Whose Success Counts? How Policy Roles Rewrite the Rules of “Success”

Abstract

Policy success is widely recognized as multidimensional, yet relatively little attention has been paid to a fundamental question: whose definition of success matters? This paper argues that different policy actors prioritize different dimensions of success because they occupy different positions in the policy process. Drawing on applied literature, the paper identifies four generic actor groups—political authorizers, designers, implementers, and civic advocates—and develops expectations about the success criteria each is likely to prioritize. These expectations are explored through a survey of 121 experienced practitioners, each drawn from one of the four actor groups and asked how frequently they consider thirty policy success criteria spanning six dimensions of success. The results show clear and consistent differences. Designers concentrate primarily on program design and goal achievement. Political authorizers balance programmatic, political, and impact concerns. Implementers exhibit the broadest conception of success, placing particular emphasis on processes, stakeholders, capability, and enduring impact. Civic advocates prioritize fairness, participation, trust, and beneficiary outcomes. The findings suggest that policy disagreements arise not because actors disagree about whether success matters, but because they evaluate success from different vantage points.