic policy uncertainty: A literature review. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 20, e00133.
  2. Alford, J., & Head, B. W. (2017). Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397–413.
  3. Anderies, J. M., Rodriguez, A. A., Janssen, M. A., & Cifdaloz, O. (2007). Panaceas, uncertainty, and the robust control framework in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15194–15199.
  4. Angeli, F., & Montefusco, A. (2020). Sensemaking and learning during the Covid-19 pandemic: A complex adaptive systems perspective on policy decision-making. World Development, 136, 105106.
  5. Aronczyk, M. (2018). Public relations, issue management, and the transformation of American environmentalism, 1948–1992. Enterprise & Society, 19(4), 836–863.
  6. Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698.
  7. Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2010). Risk management and governance: Concepts, guidelines and applications (Vol. 16). Springer Science & Business Media.
  8. Backhaus, J. G. (2012). Handbook of the history of economic thought. Springer.
  9. Baert, P. (1991). Unintended consequences: A typology and examples. International Sociology, 6(2), 201–210.
  10. Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311–317.
  11. Blavoukos, S., & Oikonomou, G. (2022). Reforming suo tempore: Exploring the unintended consequences of the European Union’s ‘reform actorness.’ The British Journal of Politics and International Relations.
  12. Blocker, C. P., Davis, B., & Anderson, L. (2021). Unintended consequences in transformative service research: helping without harming. Journal of Service Research, 25(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211061190
  13. Bonell, C., Jamal, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., & Cummins, S. (2015). ‘Dark logic’: theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health, 69(1), 95–98.
  14. Boulton, J. (2010). Complexity theory and implications for policy development. Emergence: Complexity and Organisation, 12(2), 31–40.
  15. Brown, L., & Osborne, S. P. (2013). Risk and innovation: Towards a framework for risk governance in public services. Public Management Review, 15(2), 186–208.
  16. Bu, Z., Liu, J., & Liu, J. (2025). Impact of emotions on the behavioral strategies of PPP project stakeholders: an RDEU evolutionary game analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(4), 2242–2271.
  17. Cairney, P. (2012). Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 346–358.
  18. Cairney, P., & Heikkila, T. (2014). A comparison of theories of the policy process. Theories of the Policy Process, 3. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284-9
  19. Cairney, P., Oliver, K., & Wellstead, A. (2016). To bridge the divide between evidence and policy: reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 399–402. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12555
  20. Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2017). Resilience and robustness in policy design: A critical appraisal. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 399–426.
  21. Carter, C. R., Kaufmann, L., & Ketchen, D. J. (2020). Expect the unexpected: toward a theory of the unintended consequences of sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(12), 1857–1871. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2020-0326
  22. Castrejon-Campos, O., Aye, L., & Hui, F. K. P. (2020). Making policy mixes more robust: An integrative and interdisciplinary approach for clean energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 64, 101425.
  23. Cherkaoui, M. (2007). Good Intentions. Oxford, Bardwell-Press.
  24. Chollete, L., & Harrison, S. G. (2021). Unintended Consequences: Ambiguity Neglect and Policy Ineffectiveness. Eastern Economic Journal, 47(2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-021-00187-7
  25. Coulthart, S. (2017). What’s the problem? Frameworks and methods from policy analysis for analyzing complex problems. Intelligence and National Security, 32(5), 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2017.1310983
  26. Cummings, S. N., & Nørgaard, O. (2004). Conceptualising state capacity: comparing Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Political Studies, 52(4), 685–708.
  27. Danaeefard, H. (2022). Why do some national policies make Things Worse? Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies, 5(2), 1–20.
  28. DanaeeFard, H. (2023). Risk Research in Public Policy Analysis: A Policy Rule that Should Not be Ignored. Philosophy, 22, 11.
  29. Danaeefard, H., Emami, & Hosseini, K. (2016). An analytical introduction to understanding the issue of public policy capacity: examining its nature, subject, and function. Public Policy, 3(2), 79–99.
  30. Danaeefard, H., Peters, G., Khosravi, M., Abdolhoseinzadeh, M., Kazemi, S. H., & Abdolhamid, M. (2025). Mapping and Evolving the Intellectual Structure of Politicization Research: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Current Trends and Future Directions. Public Organization Review, 1–22.
  31. Davis, G. (2000). Conclusion: Policy capacity and the future of governance. The Future of Governance, 230–245.
  32. De Zwart, F. (2015). Unintended but not unanticipated consequences. Theory and Society, 44, 283–297.
  33. Dewulf, A., & Biesbroek, R. (2018). Nine lives of uncertainty in decision-making: strategies for dealing with uncertainty in environmental governance. Policy and Society, 37(4), 441–458.
