for A plus writer only

G et

ty Im

ag es

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

• Understand how policy actors identify public and private problems.

• Identify the types of issues and different types of agendas.

• Be able to discuss how beliefs, perceptions, events, actions, and actors interact during the agenda- setting process.

Issues, Problems, and Agenda Setting

4

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 113 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Introduction CHAPTER 4

The policy game starts when an issue of concern to the public becomes generally rec-ognized by policy actors—the public, interest groups, elected representatives, the media, and government bureaucrats—as a public problem. In order for that transi- tion to occur, an issue must emerge on the agenda, a collection of issues that comes to the attention of policy actors. Agendas exist at all levels of government; competing interests work to establish their particular priority on a finite agenda. During the agenda-setting process, problems gain or lose the attention of policy actors, resulting in a narrowing set of public problems that policy makers address. Many issues are not recognized as public problems and thus do not move onto the agenda because they are considered private. By definition, public policies do not address or rectify issues, ills, or problems that have only private importance.

No guidelines or rules specify when or how an issue becomes a public problem. Few would dispute that threats to national security constitute a public policy problem. In con- trast, threats to the nation’s health-care system, the educational system, or the environ- ment do not result in the same degree of consensus about whether these risks qualify as public policy problems. In fact, the government has no ready-made list of issues—aside from national defense and security—that qualify automatically as public responsibility. Further, most issues of concern begin as private issues involving individual responsibil- ity. A private issue becomes a public problem when policy actors redefine the problem as unacceptable for society and as they gain greater clarity about the issue’s negative effects on society.

When an issue can no longer remain within the private realm because of its perceived significance or consequence for all or a part of society, a public policy problem emerges. The extent of negative conditions associated with the issue determines its significance. For example, because most Americans believe that weak national security would have dire consequences for the United States, the public and most policy actors accept the state’s role in providing national defense. Such rare certainty in identifying a public policy prob- lem can occur if the issue in question involves a matter of human survival or quality of life as agreed to by the society or relevant policy actors. Above all, a clear public policy problem is an issue that policy actors cannot resolve privately because many affected indi- viduals will bear substantial costs and because the policy may have a simultaneous, sub- stantial impact on society. For example, no single case of unemployment and poverty led to the New Deal. Rather, policy actors—the president and Congress—crafted this public policy after first identifying the problem of millions of unemployed individuals and the potential consequences for the country if the federal government offered them no public assistance.

Various theoretical agenda-setting models explain how issues gain attention and enter the agenda. Four of the most useful theories of agenda setting are explored later in this chapter:

• Kingdon’s multiple streams model, • Cobb and Elder’s model highlighting the systemic and institutional agendas, • Baumgartner and Jones’s agenda-setting model explaining change, and • Downs’s issue-attention model.

These types of theoretical models are critical for appreciating how an issue may develop from relative obscurity to capture significant political and policy attention (Theodou- lou, 2012).

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 114 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem

Since the emergence of the Greek city-state, society has debated what constitutes a public problem. Not all problems confronting society can be solved by policy; too many problems and too few resources exist to deal with them. Thus, accurately determining what constitutes a public problem is essential to understanding how the policy process begins—and if it begins at all. Problem identification, however, remains a perceptual exercise, and not an exercise based on objective fact. Reasonable people can disagree about whether an issue is a problem, because reasonable people can and do have differing social realities and sets of beliefs. Still, as new information and understanding emerge, so does the potential for redefinition of an issue as a public or private problem. For instance, most people perceive the subject of obesity and diet as a private issue, beyond the purview of government regulation. However, rising health-care costs associated with obesity-related illnesses have led some states to initiate policy measures. These include placing nutritional labels on fast-food selections that are high in calories and fat and that over a lifetime can contribute to a number of long-term health ailments. Again, although many policy actors may easily perceive certain issues as clearly private, transformations in perceptions can and do occur. Consider the dramatic changes in how a bad, private habit became radically transformed into a behavior widely viewed as a serious health issue and significantly regulated by various levels of government: cigarette smoking.

Cigarette smoking was once regarded as harmless; health ailments surrounding long- term use were discounted or ignored. Less than 4 decades ago, for instance, smoking at home and at work was a socially acceptable, private choice. However, as new informa- tion emerged about smoking’s harmful effects, the U.S. public’s beliefs about the costs and impact of smoking changed. As the perception of cigarettes shifted—from bad habit to dangerous and addictive carcinogen—so did positions among many policy actors as to whether public action was necessary to address this hitherto private issue. Policy was established to regulate advertising, limit how the product is sold and used, and apply sig- nificant taxes to decrease user demand. Cigarette smoking, therefore, is now considered more of a public problem than it was in the 1950s or 1960s.

The cigarette-smoking example illustrates how an issue can be transformed from a private to public problem as beliefs and perceptions change. The distinction between private and public issues is not absolute or static. As new conditions emerge within the social reality, as changes in beliefs occur, and as a new definition of an issue gains dominance among critical policy actors, a private issue can become transformed into a public issue. However, this process is by no means simple, as it is rare for policy actors to agree on the change. To the contrary: Throughout the policy process, policy actors will battle over how an issue is framed, what information will be used to describe it, and whether it should be considered a public or private problem.

It is evident then that proposals for policy actions do not simply materialize to address unidentifiable issues or unrecognized concerns. Just the opposite: The setting of the agenda and formulation of a policy action—whatever its form may be—is in direct response to an issue that some policy actors have identified and defined as a public prob- lem. Policy actors can identify such problems in several ways. The first is through a crisis or an event that forces attention. Next, information is publicly revealed that brings needed attention to a situation. Third, the individual beliefs and values of policy actors force them

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 115 11/27/12 3:05 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

to pay attention to an issue they believe to be a problem. Fourth, the media broadcasts the issue in order to bring it to the public’s attention. Finally, an issue might not have been a problem in a different time period, but new conditions now make the issue a problem (e.g., cigarette smoking).

The issues that become the focus for policy action must first be identified and defined as issues of public concern for society to address. Basically, an issue of public concern is a con- dition that affects a large number of individuals and generates dissatisfaction across groups (Weimer & Vining, 1989, 2005). A public problem has to have broad effects reaching groups beyond those directly concerned, and only government can provide a solution. Issues such as national security represent the classic public problem because they are issues with which policy actors are most likely to become concerned, as they are identified as having the greatest negative effect on the greatest number of individu- als. In contrast, issues of private concern, or private problems, can be defined as a class of prob- lems that policy actors see as more sanguine. Most view pri- vate problems as the responsibil- ity of those individuals affected, who will have or should have the capacity to deal with the issue.

Thus, the distinction between a private issue and a public issue is important to the policy pro- cess. Before the New Deal pro- grams of the 1930s, for example, the U.S. public more readily held such issues as poverty, fail- ing to save for retirement, and unemployment as private problems. Similarly, before the Great Society initiatives of the 1960s, issues such as family hunger or unaffordable housing were not easily identified as public problems. Yet since the welfare reform initiatives of the 1990s, problems such as the plight of the poor have been redefined. Ironically, in less than 4 decades, the issue of poverty has been redefined as one that is increasingly identified by many policy actors as a private problem.

The debate over what constitutes a public problem is not simply one of semantics. How an issue is identified and defined—whether a private or public problem—raises important questions about the scope of government action that may be necessary. If Social Security can be redefined as an issue of private responsibility, as some have suggested, the gov- ernment will no longer have to gather and redistribute resources to provide retirement assistance for seniors. In other words, how one perceives any issue of concern has stark implications for the policy process.

