Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Publ P
Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems
,:i,,,.i
t,
.,',lnl
ii
ox.FoRD
IJNIVERSITY
PRESS
University
_
-Oxford
It furthers
Kuala
Acknowledgements ix
Auckland
Contents
Cape
Part
Chapter
With offices in
Further Readings
Chapter
Multi-Level, Multi-Disciplinary 3l
Conclusion 48
Study Questions
H97.H69
2009
320.6
c2008-906 168-3
234_t2ilt0
V
At
rP
FSC
ur"d
sources
l;:"lf *:'i,l::T"ff*[',i,'.,,":.,
Sl!Ii|',::ir, :"X,';":Xa:"..:1.."
49
Further Readings 49
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any aiquirer.
16
Study Questions 15
policy
l Polirysciences.
iII. Title.
Chapter
The Policy
Context
50
Context
50
52
Conclusion 87
Study Quesrions 88
Further Readings 88
Actors 8l
State
5Z
Part
II
Y'
Chapter 4
i::'
lAgenda-Setting
{,
/t
f
'
*!, do some
Pre-political, or at least pre-decisional processes often play the most critical rol.e in determining what issues and alteriatives are to be consirjered by
ttre poliw and the probable choices that will be nrade. \\,hat happens in the
decrsion-making councils of the formar instit*tions ol,government ma./
c1o
littie more than recognize, document and legalize, if not iegitimize, the
rromentary results of a continuing struggle of forces in the larger social
.-natrix-
Agenda-Setting
93
This does not in any way guarantee that the problem will ultimately be addressed,
or resolved, by further government activity, but merely that it has been singled out
for the government's consideration from among the mass of problems existing in
a sccieqv at any given time. That is, it has been raised from its status as a subject of
c()ncern to ttrat of a private or social problem and finally to that of a public issue,
potentially amenable to government action. while threats and challenges are more
frequentiy tire forces that motivate issue defrnition in pglicy agenda-setting, there
are alsc times rvhen poiicy agendas are set by the attraction of an opportuniq.such as the us space program's race to land a man on the moon during the 1960s.
How a subject of concern comes to be interpreted as a public issue susceptible
to further government action raises deeper questions about the nature of hurran
larowledge and the social construction of that knowledge (Berger and Luckmann,
1966: Holzner and Marx, 79'29), and the policy sciences literature has gone
through significant .:hanges in its understading of what constitutes slch prob_
Ienls. Earl,v wo.ks in the poiicy sciences often assumed that problems hac an
'objecii'e' existence ancl ll,ere, in a sense, waiting to be 'recogn ized' b1, governqrents no lr,'o,,rld do so as their uncierstanding and capacity
for action progresscd. Later *'orks in the post-positivist tradition, however, aclrrorvieclge<i that
problerl rr:cogrrition is very rnuch a socially constructed process since it invc.cs
tile creatiott of accepted definitions of normaicy and what constitutes an uncsirable deviation from that status (McRobbie ancl Thornton, 1995). Elence, in this
problern recognition is not a sr'mple mechanrcal process of recognizing cha,J'ii:lv'
lengcs and opportunities, but a sociological one in which the 'frames, or sets of
idea.s lvrthil -,vhich gove::nments and non-governmental actors operate and thir,k
are rri criticai significance (Goffman, 1974; Haid,er-Markel and Josln, 20trl;
chon and Rein, i 994). Ea.ch of these perspectives will be discussed in turn below
Agenda-Setting
measured by such variables as urban per capita income, median educational level
and industrial employment-are generally associated with high levels of expenditure and service outputs in the fields of education, welfare and health.' This conclusion Ied him to argue that 'political characteristics long thought to affect
policy-voter participation, the strength of each major party, the degree of interparty competition, and the equity of legislative apportionment-have little influence which is independent of economic development' (Sharkansky, 1971l. 277).
This observation about the nature of publig policy formation in the American
states was soon expanded to the field of comparative, cross-national studies dealingwith the different mixes of policies across countries. Authors such as Harold
Wilens (1975), Philip Cutright (1965), Henry Aaron (1967), and Frederick
Pryor (1968) all developed the idea that the structure of a nation's economy
determined the types of public policies adopted by the government.
