4.1. Interrelated Structural Causes
Economic factors, in four broad categories, were cited by 48 publications (51%) as an underlying cause of policy failure. The first economic cause was a disconnection between economic markets and environmental sustainability, resulting in market failure [
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
39]. Dutta [
38], for example, argued that the failure to accurately account for environmental and sustainability outcomes in current markets leads ”to inefficient allocation of resources, over- or under-production, and only partial fulfilment of environmental goals” [
38]. Caviglia-Harris [
34] argued that market failure is the cause of over-exploitation of natural resources, and there needs to be better implementation of demand-side policies that promote sustainable products. Pastakia [
33] suggested that poorly designed regulations are causing market failure by discouraging investment in, and development of, innovative environmentally sustainable solutions.
The second most common economic cause of policy implementation failure was the favouring of economic outcomes over environmental sustainability [
32,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48,
49]. Rogers and Wilkinson [
41] argued that the failure to pass the
Canada Endangered Species Protection Act was due to the framing of all discussions in the economic context with commercial interests valued over species protection. Paker et al. [
49] found similar results when examining the success of environmentally focused civil society organisations. The authors argued that the state was unwilling to engage with organisations that were at odds with economic priorities and that economic growth was favoured over the implementation of environmental legislation.
The third cause was low levels of economic development and the impacts of development on the environment, particularly in Asia and Africa [
37,
48,
50,
51,
52,
53,
54,
55,
56,
57,
58]. As Boadi [
53] found, waste disposal, water supply and pollution in the urban areas of Africa were still a significant and growing concern due to poor economic performance limiting the human and material resources available to deal with problems.
Finally, there was a lack of market instruments, and economic markets themselves inhibited the ability to address environmental issues [
31,
36,
40,
57,
59,
60,
61,
62,
63,
64,
65,
66,
67,
68,
69,
70,
71,
72,
73,
74,
75,
76]. Fieldman [
76] compared liberal market economies in the UK and USA with coordinated market economies in Germany and Japan in terms of their influence over pollution. The author found that financial liberalisation prevented ecological modernisation (i.e., the decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation) because the market alone did not encourage sufficient environmental innovation. In Ukraine, Soloviy and Cubbage [
36] examined the effect of transitioning from a state to market economy on forestry. The author concluded that current forest legislation was incompatible with the market economy and did not prevent illegal harvesting and overexploitation of forests.
Social causes of policy failure were identified in 24 (26%) of the papers analysed. The attitudes/beliefs of the public were found to influence the successful implementation or adoption of sustainable practices [
31,
51,
61,
62,
69,
77,
78,
79,
80,
81]. Social resistance to change was also identified as a significant barrier to policy success [
31,
80,
82,
83,
84,
85,
86]. In a study of fisheries in the European Union, for example, Carter [
80] found that fishermen did not trust scientific estimates for stock depletion and this contributed to overfishing. The characteristics and history of the target community can also influence success [
33,
35,
36,
74,
85,
87,
88,
89,
90].
Only five articles (5%) identified environmental factors as a contributing cause of policy failure. In a study of mining and sustainability in Colombia, for example, Siegel [
74], found that geography led to radical regionalisation causing conflict that prevented effective regulation. Unstable or vulnerable environmental conditions were also identified as barriers to success [
30,
69,
78,
91]. Mulale et al. [
91], for example, found that environmental conditions in certain areas of Botswana make agricultural land particularly vulnerable to desertification/degradation.
Discussions of the underlying political causes of policy failure were found in 42 papers (45%). Case studies in Finland, Italy, the West Balkans and Australia indicated that failure may result where policies are not well developed, are not implemented fully, are not politically popular, or go against a prevailing political agenda [
41,
47,
48,
67,
71,
74,
79,
92,
93,
94]. Dominant interests, such as extractive industries, may influence what is politically feasible, resulting in a failure to deliver sustainability [
41,
42,
44,
46,
49,
58,
60,
73,
81,
93,
95,
96,
97]. An unstable political climate or corruption can further limit success [
37,
49,
53,
56,
59,
67,
74,
77,
96,
98]. An example was identified by Marcoux and Urpelainen [
96], who found that corruption in some Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries led to the overuse of agricultural pesticides. In some cases, authors described environmental issues as becoming highly politicised and thus contentious, leading to policy failure [
44,
46,
54,
78]. Others argued that changes to existing governance arrangements can be inadequate [
36,
42,
54,
77,
85,
86,
99]. Finally, a failure to reach an agreement between countries/jurisdictions or reach a decision was identified as a significant barrier to success [
48,
68,
73,
86,
88,
93,
100,
101,
102,
103,
104,
105,
106].
Only nine papers (10%) identified technical limitations as a contributing factor to policy failure. All cited the lack of development or the availability of appropriate technology as a barrier to sustainability [
30,
34,
38,
54,
62,
69,
75,
90,
107]. Chen et al. [
75], for example, found that there was a need for improved technology in the USA to increase the use of recycled materials in the manufacturing sector. Similarly, Bailey [
62] found that less efficient technology led to the lack of recycling of some materials.
Legal factors were identified in 32 papers (34%). Some authors pointed to the absence of appropriate laws [
32,
48,
53,
59,
61,
71,
74,
88,
92,
99,
108,
109,
110,
111]. In other circumstances, legislation was present but either inadequate or not enforced [
36,
43,
45,
46,
51,
53,
62,
67,
74,
109,
112]. A lack of land/property rights was also a significant barrier in the USA, Asia and Africa [
30,
34,
50,
69,
98]. Finally, some laws were actually impediments to achieving environmental targets [
33,
42,
57,
67,
93]. Buzar [
67], for example, found that statutory requirements in the West Balkans were restricting investment in the renewable energy sector.
A further 19 papers (20%) identified a range of discursive causes of sustainability policy failure. These included the clash between economic rationalism and environmentalism, as well as the way environmental issues were constructed (as a market failure, for example) [
52,
58,
65,
79,
80,
86,
113,
114,
115]. The framing of discussion and differences in language used between groups were also found to be impediments [
48,
65,
81,
83,
107,
116]. Jabbour et al. [
48] identified differences in language use by scientists and policy makers as problematic in progressing towards and achieving international environmental goals. Terms such as ‘sustainable development’ have also been found to be misnomers and may actually encourage unsustainable behaviour [
46,
51,
92,
117,
118].
Failure was rarely due to one isolated factor and was usually linked to a combination of interacting economic, legal and political factors (the three most cited factors). An analysis of the adoption of more sustainable technologies for agriculture in Africa and Asia by Shiferaw, Okello and Reddy [
69], for example, found that ”policy and institutional failures exacerbate market failures, locking smallholder resource users into a low-level equilibrium that perpetuates poverty and land degradation”. Baker et al. [
61] looked at the success of national and local initiatives for reducing environmental degradation in Bulgaria and found that an unstable economy, politicisation of the environmental movement, political corruption and an inadequate legal system were preventing successful outcomes from being achieved. Jabbour et al. [
48] critically evaluated the progress of international environmental goals from the UNEP (2012)
Global Environmental Outlook 5 report [
12]. They found that these goals had not been achieved due to the prioritisation of economic growth, the lack of political will, inappropriate governance, a lack of laws, and the different use of language by scientists and policy makers.
4.2. Implementation Traps
Incomplete specifications were identified in 13 papers (14%) as implementation traps. In some cases, policy goals were too vague or broad to be converted into actions [
31,
60,
84,
90,
93,
98,
104,
113]. Voisey and O’Riordan [
60], for example, studied the governance arrangements for sustainable development across the UK and found that the specifications of targets contained in the White Paper and strategy were weak, resulting in very limited action. In other circumstances, terms within policies, such as pollution [
65] or sedentary species [
108], were not clearly defined, preventing successful implementation of the policy [
32,
65,
92,
108]. Another problem was the lack of guidance within policies on how objectives could be achieved. An example of this was land use and urban greening policies in South Africa that failed largely due to a lack of specific standards or actions [
119].
Designating responsibility to inappropriate agencies for policy implementation was identified as a barrier to success in 24 studies (26%). This may be the case for a single agency [
31,
35,
37,
45,
46,
48,
60,
90,
93,
102,
104] or policies that require a multi-level or multi-sector approach to implementation [
36,
48,
51,
59,
74,
77,
98,
99,
109,
110,
112]. Finally, problems also occur when the chain of responsibility for implementing a policy is unclear [
41,
48,
61,
74].