Debate exists because identifying and defining issues of public concern remain an incred- ibly subjective enterprise. As beliefs and perceptions change, issues can be defined or

Keystone-France/Hulton-Archive/Getty Images

Before the New Deal programs, poverty was considered a private problem that was the responsibility of the individuals affected and not of the government.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 116 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

redefined as either public or private problems. Again, because an issue is presently per- ceived to fall under the rubric of private responsibility does not mean that this issue will be forever identified as a private problem. Instead, how issues are evaluated and judged by various policy actors can change as societal beliefs change. Identifying and defining a public problem remains an especially difficult challenge (Bosso, 1994).

Although almost innumerable issues can be construed as public problems, some rank higher in importance during certain periods. As public opinion research helps illustrate, the general category of issues that the public may consider to be problems remains rela- tively static, but changes can and do occur over time as new information and pressing concerns emerge (see Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Top policy priorities cited by the U.S. public, 2001–2012

Issue 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012

Crime 76% 53 47 53 53 62 62 54 46 49 48

Economy 81% 71 73 79 75 66 68 75 85 83 86

Education 78% 66 62 71 70 67 69 66 61 65 65

Energy --- 42 40 46 47 58 57 59 60 49 52

Environment 63% 44 39 49 49 57 57 56 41 44 43

Federal deficit --- 35 40 51 56 55 53 58 53 60 69

Illegal immigration --- --- --- --- --- --- 55 51 41 40 39

Global trade 37% 25 --- 32 32 30 34 37 31 32 38

Global warming --- --- --- --- --- --- 38 35 30 28 25

Health care 61% 43 45 54 60 59 56 54 52 49 60

Medicare 71% 55 56 62 67 62 63 60 60 63 61

Moral breakdown 51% 45 39 45 41 47 47 43 45 45 44

National security 48% 52 48 48 52 42 46 42 44 49 68

Poverty 63% 44 48 50 59 55 55 51 50 53 52

Regulating financial institutions

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 45 ---

Social Security 74% 62 59 65 70 64 64 64 63 66 68

Taxes 66% 43 --- 44 48 51 48 46 43 42 61

Terrorism --- 83 81 78 75 80 80 74 76 80 69

Unemployment 60% 67 62 67 68 65 57 61 82 81 82

Source: Pew Research Center Surveys, 2001—2012. Retrieved from http://www.pollingreport.com

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 117 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

As indicated in Table 4.1, the issues of concern identified by the public often represent quite broad categories of problems. Such general categorizations of problems, however, rarely capture the specific problem(s) affecting the individual, group, or society. Within such problem generalizations, many more specific problems exist. For example, home- lessness, poor education, family breakdown, unemployment, and urban decay may all be part and parcel to the more general problem of crime. In short, how issues are identified and defined and whether they are framed as private or public are major factors in how urgently various policy actors identify them as warranting policy action.

Disagreements among policy actors over what constitutes public problems help explain why the policy process does not immediately react to address issues of seemingly obvious concern. As suggested, few issues inspire widespread unanimity and consensus. Con- sequently, sometimes heated debate, discussion, and disagreement emerge over what should or should not be identified as a public problem (see Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: General to specific: The debate over problem definition

General Problem Area Specific Problem Debate Over Problem Definition

Economy Incomes below poverty line Higher employer costs vs. living wages

Health care High infant mortality Poor health-care system vs. careless parents

Unemployment Long-term unemployment Lack of education or skill set vs. laziness

Savings rate Limited personal savings Smart investing vs. fiscal irresponsibility

Poverty Welfare dependence Workfare requiring recipients undertake a job within the community vs. fiscal aid for poor

Homelessness Lack of affordable housing Poor work ethic resulting in insufficient income vs. public assistance

Moral decline Amoral society resulting in absence of moral code dictating what’s right and wrong

Consumerist culture vs. personal failings

Crime Lack of rehabilitation Criminal nature vs. nurture

As Table 4.2 suggests, debate and disagreement are to be expected when discussing com- plex issues with many facets. Consider, for instance, the issue of unemployment. The gen- eral problem of unemployment encompasses those out of work, those looking for work, and those no longer looking for work. Furthermore, unemployment can also indicate more spe- cific problems, such as long-term or high rates of unemployment in certain regions, indus- tries, or among certain minorities. The even more interesting question, however, is when does such an issue become serious enough to warrant identification as a public problem?

For example, in April 2012 the national unemployment rate was 8.1%, but in South Central Los Angeles, the unemployment rate was 24% (Werner, 2002). The national unemployment

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 118 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

rate stood at 15.4% for Hispanics and 16.0% for African Americans (Werner, 2002). Has unemployment become more easily identified as a national policy problem as it creeps toward 10% for all Americans? Arguably, the answer depends on whether one is unem- ployed, concerned about becoming unemployed, or simply concerned about the unem- ployed. In other words, the answer depends on whether or not one chooses to identify an issue as a public problem.

Every public policy action is the result of a belief and judgment among policy actors that this particular issue should not be defined as a private problem. Almost inevitably, because of differing beliefs, some group or individual will disagree that an issue is a public con- cern. Interestingly, aside from narrow issues related to threats to national security, where and when the government should become involved in the affairs of individuals and groups remains unclear. (For a basis for why clarity is lacking, as well as the differing frames by which one can understand politics and policy, see Stone, 1997; Schneider & Ingram, 1997.) As a consequence, only those issues that are clearly recognized—either in perception or in reality—as obvious public problems can hope to quickly enter the agenda of policy making.

Once an issue is identified as a public problem, the resulting policy process, the infu- sion of politics, and the array of actors involved will determine where this issue ranks in relation to the many other public problems confronting the nation. In contrast, policy

makers may ignore a private issue perceived to be insignifi- cant. For instance, the issue of AIDS languished in obscurity in the early 1980s, in large part because policy actors viewed the disease as a problem affect- ing a narrow segment of the public and judged it an issue of personal responsibility. However, as the beliefs of pol- icy actors changed by the late 1980s, AIDS was more read- ily identified and defined as a public problem. Overall, the process by which policy actors define a problem helps explain why many issues of concern— even serious issues like AIDS— seem needlessly defined as pri- vate problems.

How Problems Are Identified

As the previous discussion illustrates, problem identification requires policy actors to determine whether an issue is of public concern and thus a public problem. This deter- mination demands that individuals understand exactly what the problem is. That occurs

Getty Images

Even after it was acknowledged as a public problem, AIDS was determined to affect only narrow segments of the public, and it took several years for public policies to reflect an awareness of this issue.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 119 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

when individual policy actors weigh the issue against what they believe is important— in short, against their beliefs and values about what society and the political system should be. To understand how problem identification occurs requires a consideration of the role of an individual’s belief systems and the social construction of problems.

The Role of Beliefs in Problem Identification

Problem identification is not based upon fact, but rather upon perceptions that often reflect individual social realities and beliefs. The notion of social reality refers to what individuals see, perceive, and experience on a day-to-day basis. An individual’s social reality derives from an intrinsically personal point of view, based on personal experiences. Each person possesses a unique social reality within which that individual evaluates and understands the world of potential policy issues. Given disparate religious, ethnic, racial, gender, cultural, and regional backgrounds, it is more likely than not that a person’s social reality will differ to some degree—sometimes considerably—with the social realities of others within the society. Thus, because of sometimes marked differences in individuals’ social realities, and depending on their sets of held beliefs, individuals are quite likely to perceive both political and policy issues differently. As a result, a person’s social realities and the beliefs that individual develops and holds serve as a constant perceptual lens through which to interpret events as well as issues that come to that person’s attention (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Dynamics of an individual’s perceptual lens

Problem identification is often based on one’s social realities and beliefs.

