“Economic policy” is derived from the Federal Reserve, Central Banks of other countries, the World Bank, and the elected (or appointed) government officials within those countries.  [Democratic] Governments propose and vote to levy and collect taxes, spend on services and infrastructure for their people, and borrow and lend to meet their capital or trade needs. The act of doing so is economic policy.

Economic policy is derived out of a nation’s “economic philosophy” - free market capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Marxism, and so on.

Countries can, and regularly do, change economic policy. Most do so by standing on the basis of their existing “economic philosophy”. Very less often do nations change their “economic philosophy” - think Soviet Union moving from Communism to a Social Democracy in 1989, or Cuba, doing the opposite in the late 1950s.

So - if a political candidate (no matter what office he or she is running for) claims that this “policy” or that “policy” has failed, or needs to be changed, one can assume that the candidate would change such policies within the existing economic philosophy. China, for example, changing it’s basis for lending or interest rates doesn’t make the country not Communist, it’s just shifting policy.

When a political candidate states that an entire philosophy has failed, that would signal an intent to shift from one philosophy to another, not one policy to another.

Sure, it’s nuance. But it’s important nuance, because it’s being talked about in your country right now.