Exploring the Reasons for Government Inaction in Some Public Areas: A Qualitative Study

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Prof., Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Prof., Department of Planning and Management, Center for Management Studies and Technology Development, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

5 Associate Prof., Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22059/jipa.2025.396601.3712

Abstract

Objective
This study seeks to identify and analyze the reasons behind government inaction in certain public domains, in order to address the fundamental question: why does the government in Iran, despite recognizing public problems and facing clear societal expectations for intervention, adopt a strategy of inaction or passivity in specific areas of public policy? Understanding the roots of such inaction is vital for improving responsiveness, accountability, and the legitimacy of governance.
Methods
The research employed a qualitative content analysis method based on the approach of Elo and Kyngäs (2008). Using purposive sampling, 33 semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants including government officials, members of parliament, university professors with executive experience, and policy scholars. The analysis followed three stages—preparation, organization, and reporting. Ultimately, four main categories were extracted: structural and institutional, cognitive and behavioral, political and electoral, and environmental and contextual. Together, these categories provided a comprehensive, multidimensional framework for explaining government inaction.
Results
The analysis identified four main categories and 20 subcategories of factors contributing to policy inaction.

Structural and institutional: Bureaucratic inefficiency, overreliance on traditional procedures, dependence on outdated administrative systems and paperwork, lack of coordination among governmental bodies, and overlapping duties all create systemic inertia. Additionally, entrenched networks of vested interests and conflicts of interest incentivize individuals and groups to resist structural reforms.
Cognitive and behavioral: Psychological biases such as blame avoidance, risk aversion, optimism bias toward the status quo, reliance on intuitive shortcuts, and limited analytical capacity consolidate resistance to change. These dynamics generate cycles of passivity and blame-shifting among policymakers.
Political and electoral: Short-term calculations driven by electoral pressures, populist tendencies, issue avoidance, and policy myopia push policymakers toward symbolic or performative decisions, while deterring engagement with long-term reforms and fundamental action.
Environmental and contextual: Crises, natural disasters, climate and geopolitical conditions, as well as international and media pressures, restrict the government’s ability to respond promptly to emerging issues and create external conditions that reinforce inaction.