Redefinition of

Social Reality

Beliefs Are

Learned

SOCIAL REALITY SET OF HELD BELIEFS

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 120 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

Further complicating the impact of social reality on problem identification is the fact that social reality does not arise from personal experience alone. Over the course of the last 7 decades, ever-expanding telecommunication technologies have led each American to experience an increasingly expansive social reality. (For an interesting perspective on how perceptions of social reality affect the economy and society, see Davenport, 2001.) Further- more, the constancy of this exposure to events outside one’s strict circle of personal expe- riences ensures than an individual encounters an almost endless flood of issues. Today, social reality for most Americans truly extends from the group to the global level (see Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Levels of social reality

Today’s Americans have an expanding social reality, which can mean more exposure to issues.

Expanding levels of social reality have important consequences for problem identifica- tion. Individuals are no longer limited to judgments of firsthand experience with events or issues because of their exposure to a constant stream of stimuli, information, images, and events going on outside of their own experience. Modern media, especially the Internet and television, have made it possible for individuals to perceive a diverse set of domestic and international events—natural disasters, crime, famine, genocide, pollution, poverty, civil unrest, terrorism—as directly affecting them. This impact may not be based on actual experience at all or even on physical contact, but solely on the perception that these issues somehow matter and have significance for the individual, the group, the community, the state, the region, or the international society. Individuals’ respective belief systems help focus and define the issues with which they become concerned. The question, of course, is: Which of the many issues arising from these multiple levels of social reality should become public problems demanding policy action?

Global

Group

Community

City

State

Region

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 121 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

In fact, individuals remain limited by their cognitive and informational capacities because they cannot truly be aware of, perceive, understand, and render a well-balanced opinion on the entire class of issues to which they are exposed almost daily. People’s belief systems provide paths by which they redefine their social realities and the issues that concern them. These beliefs not only provide the tool by which actors in the policy process win- now away the supposedly insignificant issues, but also help guide and focus the actors’ attention on the issues they consider to be public problems. For political theorists M. Rein and D. A. Schon (1977), learned facts, values, theories, and interests serve to frame and define one’s social reality. Thus, individual and societal beliefs serve to frame what each person sees and understands.

The effect of beliefs on problem identification can prove significant. For example, certain political beliefs characterized as liberal in nature may sensitize individuals and policy actors to the concerns of the working class, the plight of the poor, environmental threats, and civil rights. Conversely, political beliefs characterized as conservative may sensitize individuals and policy actors to concerns about excessive regulation, increased taxation, privacy, and the growth of the federal government. Similarly, other influences on a per- son’s belief system, such as ideological, ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural factors, may effectively heighten one’s awareness towards particular issues, actions, and events. For example, an African American who has experienced discrimination within his or her respective social reality and who has developed certain beliefs as to the persistence of rac- ism within society will be understandably sensitive about whether issues of discrimina- tion or racism are problems that require public policy action. In contrast, other individuals who may not have experienced discrimination or who are unfamiliar with such events within their social reality depend on the degree of learning and beliefs that they develop as to how they perceive issues like discrimination. Unless social realities change or new beliefs are learned, disagreements will persist among actors over which issues should be identified as public problems.

The dynamic nature of problem identification is that neither social reality nor beliefs are by any means fixed and innate. Although sets of beliefs and opinion may remain rela- tively stable, they can and do change over time (Page & Shapiro, 1992). New information, significant life experiences, and basic changes in and across an individual’s social reality can change the set of beliefs. Profound and striking new information, in particular, is a significant force in the perceptual process that can change people’s policy preferences (Page & Shapiro, 1992).

Although individuals’ potential to redefine their beliefs is possible as they learn new infor- mation, the influence of beliefs and the power of these beliefs in shaping social realities can prove a formidable obstacle. The power of information to reframe how individuals perceive certain policy issues depends on whether they learn new information. Long-held beliefs, quite simply, do not easily change unless new information or experiences compel a person to reevaluate the meaning of those beliefs. Moreover, held beliefs can provide a powerful shortcut for both analysis and opinion about which issues are of concern. Depending on how deeply held they are, beliefs can lead an individual to have perceptions and derive conclusions that disregard and discount the importance of contradictory information. The extent and nature of beliefs an individual can develop can even appear to be at odds. For example, some Americans oppose legalized abortion (a restrictive viewpoint)—while sup- porting legalized marijuana (a permissive viewpoint), positions that could be characterized as contradictory (Kammen, 1990).

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 122 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

The influence of beliefs on how the public views specific policy issues has real implica- tions for the policy process. Consider, for instance, the issue of gun violence. In 2009 firearms took the lives of 31,347 Americans in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC] & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011). This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day, or more than 3 deaths every hour (NCIPC & CDC, 2011). In the same year, 66,769 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for nonfatal gunshot wounds (NCIPC & CDC, 2010). According to U.S. Department of Justice esti- mates, in 2010, 68% of all murders within the United States were committed with fire- arms (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2010). Also, among all deaths from firearms in 2010, 60% were suicides and 2% were caused by unintentional use (Murphy, Xu, & Kochanek, 2012). Yet even with thousands of murders, suicides, and unintentional deaths, there is no semblance of clarity among the critical policy actors as to what the issue of concern is or the manner of policy action. Why?

In the gun debate, the beliefs of certain policy actors lead them toward or away from certain problem definitions. Groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) view the issue of gun ownership as a matter of personal responsibility. The NRA subscribes to the belief that the government should not infringe on one’s constitutional right to bear arms. Although research and evidence suggest that the extent of access and the number of guns within a society is associated with the rate of gun violence, the NRA disagrees. (For a review of recent studies on small arms use, see Graduate Institute of International and Developmen- tal Studies, 2002.) For the NRA, notions that gun ownership con- tributes to the rate of gun violence represent a poor analysis of the problem. Hence, the NRA seeks to refocus the debate on the need to ensure self-defense, the growing threat crime poses, and the right to bear arms, which is afforded under the Second Amendment. In stark comparison, the beliefs of other policy actors, such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, consider gun violence an espe- cially serious public problem that demands more aggressive regula- tory policy actions to control the public’s use of and access to guns.

The striking difference between these two policy actors, in terms of how they view the issue of guns, is not in whether one is objectively right and the other is wrong. In reality, such debates over problem identification are seldom academic discussions where validity of research and evidence is objectively weighed before opinions are rendered. Rather, the difference originates with the beliefs of these policy actors. It is these beliefs that affect how such policy actors perceive and analyze the nature of an issue. It is these very beliefs that help them determine whether an issue is a public or private problem.

David De Lossy/Photodisc/ Think Stock

How the public views gun violence affects public policy, and a desire by some to protect the right to bear arms has prevented stricter regulations.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 123 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.1 Identifying and Defining the Public Problem CHAPTER 4

In sum, the power of beliefs within the problem identification stage can prove formida- ble in both identifying and defining which issues are of importance. This set of complex beliefs can prove so significant that political discourse surrounding important societal and political issues can be changed or muted (Bosso, 1994). Additionally, policy actors may define a problem in such a way because of their shared social realities and beliefs; they present that definition to others in the general public, who then judge the definition by their own social realities and beliefs.

The Social Construction of Problems

The social problems that individuals believe government should take policy actions on are numerous. Issues like poverty, racism, disease, crime, and illiteracy lead to pressure for policy to solve or, at minimum, alleviate the problem. Some problems can be socially con- structed, which means policy actors will define the problem in a specific manner and then convince a broad segment of society that this is the way the problem should be defined. This process is known as the social construction of problems. Simply, it is the structuring and telling of stories about why and how the issue is a problem. The actors who create and promote the most effective story will then have an advantage in helping to promote a policy solution. Political scientist Deborah Stone (1989) posits that issues do not have intrinsic characteristics that make them less or more of a problem, but rather policy actors portray the issues in such ways that they convince other actors and the general public that they are problems. Stone (1989) believes policy actors tell stories to define policy issues as problems through the use of symbols, numbers, and causal stories and then claim the right to lobby government to solve the problem as they see it.

