Journal of Public Administration

Journal of Public Administration

Public Policy Resuscitation Kit in Iran; Designing Mechanisms to Avoid/Reduce Unintended Consequences

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Jafar Zinatbakhsh 1
Hassan DanaeeFard 2
Seyed Hossein Kazemi 3
1 Ph.D., Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management & 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.
10.22059/jipa.2026.407796.3841
Abstract
Objective
Unintended consequences of public policies represent one of the most fundamental and persistent challenges of governance in the contemporary era. Complexity, uncertainty, and the dynamic nature of social environments, combined with human cognitive limitations, often result in policies that not only fail to resolve the problems they are intended to address but themselves become sources of new crises. This study aims to design a Public Policy Resuscitation Kit for Iran, with a specific focus on mechanisms for avoiding, mitigating, and correcting unintended consequences. The kit, conceived as an intervention-oriented and tool-based framework, seeks to fill a critical gap in the policy literature by offering practical strategies for risk management and policy resilience.
Methods
The research employed a qualitative approach utilizing content analysis as its primary analytical method. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with senior policymakers in Iran, who were selected via purposive and judgmental sampling techniques. To ensure the validity and trustworthiness of the findings, participant review, peer examination, and data triangulation were systematically applied throughout the research process. Ultimately, 476 initial codes were extracted from the interview data. These codes were subsequently refined into 17 distinct mechanisms, which were grouped under 6 subcategories and 2 overarching categories. The identified mechanisms were classified into six clusters: adaptive, capacity-building, flexibility, absorptive, participatory, and behavioral. While the first four clusters are predominantly process-oriented and tangible in nature, the latter two pertain specifically to the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of policymakers, thereby capturing both structural and human aspects of policy implementation.
Results
The findings indicate that unintended consequences are not merely the result of poor policy design or technical miscalculation but rather emerge from complex interactions among multiple and sometimes conflicting goals, ideological values, organizational interests, and cognitive constraints inherent in decision-making processes. Adaptive and capacity-building mechanisms were found to enhance institutional resilience and foster organizational learning, enabling organizations to better anticipate and respond to unforeseen outcomes. Flexibility and absorptive mechanisms enable the correction and redirection of policies toward desired outcomes, allowing for mid-course adjustments in response to emerging challenges. Meanwhile, participatory and behavioral mechanisms strengthen social trust, reshape the perspectives of key actors, and reduce resistance to policy changes, thereby facilitating the effective management of unforeseen effects and enhancing overall policy acceptance.
Conclusion
The study also underscores the necessity of systematic conceptualization and theorization in the field of unintended consequences. A review of prior literature reveals that most existing studies have focused on case-specific analyses, with limited attention devoted to the development of comprehensive and replicable tools. In contrast, the Public Policy Resuscitation Kit integrates diagnostic, preventive, corrective, and learning instruments into a unified and coherent framework. It not only facilitates the identification of patterns of unintended consequences but also provides practical means for prevention, post-occurrence correction, and institutional learning to avoid the repetition of errors. By combining these complementary functions, the kit offers policymakers a structured pathway to anticipate risks, intervene effectively, and sustain long-term improvements in governance. The central conclusion is that good governance cannot be achieved solely through benevolent intentions or lofty goals; rather, it requires serious and sustained consideration of the hidden and complex consequences of policy implementation. The Public Policy Resuscitation Kit serves as a strategic instrument, enabling policymakers to select appropriate combinations of mechanisms and thereby enhance the resilience, flexibility, and adaptability of policies. In doing so, it contributes to more effective governance and offers a novel perspective for managing unintended consequences. This study thus takes a meaningful step toward bridging theoretical and practical gaps in Iran's policy-making system and outlines a new horizon for the systematic treatment of unintended consequences in public policy.
Keywords
Unintended consequences
Content analysis
Public policies
Resuscitation kit
Causal mechanisms
Subjects
Alford, J. & Head, B. W. (2017). Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397–413.