Conclusion
The study concludes that policy inaction is a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by the interaction of structural/institutional, cognitive/behavioral, political/electoral, and environmental/contextual factors. Such inaction not only undermines the government’s capacity to respond in a timely and effective manner to essential societal needs but also erodes public trust and policy legitimacy. Addressing this challenge requires reforms along several lines: revisiting and modernizing administrative procedures, enhancing analytical capacity in policymaking, strengthening inter-institutional coordination, and mitigating conflicts of interest. Moreover, special attention must be paid to cognitive biases in decision-making, ensuring that policymakers adopt evidence-based frameworks that balance short-term risk management with long-term problem-solving. Reforming governmental processes and shifting the prevailing mindset from passivity to proactive engagement—supported by a knowledge-driven and culturally adaptive environment—can improve both efficiency and legitimacy. The findings highlight that reform strategies must prioritize internal coordination, reduce incentives for maintaining private interests, and encourage acceptance of reasonable risks. Such measures are essential not only for improving responsiveness to immediate challenges but also for preventing the long-term consequences of systemic inaction. Ultimately, the study offers an analytical framework that can help policymakers and scholars better understand the drivers of governmental passivity, providing pathways for reform in Iran and in other contexts characterized by complex governance structures and multidimensional challenges.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
Alexander, M., Unruh, L., Koval, A. & Belanger, W. (2022). United States response to the COVID-19 pandemic, January–November 2020. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 17(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133121000116
Baraybar Hidalgo, V. & Dargent, E. (2020). State Responses to the Gold Rush in the Andes (2004–2018): The Politics of State Action (and Inaction). Studies in Comparative International Development, 55(4), 516–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-020-09314-5
Barber, S. (2016). Westminster, Governance and the Politics of Policy Inaction:‘Do Nothing.’ Springer.
Brown, P. R. & Stark, A. (2022). Policy inaction meets policy learning: four moments of non-implementation. Policy Sciences, 55(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09446-y
Danaeefard, H., Babaee Mojarad, H. , Khosravi, M. , Morattab, Y. and Zinatbakhsh, J. (2024-b). The Antecedents and Consequences of The National Data and Information Management Law: A Qualitative Research. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 10(3), 70-85. doi: 10.22059/jppolicy.2024.98675, (in Persian)
Danaeefard, H., Babaei Mojarad, H., Abdolhamid, M., Zinatbakhsh, J. & Khosravi, M. (2024-a). Exploring the reasons for inaction in the use of public participation tools in legislation: a qualitative research. Governance and Development Journal, 4(2), 3–18, (in Persian)
Dye, T. R. (2016). Understanding public policy (15th edition). Pearson.
Elliott, K., Massacci, F. & Williams, J. (2016). Action, Inaction, Trust, and Cybersecurity’s Common Property Problem. IEEE Security & Privacy, 14(1), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2016.2
Elo, S. & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Frowde, R., Dove, E. S. & Laurie, G. T. (2020). Fail to Prepare and you Prepare to Fail: the Human Rights Consequences of the UK Government’s Inaction during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Asian Bioethics Review, 12(4), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-020-00151-1
Gustafsson, A. (2019). Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies. Constitutional Political Economy, 30(3), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-019-09280-8
Head, B. (2022). Wicked Problems in Public Policy. In Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0
Hinterleitner, M., Knill, C. & Steinebach, Y. (2023). The growth of policies, rules, and regulations: A review of the literature and research agenda. Regulation & Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12511
Howlett, M. & Cashore, B. (2020). Public policy: definitions and approaches. In A Modern Guide to Public Policy (pp. 10–21). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904987.00007
Kettle, L. (2025). Can Policy Succeed through Inactivity? A Case Study of UK Foreign Policy after the Gulf War. Foreign Policy Analysis, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orae036
Love, J. & Garg, A. (2014). Presidential inaction and the separation of powers. Michigan Law Review, 112(7), 1195–1250.
McConnell, A. & t Hart, P. (2019). Inaction and public policy: understanding why policymakers ‘do nothing.’ Policy Sciences, 52(4), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11077-019-09362-2
McConnell, A. & t’Hart, P. (2014). Public policy as inaction: The politics of doing nothing. Available at SSRN 2500010.
McConnell, A. (2020). The use of placebo policies to escape from policy traps. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(7), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1662827
Mishra, K., Neesham, C., Coghill, K. & Stubbs, W. (2020). A multilevel analysis of climate change inaction: case study of an Australian electricity company. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 27(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2020.1758806
Mourad, L. (2017). “Standoffish” Policy-making: Inaction and Change in the Lebanese Response to the Syrian Displacement Crisis. Middle East Law and Governance, 9(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1163/18763375-00903005
Nair, S. (2020). Addressing uncertainty and ambiguity in policymaking: advancements and dilemmas. In A Modern Guide to Public Policy (pp. 58–77). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904987.00011
Olsen, A. L. (2017). Responding to problems: actions are rewarded, regardless of the outcome. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1352–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1281998
Ramia, G., Mitchell, E., Morris, A., Wilson, S., Hastings, C. & Davies, J. (2022). Explaining Government Policy Inaction on International Student Housing in Australia: The Perspectives of Stakeholders. Higher Education Policy, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-022-00288-8
Ruth, M. (2010). Economic and Social Benefits of Climate Information: Assessing the Cost of Inaction. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 1, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2010.09.026
Stevens, A. (2019). ‘Being human’ and the ‘moral sidestep’ in drug policy: Explaining government inaction on opioid-related deaths in the UK. Addictive Behaviors, 90, 444–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.08.036
Vij, S., Warner, J. F., Sanjeev Mehta, A. & Barua, A. (2024). Status quo in transboundary waters: Unpacking non-decision making and non-action. Global Environmental Change, 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102821
Vis, B. (2024). Introducing a Conceptual Map of Political Elites’ Responses to Different Types of Uncertain Phenomena. Political Studies Review, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231222847
Zahariadis, N., Ceccoli, S. & Petridou, E. (2021). Assessing the effects of calculated inaction on national responses to the COVID‐19 crisis. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 12(3), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12230
Journal of Public Administration
Volume 17, Issue 4
2025
Pages 834-871

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics