That is all policies and political structures are testable and tested to see their effect on those three (or other suggested) factors. If a policy doesn’t reasonably work then it’s simply not continually employed. I’m curious to see what factors others think ought to be used.
It seems most political systems now were built without science in mind and utilize it as an afterthought to help develop legitimacy for policies individuals want. Generally politics across countries seems deeply emotionally driven and not fact driven. That is people have a feeling that an idea is a good idea and then they cobble together whatever they can to support that point without any unified measure of good or better. Ideally it ought to be the other way around, fact or evidence informed policy generation.
Isn’t that already happening, to varying degrees?
Lots of data is being collected, analysed, and published by various parties about how this or that policy is affecting things, but said research is also easily subverted by talking heads to cherry-pick their favoured points, or just generally drowned under inconsequential noise.
It’s kind of why “I did my research” is a meme about stuff like antivaxxers sticking horse medicine up their butts instead of representing some sort of enlightened political decisions makers.
Kind of, it’s an afterthought to the system at play. Let’s say for the US, we’re really not experimenting with structures, like what would adding a fourth fundamental branch of government and splitting the power of the executive do as it seems lately the fed and executive branch has gotten overly powerful.