Al-Thaqeb, S. A. & Algharabali, B. G. (2019). Economic policy uncertainty: A literature review. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 20, e00133.
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, 104(39), 15194–15199.
Angeli, F. & Montefusco, A. (2020). Sensemaking and learning during the Covid-19 pandemic: A complex adaptive systems perspective on policy decision-making. World Development, 136, 105106.
Aronczyk, M. (2018). Public relations, issue management, and the transformation of American environmentalism, 1948–1992. Enterprise & Society, 19(4), 836–863.
Astbury, B. & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381.
Backhaus, J. G. (2012). Handbook of the history of economic thought. Springer.
Baert, P. (1991). Unintended consequences: A typology and examples. International Sociology, 6(2), 201–210.
Bennett, N. & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311–317.
Blocker, C. P., Davis, B. & Anderson, L. (2021). Unintended consequences in transformative service research: helping without harming. Journal of Service Research, 25(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211061190
Bonell, C., Jamal, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J. & Cummins, S. (2015). ‘Dark logic’: Theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health, 69(1), 95–98.
Boulton, J. (2010). Complexity theory and implications for policy development. Emergence: Complexity and Organisation, 12(2), 31–40.
Bu, Z., Liu, J. & Liu, J. (2025). Impact of emotions on the behavioral strategies of PPP project stakeholders: an RDEU evolutionary game analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(4), 2242–2271.
Cairney, P. & Heikkila, T. (2014). A comparison of theories of the policy process. Theories of the Policy Process, 3. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284-9
Carson, C. (2008). Lessons learned: The unintended consequences of policy decisions affecting maternity services for Pittsburgh’s African Americans. Social Work in Public Health, 23(2–3), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371910802151994
Cherkaoui, M. (2007). Good Intentions. Oxford, Bardwell-Press.
Chollete, L. & Harrison, S. G. (2021). Unintended Consequences: Ambiguity Neglect and Policy Ineffectiveness. Eastern Economic Journal, 47(2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-021-00187-7
Cinti, A., Shaw, W., Cudney-Bueno, R. & Rojo, M. (2010). The unintended consequences of formal fisheries policies: Social disparities and resource overuse in a major fishing community in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine Policy, 34(2), 328–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.002
Danaeefard, H. (2022). Why do some national policies make Things Worse? Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies, 5(2), 1–20.
Danaeefard, H., Babaei Mojarad, H., Kazemi, S, H., Zinatbakhsh, J & Khosravi, M. (2026). Why Tools for Public Participation Remain Marginal in Legislative Processes: Evidence from the Iranian Parliament. Public Administration and Policy, 29(1), 310-322.
Danaeefard, H., Babaei Mojard, H., Abdolhamid, M., Zeinatbakhsh, J. & Khosravi, M. (2024). Exploring the reasons for inaction in using public participation tools in legislation: A qualitative study. Governance and Development, 4(2), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.22111/jipaa.2024.469680.1176. (in Persian)
De Zwart, F. (2015). Unintended but not unanticipated consequences. Theory and Society, 44, 283–297.
Duncan, K. & Waddoups, J. (2020). Unintended Consequences of Nevada’s Ninety-Percent Prevailing Wage Rule. Labor Studies Journal, 45(2), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X19897961
Dye, T. R. (2016). Understanding public policy (15th editi). Pearson.
Ettelt, S., Mays, N. & Allen, P. (2015). The multiple purposes of policy piloting and their consequences: Three examples from national health and social care policy in England. Journal of Social Policy, 44(2), 319–337. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279414000865
Finsterwalder, J. & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2020). Intentionality and transformative services: Wellbeing co-creation and spill-over effects. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R. & Worthen, B. R. (2010). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (4th editio). Pearson.
Gerring, J. (2008). The mechanismic worldview: Thinking inside the box. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 161–179.
Grabosky, P. N. (1996). Unintended consequences of crime prevention. In Crime Prevention Studies, 25–56.
Hall, T. (2014). Aftermath : the unintended consequences of public policies. In CATO Institute. the Cato Institute.