Conflicting objectives were cited as an implementation trap in 30 papers (32%). In some cases, economic development objectives were prioritised over environmental concerns or policies [
32,
37,
41,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48,
49,
52,
56,
57,
60,
65,
67,
73,
76,
88,
90,
106,
119]. Bromley [
65] found that setting pollution targets in the USA resulted in a policy ‘lock-in’ that was not able to respond to a dynamic market. A lack of coherence between policies and objectives was a problem [
48,
87,
100,
104,
113,
120]. Heinzle and Wüstenhagen [
120] demonstrated in Germany that revising eco-labelling to accommodate industry demands undermined its effectiveness in informing green consumers.
Incentive failure was identified as an implementation trap in 31 papers (33%). The majority of these studies cited insufficient incentives to adopt environmentally sustainable practices as a trap and argued for greater economic incentives [
30,
32,
38,
42,
45,
55,
63,
66,
67,
69,
74,
75,
83,
84,
95,
102,
117]. Some found that there were insufficient incentives to implement a policy or comply with regulations as a result of either a lack of official accountability or a lack of public demand for action [
34,
36,
48,
54,
60,
82,
87,
108,
109]. Toke [
82], for example, found that local communities received little direct benefit from windfarms in the UK and Denmark, resulting in a lack of incentive for their support. Finally, a small number of papers identified circumstances where financial incentives simply failed to achieve the desired outcomes [
40,
88,
91,
104,
115]. For example, in Botswana, high levels of subsidies for farmers make grazing artificially profitable resulting in overstocking, overgrazing, and consequently environmental degradation [
91].
Nine papers (10%) identified conflicting directives (or orders for action) as implementation traps. A lack of coherence between policy directives and objectives was found to be problematic in the implementation of policies [
34,
49,
50,
51,
68,
90,
99,
104,
108]. Policies identified as having conflicting directives include Greece’s Natura 2000 [
99], the Local Government Climate Resolution in the UK [
51], the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [
108], and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act [
108]. In their studies of policies in China and Scotland, Gilley [
104] and Mittler [
51] found that economic development directives were prioritised over environmental concerns/policies.
Limited or low levels of competence were identified in 21 papers (22%) as implementation traps. The majority of these papers described examples where those charged with policy implementation lacked sufficient skills, training or knowledge needed for success [
33,
37,
45,
48,
53,
60,
61,
69,
72,
74,
77,
91,
93,
96,
98,
110,
119]. Some studies discussed problems with the transfer of policies or technology to developing countries as a result of limited capacity [
55,
90,
102,
119]. Mol [
102], for example, found that some developing countries lack the capacity to regulate biofuels. This is a problem because increasing biofuel production may impact on food security and biodiversity as it competes for fertile land.
Inadequate administrative resources were cited in 22 papers (23%). In most cases, authors identified an overarching lack of dedicated funding, time, or other resources to achieve environmentally sustainable objectives [
34,
36,
47,
51,
53,
54,
55,
61,
69,
72,
90,
93,
98,
113,
119,
121]. In other cases, the tasks required of institutions were found to be beyond the resources allocated to them [
48,
49,
60,
87,
110,
122]. Hindmarsh [
122], for example, found that water managers in Australia’s Murray-Darling river system had insufficient time and resources to conduct adequate consultations, despite statutory requirements to do so.
Four broad forms of communicative failure described in 47 papers (50%) topped the list of implementation traps. The first was the inadequacy or absence of consultation with the affected community [
30,
41,
45,
49,
56,
60,
78,
79,
81,
82,
83,
84,
94,
95,
98,
99,
103,
110,
115,
120,
122]. The second was a failure to adequately involve the community in the policy process [
32,
36,
57,
59,
65,
73,
77,
98,
104,
123]. The third was community opposition to environmentally sustainable policies/actions [
82,
92,
93]. Finally, a lack of community awareness/knowledge of sustainability issues was also identified as a result of communication failure [
33,
34,
35,
44,
51,
53,
58,
59,
60,
62,
63,
74,
75,
77,
87,
90,
111,
113,
115].
4.3. Knowledge/Scope Issues
An incomplete contextual understanding of problems was discussed as an additional cause of policy failure in 15 papers (16%) under three broad themes. First was a lack of research into the problem or solution in cases such as energy production, irrigation and food security, carbon dependence, and biosecurity [
55,
59,
67,
114]. Second, there were misconceptions about the cause of the environmental issues [
48,
56,
74,
91,
98,
115]. Finally, there were incomplete or low levels of understanding with regards to the anticipated impacts of policies [
40,
45,
79,
88,
107].
The breadth and depth of issues encompassed by sustainability was described as a challenge in 22 papers (23%). Policies need to be more comprehensive in terms of the area, jurisdiction, or sector covered [
31,
47,
55,
59,
79,
84,
88,
94,
101,
104,
108,
111]. Schuppert [
88], for example, concluded that the existing cap and trade systems covered only some sectors, and that climate change—a transboundary problem—requires a global solution, despite such schemes being limited to a few countries. Policy makers also failed to consider or account for the external impacts of sustainability policies [
37,
48,
54]. Low levels of policy integration were identified as a contributing factor to policy failure [
60,
91,
98,
112,
119]. A study of urban greening in housing in South Africa by Shackleton, et al. [
119], for example, found that environmental issues were often poorly integrated into urban planning processes and policies. Finally, a number of papers considered that existing policy responses did not have the capacity to meet the challenges posed by sustainability issues [
41,
48,
60,
68,
88,
91].
A lack of evaluation or evaluative mechanisms (measures, targets, or frameworks) was identified as a further barrier to policy success in 14 papers (15%). In some cases, such as those involving carbon emissions, there was a total lack of monitoring of outcomes against targets [
31,
36,
39,
60,
61,
70,
84,
100,
104,
111]. In others, evaluation may have been limited owing to a lack of targets or standardised measures [
48,
54,
55,
60,
64]. Sheppard et al. [
55], for example, identified a lack of international biosecurity standards, and Kobus [
64] found that there are no standardised measures for sustainable development because of low levels of operationalisation of the concept.
4.4. Comparison of Policy Failure in Different Contexts
Of the 94 articles reviewed, 22 (23%) conducted case studies of developing countries (either individual countries or groups of countries), 40 (43%) conducted case studies of developed countries (individual or groups), and 29 (31%) had a more general or international focus.
Table 3 provides a summary comparison of these clusters and several points stand out (three articles dealt with a mixture of developed and developing countries, and so were not included in
Table 3). First, in terms of interrelated structural causes, the two top factors influencing policy failure across the board are economic and political, while legal factors are more predominant in developing countries and discursive issues are more likely to emerge in developed countries. Second, communication failures and conflicting objectives are common, but developing countries are more likely to face problems with all the other implementation traps. Third, developed countries generally have fewer problems with knowledge/scoping issues. Overall, these points are indicative of the differences in the capacity of public sectors, with agencies in developing countries generally being less adequately resourced [
35,
63,
67,
74,
97].
In terms of scale, international initiatives were more prone to discursive issues, largely due to the complexity of international negotiations, but less vulnerable to specific environmental factors due to the general nature of their scope [
100,
101,
105,
106]. While it is difficult to compare international arrangements to domestic policies, some interesting observations can be made. International initiatives, for example, faced a similar pattern of implementation traps to domestic policies in developed countries, although conflicting directives were less significant because international organisations do not have the same powers as a national or local agency [
102,
108,
121]. In terms of knowledge and scoping issues, international initiatives faced similar knowledge/scoping issues as policies in developing countries when it comes to an incomplete understanding of problems.
In terms of the relationships between structural causes, the prevalence of economic and political factors appears in 71 of the 94 papers (76%), including both the case-study and more general articles. Of these 71 papers, economic and political factors appear together 24 times (34%), while economic factors appear independently 29 times (41%) and political factors 18 times (25%). Hence, political and economic factors are the predominant causes of policy failures and are clearly linked regardless of scale or level of development. Most often, this occurs when economic issues are given political priority over environmental and sustainability issues [
32,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48,
49,
57].
