This article develops a heuristic framework to help analysts navigate an important but under-researched issue: ‘policy success for whom?’ It identifies different forms of policy success across the policy making, program, political and temporal realms, to assess how a specific policy can differentially benefit a variety of stakeholders, including governments, lobbyists, not-for-profits, community groups and individuals. The article identifies a three-step process to aid researchers in examining any policy initiative in order to understand the forms and extent of success experienced by any actor/stakeholder. Central to these steps is the examination of plausible assessments and counter assessments to help interrogate issues of ‘success for whom.’ The article demonstrates a practical application of the framework to a case study focused on the Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) program in Australia—a time-limited Commonwealth government-funded program aimed at improving Indigenous health outcomes by fixing housing.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Arrigoitia, M. F. (2014). UnMaking public housing towers. The Journal of Architecture, Design and Domestic Space, 11(2), 167–196.
Australian National Audit Office. (2011). Indigenous housing initiatives: The fixing houses for better health program. Audit Report No. 21. Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Government.
Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baggott, R. (2012). Policy success and public health: The case of public health in England. Journal of Social Policy, 41(2), 391–408.
Balloch, S., & Taylor, D. (2005). What the politics of evaluation implies. In D. Taylor & S. Balloch (Eds.), The politics of evaluation: Participation and policy implementation (pp. 249–252). Bristol: Policy Press.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Bovens, M., ’t Hart, P., & Kuipers, S. (2006). The politics of policy evaluation. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 319–335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bovens, M., ’t Hart, P., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2001). Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies? Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 1–21.
Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cairney, P. (2020). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan International/Red Globe Press.
Colebatch, H. K., & Hoppe, R. (Eds.) (2018). Introduction to the handbook on policy, process and governing. In Handbook on policy, process and governing (pp. 1–13). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Compton, M., & ’t Hart, P. (Eds.) (2019). Great policy successes: How governments get it right in a big way at least some of the time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crosbie, E., Sosa, P., & Glantz, S. A. (2018). Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: Transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris. Tobacco Control, 27, 185–193.
de Leon, P. (1988). Advice and consent: The development of the policy sciences. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dunn, W. N. (2016). Public policy analysis (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Edelman, M. (1977). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fulton, C. L. (2012). Plausibility. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of case research (pp. 683–684). London: Sage.
Hall, P. G. (1982). Great planning disasters. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–118.
Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2017). On public private partnership performance: A contemporary review. Public Works Management and Policy, 22(1), 55–78.
Hoppe, R. (2010). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Bristol: Policy Press.
Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 72–89.
Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (Eds.). (2018). Routledge handbook of policy design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jones, M. D., Shanahan, E. A., & McBeth, M. K. (Eds.). (2014). The science of stories: Applications of the narrative policy framework in public policy analysis. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kay, A., & Boxall, A. (2015). Success and failure in public policy: Twin imposters or avenues for reform? Selected evidence from 40 years of health-care reform in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(1), 33–41.
Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York, NY: Whittlesey House.
Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. New York, NY: American Elsevier.
Lea, T. (2008). Housing for health in indigenous Australia: Driving change when research and policy are part of the problem. Human Organization, 67(1), 77–85.
Lea, T. (2020). Wild policy: Indigeneity and the unruly logics of intervention. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lea, T., Grealy, L., & Cornell, C. (2018). Housing policy and infrastructural inequality in indigenous Australia and beyond. Issues Paper. Sydney: Housing for Health Incubator. https://www.hfhincubator.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Incubator-Issues-Paper-May-2018-1.pdf.
Lea, T., & Pholeros, P. (2010). This is not a pipe: The treacheries of Indigenous housing. Public Culture, 22(1), 187−209.
Luetjens, J., Mintrom, M., & ’t Hart, P. (Eds.) (2019). Successful public policy: Lessons from Australia and New Zealand. Canberra: ANZSOG.
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2004). The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 653–669.
Marsh, D., & McConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration, 88(2), 586–587.
McConnell, A. (2010). Understanding policy success: Rethinking public policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McConnell, A. (2017a). Policy success and failure. In B. G. Peters (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopaedia of politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McConnell, A. (2017b). Hidden agendas: Shining a light on the dark side of public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(12), 1739–1758.
McConnell, A. (2020). The use of placebo policies to escape from policy traps. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(7), 957–976.
McPeake, T., & Pholeros, P. (2006) Fixing Houses for Better Health in remote communities. Australian Social Policy 2006, 111–124. Canberra: Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
National Framework for the Design, Construction and Maintenance of Indigenous Housing. (1999). Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services.
Newman, J. (2014). Measuring policy success: Case studies from Canada and Australia. Australian Journal of Public Policy, 73(2), 192–205.
NSW Health. (2010). Closing the gap: 10 Years of housing for health in NSW: An evaluation of a healthy housing intervention. Sydney: NSW Department of Health.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative methods, 19, 1–13.
Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 21–64). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pholeros, P. (2002a). Fixing houses for better health. Architecture Australia. July/August, pp. 78–79.
Pholeros, P. (2002b). Housing for health and fixing houses for better health. Environmental Health, 2(4), 34–38.
Pholeros, P., Lea, T., Rainow, S., Sowerbutts, T., & Torzillo, P. (2013). Improving the state of health hardware in Australian Indigenous housing: Building more houses is not the only answer. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 71(Supplement 1), 435–440.
Pholeros, P., Rainow, S., & Torzillo, P. (1993). Housing for health: Towards a healthy living environment for aboriginal Australia. Newport Beach: Healthabitat.
Pholeros, P., Torzillo, P., & Rainow, S. (2000). Housing for health: Principles and projects, South Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland, 1985–1997. In P. Read (Ed.), Settlement: A history of Australian Indigenous housing (pp. 199–208). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.
Sabatier, P. A. (2000). Clear enough to be wrong. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 135–140.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
SGS Economics and Planning. (2006). Evaluation of fixing houses for better health projects 2, 3 and 4. Occasional Paper No. 14. Canberra, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Government.
Torzillo, P., Pholeros, P., Rainow, S., et al. (2008). The State of health hardware in Aboriginal Communities in rural and remote Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32(1), 7–11.
Urban, F. (2012). Towers and slab: Histories of global mass housing. Abingdon: Routledge.
Vedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Werner, T. (2015). Gaining access by doing good: The effect of sociopolitical reputation on firm participation in public policy making. Management Science, 61(8), 1989–2011.
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
The Housing for Health Incubator is partnered with Healthabitat and is funded by the Henry Halloran Trust, the University of Sydney Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the University of Sydney Medical School, the Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, and The Fred Hollows Foundation.
This article is part of the research program of the Housing for Health Incubator, which is funded by the Henry Halloran Trust, the University of Sydney Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the University of Sydney Medical School, the Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, and The Fred Hollows Foundation.
Conflict of interest
No financial interest or benefit has arisen from the direct applications of this research. The Housing for Health Incubator is partnered with the not-for-profit company, Healthabitat, which licenses the Housing for Health methodology.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
McConnell, A., Grealy, L. & Lea, T. Policy success for whom? A framework for analysis. Policy Sci 53, 589–608 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09406-y
- Policy success
- Policy evaluation
- Power relations
- Indigenous housing