  34. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.
  35. Dunn, W. N. (2017). Public policy analysis : an integrated approach (6th editio). Routledge.
  36. Dye, T. R. (2016). Understanding public policy (15th editi). Pearson.
  37. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  38. Finsterwalder, J., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2020). Intentionality and transformative services: Wellbeing co-creation and spill-over effects. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52.
  39. Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. OUP Oxford.
  40. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2010). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (4th editio). Pearson.
  41. Guyadeen, D., & Seasons, M. (2018). Evaluation Theory and Practice: Comparing Program Evaluation and Evaluation in Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(1), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16675930
  42. Head, B. W. (2022). Wicked Problems in Public Policy. In Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0
  43. Hirschman, A. O. (1991). The rhetoric of reaction. Harvard University Press.
  44. Hisschemöller, M., Hoppe, R., Dunn, W. N., & Ravetz, J. R. (2018). Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis: An introduction. In Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis (1st Editio). Taylor and Francis Inc.
  45. Hoppe, R. (2010a). Cultures of public policy problems. In The governance of problems (pp. 91–120). Policy Press.
  46. Hoppe, R. (2010b). The governance of problems : puzzling, powering, participation (First edit). Policy Press.
  47. Hoppe, R. (2018). Heuristics for practitioners of policy design: Rules-of-thumb for structuring unstructured problems. Public Policy and Administration, 33(4), 384–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717709338
  48. Howlett, M., Leong, C., & Sahu, S. (2022). Managing internal policy risk: Australia, the UK and the US compared. Policy Design and Practice, 5(2), 152–163.
  49. Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71.
  50. Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2018). Routledge handbook of policy design (1st Editio). Routledge.
  51. Justen, A., Schippl, J., Lenz, B., & Fleischer, T. (2014). Assessment of policies and detection of unintended effects: Guiding principles for the consideration of methods and tools in policy-packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.015
  52. Kawai, K. L. R., & Li, H. (2017). The Dynamics of Policy Complexity. UNSW working paper.
  53. Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & Haasnoot, M. (2016). Coping with the wickedness of public policy problems: Approaches for decision making under deep uncertainty. In Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management (Vol. 142, Issue 3, p. 1816001). American Society of Civil Engineers.
  54. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. Elsevier publishing company.
  55. Leslie, L. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 538–563.
  56. Li, Y., Taeihagh, A., de Jong, M., & Klinke, A. (2021). Toward a commonly shared public policy perspective for analyzing risk coping strategies. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 519–532.
  57. Locke, J. (1824). The works of John Locke: in nine volumes (Vol. 7). C. and J. Rivington.
  58. Macintosh, A., & Wilkinson, D. (2016). Complexity theory and the constraints on environmental policymaking. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(1), 65–93.
  59. Margetts, H., & Hood, C. (2012). Paradoxes of modernization: unintended consequences of public policy reform. Oxford University Press, USA.
  60. Mehdizadeh, R., & Fischer, M. (2013). The unintended consequences of greening America: an examination of how implementing green building policy may impact the dynamic between local, state, and federal regulatory systems and the possible exacerbation of class segregation. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 3, 1–7.
  61. Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904.
  62. Migone, A., Howlett, M., & Howlett, A. (2024). Paradigmatic stability, ideational robustness, and policy persistence: exploring the impact of policy ideas on policy-making. Policy and Society, 43(2), 189–203.
  63. Moore, R. S., Annechino, R. M., & Lee, J. P. (2009a). Unintended consequences of smoke-free bar policies for low-SES women in three California counties. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(2), S138–S143.
  64. Moore, R. S., Annechino, R. M., & Lee, J. P. (2009b). Unintended Consequences of Smoke-Free Bar Policies for Low-SES Women in Three California Counties. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(2 SUPPL.), S138–S143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.05.003
  65. Morell, J. A. (2005). Why are there unintended consequences of program action, and what are the implications for doing evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 26(4), 444–463.
  66. Morell, J. A. (2018). Systematic iteration between model and methodology: A proposed approach to evaluating unintended consequences. Evaluation and Program Planning, 68, 243–252.
  67. Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
  68. Nair, S., & Howlett, M. (2016). From robustness to resilience: avoiding policy traps in the long term. Sustainability Science, 11, 909–917.
  69. Nair, S., & Howlett, M. (2020). Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: Adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. In Policy Learning and Policy Failure (pp. 133–154). Policy Press.
