Analyzing the Success of Iran's Sixth Development Plan from the Policy Evaluation Perspective (Exploration in the field of Research and Technology)

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Assistant Professor of Science and Technology Policy, Department of Policy Evaluation & STI Monitoring Research, National Research Institute of Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jppolicy.2024.99824

Abstract

Claims that a particular policy has been "successful" are common in the political landscape of governments. However, few such claims are systematically justified with specific evidence. This article seeks to answer the question: "What are the valid reasons for the success or failure of a particular policy?" Based on this, the research and technology section of Iran's sixth development plan has been evaluated with a framework consisting of process, program, and politics (3p) dimensions. Qualitative research methodology based on process tracing and using the case study research strategy has tested the propositions of the analytical framework of triple flows in a specific context. The results indicate that the success rate of this macro-policy in the ten years from 2014 to 2023 is generally controversial-uncertain success (at a lower-than-average level). In conclusion, the challenges of policy success lack or achieved opportunities of policy success have presented.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdolhamid, M., & Pourezzat, A. A. (2021). Providing a Model for Evaluating the Success of Public Policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iranian Pattern of Progress, 9(2) [In Persian].
  2. Bali, A. S., Capano, G., & Ramesh, M. (2019). Anticipating and designing for policy effectiveness. Policy and Society, 38(1), 1-13.
  3. Bardach E. (2009). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. 3rd Edition, Washington, DC: CQ Press.
  4. Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2016). Ideas as coalition magnets: Coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European public policy, 23(3), 428-445.
  5. Bishop P. and Davis G. (2002) Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1): 14-29.
  6. Boscarino, J. E. (2009). Surfing for problems: Advocacy group strategy in US forestry policy. Policy Studies Journal, 37(3), 415-434.
  7. Bovens, M. A., T'Hart, P., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2002). Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  8. Bovens M. (2010) A comment on Marsh and McConnell: Towards a framework for understanding policy success, Public Administration, 88(2): 584-585.
  9. Bovens M. and’t Hart P. (1996) Understanding policy fiascoes. New Brunswick, Transaction.
  10. Bovens M.,’t Hart P. and Peters B. G. (eds.) (2001a) Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  11. Bovens M.,’t Hart P. and Peters B. G. (2001b) Analyzing governance success and failure in six European states. In Bovens M.,’t Hart P. and Peters B. G. (eds.), Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 12-26.
  12. Bovens M.,’t Hart P., Peters B. G., Albæk E., Busch A., Dudley G., Moran M. and Richardson J. (2001c) Patterns of governance: Sectoral and national comparisons. In Bovens M.,’t Hart P. and Peters B. G. (eds.), Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 593-640.
  13. Boin A.,’t Hart P., Stern E. and Sundelius B. (2005). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Bridgman, P. and G. Davis (2004). The Australian policy handbook, Allen & Unwin Academic.
  15. Bushehri, A. & Bagheri, A. (2015). Evaluation of science and technology policies: a case study of the use of task elites in research projects. Management Improvement, 10(3), 107-129 [In Persian].
  16. Compton, M., & Hart, P. T. (Eds.). (2019a). Great policy successes. Oxford University Press.
  17. Compton, M. E., & Hart, P. T. (2019b). Looping to success (and failure): second-order mechanisms and policy outcomes. In Making Policies Work (pp. 191-210). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  18. Dolan, D. A. (2021). Multiple partial couplings in the multiple streams framework: The case of extreme weather and climate change adaptation. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 164-189.
  19. Durant, R. F., & Diehl, P. F. (1989). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy: Lessons from the US foreign policy arena. Journal of Public Policy, 9(2), 179-205.
  20. Edelman (1977) Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  21. Emami Meibodi, R., & Ashtarian, K. (2012). Designing the evaluation system of public policies in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Research Letter of Political Science, 7(2) [In Persian].
  22. Emami Razavi, R., Sanjaghi, M. E., Booshehri, A., Jafari, S. A., & Bagheri, A. (2019). Modeling the Evaluation of Women's Science and Technology Policies (Case Studies: Supporting Women Researchers in Research and Technology). Woman in Development & Politics, 17(4), 581-602 [In Persian].
  23. European Environment Agency (2017). EEA guidance document-policy evaluation.
  24. Farazkish, M. (2024). Science, technology, and innovation monitoring and evaluation report during Iran's sixth development program, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP) [In Persian].
  25. Farazkish, M., & Nasri, S. (2022). Analysis of the realization of the quantitative goals of research and technology in the sixth five-year program of economic, social and cultural development. Strategic Studies of public policy, 12(44), 214-236 [In Persian].
  26. Fischer F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Fowler, L. (2019). Problems, politics, and policy streams in policy implementation. Governance, 32(3), 403-420.
  28. Gasper, D. (2018), Policy Evaluation: From Managerialism and Econocracy to a Governance Perspective, in International Development Governance, Routledge.
  29. 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 & Policy, 49(5), 1021-1060.
  30. Gupta D. K. (2001) Analyzing public policy: Concepts, tools, and techniques, Washington, DC: CQ Press.
  31. Gutmann A. and Thompson D. (2004) Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  32. Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2015). Straightening the three streams: Theorising extensions of the multiple streams framework. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 435-449.
  33. Howlett, M. (2019), Policy analytical capacity and evidence‐based policy‐making: Lessons from Canada, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2009.00070_1.x.
  34. Ingram H.M., and. Mann D.E (eds.) (1980). Why policies succeed or fail. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  35. Kerr D. H. (1976). The logic of “policy” and successful policies. Policy Sciences, 7(3): 351-363.
  36. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