For Stone (1989) a symbol is anything that stands for something else; it is a way to influ- ence and control to whom the actors are telling the story. Four elements of symbolic rep- resentation are important for problem definition.

1. Narrative stories explain either decline or helplessness and loss of control. For example, supporters of health-care reform and the creation of universal coverage weave a narrative about how the number of individuals no longer able to afford health care has grown to unacceptable levels over the years and how many indi- viduals have been forced into financial ruin by a health problems.

2. Synecdoches are figures of speech in which the whole is represented by one of its parts. For example, supporters of welfare cuts often talk about the abuse of the system and how so many people who are not in need cheat the system and profit from the public’s tax dollars.

3. Metaphors are likenesses between two things. For example, government interven- tion in the economy will bring greater inefficiencies and costs to the taxpayer.

4. Ambiguity is a lack of clarity. For example, the president asks Congress for the power to send troops into a foreign nation only if U.S. interests are threatened; however, the president does not specify what “U.S. interests” means or what con- stitutes a threat.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 124 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.2 Factors That Influence Problem Identification CHAPTER 4

Policy actors use causal stories to explain what caused the problem and often who is to blame. For the most part, problems are either accidentally caused or intentionally caused. For example, accidentally caused problems are associated with natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans with its ramifications for rebuilding. An example of an intentional cause would be pharmaceutical companies that know the dangers of a particular drug but still allow it on the market. Sometimes two sets of policy actors portray a problem differently through the causal story they tell. For example, one group depicted the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as an accident due to bad weather condi- tions and a drunken captain; the other side portrayed the spill as an intentional result of Exxon’s deliberate neglect of the ship’s condition and awareness of an unfit captain. Finally, Stone (1989) posits that numbers can be used to legitimize a problem. However, questions of accuracy and interpretation inevitably arise when numbers are used to prove or demonstrate a point. For example, successive administrations talk about tax cuts to help the middle class but use different income brackets to define whom the middle class comprises. The key to using social construction to define problems is persuading others of the problem’s nature as one side defines it.

4.2 Factors That Influence Problem Identification

In their work on problem identification, political scientists D. A. Rochefort and R. W. Cobb (1994) identify a series of factors that can influence whether policy actors identify and define an issue as a public policy problem. These factors are causality, severity, incidence, proximity, and crisis.

Causality

Causality is a factor that is intrinsic to whether an issue is perceived as a potential policy problem. In order to show causality, a problem must be perceived as a product of insti- tutional or societal failures. However, establishing causality is not simple. Most issues of concern—whether poverty, health care, unemployment, education, crime, or Social Secu- rity—can be seen as being caused by multiple factors, including society and individuals. As such, there is seldom agreement regarding the cause of any specific problem.

Severity

Severity refers to the seriousness of a problem that demands government action. Policy actors often use words such as calamity, catastrophe, or disaster to describe the severity of issues, perpetuating the belief that the issue is of grave importance. In order to be consid- ered truly severe, an issue must reflect a level of consequence that is rare and profound. Problems are clearly severe when a large or obvious segment of society bears great cost for the problem—examples include wars and natural disasters. However, determining sever- ity is often a subjective exercise because the consequences of an issue are not always clear to everyone. In fact, clear examples of severe events are rare, so severity is often redefined so that it applies to issues that are not obvious policy problems.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 125 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.2 Factors That Influence Problem Identification CHAPTER 4

Incidence

Incidence refers to the real and perceived frequency of an issue, event, or action. The rate at which an issue, event, or action occurs affects actors’ awareness by reflecting whether a potential problem is worsening, improving, or remaining static. Linear (e.g., the events leading up to and through a natural disaster) and exponential (e.g., the quick spread of a dangerous flu) projections are the most ominous and, when accepted as valid, tend to create the most pressure for quick public intervention. On the other hand, the frequency of an issue may also desensitize policy actors to the severity of a problem and result in the issue being diminished in significance. For example, U.S. murder rates—while sig- nificantly higher than other Western industrialized nations—do not elicit the same public reaction or alarm.

Proximity

Proximity refers to how closely an issue affects an individual. Problems that develop closer to one’s immediate social reality are likely to be identified as problems, whereas issues far removed from one’s social reality are not. The impact of proximity varies depending on how sensitive an individual is to potential problems across various levels of their social reality. Concern over proximity is one of perception, except in circumstances in which a potential problem directly impacts the individual. For example, some individuals may be concerned with the issue of Third World poverty, possibly because they experience pov- erty themselves or have family in a Third World country. But others who are not directly impacted by poverty will rationalize it as beyond their scope of concern.

Crisis

A crisis is a problem that includes all the qualities of severity, incidence, and proximity. A crisis cannot be avoided or ignored, and it demands action by the government. However, just because an event is labeled a crisis does not mean that it is one. What differentiates a crisis from a noncrisis is a difficult and subjective matter to determine. In addition, the term crisis has significant political implications—it can be used by “claim makers” to elevate a concern in an environment overloaded with competing claims. A real crisis represents the most serious of problems, focuses attention within and across social reali- ties, and can limit debate among policy actors as to whether or not a problem exists. For example, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, represented a real crisis.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 126 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.3 Why Governments Do or Do Not Deal With Problems CHAPTER 4

4.3 Why Governments Do or Do Not Deal With Problems

In the majority of cases, policy actors do not agree on what a public problem is and which problems require policy action. To become policy, an issue needs to grab the public’s attention. This will occur if the problem affects a considerable number of individuals or groups within society. The more people affected, the greater the scope of the issue and the more the public will demand that government deal with the problem. Conversely, if an issue affects only a few individuals or groups in society, it is unlikely to be defined as a policy problem requiring action. Perception is crucial in determining if the number of

Policy in Practice: The Problem of Unemployment The next time you pick up your paycheck, take an extra moment to look at the deductions and with- holdings. Just a few lines down you will likely see one that reads something like “State Unemploy- ment Tax,” with a figure next to it of a few dollars held back from your pay. That line and those few dollars are evidence of how big problems often lead to policies that affect nearly all of us.

In 1933, at the height of the Great Depression, the unemployment rate reached a staggering 24.9%. The Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program was among many New Deal initiatives advanced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to improve economic conditions. Although it has changed and evolved since its creation in 1935, unemployment compensation continues to have two primary objectives. One objective is to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to those workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The second objective is to help stabilize the economy during recessions.

An example of federalism in practice, unemployment policy is overseen at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Labor and is administered as 53 different programs by each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The policy is funded through revenues generated via the Federal Unemployment Compensation Act, or FUCA, which was originally enacted in 1939. The Emergency Unemployment Program (EUP) was created in 2008 because the average period of unemployment during the latest recession was longer than in other recent economic downturns. This temporary program, which is entirely funded by the federal government, provides additional benefits to those unemployed workers who have exhausted all benefits provided by their respective state. Unless extended again, the EUP will expire at the end of 2012.

Just as Kingdon and other scholars describe, unemployment compensation is one of many policies that emerge, become part of the systemic agenda, and are ultimately enacted in response to specific, high-profile problems.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. While nearly all policy makers agree that unemployment is a problem, not all agree that unem- ployment compensation is the best solution. What are some of the arguments for and against unemployment compensation as a policy response to unemployment? What sorts of policy might opponents offer as an alternative?

2. How do the unemployment compensation and EUP programs express the specific factors influ- encing problem identification as described in this chapter?

3. Reflecting on political and economic circumstances at the time the original unemployment com- pensation policy was enacted, how might it reflect the elements of Kingdon’s streams model?

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 127 11/27/12 3:27 PM

Section 4.4 The Classic Public Policy Problem CHAPTER 4

4.4 The Classic Public Policy Problem

Policy actors are most likely to become concerned with issues that can be identified definitively as having the greatest negative effect on the greatest number of individ-uals. As costs increase, for instance, the social consequences cause concern among the various policy actors and focus attention on the issue. Costs, in particular, highlight the necessity of government action because the negative effects of certain issues extend beyond the capability of private individuals. Extreme severity of cost ensures that the attentions and perceptions of policy actors will center on the need for government action to address what is believed to be the most important policy issue. Still, the notion of cost does not completely explain why a certain issue may be identified as a public problem. Aside from the cost factor, the number of individuals or the scope of those affected can help determine which issues will be identified as public problems.

The Financial Crisis of 2008 The Financial Crisis of 2008 was many years in the making. The mortgage fiasco happened as a direct result of the business decisions of companies. For a simplified breakdown of the financial crisis and examples of some companies affected, see the following video: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=D6ziTVAzEQM.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. How would you define cost and scope in this situation? 2. How might this help us understand what happens when cost and scope become all too real? 3. Could the crisis have been prevented? How?

individuals or societal groups affected justifies action. For example, a single illness may not normally result in public alarm, but if the illness is the result of a contagious virus such as smallpox or Ebola, society will view such an issue as demanding policy action—even if only a single case remains evident. Additionally, the costs associated with an issue (which can be defined as negative effects) will affect public attention. For example, the effects of economic decline, hunger, poverty, poor health care, unemployment, illiteracy, and crime can have dramatic costs for individuals and the society. The most dramatic example of cost is the loss or threat posed to citizens’ lives. Overall, as the severity of these costs increases, so does the likelihood of a previously private problem sparking attention and concern among political actors. The longer policy action is delayed to meet a problem, the higher the costs. Similar to a problem’s scope, perception is crucial in defining its costs. As the costs associated with an issue increase in consequence, both for the individual and society, the issue will become more likely to be perceived as a policy problem.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 128 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

The interrelationship between the dimensions of scope and cost can help define and iden- tify the classic public policy problem. Specifically, if the negative effects of an issue increase considerably, and if this issue severely affects a sig- nificant number of individuals, it becomes more likely as the impact of the issue grows that various policy actors will iden- tify and define this issue as a public problem requiring some kind of policy action. In con- trast, those issues that affect few people and have little severity are more likely to be justified as private issues that do not require government action.

4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process The agenda-setting process, which is multifaceted and complex, is the narrowing of the set of issues that policy actors will address; it is a series of broad stages in which issues develop and emerge. Agenda setting begins when decision makers recognize a problem, feel the need to address it, and start to search for a solution. The process helps explain why some issues that are not considered classic public problems move onto the agenda for consideration of policy action, while others do not.

The policy making literature provides a number of different agenda-setting models, each posing similar questions. In many ways the answers each agenda-setting model provides to these questions often complement and overlap each other (Parsons, 1995). Basically, all agenda-setting models are asking how issues become problems and how they move or do not move onto the agenda. Within these broad questions are subsets of questions with which theorists concern themselves. These may include questions such as why some issues have priority while other issues of similar significance for society receive less atten- tion, why some issues that are important in a certain period disappear from the agenda in another period, and what are the interactions and roles of the various institutional and noninstitutional actors in the process. What follows is a discussion of four agenda-setting models that help to illustrate the dynamics and process of agenda setting.

Jupiter Images/ Thinkstock

The scope of public policy related to roads and automobiles is very large since it impacts a large and definable percentage of the public. However, it is not as large as health care, which affects every single member of the public.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 129 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model

As Chapter 3 discussed, John Kingdon’s multiple streams model attempts to explain why some issues reach the agenda and become prominent and others do not. Kingdon views the policy process as the interplay of three streams: problems, policy, and politics. Each stream reflects the significance and influence that the nature of the problem, the character of policy solutions, and the defining temper of the surrounding politics has agenda setting. Kingdon’s model adds to the explanation of agenda setting by highlight- ing the profound and often ignored role of timing on the impact of certain policy and political participants. Within the opening of a policy window, these three streams inter- act, presenting an opportunity for specific issues and solutions to capture the agenda at a particular period (see Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: Kingdon’s three streams and the agenda-setting process

An open policy window creates an opportunity for issues to make it onto policy agendas. Timing is a crucial factor in the process.

Problems Stream

Represents the stream

of issues that various

policy actors may fixate

and focus on.

Policy Stream

Represents the essential

idea and solutions debated

and bantered among the

various policy-making

actors and policy

entrepreneurs.

Politics Stream

Represents the “electoral,

partisan, or pressure group

factors,” indicative of the

classic political motivations

held by the critical institutional

policy actors.

POLICY WINDOW

MULTIPLE STREAMS

Problem window

Political window

Policy Action Coupling

of streams

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 130 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

The problem stream’s significance for agenda setting is that it helps explain how problems that are not self-evident come to the attention of policy actors through focusing events such as a crisis. The policy stream is the path by which ideas, solutions, or alternatives are matched with identified problems. The source for such ideas, according to Kingdon, is the policy entrepreneur, who acts as an “advocate for proposals or for the prominence of an idea” (as cited in Parsons, 1995, p. 122). As Chapter 3 discussed, the policy entrepreneur matches a problem issue with a policy solution within the agenda. The policy stream, how- ever, does not include a reflective discussion on which problems and solutions are the most deserving or most important. Rather, a selection process leads to a preference for those issues and ideas that can compete, given the constraints of the political and public policy process. For Kingdon, these survival constraints are as follows (as cited in Parsons, 1995):

• Technical feasibility: Explains how infeasible ideas may quickly lose prominence within the agenda; details of solution must be specified so viability of solution including resource implications can be determined.

• Value acceptability: Proposed policy solutions are acceptable given widespread individual, societal, or institutional values; values such as equity and justice act as a basis with which to evaluate both problems and proposed policy solutions.

• Tolerable cost: Can a problem be resolved in given budgetary or political realities; lack of fiscal resources can place severe limitations on how a problem is defined, as well as the viability and acceptability of a particular solution. Policy ideas that entail considerable cost may diminish political support or become marginalized within the agenda.

• Public acquiescence: The public can accept or reject specific policy proposals; the public’s degree of support (or lack of support) for certain policy initiatives is often integral to explaining which issues enter and survive the agenda-setting process.

• Political acceptability: At a minimum, a policy idea must have sufficient sup- port if it is to survive the agenda-setting process; lack of political support among policy actors for a particular policy position may foster increased favor for a more accepted course of action; as the political composition of the governmen- tal arena changes, for example, so does the likely support or lack of support for certain policy issues.

For Kingdon (1995), the political stream demonstrates that the policy agenda does not develop in a vacuum. In sum, the broad political context comprising the interplay between partisan, public, and group interests is essential to agenda setting. Additionally, which issues gain political recognition is influenced by the national mood shared by the public, organized political forces, and members of the government.

The national mood expresses the notion that shared concerns or interests can predom- inate throughout the public. As this national mood changes—indicated by swings in public opinion—it affects the context of the public policy process, with the result that certain issues achieve greater prominence, while others diminish and are removed from the agenda, thereby emphasizing those issues that are most important to the public. For example, anti-immigration propositions, popular in the early 1990s in California, quickly lost political favor among the California public as socioeconomic and political conditions changed.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 131 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

Organized interests, in comparison, reflect the classic interpretation of the influence and sway of interests groups. According to Kingdon (1995), interest groups help define the agenda and specify alternatives. As for the role played by members of government, the nature of U.S. politics ensures some level of consistent change through the electoral pro- cess. Thus, elected officials change, as do nonelected members of the administration. Each newly elected presidential administration, for example, brings a sea of change with upward of 6,000 members of the executive staff appointed, replacing previously appointed mem- bers. The result of this transition is that senior staff transfer from Congress to the executive branch, and the staff of the losing party seeks out new employment in corporate, lob- bying, or other policy-making circles. As such, a cycle of change permeates and ripples through the government as the seats of power shift. These types of political changes often have the effect of redefining the issues that fall on the agenda.

