Combating The Super Wicked Problems - A policy analysis by Kelly Levine et al. Reviewed by Alaba J.Babalola

Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems : Constraining Our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change

By Kelly Levin. Benjamin Cashore. Steven Bernstein. Graeme Auld.

_____________________

A Review by : Alaba J. Babalola.

This article by Kelly Levin et al offers an alternative approach and reasoning for dealing with climate change and certain similar environmental or social problems, which they have characterized as Super Wicked Problems. The new thinking is a departure from the conventional method of policy analysis which measures costs and benefits against alternative target solutions in a "one shot" scenario. Borrowing partly from earlier social science research by Rittel and Webber (1973), Thaler and Sunstein (2008),  as  well as  the outcome of cutting edge research on  climate change science, the authors developed a "forward reasoning" approach based on a 4 path dependence processes, which attempts to answer 3 fundamental diagnostic questions (DQ1, DQ2 and DQ3) that can lead to sustained and potent policy interventions. The expectation is that relevant policies, if  conceived and applied forward, can engender constrained social behavior and future trajectories leading to the perceived targets and solution desired by policy makers. However, in the midst of many debilitating factors, the strategy of curbing global earthly carbon emissions as a recommended panacea for the  tragedy of climate change begs the question of how to apply and coordinate such measures in an economically diverse and politically polarized world.

The authors' work is laid upon a theoretical framework of a four path dependence processes which is  exemplified, among other examples, in technology and business, recounts  a historical United States private healthcare system example where it is demonstrated how certain government healthcare policies achieved "stickiness" through lock ins, entrenchment through continuous usage, increasing returns through sustained benefits, and positive feedback through expansion to other populations and users of such services. The framework interestingly accommodates non linear causal unfolding trajectories which may be difficult to predict, but can be assumed and factored into decision making. Other suggestions include the use of strategic tactfulness such as coalition, windows of opportunity for intervention and perceived appropriate lock-in points where policies may be introduced. However, in the context of climate change, it is not certain yet that widespread behavioral changes needed to reduce carbon emissions can respond positively and consistently to localized political authority anywhere in the world. A central global authority requirement for tackling Super Wicked Problems such as the tragedy of climate change is largely, sadly yet undeveloped. The underlying framework is subjective to unpredictable elements which are critical to its usefulness as a technique for policy analysis.

This work consists of audacious innovative thoughts on policy analysis and is rendered in sophisticated academic language, properly organized, sufficiently referenced and supported with light illustration and data. However, in real terms, as posited in the article itself, a more proactive and potent approach is required, going forward, for tackling troublesome and potentially devastating problems of climate change. And any deployment  of such measures that is short of worldwide coverage, is bound to be inadequate and suboptimal. Further social science research should look into how future causal trajectories can more accurately be predicted, and also recommend how global socio-political and economic considerations can lead to faithful compliance with directives to solve problems that may affect us all n the long run.

Note

The original article by Kelly Levin et al is available on request.