Public Policy Solutionism

Public Policy mindset problem-solving

To embrace both the reality of problems and the possibility of overcoming them, we should be fundamentally neither optimists nor pessimists, but solutionists.

Origin

The term “solutionism” has been used pejoratively since the 1960s to mean the belief that every problem can be fixed with technology. Jason Crawford reclaimed it in his essay Why I’m a Proud Solutionist: discard assumptions about the form solutions must take, and solutionism becomes simply the belief that problems are real but solvable. The Anticipating the Unintended newsletter adapted this as a desirable frame of mind for Indian public policy.

What it says

Public policy discourse in India is pulled between two traps:

• Visceral pessimism — problems are complex, historical, structurally determined; nothing can be done.
• Unreal optimism — announce a target, launch a scheme, declare victory.

Solutionism is a third way. It advocates vigorously advancing against problems, neither retreating nor surrendering. It accepts that trade-offs are inherent — every alternative has costs — and insists on confronting them rather than wishing them away. It also demands reflection on policy successes, not just a parade of PolicyWTFs.

The mindset has three operational implications:

1. Reject sterile conclusions. “Problems are complex” or “we don’t have enough data” are conversation-enders, not analyses.
2. Confront trade-offs. A solutionist does not pretend that growth and redistribution, or security and privacy, can be maximised simultaneously. They make the choice explicit.
3. Tell better stories. Cynicism is the enemy of reform. Believing that even intractable problems can be solved is a precondition for mustering the political will to try.

Applied

Climate change in Indian policy discourse is often treated as either a hoax (unreal optimism) or an apocalypse (visceral pessimism). A solutionist frame would acknowledge the scale of the challenge, reject silver bullets, and build a portfolio of measures — some technological, some regulatory, some adaptive — while tracking outcomes honestly.

Similarly, education reform in India suffers from solution-first thinking: more teachers, more tests, more technology, each promoted as the answer. A solutionist approach would start with the problem (learning outcomes), test multiple interventions, and scale what works — while admitting what does not.

When it falls short

Solutionism can slide into naive technocracy — the belief that every problem has a clean engineering fix. Some problems, such as communal violence or caste discrimination, are deeply rooted in social structure and may not be “solvable” by policy at all. The framework can also justify overreach: if every problem is solvable, the state should try to solve everything.

Related frameworks

• Wicked Problems — the domain where solutionism is most needed and most dangerous.
• Complexity and Public Policy — why some problems resist clean solutions.
• Good Policy Problem Definition — the first step in any solutionist approach.

Further reading

• Popper, K. The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Originally explored in A Framework a Week: Public Policy Solutionism on Anticipating the Unintended.