Finally, bureaucracies also serve to shape and mold the agenda through jurisdictional battles. Each agency, for instance, may prioritize certain issues and actions over others. Given budgetary, organizational, or political climates, an agency’s preference for a par- ticular issue can change over time.

As Chapter 3 considered, policy windows may open due to political forces or the nature of the problem. Such windows are by no means fixed and can be fleeting in terms of the opportunity to address a specific policy issue through some kind of government action (Kingdon, 1995). The focus of these policy windows is not on a broad agenda of issues, but a much narrower and more definitive decision agenda. For Kingdon (1995), the deci- sion agenda represents the specific set of issues of which the government is aware and considers important enough to warrant action. Such a window can open predictably at regular intervals, as reflected by the budget cycle and the appropriation bills designed, formulated, and adopted for each fiscal year. In comparison, other policy windows may open as a reaction to a dramatic problem or the alignment of specific political forces. For example, events such as terrorism, airline disasters, natural disasters, or riots may rep- resent problems that lead to a dramatic opening of a policy window. President Obama’s election in 2008, coupled with a democratically controlled Congress and sense of public support for reform, provided the ideal political environment for a “window” to open per- mitting health-care insurance reform.

Overall, although policy windows may open, the issues that are seriously considered within this decision agenda remain limited. Essentially, no policy actor possesses the means to address all issues equally, so policy makers must make selections. Consequently, decision agenda windows can be opened as the agenda itself is changed, either by politics or by the nature of the problem. As Kingdon (1995) argues, “solutions come to be coupled with problems, proposals linked with political exigencies, and alternatives introduced when the agenda changes” (p. 173).

Kingdon’s model of agenda setting offers an added approach by which to understand how a variety of dynamics affect which issues emerge on the government’s and pub- lic’s agenda. In particular, Kingdon’s work highlights how the nature of the problem, the activities of policy entrepreneurs, and base politics all affect the process of agenda setting. (Other theories than the ones noted here can be used to understand the agenda-setting process. See Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993.)

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 132 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

National Debt and Deficits The national deficit continues to grow, and there is serious concern among everyone from foreign investors to politicians to average Americans. Despite the huge national deficit, nobody wants to pay more money in taxes. Politicians who seek favor in popular opinion or hope to be reelected are unlikely to make the tough choices necessary because of the possible effects on their political future. However, the country’s debt continues to stack up. The following video discusses the deficit and debt issues facing our country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDlOmx_2DtA.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. Is this a crisis? If yes, why? If no, why? 2. How might Kingdon’s three streams interact on this issue? 3. Are taxes the best solution?

Cobb and Elder’s Model

Roger W. Cobb and Charles D. Elder (1971, 1983) provide an additional theory of agenda setting that illustrates the practical evolution and development of policy issues. This model identifies two broad categories of agendas: systemic and institutional. The sys- temic agenda can be viewed as the public agenda; it encompasses all issues that are gener- ally recognized as deserving public attention and fall within the government’s legitimate jurisdiction—for example, levels of poverty. The systemic agenda is marked by a screen of assumptions, facts, values, and overarching beliefs that the various actors operating within the agenda hold. The institutional agenda can be considered the policy-making agenda; it involves all issues explicitly up for active and serious consideration by the authoritative decision makers—for example, actual congressional bills (Cobb & Elder, 2012). If there is to be policy action, potential issues must evolve within and through these two agendas. The systemic agenda is more abstract and broader in scope than the institutional agenda, and the priorities of both do not necessarily correspond. Often there is considerable discrepancy between the two agendas. Figure 4.4 illustrates the Cobb and Elder model.

Figure 4.4: Agenda setting: An explanation of policy issue development

Cobb and Elder present an evolutionary model of a policy issue. An issue must develop within and through both the systemic agenda and the institutional agenda.

Issue of Concern Systemic Agenda Institutional

Agenda Formal Policy- Making Agenda

Triggering Device Triggering Device

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 133 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

Once policy actors identify an issue as being of concern, it is normally placed on the sys- temic agenda before it can be placed upon the institutional agenda. Placing the issue on the systemic agenda can be characterized as the instigating element that stimulates the agenda-setting process. It occurs when policy makers identify and perceive an issue as a costly problem for a segment of the population. If an issue is not identified or perceived as such, it will not be considered for policy action and move to the institutional agenda. For example, although racial segregation and discrimination was policy in many southern states after the Civil War, neither the White majority nor the governing elites viewed the issue as a concern. For the groups that supported such racist policies, segregation did not constitute an issue that demanded or justified civil rights actions or other types of public policy action by either the state or federal government. The context of Cobb and Elder’s agenda-setting model helps explain such a moral failing of public policy. The problem of racial inequality was clearly a problem for Blacks in the South, made more severe by state policies’ legitimization of it, but it was kept off the agenda by the greater public’s power of perceptions and beliefs within the arena that Cobb and Elder call the systemic agenda. For Cobb and Elder, the catalysts or events that propel issues from the systemic to the institutional agenda are triggering devices, because they draw the attention of the public and policy makers. An example of a triggering device could be an international cri- sis. Catalysts become triggering device through the interaction of four factors: scope (the number of people affected), intensity (the extent to which an event concerns the public), duration of an event, and resources (what is at stake).

Cobb and Elder assert that a key problem for policy makers and other involved policy actors is ensuring that the lag time between an issue’s move from the systemic to the institutional agenda is not too great. If it is, the issue could fall apart and prove critical to the political system. A political system’s viability rests in its ability to cope with the lag between these two agendas. Note, too, that both the systemic and institutional agendas have their own sets of biases and are therefore subject to conflict. As the beliefs, actors, and resources change over time, the position of an issue within the systemic agenda can also change. Issues deemed radical or insignificant at a certain time—as many environmental, civil rights, or gay rights issues once were—can be viewed quite differently as changes occur within the broad systemic agenda. The rethinking of issues takes place because of dynamic changes in attention and perception possible within the systemic agenda.

The institutional agenda-setting process is marked by the defining and unavoidable real- ity that this is a strikingly political process. The actors involved within the institutional agenda reflect the traditional series of both institutional and noninstitutional actors. However, the institutional agenda setting’s distinction in this particular stage is the particular prominence and importance of the institutional actors. Institutional actors— usually elected representatives and bureaucrats—represent the critical players who make the defining decisions about which issues will be focused on at the expense of others. Although noninstitutional actors—such as the media, lobbyists, interest groups, or con- stituents—can have a considerable effect on the decision-making process, the institu- tional actor makes the final selection of which issues will be explored and discussed. For elected representatives, issues that carry the risk of greater political harm or threat may be quickly diminished in significance, or they may be redefined in a manner that lessens the political damage. In contrast, issues that institutional actors believe hold great politi- cal and electoral favor may gain prominence within the institutional agenda. For exam- ple, a Congress that skews conservative may favor issues and initiatives that reduce or alter the role of government, decrease tax rates, or increase defense spending. In contrast,

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 134 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

a more liberal Congress may favor issues and initiatives that promote a more intrusive role for government, support income redistribution, increase education or health-care spend- ing, and reduce defense spend- ing. These ideological beliefs can also clash with additional beliefs influenced by party affil- iation and constituents’ prefer- ences, as well as their respective national vision about which issues demand their attention and action.

