Nynke van Uffelen, Nihit Goyal, Amanda Martinez-Reyes
{"title":"(Not) just policy success: Incorporating justice in policy evaluation.","authors":"Nynke van Uffelen, Nihit Goyal, Amanda Martinez-Reyes","doi":"10.1007/s11077-025-09588-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the recognition that policy evaluations are inherently normative as they are shaped by political and social values, justice is rarely addressed systematically in policy evaluation practice or research. By overlooking structural inequities and failing to scrutinize power dynamics, this omission risks hindering accountability, legitimizing injustice, and inhibiting policy learning. To help bridge this gap, we build on the policy success heuristic, which is a multidimensional approach for assessing programmatic, process, and political outcomes of public policy. Drawing on the philosophical literature on justice, we link three prominent categories-distributive, procedural, and recognition justice-with the dimensions of policy success. Based on this linkage, we propose a reflective framework that uniquely integrates justice principles into each dimension of the policy success heuristic. The framework can be applied ex-ante or ex-post to assess whether a policy is, or is likely to be, not only successful but also just, contributing to navigating the is/ought distinction at the heart of policy evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"58 3","pages":"449-468"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12484360/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-025-09588-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Despite the recognition that policy evaluations are inherently normative as they are shaped by political and social values, justice is rarely addressed systematically in policy evaluation practice or research. By overlooking structural inequities and failing to scrutinize power dynamics, this omission risks hindering accountability, legitimizing injustice, and inhibiting policy learning. To help bridge this gap, we build on the policy success heuristic, which is a multidimensional approach for assessing programmatic, process, and political outcomes of public policy. Drawing on the philosophical literature on justice, we link three prominent categories-distributive, procedural, and recognition justice-with the dimensions of policy success. Based on this linkage, we propose a reflective framework that uniquely integrates justice principles into each dimension of the policy success heuristic. The framework can be applied ex-ante or ex-post to assess whether a policy is, or is likely to be, not only successful but also just, contributing to navigating the is/ought distinction at the heart of policy evaluation.
期刊介绍：
The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