Taken to the extreme, this line of analysis led scholars to develop the convergence thesis. The convergence thesis suggests that as countries industrialize, they
mlr
1983;
Seeliger, 1996). The emergence of similar welfare states in industrialized countries, its proponents argue, is a direct result of their similar levels of economic
wealth and technological development. Although early scholars indicated only a
positive correlation between welfare policies and economic development, this
relationship assumed causal status in the works of some later scholars. In this
'strong' view, high levels of economic development and wealth created similar
problems and opportunities, which were dealt with in broadly the same manner
in different countries, regardless ofthe differences in their social or political structures. Wilensky (1975:658-9), for example, noted that 'social security sffs1'defined as the percentage of a nation's gross national product (ctgp) devoted to
social securiry expenditures-was positively related to the level of GNp per capita,
a correlation leading him to argue that economic criteria were more significant
than political ones in understanding why those public policies had emerged.
In this view, agenda-setting is a virtually automatic process occurring as a
result of the stresses and strains placed on governments by industrialization and
economic modernization. It matters little, for example, whether issues are actually generated by social actors and placed on government agendas, or whether
states and state officials take the lead in policy development. Instead, what is significant is the fact that similar policies emerged in different countries irrespective
ofthe differences in their social and political structures.
The convergence thesis was quickly disputed by critics who argued that it
oversimplified the policy development process and inaccurately portrayed the
nature of the actual welfare policies found in different jurisdictions, where poli-
95
economic factors varied in significance over time and by issue area (Sharkans,
1971; Heichel et al., 2006).
By the mid-1980s, a second, Iess deterministic explanation of agenda-setting
behaviour had emerged, which treated political and economic factors as an integral whole. This reso4rce-dependency model argted that industrialization creates a
need for programs such as social security (because of the aging of the population
and processes of urbanization that usually accompany economic modernization)
as well as generating the economic resources (because of increased productity)
to allow states to address this need (through programs such as public pension
plans, unemployment insurance, and the like). More importantly, in this ew,
industrialization also creates a working class with a need for social security and
the political resources (because of the number of working-class voters and the
ability to disrupt production through work stoppages) to exert pressure on the
state to meet those needs. The ideology of the government in power and the political threats it faces are also important factors affecting the extent to which the
state is willing to meet the demand for social welfare and the types of programs it
is willing to utilize to do so.
While some issues, such as the role of international economic forces in domestic policy formation, were still debated (Cameron, 1984; Katzenstein, 1985), this
resource-dependency view offered a reasonable alternative to convergence theory-inspired explanations of public policy. However, it remained at a fairly high
level of abstraction and was difcult to apply to specific instances of agendasetting (see Uusitalo, 1984).
One way that scholars sought to overcome this problem was by reintegrating
political and economic variables in a new 'political economy of public policy'
(Hancock, 1983). Here it was argued that both political and economic factors are
important determinants of agenda-setting and should therefore be studied
together, especialiy insofar as political-economic events can affect the timing and
content of specific policy initiatives.
One of the most important versions of this Iine of argument posited the idea
of a political business cycle.'lhe economy, it was suggested, has its own internal
dynamics, which on occasion are altered by political 'interference'. In many countries the timing of this interference could be preclicted by looking at key political
events such as elections ancl budgets, which tend to occur with some degree of
;G.
f.
96
While few disagreed that partisan ideology could have an impact on the nature
of the types and extent of government efforts to influence the economy, ttris
approach was criticized for its limited application to democratic countries, and
only to a subset of these such as the United States, where eiectoral rycles -,vere
fixed. In many other countries, elections either do not exist, are not competitive,
or their timing is indeterminate and depends on events in pariiaments or other
branches of government, making it difficult if not impossible for governinents to
make such precise policy timing calculations (Foot, 1979; John-ston, 1986). It was
also argued that the concept of the business cycie itseif y/as furrdarnentall;u flawcd
and that the modei simply pointed out the interdependence of politics and ecnomics already acknowledged by most analysts (see lrlcCalium, 1978; Nordhaus,
1975; Schneider and Frey, 1988; Boddy and Crotty, ).975).
of PoLicy Problems:
In the
Agenda-Setting
97
qpes of
policyrnaking by serving as,'road maps' for action, defining problems, affecting the
strategic interactions between policy actors, and constraining the range ofpolicy
options that are proposed.
world views or ideologies have long been recognized as herping people make
sense of complex realities by identiflring general policy proble..rr u.ri the motivations ofactors involved in politics and policy. These sets ofideas, however, tend
to be very diffuse and do not easily translate into specific views on particular policy problems. whiie scholars recognized that the general policy mood o, piliry
sentiment found in a jurisdiction can be an important component of a general
rnacro-policy environment, for example by influencing voting for representatives
and lelding a certain political orientation in goverrrr.ent (Durr, l9-s3; stimson,
1991; Stimson et al., 1995; Lewis-Beck, 19gB; Suzuki, 1992; Adams,1997),
t]ne
links of these kind of beliefs to agenda-setting remain quite indirect (stevenson,
2001; Eiliott and Ewoh, 20C0).