Traditional issues such as the economy may dominate the agenda at the expense of new issues. The expertise and experience of the institutional actors in dealing with these older issues partly explains this phenomenon. Additionally, the procedures of the budget cycle, highlighted by an authorization and appropriation process that extends from February to October of each fiscal year, may further limit attention to the most pressing issues beyond those related to the federal budget. Lack of critical political support within the party or committee can only delimit the concern for an issue. In sum, institutional actors, because of well-recognized political constraints, confront the “reality” that they must be selective in giving an issue their attention.

Resources are another factor affecting which issues gain importance within the institu- tional agenda. Regardless of the resources—fiscal, time, or political—institutional actors are constrained by the reality that resources are finite and not all issues can be deemed equally critical for policy action. The political cycle compels elected institutional actors to expend finite political resources on issues they consider most important to their political health. Nonelected institutional actors, such as the bureaucracy or judiciary, must also focus on the set of issues that they believe to be most important. The Supreme Court, for instance, does not hear every potential case but chooses which cases hold the greatest significance for the political society. By comparison, noninstitutional actors attempt to influence the institutional agenda by lobbying and engaging in grassroots movements, in addition to providing or restricting campaign or party donations to various elected institutional actors.

Once the institutional actors reach consensus about what problems will be considered for policy action, they undertake the formulation of policy alternatives that will best resolve those public problems.

Cobb and Elder refer to the formulation of policy alternatives as last step in the agenda- setting process. Issues that emerge, having survived the biases of both the systemic and institutional agenda, are generally perceived to be public problems that will become the foci for policy action. Such policy actions result from an intrinsic understanding of the issue or problem as it has been defined throughout the agenda-setting process. The manner in

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Elected representatives are part of the institutional agenda- setting process.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 135 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

which policy makers frame and understand the issue affects the resulting possible policy action. Significant and dramatic types of policy formulation, for instance, require accep- tance that the issue or problem is of extreme importance to the society. The next chapter, which focuses on policy formulation, will expand on the process and influences that help shape and structure the various proposals put forth to redress an identified policy prob- lem that has survived each of the agendas.

The Baumgartner and Jones Model

Chapter 3’s discussion of policy process theories included Baumgartner and Jones’s punc- tuated equilibrium framework. As part of this framework, the authors detail an agenda- setting model that posits that both change and stability are the major variables in agenda setting. In particular, Baumgartner and Jones are interested in the rate of change between periods of partial equilibrium and issue expansion. Hence, they argue that stable periods of agenda setting are punctuated by policy activism. The forces that create stability in the agenda-setting process are the same forces that drive radical and long-lasting change in turbulent times (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993).

Under this model of agenda setting, change in policy is influenced by the media and visible public debate and discontent. Various policy actors coming together in coalitions also have a powerful influence on the agenda-setting process, as the more actors who join together, the more likely it is that agendas will change (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993). This change occurs because as actors come together, they form new agendas, defining the problem or problems in new ways. Baumgartner and Jones demonstrate that for long periods, agenda setting is predictable and policy making is incremental in nature. That is to say, to see what policy will be implemented this year, see what was implemented last year. However, change can and does occur as contexts of support and issues once unim- portant to policy actors become prominent. In such an environment, agenda setting clears the path for policy that is comprehensive and different from the past.

Many political scientists view the Baumgartner and Jones model as presenting an inte- grated explanation of agenda setting through its synthesis of the elements that cause change. The weakness of the model, however, is that it does not sufficiently explain the causal relationship between public opinion, the media, and policy decisions, thereby fail- ing to shed light on the public’s influence on policy decisions.

Downs’s Issue-Attention Model

From Anthony Downs’s perspective, the agenda-setting process is the central dynamic by which a private issue gathers increasing attention and transforms into a public issue demanding some kind of policy action. This issue-attention cycle helps explain which issues enter the agenda and how an issue may leave or lose its status within the agenda (Downs, 1972). In Downs’s model of agenda setting, an issue undergoes a life cycle in which attention builds and fixates on the issue during one period, but over time this atten- tion mitigates and diminishes. As Figure 4.5 indicates, Downs’s issue-attention cycle has five critical stages that help explain how an issue evolves.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 136 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.5: Stages of Downs’s issue-attention cycle

Attention given to a specific issue evolves as the issue itself evolves.

Downs’s issue-attention model offers an interesting explanation of the dynamic within the agenda-setting process. The model provides a perspective on why certain issues dominate policy actors’ attention, are readily identified as problems, become the focus of the pol- ity, and over time fall from attention and become supplanted by other competing issues. Of course, Downs’s model simplifies a complex agenda-setting process. Nevertheless, it offers a basis for understanding the possible fickleness of policy actors’ attention when confronted by an issue perceived as important for society, such as gun control.

Periodically, debates about gun control and the Constitution’s Second Amendment reig- nite because of visible events that shock the public in their intensity and consequences and push the public to demand policy action. The following case study illustrates such an instance and revolves around the massacre of innocent bystanders by two teenagers.

Preproblem stage

Alarmed discovery

• Realization that policy formulation may be difficult • Difficult to find policy solutions acceptable to all actors

• Attention span among policy actors is short and interest wanes when actors

realize the problem is difficult to fix Realization

of cost

• Decreased concerns about an issue among policy actors • Proposed solutions to identified problems may lessen concerns because of

impressions that problem is being dealt with

• Traditional policy actors (interest groups, bureaucrats, lobbyists) supplant

those actors who were initially mobilized by importance of an issue

• Initial actors continue to pay attention and to remain active regardless of public

attention levels

Postproblem stage

• New information emerges or an event occurs that incites focused attention by policy actors

• Issue is a clear threat because of its potential severity

• Public and affected actors focus on the issue

• Issue not easily marginalized or diminished

• Issue of concern exists and can be domestic or international

• Focused public attention is absent

• Interest group and affected actors actively to built public and support for

government actions

• Issue is marginalized and limited in terms of policy actions

• Decline in interests and attentions occurs as political and policy realities around an issue set in

• Other issues emerge and start to compete for attentionGradual decline

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 137 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 4.5 Four Models for the Agenda-Setting Process CHAPTER 4

Case Study: The Massacre at Columbine High School On a Tuesday morning in April 1999, two Columbine, Colorado, high school seniors, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 12 students and 1 teacher at their school over a period of a few hours. They also injured 24 other students and teachers. After the killing spree, the pair committed suicide.

Columbine was the deadliest U.S. high school massacre and the fourth- deadliest school massacre in the United States. The incident immediately raised the public’s awareness of gun control legislation, the availability of firearms, and gun violence among youths. Additional attention was widely focused upon the nature of high school culture and subcultures—particularly with respect to bullying, the impact of violent media such as movies and video games on youth, teenagers’ use of antidepressants, and the influ- ence of the Internet.

Columbine was a classic example of an issue that grabbed the public’s attention by its sheer horror—severe in kind and shocking in nature. The event focused the entire nation—and almost all policy actors—on the issue of school violence and guns. Yet even as the initial emotional response prompted a substantial increase in public attention and the placement of the issue on the public agenda, the realization that it would be difficult, costly, and taxing to formulate a legislative solution quickly confronted policy makers and the public.

As the Columbine shootings help demonstrate, initial issue attention shifts away from identifying the problem to a discussion of the exact nature of the problem and how it may best be resolved. Whereas initial attention may build quickly, depending on the significance of the event in question, programmatic and ideological complications associated with defining a prospective policy solution can serve to dampen both the demand for policy action and the attention the issue receives. For example, policy proposals to address gun violence, whether in schools or in society, may require considerable restrictions on personal use or access to firearms. As a result, additional concerns over the regulation of guns may entail fundamental changes in the judicial and political interpretation of the Second Amendment. Simply put, an issue that emerges to capture the attention of various policy actors does not operate in a vacuum. When an issue such as guns in school is both identified and defined as a public problem, policy proposals to solve such a problem can lead to an array of addi- tional concerns over other issues, such as the appropriate role of government, personal freedom, and crime and punishment.

