Public Administration Perspective

A Conceptual Review of Public Policy Robustness: Introducing the RIIDI Framework

Document Type : Research Article (with qualitative approaches)

Authors

1 Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Economics, Management and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics, Management and Administrative Sciences, semnan university

3 Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

Abstract

Purpose: This research aims to provide a comprehensive conceptualization of robustness in public policymaking, identify and analyze the dimensions of robust public policies, examine the relationship between this concept and other similar characteristics of public policies, and present a theoretical framework for designing and evaluating robust policies. In today’s world, where increasing complexity, deep uncertainty, and rapid environmental change have become permanent features of the policymaking environment, the need to design policies capable of maintaining their effectiveness in the face of unpredictable shocks and challenges is felt more than ever.
Design/ methodology/ approach: This research, conducted within an interpretive-critical paradigm framework and employing a social constructivist approach, provides an in-depth analysis of the concept of public policy robustness. The research method is a conceptual review, which, unlike systematic reviews, focuses on meaningful and deep analysis of concepts. The research process was carried out in five main stages, including defining the study framework, searching for sources, screening and evaluation, data extraction and analysis, and synthesis of findings. A comprehensive search was conducted in reputable databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using relevant keywords. By employing the PRISMA tool and precise inclusion criteria, including theoretical value, ontological coherence, contextual appropriateness, operationalizability, and contribution to conceptual development, from a total of 3,837 documents found, 52 scientific documents that met the research criteria were selected. Data were analyzed at three levels: intra-textual (independent analysis of each source), inter-textual (comparative analysis of sources), and meta-textual (examination of practical applications) using semantic, structural, and contextual analysis.
Research Findings: Analysis of the evolutionary trajectory of studies shows that robustness in public policymaking is an emerging concept with deep theoretical roots. This concept originates from three main theoretical streams: Simon’s bounded rationality studies (1960s), which revealed the inherent limitations of human decision-making; March and Olsen’s institutional studies (1980s and 1990s), which highlighted the role of institutional structures in shaping policies; and research on uncertainty and complexity management in recent decades, which raised the necessity of designing adaptive policies. This research has identified four main dimensions of policy robustness: first, idea robustness which refers to the ability of policy ideas to maintain conceptual coherence and discursive consistency under changing conditions; second, problem robustness which emphasizes precision in identifying, defining, and framing public problems in complex contexts; third, decision-making robustness which encompasses the capability to make efficient decisions under conditions of deep uncertainty; and fourth, implementation robustness which addresses the design of tools and mechanisms to maintain policy performance during the implementation phase. Based on these findings, the comprehensive “RIIDI” framework (acronym for Robustness of Idea, Issue definition, Decision-making, Implementation) was introduced. Additionally, a comparative analysis showed that robustness differs significantly from five similar characteristics of public policies: resilience, flexibility, stability, sustainability, and agility. While resilience focuses on returning to the previous state and flexibility in adapting to new conditions, robustness emphasizes maintaining the policy's performance and main function under changing conditions.
Limitations & Consequences: The main limitation of this research is its focus on reviewing existing theoretical literature and the lack of empirical examination of practical cases of robust policies. Despite this limitation, the presented theoretical framework can provide a foundation for future research on public policy robustness and pave the way for empirical studies in this emerging field.
Practical Consequences: The “RIIDI” framework provides policymakers with a useful tool for designing policies that maintain their intended functions under conditions of uncertainty, complexity, and environmental change. This framework has applications at three levels: at the design level as an ex-ante evaluation tool, at the implementation level for creating flexible patterns, and at the evaluation level for ex-post performance assessment. This is particularly important in sensitive areas such as environmental policies, crisis management, public health policies, and sustainable development planning that face high levels of uncertainty and complexity.
Innovation or value of the Article: This research presents, for the first time in Persian and international literature, a comprehensive and integrated “RIIDI” framework for studying, designing, and evaluating the robustness of public policy. Identifying and elucidating the four main dimensions of robustness, clarifying its conceptual distinctions from other policy characteristics, and presenting an operational model for applying this concept represent an important step in developing theoretical and practical knowledge in this emerging field. This framework can serve as a valuable guide for researchers conducting empirical studies and for policymakers designing efficient policies in today’s turbulent world.
Paper Type: Original Paper
 

Keywords

  1. Ansell, Christopher; Sørensen, Eva; & Torfing, Jacob. (2023). Public administration and politics meet turbulence: The search for robust governance responses. Public Administration, 101(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12874
  2. Bankes, Steven Carl. (2016). Robustness, Adaptivity, and Resiliency Analysis. In Papers from Fall Symposium. California.
  3. Béland, Daniel; & Cox, Robert Henry. (2024). How framing strategies foster robust policy ideas. Policy and Society, 43(2), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae014
  4. Bennett, Nathan; & Lemoine, James. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92(1/2).
  5. Boldi, Paolo; Rosa, Marco; & Vigna, Sebastiano. (2011). Robustness of Social Networks: Comparative Results Based on Distance Distributions. In A. Datta, S. Shulman, B. Zheng, S.-D. Lin, A. Sun, & E.-P. Lim (Eds.), (A. Datta, S. Shulman, B. Zheng, S.-D. Lin, A. Sun, & E.-P. Lim, Eds.), Social Informatics (pp. 8–21). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  6. Bonham, Nathan; Kasprzyk, Joseph; & Zagona, Edith. (2022). post-MORDM: Mapping policies to synthesize optimization and robustness results for decision-maker compromise. Environmental Modelling & Software, 157, 105491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105491
  7. Bothner, Matthew S.; Smith, Edward Bishop; & White, Harrison C. (2010). A Model of Robust Positions in Social Networks. American Journal of Sociology, 116(3), 943–992. https://doi.org/10.1086/658293
  8. Cairney, Paul. (2012). Complexity Theory in Political Science and Public Policy. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00270.x
  9. Capano, Giliberto; & Woo, Jun Jie. (2017). Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9273-x
  10. Capano, Giliberto; & Woo, Jun Jie. (2018). Designing policy robustness: outputs and processes. Policy and Society, 37(4), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1504494
  11. Carstensen, Martin B; & Schmidt, Vivien A. (2024). Ideational robustness of economic ideas in action: the case of European Union economic governance through a decade of crisis. Policy and Society, 43(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae011
  12. Carstensen, Martin B; Sørensen, Eva; & Torfing, Jacob. (2024). Ideational robustness in turbulent times. Policy and Society, 43(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae016
  13. Castrejon-Campos, Omar; Aye, Lu; & Hui, Felix Kin Peng. (2020). Making policy mixes more robust: An integrative and interdisciplinary approach for clean energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 64, 101425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101425
  14. Clasen, Jochen; & Mascaro, Clara. (2022). Activation: A thematic and conceptual review. Journal of European Social Policy, 32(4), 484–494.
  15. Clift, Ben. (2024). How “baked in” ideas hinder ideational robustness: the International Monetary Fund and “fiscal space.” Policy and Society, 43(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae021
  16. Denis, Jean-Louis; Foucault, Gaëlle; Larouche, Pierre; Régis, Catherine; Cohen, Miriam; & Girard, Marie-Andrée. (2024). The World Health Organization as an engine of ideational robustness. Policy and Society, 43(2), 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae008
  17. Dewulf, Art; & Biesbroek, Robbert. (2018). Nine lives of uncertainty in decision-making: strategies for dealing with uncertainty in environmental governance. Policy and Society, 37(4), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1504484
  18. Einali, M., Ebrahimi, S. A., Farhadinejad, M., & Danaeifard, H. (2024). Presenting a framework for applying open policy-making in the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran. Public Management, 16(1), 80–113.
  19. Haasnoot, Marjolijn; Kwakkel, Jan H.; Walker, Warren E.; & ter Maat, Judith. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006
  20. Hall, Peter A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 275–296.
  21. Head, Brian W. (2023). Wicked problems in public policy. In Encyclopedia of Public Policy (pp. 1–8). Springer.
  22. Head, Brian W.; & Alford, John. (2013). Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601
  23. Howlett, Michael; Capano, Giliberto; & Ramesh, M. (2018). Designing for robustness: surprise, agility and improvisation in policy design. Policy and Society, 37(4), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1504488
  24. Howlett, Michael; & Ramesh, M. (2023). Designing for adaptation: Static and dynamic robustness in policy-making. Public Administration, 101(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12849
  25. Hulland, John. (2020). Conceptual review papers: revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory. AMS Review, 10, 27–35. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1007/s13162-020-00168-7
  26. Knaggård, Åsa; & Triantafillou, Peter. (2024). The ideational robustness of liberal democracy in the wake of the pandemic: comparing the Danish and Swedish cases. Policy and Society, 43(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae009
  27. Kwakkel, Jan H.; Haasnoot, Marjolijn; & Walker, Warren E. (2016). Comparing Robust Decision-Making and Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty. Environmental Modelling & Software, 86, 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017
  28. Lai, Allen Yu-Hung. (2018). Agility amid uncertainties: evidence from 2009 A/H1N1 pandemics in Singapore and Taiwan. Policy and Society, 37(4), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1519979
  29. Lempert, Robert J.; Popper, Steven W.; & Bankes, Steven C. (2003). Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis. RAND Corporation.
  30. Lindblom, Charles E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526.
  31. MacInnis, Debbie. (2016). Developing conceptual articles for JCR. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(4), 613–629.
  32. Malghan, Deepak; & Kemp, Rink. (2022). Designing policies for diverse futures: A robust decision-making approach to climate change policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 133, 53–62.
  33. March, James G.; & Olsen, Johan P. (1983). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.
  34. McGee, Zachary A.; & Jones, Bryan D. (2019). Reconceptualizing the Policy Subsystem: Integration with Complexity Theory and Social Network Analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 47(S1), S138–S158. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12319