Head, B. W. (2022). Wicked Problems in Public Policy. In Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0
Hirschman, A. O. (1991). The rhetoric of reaction. Harvard University Press.
Hoppe, R. (2010). The governance of problems: puzzling, powering, participation (First edit). Policy Press.
Hoppe, R. (2018). Heuristics for practitioners of policy design: Rules-of-thumb for structuring unstructured problems. Public Policy and Administration, 33(4), 384–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717709338
Howlett, M. & Mukherjee, I. (2018). Routledge handbook of policy design (1st Editio). Routledge.
Kohen, D. (2009). Living With the Dragon: Acting Ethically in a World of Unintended Consequence. Routledge.
Kulick, J., Prieger, J. & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2016). Unintended consequences of cigarette prohibition, regulation, and taxation. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 46, 69–85.
Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E. & Haasnoot, M. (2016). Coping with the wickedness of public policy problems: Approaches for decision making under deep uncertainty. In Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management (Vol. 142, Issue 3, p. 1816001). American Society of Civil Engineers.
Leslie, L. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 538–563.
Locke, J. (1824). The works of John Locke: in nine volumes (Vol. 7). C. and J. Rivington.
Macintosh, A. & Wilkinson, D. (2016). Complexity theory and the constraints on environmental policymaking. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(1), 65–93.
Margetts, H. & Hood, C. (2012). Paradoxes of modernization: unintended consequences of public policy reform. Oxford University Press, USA.
Marianne, B. & Lynn, K. (2015). Intended and unintended effects of the war on poverty: What research tells Us and implications for policy. In Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (Vol. 29, Issue 3, pp. 451–478). https://doi.org/10.1002/pam
 
Mark, M. M. & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 35–57.
Mehdizadeh, R. & Fischer, M. (2013). The unintended consequences of greening America: an examination of how implementing green building policy may impact the dynamic between local, state, and federal regulatory systems and the possible exacerbation of class segregation. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 3, 1–7.
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904.
Moore, R. S., Annechino, R. M. & Lee, J. P. (2009a). Unintended consequences of smoke-free bar policies for low-SES women in three California counties. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(2), S138–S143.
Moore, R. S., Annechino, R. M. & Lee, J. P. (2009b). Unintended Consequences of Smoke-Free Bar Policies for Low-SES Women in Three California Counties. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(2 SUPPL.), S138–S143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.05.003
Moskalewicz, J., Dąbrowska, K., Herold, M. D., Baccaria, F., Rolando, S., Herring, R., Thom, B., Kahlert, R., Stummvoll, G., Moazen, B., Stöver, H. & Pisarska, A. (2021). Unintended consequences of drug policies experienced by young drug users in contact with the criminal justice systems. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 28(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2020.1823944
Norton, R. (2015). Unintended consequences. ECompany Now, 12–18.
Ogilvie, K. A. (2018). Unintended consequences of local alcohol restrictions in rural Alaska. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 17(1), 16–31.
Oliver, K., Lorenc, T. & Tinkler, J. (2020). Evaluating unintended consequences: new insights into solving practical, ethical and political challenges of evaluation. Evaluation, 26(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019850847
Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., Tinkler, J. & Bonell, C. (2019a). Understanding the unintended consequences of public health policies: the views of policymakers and evaluators. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–9.
Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., Tinkler, J. & Bonell, C. (2019b). Understanding the unintended consequences of public health policies: The views of policymakers and evaluators. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7389-6.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Goal-Based vs. Goal-Free Evaluation. In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (pp. 141–144). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00403-5
Perri. (2014). Explaining unintended and unexpected consequences of policy decisions: Comparing three British governments, 1959-74. Public Administration, 92(3), 673–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12081
Peters, B. G. & Nagel, M. L. (2025). From benign to malign: unintended consequences and the growth of Zombie policies. Policy and Society, puae039.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2011). Everyday life in British government. Oxford University Press, USA.
Rogers, P. J. & Weiss, C. H. (2007). Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on: Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 2007(114).