Principled beliefs ,tnd causal stories,
causal theories, if they are successful, do more than conncingry denronstr:rte the possibility of hurnan control over bacl conditions. First, they can
eiaher challenge or protect an existing social order. second, by identi'ing
carisal agents, they can assign responsibility to particular political actors
so
th-at s,meone will have to stop an activity, do it differently, compensate
its
ancr
elnpo\^/er particular actors as 'fixers' of the problem. And fourth, th.ey can
create nrvr political aliiances among people who are shcwn tc stand i,
the
same victim relationship to the causal agent. (Stcne, l9g9: 295)
As Murrav Edeiman (1988: i2-13) argued, in this view p.licy issues arise
within s<-rciai discourses, often as functions oi pre-existi,g
Problems come il-lto <iiscourse and therefore into existence as reinforcemerts of ideologies, not simply because they are there or because they are
importa.t for well-being. They signify who are virtuous and usefui and who
are dangerr:us and inadequate, lvhich actions will be r.ewarded and which
-+F
1G:
98
Stages
Agenda-Setting
E
E
F
B
ll
n.
99
2005). Howthe material interests of social and state actors are filtered through,
and reflect, their institutional and ideological contexts is a required component of
the study of agenda-setting (Thompson, 1990).
:
a
i:
L
E
i
t
,
::
Funnel of Causality
One such multivariate model was advanced in parailel efforts by Anthony King
(1973) in Great Britain, Richard Hofferbert 097a) in the United States, and
Richard Simeon (1976a) in Canada. Each author developed a model of policy for-
or
because
l0O
Stages
policy agendas, such as the environmental context, ideas, and econorrric interests,
create any particular effect on policy actors in the agenda-seiting process
(Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1980; Green-Pedersen, 2004).
Issue-Attention Cycles
Another early example of an agenda-setting mcdel built on the premise that this
stage of the policy process involved the interaction of institutions, actors, and
ideas was put forward by Anthony Downs in 1972. Downs proposed that agen<iasetting often followed what he termed an'issue-attention citcle', much like the
media'news cycle'. In an article focusing on the emergence of environmental policy in the united states in the early 1960s, Downs argued that public policymaking often focused on issues that momentarily capture public attention and
trigger demands for government action. However, he also noted that many of
these problems soon fade from view as their complexity or intractabiiiry becomes
apparent. As he put it:
public attention rarely remains sharply focused upon any .--,ne domestic issue
for very long--even if it invoives a continuing problem of crucial irnportance to society. Instead, a systematic issue-attention cycle seerns strongly to
influence public attitudes and behaviour concerning ;nost key clomestic
pi'obiems. Each of these problems suddenly leaps int. promincnce, remains
there for a short time, and then-thor-rgh still iargely unresolved-gradualiy
thdes from the center of public attention. (Dorvns, 1972:38)
The iclea of the exjstence of a systematic issue-attention cycle in public policlumaking gained a great deal of attention in subsequent years ald Downs's work is
onen cited as an improved model for explaining the linkages between political
institutions, actors, and beliefs, especially public opinion, and public policy
agc'nda-setti^g (see, e.g., Dearing and Rogers, 1996). ln a democr:ary, wheie
pciiticians ignore public demands at their electoral peril, Downs argued, 'wa,xing
and waning pubiic attention to policy problems reslrlts in a characteristic cyclicai
I)attern ofagenda-setting, but without necessarily producing policy action on the
't-.art ot
S0vernmefits.
Despite its freruent citation irr the poiicy literature over the past threc decades,
irov,'ever, the idea o1'I)ownsian-pe issue-attention rycles r,r,as rarcly subject to
empiric-al evaiuation. In 1985, Peters and Hogwood macie an eflort tc operationalize tireir own version of Downs's cycle, atternpting to assess the relitiorship
bei,veen waves of public interest as rrreasured in Galiup polls ar,d periodic waries
o oi'ganizationai change c.r institution-building in the uS fccleral government
Although they found evidence of major periods of administr.ative consolidation
an,1 change over the course of recr:nt us history, they noted that oniy seven of l2
irrstances cf administrative reorganization met the expectations of the Downsian
mcdel, rvhen dramatic administrative changes occurred during the same decade
as the peak of public interest as measured by Gallup survey guestiorrs.