  35. Migone, Andrea; Howlett, Michael; & Howlett, Alexander. (2024). Paradigmatic stability, ideational robustness, and policy persistence: exploring the impact of policy ideas on policy-making. Policy and Society, puae004. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae004
  36. Mukherjee, Ishani; Coban, M Kerem; & Bali, Azad Singh. (2021). Policy capacities and effective policy design: A review. Policy Sciences, 54(2), 243–268.
  37. Nair, Sreeja; & Howlett, Michael. (2016). From robustness to resilience: avoiding policy traps in the long term. Sustainability Science, 11(6), 909–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0387-z
  38. Oss, Leike van; & Hek, Jaap van ’t. (2011). Why Organizational Change Fails: Robustness, Tenacity, and Change in Organizations. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203815908
  39. Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
  40. Rittel, Horst WJ; & Webber, Melvin M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
  41. Sabatier, Paul A; & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Policy Sciences, 26(2), 145–170.
  42. Schreiber, Felix; & Cramer, Colin. (2024). Towards a conceptual systematic review: proposing a methodological framework. Educational Review, 76(6), 1458–1479. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2116561
  43. Sewerin, Sebastian; Fesenfeld, Lukas P; & Schmidt, Tobias S. (2023). The role of policy design in policy continuation and ratcheting-up of policy ambition. Policy and Society, 42(4), 478–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad027
  44. Siddiki, Saba. (2020). Understanding and Analyzing Public Policy Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/541B4D8EC4491DB9B3CE21AAF4E24418
  45. Simon, Herbert A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99–118.
  46. Snyder, Hannah. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
  47. Sørensen, Eva; & Ansell, Christopher. (2021). Towards a Concept of Political Robustness. Political Studies, 71(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321721999974
  48. Sørensen, Eva; & Torfing, Jacob. (2024). The ideational robustness of bureaucracy. Policy and Society, 43(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae015
  49. Steen, Martijn Van der; & Twist, Mark van. (2018). Strategies for robustness: Five perspectives on how policy design is done. Policy and Society, 37(4), 491–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1520782
  50. Swanson, D.; Barg, S.; Tyler, S.; Venema, H.; Tomar, S.; Bhadwal, S.; & Drexhage, J. (2010). Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 924–939.
  51. Van Der Steen, Martijn; Scherpenisse, Jorren; & Van Twist, Mark. (2018). Anticipating surprise: the case of the early warning system of Rijkswaterstaat in the Netherlands. Policy and Society, 37(4), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1520780
  52. Walker, Warren E.; Haasnoot, Marjolijn; & Kwakkel, Jan H. (2013). Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning Approaches for Adaptation under Deep Uncertainty. Sustainability, 5(3), 955–979. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5030955
  53. Walker, Warren E.; Rahman, S. Adnan; & Cave, Jonathan. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 282–289.
  54. Wee, Bert Van; & Banister, David. (2016). How to Write a Literature Review Paper? Transport Reviews, 36(2), 278–288.
  55. Wildavsky, Aaron. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Little, Brown and Co.
  56. Workman, Mark; Darch, Geoff; Dooley, Kate; Lomax, Guy; Maltby, James; & Pollitt, Hector. (2021). Climate policy decision making in contexts of deep uncertainty - from optimisation to robustness. Environmental Science & Policy, 120, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.002
  57. Xiao, Yu; & Watson, Maria. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112.
  58. Zimmer, Lela. (2006). Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311–318.
  59. 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 of the United States of America, 104, 15194–15199. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702655104
  60. Angelopoulos, K.; Economides, G.; & Philippopoulos, A. (2017). Environmental public good provision under robust decision making. Oxford Economic Papers, 69, 118–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpw041
  61. Ansell, C.; Sorensen, E.; & Torfing, J. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Management Review, 23, 949–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272
  62. Capano, G.; & Woo, J. J. (2017). Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal. Policy Sciences, 50, 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9273-x
  63. Howlett, M. (2019). Procedural Policy Tools and the Temporal Dimensions of Policy Design: Resilience, Robustness and the Sequencing of Policy Mixes. International Review of Public Policy, 1, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.310
  64. Howlett, Michael. (2014). From the “old” to the “new” policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0
  65. Howlett, Michael. (2023). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments, Third Edition. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from http://https-www.scopus.com.64065ab89e.di-iranpaper.ir/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85186030576&doi=10.4324/9781003343431&partnerID=40&md5=dac263c56ed64194aef6102205b6fbda
  66. Jager, J.; Rounsevell, M.; Harrison, P.; Omann, I.; Dunford, R.; Kammerlander, M.; & Pataki, G. (2015). Assessing policy robustness of climate change adaptation measures across sectors and scenarios. Climatic Change, 128, 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1240-y
  67. Mirnasl, N.; Philpot, S.; Akbari, A.; & Hipel, K. W. (2022). Assessing policy robustness under the COVID-19 crisis: an empirical study of the environmental policymaking system in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 24, 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2022.2051454
  68. Workman, M.; Darch, G.; Denisart, B.; Roberts, D.; Wilkes, M.; Brown, S.; & Kruitwagen, L. (2024). A robust decision-making approach in climate policy design for possible net zero futures. Environmental Science & Policy, 162, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103886
Public Administration Perspective
Volume 16, Issue 3 - Serial Number 63
October 2025
Pages 128-157