Scriven, M. (1972). Die Methodologie der Evaluation.
Scriven, M. (1991). Prose and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 12(1), 55–62.
Shum, R. Y. (2009). Can attitudes predict outcomes? Public opinion, democratic institutions and environmental policy. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(5), 281–295.
Sieber, S. D. (1981). Fatal remedies: The ironies of social intervention. Plenum Press.
Staempfli, S., Havaei, F., Phinney, A. & MacPhee, M. (2022). Unintended consequences of pandemic management strategies on residents and family in one long-term care home in British Columbia: A patient-supported qualitative study. Innovation in Aging, 6(5), igac036.
Steel, D. (2004). Social mechanisms and causal inference. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(1), 55–78.
Suckling, J., Hoolohan, C., Soutar, I. & Druckman, A. (2021). Unintended consequences: Unknowable and unavoidable, or knowable and unforgivable? Frontiers in Climate, 124.
Taherian, M., Ebrahimi, S. & Farhadinejad, M. (1404). Conceptualizing robust energy governance; Introducing the RIIDII-Energy framework. First National Conference on Infrastructure Reconstruction and Redressing Imbalances in the Direction of Investment for Production. (in Persian)
Taherian, M., Ebrahimi, S. A. & Zinatbakhsh, J. (2025). Disambiguating the characteristics of defense policies: stability, resilience, and robustness. Defense Management and Research, 24(107), 103–130. https://mdr.ihu.ac.ir/article_209974.html. (in Persian)
Taherian, M., Ebrahimi, S.A., Danaeefard, H. & Farhadinejad, M. (2025). A review of the concept of public policy robustness and the presentation of the RIIDI framework. Public Management Perspectives, 16(3), 128–157. https://doi.org/10.48308/jpap.2025.240734.1492. (in Persian)
Tan, K. H., Chung, L., Shi, L. & Chiu, A. (2017). Reprint" Unpacking the indirect effects and consequences of environmental". International Journal of Production Economics, 190, 22–30.
Vernon, R. (1979). Unintended consequences. Political Theory, 7(1), 57–73.
Walsh, H. S., Dong, A., Tumer, I. Y. & Brat, G. (2020, August). Detecting and characterizing archetypes of unintended consequences in engineered systems. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (Vol. 83976, p. V008T08A021). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Walsh, H., Dong, A. & Tumer, I. (2019, July). Towards a theory for unintended consequences in engineering design. In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3411-3420). Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, C. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501–524.
Wolfson, M. & Hourigan, M. (1997). Unintended consequences and professional ethics: criminalization of alcohol and tobacco use by youth and young adults. Addiction, 92(9), 1159–1164.
Youker, B. W. & Ingraham, A. (2014). Goal-free evaluation: An orientation for foundations’ evaluations. The Foundation Review, 5(4), 7. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1182
Youker, B. W. (2013). Goal-Free Evaluation: A Potential Model for the Evaluation of Social Work Programs. Social Work Research, 37(4), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svt032
Youker, B. W., Ingraham, A. & Bayer, N. (2014). An assessment of goal-free evaluation: Case studies of four goal-free evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 46, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.05.002
Youker, B. W., Zielinski, A., Hunter, O. C. & Bayer, N. (2016). Who needs goals? A case study of goal-free evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 12(27), 27–43.
Zinatbakhsh, J., Babaei Mojard, H. & Khosravi, M. (2024). Goal-free Evaluation; predicting and analyzing the actual consequences (desirable and undesired) of the law. Monthly Journal of Expert Reports of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 32(5). https://doi.org/10.22034/report.2024.17070.1873. (in Persian)
Zinatbakhsh, J., Babaei Mojard, H. & Khosravi, M. (2025). Evaluating laws (4): Identifying and explaining the antecedents and consequences of the National Data and Information Management Law with an Goal-free evaluation approach. Monthly Journal of Expert Reports of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.22034/report.mrc.2025.1404.33.3.20765. (in Persian)
Journal of Public Administration
Volume 18, Issue 3
2026
Pages 595-632