  37. Lasswell H. D. (1956). The decision process. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.
  38. Lasswell H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier.
  39. Lindblom C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. New York, NY: Free Press.
  40. Mahdi, R. (2015). Evaluation of national science and technology policies in Iran. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 210-219.‏
  41. Marsh D. and McConnell A. (2010a). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration, 88(2): 586-587.
  42. Marsh D. and McConnell A. (2010b). Towards a framework for establishing policy success: A reply to Bovens. Public Administration 88(2): 564-583.
  43. McConnell, A. (2010). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of public policy, 30(3), 345-362.
  44. McEntire D. A. (2007) Disaster response and recovery. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  45. Meijerink, S., & Huitema, D. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: lessons from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. Ecology and society, 15(2).
  46. Miller G. J. and Robbins D. (2007) Cost-Benefit Analysis. In Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. F. Fischer, G. J. Miller and M. S. Sidney. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 465-480.
  47. Mintrom M. (2003) People skills for policy analysts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  48. Moore M. H. (1995) Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  49. Morgan, K. J. (2016). Process tracing and the causal identification revolution. New Political Economy, 21(5), 489-492.
  50. Nasri S, Farazkish M. (2022). Evaluating the Performance of the Quantitative Goals of Higher Education in the Sixth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan. JMDP. 35(3), 57-97. doi:10.52547/jmdp.35.3.57 [In Persian].
  51. Noroozi, N., Elahi, S., Hajihoseini, H., & Hasanzadeh, A. (2016). Designing an Institutional Compatibility Ex-Ante Assessment Procedure for Science and Technology Policies. Innovation Management Journal, 5(2), 59-86 [In Persian].
  52. OECD (2017). Government at a Glance - OECD, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/gov/govataglance.htm (accessed on 9 July 2019).
  53. OECD (2018a). Building Capacity for Evidence Informed Policy Making: Towards a Baseline Skill Set, http://www.oecd.org/gov/building-capacity-for-evidence-informed-policymaking.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2019).
  54. OECD (2018b). Draft Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance, http://www.oecd.org/gov/draft-policy-framework-on-sound-public-governance.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2019).
  55. OECD (2021). OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2021_38b0fdb1-en (accessed on 27 Jun 2024).
  56. OECD-DAC (2002). Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/18074294.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2019).
  57. O’Neill M. K. and Primus W. E. (2005). Recent data trends show welfare reform to be a mixed success: Significant policy changes should accompany reauthorization. Review of Policy Research, 22(3): 301-324.
  58. Paquet, M. (2015). Bureaucrats as immigration policy-makers: The case of subnational immigration activism in Canada, 1990–2010. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(11), 1815-1835.
  59. Pawson R. (2006) Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.
  60. Pollack H. (2007) Learning to walk slow: America’s partial policy success in the arena of intellectual disability. Journal of Policy History, 19(1): 95-112.
  61. Rhodes R. A. A. and Wanna J. (2007). The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4): 406-421.
  62. Rhodes R. A. A. and Wanna J. (2008) Stairways to heaven: A reply to Alford. Australia Journal of Public Administration, 67(3): 367-370.
  63. Rhodes R. A. A. and Wanna J. (2009) Bringing the politics back in Public value in Westminster parliamentary government. Public Administration, 87(2):161-183.
  64. Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public administration, 80(1), 1-22.
  65. Schneider A. L. and Ingram H. (1997) Policy design for democracy. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
  66. Sætren, H. (2016). From controversial policy idea to successful program implementation: the role of the policy entrepreneur, manipulation strategy, program design, institutions and open policy windows in relocating Norwegian central agencies. Policy sciences, 49, 71-88.
  67. Servent, A. R., & MacKenzie, A. (2017). Eroding Germany’s commitment to data protection: policy entrepreneurs and coalition politics in EU passenger name records. German politics, 26(3), 398-413.
  68. Smismans, S. (2015). Policy Evaluation in the EU: The Challenges of Linking Ex Ante and Ex Post Appraisal, Symposium on Policy Evaluation in the EU. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00004244.
  69. Soltani, A. M.; Tabatabaians, H. (2019). Evaluation of science, technology and innovation policies. Science and Technology Policy, 12(2): 561-578 [In Persian].
  70. Steenhuisen B. and van Eeten M. (2008) Invisible trade-offs of public values: Inside Dutch railways. Public Money & Management, 28(3): 147-152.
  71. Stone D. (2002) Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. 2nd edition, New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
  72. Taylor D. and Balloch S. (ed.) (2005). The politics of evaluation: Participation and policy implementation. Bristol: The Policy Press.
  73. Thompson J. B. (2000) Political scandal: Power and visibility in the modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  74. Treasury, H. M. S. (2011). The magenta book: guidance for evaluation. HM Treasury.‏
  75. Van Gestel N., Koppenjan J.Schrijver I., van de Ven A. and Veeneman W. (2008) Managing public values in public-private networks: A comparative study of innovative public infrastructure projects. Public Money & Management, 28(3): 139-145.
  76. Vedung, E. (2006). Evaluation research. Handbook of public policy, 397-416.
  77. Weimer D. L. and Vining A. R. (2005) Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. 5th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  78. Zahariadis, N., & Exadaktylos, T. (2016). Policies that succeed and programs that fail: Ambiguity, conflict, and crisis in Greek higher education. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 59-82.
  79. Zeraatkish, Y.; Nasiri, H.; Davari, A.; & Yousefi, H. (2019). Review of the 1400 budget bill of the whole country 24. Higher education, research and technology budget. Tehran, Iran: Islamic Council Research Center. https://sid.ir/paper/790300/fa [In Persian].
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 10, Issue 4
December 2024
Pages 9-36

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics