1.
Agenda Setting
Agenda setting refers to the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose
public and elite attention. It involves determining which issues receive priority and attention from
governments and policymakers. The central question in agenda setting is why and how certain
problems are selected over others for policy consideration. It is a crucial stage in the policy
process as it determines the focus of government decision-making.
Agenda setting is closely linked to political power. Various actors, such as interest groups and
advocacy organizations, engage in the process of bringing specific issues to the attention of the
government and pitching their preferred solutions. The outcome of this contestation among
different groups influences which problems are taken up by the government for decision-making.
The wielding of political power by these actors to shape policy debates is an important aspect of
agenda setting.
The study of agenda setting explores questions such as the actors involved in the policy-making
process, their strategies for influencing agenda setting, the circumstances under which
governments make decisions on specific problems, the origins of policies, and the factors that
lead to policy change. Scholars and policy theorists have developed models and theories to
explain the complex process of agenda setting.
2. From Pluralism to Iron Triangle
Theories of policy process analyze the decision-making process of government and the actors
involved in it. Pluralism posits that political power in society is diffused and fragmented among
various groups and interests. According to pluralists, the political stage is accessible to all groups,
and power is balanced between them. They view democratic politics as a struggle among
competing interests and ideas.
In contrast, iron triangle theorists criticize pluralism and argue that policy-making is dominated
by a few decision-makers. They depict a power structure in the form of a triangle, with Congress,
bureaucracy, and special interest groups as the three nodes. Iron triangle theorists contend that
these actors form closed alliances and influence policy-making to serve their own narrow
interests. They point to case studies in sectors such as water, agriculture, and public works to
support their argument.
Iron triangle theorists highlight the stable alliance and symbiotic relationship between the actors
involved. They claim that these actors share similar interests and effectively control specific policy
areas, leading to the absence of effective central coordination in policy-making.
3. Subsystems Theory
Subsystems theory emerged as a response to the changing political landscape in the United
States during the 1970s. It challenged the idea of iron triangles and argued for a more open and
decentralized policy process. Subsystems theorists contended that the policy process involved a
larger number of participants and became more complex.
Hugh Heclo, one of the early subsystems theorists, introduced the concept of "issue networks."
He rejected the notion of closed circles of control proposed by iron triangle theorists and
emphasized the presence of open networks of actors involved in policy-making. Heclo observed
that issue networks comprise various participants with different degrees of commitment and
dependence on others. He described these networks as fluid and unpredictable.
Heclo also introduced the concept of "technopols" within issue networks. Technopols are policy
experts with specialized technical knowledge, and their influence is significant. Heclo argued that
the emergence of issue networks dominated by technopols widened the gap between
policymakers and citizens.
While Heclo's model of issue networks faced criticism for its lack of differentiation from iron
triangles and its theoretical weaknesses, it acknowledged the dynamic and permeable nature of
the policy-making process.
4. Paul Sabatier: Advocacy Coalition Framework
Paul Sabatier developed the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as another important
contribution to agenda setting literature. The ACF addresses the complexity of the policy process
by highlighting the continuous interaction of policy subsystems and the involvement of
numerous actors.
The ACF incorporates the concept of individual belief systems and their role in shaping policy
subsystems. It argues that policy change occurs through the interaction and conflicts between
advocacy coalitions, which are composed of actors who share similar core normative beliefs.
These coalitions engage in continuous learning, negotiation, and persuasion to influence policy
outcomes.
The ACF emphasizes that policy change is incremental and driven by the stability of belief
systems. Actors within a coalition share core policy beliefs but may have differing secondary
beliefs and preferences. Policy change occurs when belief systems are challenged, leading to
shifts in coalition membership or the incorporation of new beliefs into existing coalitions.
The ACF framework recognizes the importance of external events, changes in political leadership,
and feedback loops in shaping policy processes and outcomes.
In summary, agenda setting is the process through which specific problems or issues gain
attention and priority for decision-making. Theories such as pluralism, iron triangles, subsystems
theory, and the Advocacy Coalition Framework provide different perspectives on the actors,
power dynamics, and processes involved in agenda setting. Each theory offers insights into the
complex nature of agenda setting and the factors that shape policy debates and outcomes.
1. Kingdon's Policy Streams
John Kingdon's research on the policy process is a groundbreaking work
that examines health and transportation policies in the USA during the
1970s. It takes a holistic approach by considering the importance of
individual actors, ideas, institutions, and external effects in the policy
process. Kingdon emphasizes the dynamic nature of the policy process and
rejects the notion of stability. He argues that policy outcomes result from
the continual interplay of all elements in the policy process.
Problem Stream: The problem stream involves the means by which a
condition is turned into a problem. Problem definition is crucial for agenda
setting, and it determines the enormity of an issue. Problem definition is
influenced by indicators, such as surveys and reports, which measure the
magnitude of the condition. Focusing events, such as disasters or crises, can
also draw attention to a problem. Additionally, feedback about programs
can inform officials about a problem.
Policy Stream: In the policy stream, policy alternatives are developed to
address new problems that emerge. Policy alternatives are coined by
various participants, including visible clusters (such as high-level policy
actors) and hidden clusters (including policy specialists). Policy
entrepreneurs play a critical role in agenda setting by advocating for
alternatives and converting them into viable policy options. The process of
"softening up" is important for policy change, as policy entrepreneurs use
various means to bring proposals to the attention of decision-makers.
Political Stream: The political stream is crucial in deciding which problems
are prioritized in agenda setting. Political events, such as elections and the
national mood, play a role in setting the agenda. A new administration may
pursue problems that were not on the radar of its predecessor. Consensus
in the political stream is often a result of bargaining rather than persuasion.
Coupling and Policy Windows: For an item to get on the decision agenda,
the three streams (problem, policy, and political) must come together and
be pushed through a policy window. This process is referred to as
"coupling." Policy entrepreneurs play a prominent role in coupling these
streams by searching for solutions, taking advantage of political receptivity,
and pushing their package of problem and solution. When a policy window
opens up, it presents an opportunity for problems, proposals, and politics
to be completely linked and moved up on decision agendas. However,
policy windows do not stay open for long, and resources invested at that
moment determine the chance of a problem being included in the decision
agenda.
2. Incrementalism and Punctuated Equilibrium Models
Incrementalism: Incrementalism, proposed by Charles Lindblom, suggests
that policy change is a result of slow adjustment and limited variation in
already existing policies. Decision-making is influenced by cognitive and
time constraints, as well as the politically defined means and ends of a
policy. Incrementalists argue that decision-makers make small
improvements or changes to existing policies due to the limitations they
face.
Punctuated Equilibrium: Baumgartner and Jones developed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium to explain periods of rapid policy change. They
observed that policy change is not always incremental and identified
periods of stability and change in American politics. Stability can be
explained by incrementalism, while periods of change result from shifts in
issue definition and the entrance of new actors. Policy entrepreneurs, media
coverage, and public opinion play crucial roles in institutionalizing new
ideas and leading to rapid policy change.
These models provide theoretical frameworks to understand the policy
process, taking into account various factors such as actors, ideas,
institutions, and external dynamics. While they have been influential in
policy analysis, they also have limitations and have been subject to criticism.
