top of page

Intent vs. Results

Title: Delineating the Dichotomy: Outcomes versus Intent in Policy Development and Assessment


Policy, at its heart, is a function of objectives articulated by an authoritative body, designed to guide actions towards specific ends. The intent of policy represents the vision, rationale, and motivation that underpin the creation of such directives. Contrastingly, the outcomes of policy refer to the real-world effects of these guidelines once they are implemented. This post aims to analyze the conceptual dichotomy between the intent and outcome of policy, highlighting the complexity involved in this relationship.

The Theory of Policy Intent

Policy intent is a foundational element of policy-making, shaping the guidelines, rules, and regulations that are developed by policymakers. The intent is often expressed in the form of policy goals and objectives, and ideally, it should resonate with the values, interests, and needs of the community that the policy targets (Birkland, 2015). However, it is essential to note that the clarity and specificity of policy intent can greatly influence the effectiveness of the policy. Ambiguity or vagueness in defining intent can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and variations in implementation, thereby compromising policy success (May, 2003).

The Reality of Policy Outcomes

Policy outcomes, in contrast, are the tangible consequences or effects that policies have once they are implemented. Policymakers evaluate these outcomes to determine whether a policy has succeeded in achieving its intended goals. However, accurately measuring policy outcomes can be a complex process due to several factors. First, policies can produce unintended consequences that deviate from the original intent, often due to complex socioeconomic and political dynamics (Merton, 1936). Second, the influence of external factors such as economic fluctuations, social changes, or political shifts can complicate the assessment of policy outcomes. These factors can independently affect the issue a policy aims to address, thus making it challenging to isolate the policy's effect (Sutton, 1999).

The Dialectic between Policy Intent and Outcome

The relationship between policy intent and outcome is not always linear. The path from policy formulation to implementation and then to outcomes is subject to a myriad of influences, including political, social, and economic variables. Furthermore, the potential disparity between intent and outcome underscores the inherent complexity and dynamism of the policy process (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973). This divergence, known as the 'implementation gap', is often a source of debate among policymakers, scholars, and stakeholders.

Mitigating the Implementation Gap

Reducing the implementation gap requires robust strategies to align policy intent with outcomes more accurately. Enhancing clarity in policy intent, ensuring feasible policy objectives, fostering effective communication among stakeholders, and enabling the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances can contribute to this goal (Hill & Hupe, 2002). In addition, developing rigorous monitoring and evaluation mechanisms can help to track policy outcomes more effectively and provide feedback for policy revision (Patton, 2008).


While policy intent signifies the vision and direction of policy design, policy outcomes represent the real-world manifestation of these guidelines. The dichotomy between these two aspects is a fundamental element of the policy-making process, reflecting the challenges involved in translating theory into practice. Understanding this dichotomy is pivotal for effective policy development and implementation, ultimately contributing to the creation of more effective, responsive, and inclusive policies.


Birkland, T. A. (2015). An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making, 3rd ed. M.E. Sharpe.

Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy: governance in theory and in practice. Sage.

May, P. J. (2003). Policy design and implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 223-233). Sage.

Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894-904.

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation, 4th ed. Sage.

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press.

Sutton, R. I. (1999). The policy process: an overview. Overseas Development Institute.

13 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page