Beyond wickedness in policy problems
Complex societal problems such as climate change, pandemics, and polarisation are persistent, interdependent and difficult to define. Yet they are often reduced to labels like “wicked” that oversimplify their underlying complexity. A paper in Policy and Society revisits these labels and proposes a framework that organises problem complexity into two dimensions:
system complexity (structure, dynamics, and scope)
stakeholder divergence (values, knowledge, and power).
The framework offers a more nuanced understanding of complex problems and introduces concrete tools for governance and design.
About complex societal problems
There are a range of typologies to categorise problems such as “tame” versus “wicked” or “structured” versus “unstructured”. Complex societal problems (CSPs) are persistent and feature contested goals, incomplete knowledge, and path‑dependent effects. CSPs are situated in multiple interacting systems (e.g., social, ecological, technological), whose elements and feedback evolve over time. Systems may be natural (such as forests), human-made (such as transport networks or power grids), or a combination of both (such as organisations or financial markets).
Problem complexity
The framework conceptualises problem complexity along two dimensions: system complexity and stakeholder divergence.
System complexity is the extent to which a situation is characterised by many interconnected components and dynamic interactions such as feedback loops, nonlinearity, and path dependence. Interacting variables and feedback loops can cause unexpected outcomes that are difficult to fully anticipate.
The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates high system complexity. Virus transmission, healthcare capacity, public health measures, economic activity, and individual behaviour all influenced one another. These interactions created feedback loops and emergent behaviours, making the course of the pandemic difficult to predict and requiring policymakers to continually adapt their responses.
Stakeholder divergence is the extent to which stakeholders differ in their values, interests, goals, knowledge, power, perspectives, and priorities. These differences make it more difficult to define problems, agree on solutions and coordinate action. High stakeholder divergence is characterised by competing interests and conflicting views about policy objectives, trade-offs and preferred courses of action.
The COVID-19 pandemic is an example of high stakeholder divergence. Governments, public health experts, businesses, and citizens often disagreed about how to balance public health, mental health, economic activity and individual freedoms. These competing priorities made it more challenging to build consensus and coordinate an effective response.
A new problem typology
Using the dimensions of system complexity and stakeholder divergence, the researchers identify four high-level types of problems: tame complexities, complex analytical problems, social dilemmas and CSPs.
Tame complexities are problems with less contestation, fewer unknowns and fewer competing alternatives. The system has manageable components and interactions. For example, organising local food delivery services to support vulnerable populations during lockdowns is a well-structured problem where goals and approaches are clear.
Complex analytical problems have less contestation, fewer unknowns, and fewer competing alternatives. However, they involve systems with many components, connections and interactions. This requires analysis, modelling, or simulation to reduce uncertainty. An example is optimising hospital resource allocation to manage COVID-19 patient care.
Social dilemmas involve high contestation and many unknowns among stakeholders, but manageable system dynamics, requiring active stakeholder management. An example is implementing remote work policies during the pandemic.
Complex societal problems involve high contestation, many unknowns, and a system with components or dynamics that are hard to understand. This requires system analysis and stakeholder engagement. An example is developing public health strategies to manage the pandemic’s impact on mental health.
What this means for practice
The framework can be applied in three ways:
Problem diagnosis uses the typology to identify the dimensions that contribute most to the complexity of a problem and develop a diagnostic profile. This helps clarify why a problem is difficult and narrows the range of potential interventions.
Frame comparison applies the typology to reveal differences in how stakeholders understand the problem or to track how its complexity changes over time. This helps decision-makers adapt their engagement and governance strategies.
Governance alignment uses the typology to select governance approaches that best match the sources of complexity. Problems characterised by high system complexity require greater analytical capability, coordination and adaptive learning. Problems with high stakeholder divergence place greater emphasis on legitimacy, trust and inclusive decision-making.
The bottom line
The new problem typology clarifies what constitutes complexity. It provides a foundation for more robust analysis and enables decision-makers to align problem diagnosis and governance approaches with the complexity of a problem.
Want to read more?
Beyond wickedness: an integrative review and conceptual synthesis of policy problem typologies – Claudio Lazo, Andrea Kerstens and Angela Greco, Policy and Society, June 2026