Agenda-Setting
101
On the basis of these results, Peters and Hogwood argued: 'Our evidence supports Downs' contention that problems which have been through the issueattention cycle will receive a higher level ofattention after rather than before thc
peak' (ibid., 251). Ilow,ever, they were also careful to note that there appeared to
be at least two other patterns or cycles at work in the issue-attention process
beTond what Downs first identified. In the first spe, cycles were initiated by
external or exogenous events such as war or an energy crisis and then ere mediated by public attention. In this spe of 'crisis' cycle, the problem would not 'farle
away' as Downs hypothesized. In the second tpe of 'political' cycle, issue initiation originated in the political leadership and then caught public attention (ibid.,
252; see also Hogwoo d, 1992).
Peters and Hogwood's work emphasized the key role played by state actors in
socially constructed agenda-setting processes (Sharp, 1994b; Yishai, lgg3).
Ofcially scheduled political eyents, such as annual budgets, speeches trom the
thr.one, or presidential press conferences, can spark media attention, reversing the
pulely reactive causal linkages attributed to these actors by Do.ns (Cock et a1..
1983; Howlett, 1997; Erbring and Goldenberg, 1980; Flemming et ai., 1999).
Eviclence from other case studies revealed that interest grouD success and tilurc
in gaining agenda access tended to be linked to state institutional str.rctuies alrl
the availability of access points, or policy venrles, from which these grcup.s cou!<i
gain the atiention of government oflicials and decision-makers (Baumgartner and
iones, 1993; Brockmann, 1998; Pross, 1992; Newig, 2004). These insigh,-s ard
others were soon put together in new models that attempted to more accurately
reconcile poiicy theory with agenda-setting realiry.
Modes of Agenda-Setting
A rnajor breakthrough in agenda-setting studies occurred in the early 1970s when
Cobb, Ross, and Ross identified several typical patterrrs or'rnodes'rtf agenda-selting. In so doing, they fcllowed the insight of Cobb and Elder, who <iislingrrished
between the systernic or informal public agenda anci the institutional cr for,nai
state agenda. The systemic agenda 'consists of all issues that are cornmonly perceived by members of the politicai community as meriting public attentio;r anc
as involvirg matters within ihe legitimate jurisdiction of existing gover.nrnentai
authoriq.' (Cobb and Elder, 1972: 85). This is essentially ir society's agerrda foidiscussiorr of individual and social problems, such as crime and health care. Eacir
society, of r:ourse, has literally thousands of issues that sorne citizens find to be
firatters of concern anci would have the government do s<.'methirrg abor:t.
As we have noted, however, only a small proportion cf the problems on the
systemic or infonnal agencla are taken up by the government for serious considerati<n as public problems. Only after a government has accepted tha something
nee<is to be done about a problem can the issue be said to have entered the institl-rticnal agenda. These are issues to vhich the government ha.s agreed to give seri,
ous attention. In other words, the informal agenda is for discusslrrz while thre
rr:tliutiunai agentla is for action.
lO2
cobb, Ross, and Ross identified four major phases of agenda-setting that
occur as issues move between the informal and institutional agendas. Issues are
frrst initiated, their solutions are specified, support for the issue is .expanded, and.,
if successful, the issue enters the institutional agenda (Cobb et al., 1976: L27).
cobb, Ross, and Ross then proposed three basic patterns or modes of agenda-setting based on the preous comparative work of Cobb and Elder (1972). Each of
these modes is associated with the different manner and sequence in which issue
initiation, specification, expansion, and entrance occurs. In a further step, they
identified or linked each mode with a specific type of political regime.
They identified tl;.e outside initiation model with liberal pluralist societies. In
this model, 'issues arise in nongovernmental groups and are then expanded sufficiently to reach, first, the public [systemic] agenda and, finally, the formal [institutional] agenda.' Here, social groups play the key role by articulating a grievance
and demanding its resolution by the government. These groups lobby, contest,
and join with others in attempting to get the expanded issue onto the formal
agenda. If they have the requisite political resources and skills and can outmanoeuvre their opponents or advocates of other issues and actions, they will
succeed in hang their issue enter the formal agenda (cobb et al., 1976).
successful entry on the formal agenda does not necessarily mean a favourable
government decision will ultimately result. It simply means that the item has been
singled out from among many others for more detailed consideration.
The mobilization model is quite different and was attributed by cobb and his
colleagues to 'totalitarian'regimes. This model describes 'decision-makers trying
to expand an issue from a formal [institutional] to a public [systemic] agenda'
(ibid, 134.) In the mobilization model, issues are simply placed on the formal
agenda by the government with no necessary preliminary expansion from a publicly recognized grievance. There may be considerable debate within government
over the issue, but the public may well be kept in the dark until an official
announcement. Gaining support for the new policy is important, since successful
implementation will depend on public acceptance. Towards this end, government
leaders hold meetings and engage in public relations campaigns. As the authors
put it, 'The mobilization model describes the process of agenda building in situations where political leaders initiate a policy but require the support of the mass
public for its implementation . . . the crucial problem is to move the issue from
the formal agenda to the public agenda' (ibid., 135).
Finally, in the inside initiation model, influential groups with special access to
decision-makers launch a policy and often do not want public attention. This can
be due to technical as well as political reasons and is an agenda-setting pattern one
would expect to find in corporatist regimes. In this model, initiation and specification occur simultaneously as a group or government agency enunciates a grievance and specifies some potential solution. Deliberation is restricted to specialized
groups or agencies with some knowledge or interest in the subject. Entrance on
the agenda is rtually automatic due to the privileged place of those desiring a
decision (ibid., 136)
Agenda-Setting
r03
This line of analysis identified several spical agenda-setting modes that combined actor behaour with regime spe, and also identied key sources of poliry
ideas and discourses associated with each mode. In its original formulation,
cobb, Ross, and Ross suggested that the spe of agenda-setting process is ultimately determined by the nature of the political system, with outside initiation
being typical of liberal democracies, mobilization characteristic of one-party
states, and inside initiation reflective of authoritarian bureaucratic regimes.
However, it was soon recognized that these different styles of agenda-setting varied not so much by political regime as by policy sector, as examples of each type
of agenda-setting behaviour could be found within each regime type (princen,
2007). subsequent investigations sought to specifr exactly what processes were
followed within political regimes, especially in complex democratic polities like
the united states with multiple quasi-autonomous policy subsystems. Their
results have led to a more nuanced understanding of how agenda*setting modes
are linked to actors, structures, and ideas and, ultimatel as set out below, to the
actual content of the problems and issues likely to emerge in specific instances of
agenda-setting.
104
Agenda-Setting
dl:ing policy windows, when their paths intersect or are brought together by the
activities of entrepreneurs linking problems, solutions, and opportunities.
Thus, in the right circumstances, policy windows ca, Le seized upon by key
players in the political process to place issues on the agenda. policy entrepreneurs
play the chief role in this process by linking or 'coupling' policy solutions and pol-
icy problems together with political opportunities (ibid., chs 7-g; Roberts and
King, 1991; Mintrom 1997 ;'epper, 2OO4).
As Kingdon argues, 'The separate streams of probierns, poricies, and politics
not describe these four window spes specificalty, the general outline of each qpe
is discernible from examining his work and several of his sources. The four principal window t)es are:
.
.
come together at certain critical times. solutions become joined to problems, and
both ofthem are connected to favourable political forces.'At that point an item
enters the official (or institutional) agenda and the public policy process begins.r
Kingdon suggests that window openings can result from fortuitous happen-
as
flus
turnover in key decision-makers. Predictable or *npreclictabre, open windows are small and scarce. Opportunities come, but they also pass. Windows
do not stay open long. If a chance is missed, another must be awaited.
(rbid., 176)
He then notes that windows also vary in terms of their predictability. while arguing that random events are occasionaliy significant, he siresses ihe manner ir
which institutionalized windows domiirate the us agenda-sctting process (Birkland,2004). As he puts it,'There remains sonre degree of unpredictability. yet it
worrld be a grave mistake to conclude that the processes . . . arc esscntially raridom. Sorne degree of pattern is evident' (ibid., 216).
The model established by Kingdon suggests at least four possible lr,.inclow tpes
based on the relationship between the origin of the window-political or probIem-and their degree of institutionalization or rc.utinization. Although he does
105
In this model, the level of institutionalization of a window tlpe determines its frequency of appearance and hence its predictability (Boin and Otten, 1996;
Hovdett, 1997b).
