This document includes in-class notes from lecture 7-14, as well as some notes from the readings (although it is not explicitly mentioned when this is the case). It helped me get a high grade by paying attention to the bold, red and highlighted text. Try to make sure that you understand all the con...
Summary The Policy Paradox - Deborah Stone. Policy Analysis 630033-B-6
Public Policy and Governance (PPG) Notes for all Readings + Lectures
All for this textbook (24)
Written for
Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)
Politicologie
Public policy and governance
All documents for this subject (24)
1
review
By: leonardlubru • 3 year ago
Seller
Follow
ETruelsen
Reviews received
Content preview
LECTURE 7 - Agenda setting
1) What is agenda setting?
Looking for definitions
- K&T: ‘Put simply, this stage is about getting an issue on the agenda’
- Birkland (not in readings): ‘(...) the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain
or lose public and elite attention’
- Alternative solutions => All kind of solutions
- Many different kind of actors
- When are things made public?
- A process in which public interest is being defined
- Gain or lose => Lose: people forgetting (?)
- Elite attention: political elite, leaders in communities
- Can reoccur, even at implementation level
What is an agenda?
- Birkland (not in readings): ‘An agenda is a collection of problems, understandings of causes,
symbols, solutions, and other elements of public problems that come to the attention of
members of the public and their government officials’
- Problems = core element
- Governmental and non-governmental actors => (members of public)
- Agenda changes, adapts, develops
Four types of agenda’s - Phases/level (in literature, it says types of agendas)
- Agenda universe - Diffuse/abstract concept (most abstract level)
- All matters possibly up for discussion
- Systemic agenda
- Problems worthy of public attention (KT: all societal matters that demand public
attention)
- When it moves from the agenda universe to discussion in parliament (“Discussion
agenda”)
- If stays too long on systemic agenda => might fade
- Still lacks precise definition
- Institutional agenda
- Problems up for spending time and resources
- Debate has transpired and legislation is considered
- KT:
- Problems up for serious consideration by decision-makers
- Hardly recognised by public => Because often detailed/technical knowledge
is required
- Decision agenda - Most concrete and tangible
- Problems that will be acted upon
- Hardest agenda to reach
- KT:
, - Will only reach decision-agenda if problem reaches multiple institutional
agendas
- When government has agreed a draft proposal
- Putting issue on agenda of responsible decision-making problem
- E.g. lowering speed limit
=> Why does it take so long for something to become a decision?: Has to move up the levels.
=> Moving up = competition between various commons problems (higher the level, tougher the
competition)
Getting on the right agenda
- Moving up the agenda is competition between potential public interests
- The higher you get, the more competition between interest groups, NGOs, SMOs,…
- Core executive system (centralised, unitary system, e.g. NL): small time window (to influence
agenda, in particular to influence decision agenda) (because: often coalition agreement (once
in 4 years)
- Federal system such as U.S.: more opportunities
=> Getting on the agenda: depends on polity and how they differ
2) The how and why of agenda-setting
The how of agenda-setting - theoretical models
- Outside initiative model
- Bottom up: NGOs, SMOs (or private firms) putting things on agenda
- Women’s rights through #MeToo
- KT:
- Dynamics of public attention
- Pressuring decision makers to place issue on institutional agenda
- Mobilization model
- Top down: politicians move topic between agenda’s (politicians ideas) => Mobilising
citizens on these ideas (thus voters influence agenda)
- Example: Aids (was not on agenda): Doctors observing, talking to politicians (not
large awareness in public) => Politicians convinced of the public problem => THEN
awareness (mobilising society through politicians/government)
- KT:
- Moving issue from systemic to institutional agenda
- Public may have little knowledge of the issue
- Inside access model
- Top down: focus on stakeholders, discussion only in small circles (behind closed
doors?)
- Focus on stakeholders and how they can control problems
- Not always too important to public
- What should people know? Nanotechnology in phones (toxic?).
- Example: accountability hospitals
- KT:
- Seeking to exclude public participation
- “private” decisions inside government
Three dimensions of power
- Dahl:
, - A has power over B to the extent that she or he can have B do something that B
would not otherwise do
- Barach & Baratz:
- A creates or reinforces social and political values and institutional practices that limit
the scope for B to raise issues that would be detrimental to A's preferences
- What can you express/articulate
- Lukes:
- A also has power over B by influencing, shaping and determining his or her desires
through control over information, mass media, and socialization processes
The why of agenda-setting
- K&T: three perspectives
- Power distribution perspective - Interest in direct and indirect exercise of power
- First dimension: pressure on government through lobbying, protest and media
attention (example given of Kim Kardashian on black facing in the
Netherlands => Big influence, big power)
- Second dimension: how topics are kept off the agenda, banning certain issues
from the agenda
- Institution based perspective - Interest in history of policy determine slow process
(relate to incremental perspective)
- Punctuated equilibrium => theory that reiterates this theory: only slow change
in policy making, minimal changes, only limited changes to agenda setting.
Policy stability and change is determined by policy venues and policy images
- Policy venues: institutional arena
- Policy images: shared views of policy communities concerning given
public problem
- => Policy stability and change is determined by the institutional
structure and the views of the policy community.
- How organisational structures + formal rules limit access to institutional or
decision agenda
- Contingency perspective
- Assumes the Garbage can model
- KT: Only put on agenda if issue and pre-existing solutions can be
coupled
- ^ Affected by independent streams of problems and
proposals + politics streams
- When streams of: politics + policy + problems come together
at critical time => Policy window opens
- Not strategic but contingent (subject to change) phenomenon
- All kinds of things can influence agenda-setting
Læs KT
3) Problem definitions and different actors
Constructivism and problems
- Policy making as deeply political
- Not one truth, fact or proof
- Multiple visions of reality (about same facts, proof i.e.)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ETruelsen. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.06. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
