Jo

Often you can make someone do something by imposing some sort of threat if they fail to comply; for example, the government forces persons to drive sober because the penalty for failing to comply is jail.

Often you can make someone do something in a certain way by telling them that if they can't do it that way, then you won't let them do it at all. You might call this an 'absolute ultimatum', or possibly characterize it as a rule backed by the sanction of nullity. For example, the government tells builders that if they can't make their buildings in accordance with certain fire safety regulations, then they're not allowed to make buildings at all.

Sometimes this backfires. For example, suppose it's so costly to comply with all the requirements of legally providing vaccinations that an investor decides that it isn't worth paying for. Or suppose a shopkeep can't afford to pay all of his employees minimum wage, and thus lays off one employee, reducing that employee's wage to zero. This phenomenon has been referred to as "banning gruel", based on the example of the government thinking that the poor would be better off eating better food then gruel, and banning poor people from eating gruel to facilitate that objective.

So sometimes absolute ultimatums work, and sometimes they backfire and make things worse. For example, a bunch of minimum wages have worked, increasing wages without decreasing employment, and a bunch of minimum wages have overall made things worse for workers. Laws restricting food safety have caused some people to cease feeding the poor; laws restricting food safety have doubtless caused many restaurants to avoid giving their customers E. coli. 

Absolute ultimatums do not inherently backfire.