Kingdon's model has been used to assess the nature of US foreign policy
agen<la-setting (woods and Peake, 1998); the politics of privatization in Britain,
France, and Germany (Zahariadis, L995; Zaharadis and AJlen, 1995); the nature
oiuS domestic anti-drug policy (sharp, L994a); the collaborative behaviour of
business and environmental groups in certain anti-pollution initiatives in the us
and Europe (Lober, 1997; Clark, 2OO4); and the overall nature of the reform
process in Eastern Europe (Keeler, 1993). while a major improvement on earlier
models, it has ber:n criticized for presenting a view of the agenda-setting process
that is too contingent on unforeseen circumstances, ignoring the fact that in most
policy sectors, as Downs had noted, action tends to produce bursts of change that
are followed by iengthy periods of inertia (Dodge and Hood, 2002).
One way that policies 'congeal' into lengthy periods of program stability, for
example, is that policy windows can be designed to stay closed for extended periods-as occurs, for example, in the multi-year funding authorizations of transportation and military programs which reduce the opDortunities available to
discuss issues and adjust priorities. windows can even be locked through fiscal
devices such as trust funds and revenue bonding that commit spending and taxing for many years into the future (French and Phillips, 2004).
A key mechanism that proviles stability in agenda-setting, through its control
over the policy discourse, is the construction of a stable policy subsys tem ot ' poli.cy monopoly'. Such a subsystem entrenches the basic idea set. many of the actors,
and the institutional crder in r,vhich policy development occurs, 'locking in' a polic1, ..or,.r" or frame in which policy issues are named and claimed. Frank
Baumgartner and Bryan lones (1991, 1993, 1994,200,5), in a landmark series of
studies, developed this idea, which modifies Kingdon's work and helps to expiain
the likely content of the typical patterns or modes of agenda-setting behaviour
identified earlier by Cobb and his colleagues.
The key element that differentiates modes of agenda-setting, Baumgartner and
fones argue, revolves around the manner in which specific subsystems gain the
106
Agenda-Setting
ability to control the interpretation of a problem and thus
how it is conceived and
discussed. For Baumgartner and fones, the 'image'
of a policy probrem is signifi-
Figure 4.1
Typical.
cant because:
"*iJti.rg
Pralle, 2003).
The key change that results if either strategy succeeds
is the transformation of
a policy monopoly into a more competitive
subsystem where new actors and new
discourses, and thus new issues, can enter into policy
debates. A good exampre of
this occurring in recent years can be found in the transformation
f smoking from
a highly stable issue framed as a personal consumption
issue to one that, through
venue shifts to courts and other bodies on the part
ofpolicy entrepreneurs, was
redefined as a social hearth and werfare issue. This
te, uttimatety, t trr" articula_
tion and subsequent implementation of alternative options
tO?
Agenda-setting Modes
Subsystem Type
Monopolistic
Old
Ideas
Status Quo
Character:static/hegemonic
(agenda denial)
Redefining
New Character:internal
discursive reframing
Competitive
Contested
Chracter: contested
variations on the status quo
Innovative
Character: unpredictable/
chaotic
maintained. when that same monopoly has some new ideas, these are
likely to
result in some reframing of issues within the subsystem.
when a more competitive subsystem exists but no new ideas have been deveroped, contested variations on the status quo are likely to be features
of agendasetting. when the ideas remain old, however, nothing more than proposars
for
modest changes to the status quo are likely to be raised to the institutionul
agendu.
only when both situations exist-that is, both a competitive subsystem and
the
presence of new id6s-s more profound (and potentially
paradigmatic) innovative changes in problem definition and identification likelo p.o-.eed
onto the
formal agenda of governments and move fbrward for consideration in
the next
stage of the policy rycle: policy formulation.
the
dominant sets of ideas about policy problems they espouse, and the kinds
of institutions within which they operate.
lO8
live
Stages
ofthe I'olicyCycle
S?-udy
l
Questions
'.,a*.'.**'
- \vhat is the ciilterence between the infcrrmal and fbrmai, or systemic end
oicial. pciicy_
age
r das?
5.
::etiinq?
Ba'jmgartr-re, Fiank R., rnd rrryan D. Jones. i993. Agentias and lrtstnbilit;..itt
Atr:ericnt Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Cr''bo' Roger w., i.K. Ross, and M.I-L Ross. i976. 'Age.da Building as a com;arati'"e Pr,lirical Proc:ss', Atterittt paliti,ai .science l?.eveyy'70,1:126-3g.
*i
Agenda_Sating
lO9
Cobb, Roger trV., arri A,{arc Howzrd Ross, ed,s. 1997. Cubural Strategies
of
r\gend.t Denial: Avaiiance, Attack and Recrefinition. Lawrence:
university
Prcss of Kansas.
HarperCollins.
)99-fl1.