  70. Norton, R. (2015). Unintended consequences. ECompany Now, 12–18.
  71. Olejniczak, K., Borkowska-Waszak, S., Domaradzka-Widła, A., & Park, Y. (2020). Policy labs: the next frontier of policy design and evaluation? Policy & Politics, 48(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420108
  72. Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Tinkler, J. (2020). Evaluating unintended consequences: New insights into solving practical, ethical and political challenges of evaluation. Evaluation, 26(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019850847
  73. Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., Tinkler, J., & Bonell, C. (2019). Understanding the unintended consequences of public health policies: The views of policymakers and evaluators. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7389-6
  74. Olsen, J. P. (1983). Organized democracy: political institutions in a welfare state, the case of Norway. Universitetsforlaget.
  75. Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (2005). Unpacking policy capacity: Issues and themes. Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives, 1–18.
  76. Patton, M. Q. (2005). Goal-Based vs. Goal-Free Evaluation. In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (pp. 141–144). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00403-5
  77. (2014). Explaining unintended and unexpected consequences of policy decisions: Comparing three British governments, 1959-74. Public Administration, 92(3), 673–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12081
  78. Peters, B. G. (1996). The policy capacity of government.[Hull, Quebec]: Minister of Supply and Services Canada (Canadian Centre for Management Development research paper no, 18).
  79. Peters, B. G. (2015). Policy capacity in public administration. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 219–228.
  80. Peters, B. G., & Nagel, M. L. (2025). From benign to malign: unintended consequences and the growth of Zombie policies. Policy and Society, puae039.
  81. Pluchinotta, I., Giordano, R., Zikos, D., Krueger, T., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2020). Integrating Problem Structuring Methods And Concept-Knowledge Theory For An Advanced Policy Design: Lessons From A Case Study In Cyprus. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(6), 626–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1753512
  82. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2011). Everyday life in British government. Oxford University Press, USA.
  83. Sanderson, I. (2002). Making sense of ‘what works’: evidence based policy making as instrumental rationality? Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 61–75.
  84. Scriven, M. (1972). Die Methodologie der Evaluation.
  85. Scriven, M. (1991a). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed). SAGE.
  86. Scriven, M. (1991b). Prose and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 12(1), 55–62.
  87. Shum, R. Y. (2009). Can attitudes predict outcomes? Public opinion, democratic institutions and environmental policy. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(5), 281–295.
  88. Sieber, S. (1981). Fatal remedies: The ironies of social intervention. Plenum Press. New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7456-5
  89. Sieber, S. D. (1981). Fatal remedies: The ironies of social intervention. Plenum Press.
  90. Suckling, J., Hoolohan, C., Soutar, I., & Druckman, A. (2021). Unintended consequences: Unknowable and unavoidable, or knowable and unforgivable? Frontiers in Climate, 124.
  91. Taleb, N. N. (2014). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder (Vol. 3). Random House Trade Paperbacks.
  92. Tan, K. H., Chung, L., Shi, L., & Chiu, A. (2017). Reprint" Unpacking the indirect effects and consequences of environmental". International Journal of Production Economics, 190, 22–30.
  93. Van der Steen, M., & van Twist, M. (2018). Strategies for robustness: Five perspectives on how policy design is done. Policy and Society, 37(4), 491–513.
  94. Vedung, E. (2010). Four Waves of Evaluation Diffusion. Evaluation, 16(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389010372452
  95. Vernon, R. (1979). Unintended consequences. Political Theory, 7(1), 57–73.
  96. Walker, W. E., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2013). Adapt or perish: A review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability, 5(3), 955–979.
  97. Walker, W. E., Marchau, V. A. W. J., & Swanson, D. (2010). Addressing deep uncertainty using adaptive policies: Introduction to section 2. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 917–923.
  98. Westphaln, K. K., Regoeczi, W., Masotya, M., Vazquez-Westphaln, B., Lounsbury, K., McDavid, L., Lee, H., Johnson, J., & Ronis, S. D. (2021). From Arksey and O’Malley and Beyond: Customizations to enhance a team-based, mixed approach to scoping review methodology. MethodsX, 8, 101375.
  99. Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171.
  100. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
  101. Youker, B. W. (2013). Goal-Free Evaluation: A Potential Model for the Evaluation of Social Work Programs. Social Work Research, 37(4), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svt032
  102. Youker, B. W., & Ingraham, A. (2014). Goal-free evaluation: An orientation for foundations’ evaluations. The Foundation Review, 5(4), 7. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1182
  103. Youker, B. W., Ingraham, A., & Bayer, N. (2014). An assessment of goal-free evaluation: Case studies of four goal-free evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 46, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.05.002
  104. Youker, B. W., Zielinski, A., Hunter, O. C., & Bayer, N. (2016). Who needs goals? A case study of goal-free evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 12(27), 27–43.
سیاستگذاری عمومی
دوره 12، شماره 1
فروردین 1405
صفحه 260-287

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار