Gerry Stoker, Daniel Devine & Brenton Prosser
In their recent article, Gerry Stoker, Daniel Devine and Brenton Prosser introduce and develop the concept of policy fatalism, understood as the belief that governments are unable to address some of the most important problems facing society. The article argues that this captures a distinct orientation towards public policy and examines how such views are expressed across different issue areas, how they vary across groups, and how they relate to political attitudes.
The authors position policy fatalism alongside, but distinct from, existing concepts. While debates on “wicked problems” emphasise complexity and difficulty, they do not necessarily imply that problems cannot be addressed. Policy fatalism, by contrast, centres on the view that effective policy responses are unlikely. The article also distinguishes policy fatalism from personal fatalism, which concerns individuals’ sense of control over their own lives. Policy fatalism instead focuses on collective challenges and the perceived limits of public action.
Drawing on original survey data from Britain and Australia, the authors show that policy fatalism is evident across a range of policy domains. Respondents express fatalistic views not only in relation to climate change, but also on issues such as housing and the economy. In some cases, fatalism appears more pronounced in these areas, suggesting that scepticism about the capacity of governments to act is not confined to environmental challenges.
The analysis also explores how policy fatalism varies across the population. The authors find that it is more common among those with lower levels of formal education and among respondents with more right-leaning ideological positions. Patterns relating to trust are more mixed: greater trust in the civil service is associated with lower levels of policy fatalism, while trust in other institutions, including the media and, in some cases, government, is associated with higher levels. The findings also indicate that policy fatalism is not strongly linked to personal fatalism, reinforcing the distinction between the two.
The article then considers how policy fatalism relates to political attitudes. Higher levels of fatalism are associated with greater dissatisfaction with the way democracy works and with stronger support for forms of leadership that place fewer constraints on decision-makers.
Exploring these consequences, the authors find that policy fatalism is linked to greater disenchantment with democratic rule yet does not inspire greater personal action. They argue that policy fatalism is distinct from established concepts and connects policy studies to wider debates about a broader trend towards fatalism in society and its role in politics.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Stoker, G., Devine, D., & Prosser, B. (2026). Policy fatalism: when the public thinks nothing can be done. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2026) from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2026D000000095
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading:
Sloam, J., & Henn, M. (2025). How young people can shape environmental policy in urban spaces. Policy & Politics, 53(1), 65-86 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000039
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 