Six wicked cases
In INVI we investigate wild problems. How best to deal with them? When should they be dealt with? And by whom? There's no simple answer, but we want to share our thoughts. So we've put together two things for you: 1) an insight into what wild problems are and how and when to approach them, and 2) six wild cases where real policy entrepreneurs have worked to tackle wild problems. Click on a case below or read on this page to learn more about wild problems.
What are wild problems?
In short, wicked problems are cross-border and intractable problems that are not easily defined and where the causes cannot be easily identified. Wicked problems rarely have one right solution. They usually involve many actors with different opinions and interests and can be characterized by conflict of interest. On this page you can read more about the concept of wild problems.
From wicked to wild problems
In 1973, two professors Horst Rittel and Mel Webber wrote the influential scientific article Dilemmas of a General Theory of Planning. Here they introduced the concept of wicked problems. These are problems that are unsolvable and are themselves symptoms of other problems. In contrast to wicked problems are tame problems, which are bounded, understandable and have an obvious solution - examples are the construction of road networks or the introduction of pension and schooling rights.
INVI uses the term wild problems rather than wicked problems. We do this partly because wicked problems are reminiscent of something unapproachable and impossible, and can therefore discourage actors from tackling the problems. We also refrain from making a sharp dichotomy between wicked and tame because it doesn't make sense in a political reality where many problems are more on a sliding scale between the two. We prefer to place societal problems on a continuum between very wild and very tame. This also allows us to better understand how problems can change character over time. One factor that influences the nature of problems is the political context. Just think of primary schools in Denmark, where the players have largely moved from intense teacher conflict to consensus politics with the Sammen om Skolen partnership. Such developments make problems easier to tame
You can read more about the concept of wild problems here.
When can wild problems be attacked?
Timing is everything. This also applies to dealing with wild issues.
Wild problems are often best handled when the political climate is collaborative and relevant actors dare to test, play and develop. Wild problems can also be approached effectively in more top-down and dominance-driven environments, as well as in hierarchical and performance-driven environments when the situation calls for it. This could be if the problem requires careful planning, significant incentives or tight time management. The point is that it's crucial to match context and problem so that the specific political situation and the chosen policy tools and forms of collaboration match. Because the policy context can change in a split second, it is important to continuously assess the match.
You can read more about the political context here.
How do you approach wild problems?
Research suggests that collaborative models are a fruitful way to go when it comes to tackling wild problems. Collaborative models are formalized frameworks in which multiple actors with mutual obligations tackle a problem over time so that the sum of their actions becomes more than the parts.
However, there are many different ways to collaborate, which is why it is useful to have a more concrete terminology to guide policy entrepreneurs on how to approach collaboration. Wicked problems can be defined along two dimensions: degree of wildness and level of conflict. Based on these two dimensions, Sigge Winther has derived four different collaboration models that can be used for four different types of problems: Teamwork, Task Force, Moon Landing and Utopia.
Teamwork can be used for more well-defined problems where you can partner together to both develop and implement policy. Task force collaboration is good for conflictual problems where it can be difficult to build trust between actors. In this collaboration, the focus is on allocating resources to problems, not to administrations or other actors. In Moon Landing collaboration, you set a goal for the mission that many stakeholders can see themselves in - a scenario you want to achieve that you can steer towards and build support for. Utopia collaboration is aimed at systemic change, where the problem is reformulated and existing interests and ideas are challenged.
To read more about collaborative approaches to wild problems, read INVI's literature review here.
Who can attack wild problems?
If we are to succeed in tackling the wild problems, we need broad collaboration. If we have to single out one group that is particularly important for success, it's the policy entrepreneurs. These are the people who develop, translate and implement policy on a daily basis - whether in ministries, agencies, regions, municipalities, universities, private companies, foundations, NGOs, voluntary organizations or something else entirely. Successful change often requires policy entrepreneurs to seek out and cultivate moments where actors and problems are brought into an environment of collaboration, trust and the courage to think outside the box.
If you're more curious about the work of policy entrepreneurs, read our six wild cases, which are concrete examples of different policy entrepreneurs working on wild problems.