Drawing on the comparative findings from the six case studies of this book, this chapter contrasts policy triage patterns across countries, sectors, and administrative levels. The chapter highlights that while Denmark stands out due to its generally low triage levels thanks to well-funded, consensus-oriented governance, Italy and Portugal exhibit frequent and severe triage due to rapid policy growth, few limitations of blame-shifting, and scant opportunities to mobilize resources. Germany falls into an intermediate zone where bureaucratic rigidity fosters mostly moderate triage, while the UK and Ireland display more heterogeneous patterns across organizations in both sectors. The “aggregated” country patterns align well with what we would expect from the countries’ administrative traditions. Among other aspects, countries with a stronger legalistic tradition tend to exhibit more consistent triage patterns, whereas those where more independence is given and managerial leeway is granted to the authorities show more varied practices across organizations. Across the board, with regard to the cross-sectoral variation, the chapter highlights that environmental implementers tend to face more triage than social implementers, due to weaker overload compensation and greater opportunities for political blame-shifting. Furthermore, central- versus local-level differences tend to hinge on two key mechanisms: Organizations at the national level sometimes demonstrate robust capacity for resource mobilization and blame-shifting insulation, while subnational bodies, especially in Italy and Portugal, often lack such buffers. Across all settings, partial overload compensation can stave off the worst consequences of triage, yet some agencies’ capacities are already stretched beyond their limits. Taken together, these observations underscore the pivotal roles of limitations of political blame-shifting, resources mobilization, and organizational overload compensation in determining how policy implementers across Europe contend with administrative overload as a result of policy accumulation.

This chapter outlines the empirical strategy for studying policy triage, which occurs when limited administrative resources and growing policy stocks force agencies to prioritize certain implementation tasks over others. To measure policy triage, the analysis distinguishes between triage frequency and intensity. These dimensions together provide a nuanced assessment of overall implementation performance. The chapter also details the theoretical predictors of policy triage: whether central policymakers can shift blame for failures, whether implementing agencies can mobilize external resources, and whether they are internally committed to achieving policy goals despite resource constraints. To test these claims, the research design focuses on two policy areas — environmental and social policy — across six countries representing diverse administrative traditions. Data collection involves secondary document analysis and 157 expert interviews with implementation officials. By systematically capturing both formal and informal organizational practices, this methodology reveals the complex trade-offs inherent in modern public administration and underscores how different political and organizational conditions jointly shape policy triage.