Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Chapter 9: Agenda setting Agenda setting is where to go, policy programming is deciding how to get there, and policy

implementation is actually going. The agenda setting/formulation distinction is very hard to make, as it is unusual to see new issues on agendas and sometimes policies can be initiated and changes without formal legislation. Punctuated equilibrium feedback from political decisions generates change which builds critical problems over time. There is a tendency for the agends-setting literature to be focusd on clear-cut changes, but there are processes of change as well. No objective fact is a problem in itself. It is a collective construction linked to perceptions, representations,interests and values of actors concerned. It always depends on who is affected and whose behaviour needs to change in order to solve the problem. How does a problem become a public one? It has to be shared and collective action to solve it must be seen as appropriate. Gusfield makes a distinction between social and public probems, saying that publicproblems are those that have emerged in the civil arena, but are being debated in the political one. A problem becomes public by being put on the political agenda. The transfer of a problem from the social sphere to the public sphere involves public actors a orchestrators of the agenda-setting process. As far as agenda setting is concerned, contemporary descriptive analysis has its roots in dissatisfaction with the prominent prescriptive model, arguing that it is unrealistic to use a model that tells what should happen, not what is happening. The academic approach to administration seeks an impartial search for the best solution, so as little politics as possible. This approach seems to be encompassed in evidence based policy. However, insightful prescriptive analysis recognises the problems in it (see Simon in Chapter 10). Lindblom is critical of the rational-comprehensive method prescribed for decision making. He proposes succesive limited comparisons, an incremental approach through which policies are compared and slight differences are made. It involves a simultaneous analysis of facts, values, means and ends. Instead of specifying objectives and trying to come up with a policy that fits, you reach decisions by comparing several policies and seeing which will result in those objectives proposed. He argues that incrementalism is both a good description of how policies are made and a model for how decisions should be made. You can avoid serious mistakes by constantly comparing and making only minor changes. The D-M cand decide whether to continue in that line or change direction. He and Braybrooke developed the strategy of disjointed incrementalism, in which D_M adjust objectives to available means. It is characteristic of the US. Partisan mutual adjustment pertains to him, as well. It describes how independent D-M coordinate their behaviour. It involves adaptative adjustments, where he adapts, or manipulated 1

adjustments, where he is trying to get a certain response from other D-M. He thinks that partisan mutual adjustment and small steps changes are usually linked. However, others have pointed out that incremental changes occur where there are dominating parties as well, where there is no mutual adjustment. He then responded by saying that PMA is only active on ordinary questions of policy. For big issues, they are not resolved through mutual adjustments. Because of the high homogeneity of opinion, they are not included on the agenda. He adds that this homogeneity is highly indoctrinated by a set of beliefs that is marred by ideology. It appears that these beliefs have developed spontaneously, but they are transmitted through school, church, etc and they are the product, and therefore, in favour of the dominant group. It is vital to see the agends-settingprocess in institutional context. March and Olsen propose the garbage can model, where the actors make options based on their interests, but also affected by the institutional context. This has influenced Kingdons model. Kingdon says that comprehensive, rational policy making is impractial and incrementalism does not describe the sudden agenda changes. By starting with the garbage can model, he identifies 3 independent streams, that connect at one point, to form the policy change policy, politics and problems. He sees the policy process as chaotic and unpredictable. His alternative to the garbage can name is primaeval soup. Simpler explanations consider that policies are designed to solve problems. The weakness here is that problems themselves are a social construct. There can be policies looking for problems: some things that actors do that need a justification. Policy entrepreneurs who are looking for both public concern and political interest to do something. Opportunities for agenda setting come and go with shifting att to issues, influenced by the medias short att span and the changing needs of politcians in the electoral cycle. He recognises the importance of feedback from other polices and he identifies spillovers(effects fro other policies on other policies). While only refering to the US, his approach was applied on other places, as well, most notably on the EU. Birklands research on focussing events says that when such an event occurs is when the 3 streams are joined to form the policy agenda. Others see this event as a consequence of earlier polices (policy fiasco). Bovens study rtalks about the impact of crises. Kingdons view on other theories: He rejects the rational one Agrees with incrementalism, but thinks not all change is incrementatl, therefore not offering a full description

His approach is superior to the pluralist one, as he sees the importance of how key actors from inside and outside the govt come together Network theory neglects variations in how behaviour is unified

Kingdon model is an instutionalist approach, placing emphasis on the significance of actors inside and outside the govt and recognising the impact of earlier decisions on current ones. The model described is that of pension policy making. They identify 3 phases, the first where rudimentary public pensions were provided to some, the 2nd where comprehensive public schemes were developed, the 3rd where the preocupation is with cutting costs of pension commitments. The interesting things about the 3rd phase are the difficulties of getting cuts on the agenda. Policy entrepreneurs need to persuade politicians, with short time frames, that they should worry about long-term trends. Analysing the pension problem, some aspects have been highlighted: the way in which current agendas emerge from past decision, the incremental nature in change, the way alternative agendas come into conflict, and the way these alternative agendas come also from interrelated problems. The twin dilemmas for pension reform arethat the funding of improvements will impose costs upon people who will not be immediate beneficiaries, or it forces big costs on a limited number of people. Therefore, they are searching for a solution that yields benefits, but hides costs. Cobb et al. distinguish between the outside initiation model of the liberal pluralist societies, the mobilisation model of totalitarian regimes and the inside initiation model of influential groups having easy access to D-M. It is important to consider whether the Kingdon model pays sufficient att to institutional variations. Also, he considers the 3 streams as being equal. The theory of representative democracy puts first the ideas of mandates. Parties compete and they are chosen by the electorate by judging their manifestos. Then, the winning party transforms the manifesto into policy, on the basis of having a mandate from those that voted. The US system may be a reason why politics seem to be underestimated in Kingdons model. Identifying a coherent mandate is difficult in states with coalitions, too. The UK situation shoes how the mandate impact differs:it was strong in 1997 when Labour won, 2001 and 2005 were more about unfinished business and showing what good they had done, then in 2010 the coalition tries to get a joint mandate, through inter-party negotiations, but it has a limited impact. Finally, matters like the economic crisis anf foreign policy could not have been influenced by mandates. Another issue with the Kingdon model is the impact of media. He believes it to be reporting governmental activity, and not influencing policy making at all, because of its short att span. The media is a communicator in policy communities, a magnifier of movements that occured elsewhere and an agency used by particular actors.

The medias limited att span is more relevant than Kingdon believes. That is because media priorities are not only their priorities, but are also reflecting what public priorities usually are. Moreover, when and how problems are reported affects the political att they get. The media tend to present the simpler rather than the more complex ideas. Media shape ideas on the policy agenda in a way that promotes some perspectives and excludes others. Journalists are also responsible for setting up the image that is often taken for granted by rational choice theorists: politicians are self-interested, bureaucrats the same, and that all political action that tends to be more extreme is risky. That discourages innovation and political or administrative risk-taking. The media are themselves part of the political process, not just influences. Not just the big figures, like Rupert Murdoch, but also small journalists, who have privileged access to politicians.

Вам также может понравиться