The Columbine incident illustrates how the often-heated debate over how to appropriately under- stand of the nature of the problem, its supposed detrimental effects, and the consequences of policy action only serve to further dissipate attention. Proposing additional regulations, increasing govern- ment oversight, or adopting a more aggressive stance toward prosecuting gun-related crimes led to decreased attention to the problem, as such policy actions pacified the concerns that initially mobi- lized various policy actors.

Getty Images

Responses to the Columbine High School Massacre illustrate how an incident can affect public awareness and policy actions about a specific issue.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 138 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Key Points to Remember CHAPTER 4

Summary

Problem definition is often as confusing and complicated an undertaking for policy actors as is the comprehension of it by students of public policy. Individuals’ beliefs can define problems, as can the way actors come together to socially construct the problem. Regardless of the way a problem is defined, social realities and sets of beliefs inevitably define and redefine the issues that are perceived to be public problems. Any issue can theoretically be defined as a public problem; however, only those rare issues that represent a clear crisis for society are likely to foster real consensus among policy actors. For the many issues that are not clearly defined, the dynamic process of agenda setting helps explain how issues that are not classic public problems come to be identified as demanding policy action.

Four models describe the agenda-setting process: Kingdon’s streams theory, Cobb and Elder’s agenda-setting model, Baumgartner and Jones’s change model, and Downs’s issue-attention cycle. They help to explain how large numbers of important issues and problems compete for attention within the public and political arenas. More importantly, agenda setting clarifies how the issues to be considered for policy action are reduced in number. This agenda-setting process is by no means fair or just, but it captures the com- petitive dynamic whereby even morally important issues can be ignored if the sets of actors within the public and political arenas regard it as insignificant.

In summary, agenda setting represents a stage marred by the competition among beliefs, perceptions, and attention. Many potential public problems will not enter any policy agenda. The negative consequences of these overlooked problems will perpetuate until they enter and survive the agenda-setting process. In the end, how well policy actors understand the dynamics of this stage in the policy process can prove critical to whether their policy interests and concerns are eventually considered public problems.

Key Points to Remember

• Problem identification represents the very beginning for each and every policy issue.

• While certain issues may appear to some as obvious public policy problems, an ongoing debate exists among the many policy actors over what is a public problem.

• Different social realities and sets of beliefs can effectively redefine how individu- als perceive certain policy issues.

• Policy actors define problems for many individuals through social construction of problems—the process of defining problems and then convincing a broad seg- ment of society that this is the way the problem should be defined.

• Social construction of problems involves structuring and telling stories about why and how the issue is a problem. The actors who create and promote the most effective story will then have an advantage in helping to promote a policy solution.

• Political scientist Deborah Stone (1989) posits that issues do not have intrin- sic characteristics that make them less or more of a problem, but rather policy actors portray the issues in such ways that they convince other actors and the general public that they are problems. Stone believes policy actors tell stories

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 139 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 4

to define policy issues as problems through the use of symbols, numbers, and causal stories and then claim the right to lobby government to solve the prob- lem as they see it.

• Problem identification is influenced by the factors of causality, severity, inci- dence, proximity, and crisis.

• Although any issue may theoretically be defined as a public problem, only those rare issues that represent a clear crisis for society are likely to foster consensus among policy actors.

• For many issues that are not understood to be crisis-related, the process of agenda setting helps explain how issues that are clearly not “classic public prob- lems” can be identified as demanding policy action.

• Four models with which to understand the complexity of the agenda-setting process are Kingdon’s multiple streams, Cobb and Elder’s agendas, Baumgartner and Jones’s change and setting, and Downs’s issue-attention cycle.

• Agenda setting reflects the process by which an issue rises from obscurity to attract public and political attention. In particular, agenda setting helps us under- stand how a far larger set of arguably important issues and problems compete for attention within the public and political arenas. More importantly, this process helps us understand how the agenda of issues to be considered for policy action becomes limited.

• The agenda-setting stage highlights an important realization. Some issues may be recognized as important, but not all important issues will enter onto the specific policy agenda. Practically, institutional and noninstitutional actors can only con- sider a select number of issues at any given period of time.

• Downs’s and Kingdon’s models explain agenda setting as unfair and competi- tive, the product of multiple streams converging through policy windows repre- senting opportunities to identify and solve a problem.

• Cobb and Elder’s model explains the process as an interaction between two policy agendas—the systemic and institutional agenda. This model highlights how an issue must survive multiple policy agendas before it is considered for policy action.

• Baumgartner and Jones demonstrate that for long periods, agenda setting is pre- dictable and incremental, but change can and does occur. Agenda setting clears the way for comprehensive policy making.

• Policy actors will not develop policy solutions and actions for issues that are not recognized as public problems. Many potential public problems, for instance, will not enter any policy agenda—effectively ignored and wallowing in obscurity.

Key Terms

agenda A list of issues or problems that policy actors pay serious attention to at any given time.

agenda setting Narrowing the set of issues that policy actors will focus on and address.

classic public problem Issue that has the greatest negative effect on the greatest number of individuals.

cost and scope Cost refers to negative con- sequences, and scope refers to the number of people affected by a problem. These two factors influence how problems are defined.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 140 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 4

decision agenda A specific set of issues that a government is aware of and consid- ers important enough to warrant action.

institutional agenda, or policy-making, agenda Set of items up for active and seri- ous consideration by government.

issue-attention cycle A term coined by Anthony Downs in his issue-attention model to describe how private issues gather attention and are transformed into a public issue demanding policy action. The cycle’s five stages are: (a) preproblem, where issue of concern exists; (b) alarmed discovery, where new information emerges or an event occurs focusing attention from policy actors; (c) realization of cost, actors realize might be difficult to formulate policy; (d) gradual decline, as political and policy reality sets in a decline in attention starts; and (e) postproblem, a decrease in concern among policy actors occurs.

Kingdon’s multiple streams model A model of the agenda-setting process that describes how problems, policy, and politics streams reflect the significance and influence that the nature of the problem, the character of policy solutions, and the defining temper of the surrounding poli- tics have on agenda setting.

national mood Shared concerns or inter- ests that predominate throughout the country.

private problems Issues perceived to be the responsibility of the affected indi- viduals who will have or should have the capacity to deal with the issue.

problem identification Process by which issues are identified and defined by policy actors as a problem that must be addressed.

public policy problem An issue perceived as publicly intolerable social or individual incongruity that cannot be allowed to con- tinue because of its significance or conse- quence for all or part of society.

social reality The notion that reality is a social construct, derived from perceptions and beliefs of what individuals see, per- ceive, and experience daily; it affects how individuals identify problems.

social construction of problems The structuring and telling of stories about why and how an issue is a problem.

survival constraints Factors that influ- ence whether an issue or idea can compete among the many others within the politi- cal and public policy process. These are: (a) technical feasibility, how theoretical or infeasible ideas may quickly lose promi- nence within the agenda; (b) value accept- ability, whether proposed policy solutions are deemed acceptable in light of wide- spread individual, societal or institutional values; (c) tolerable cost, whether a problem or policy issue can be resolved in light of certain budgetary or political realities; (d) public acquiescence, importance and impact the public has in accepting or rejecting spe- cific policy proposals; and (e) political accept- ability, the degree of broad political support required to place attention on an issue.

systemic, or public, agenda All issues commonly perceived by policy actors as deserving public attention and fall- ing within legitimate jurisdiction of government.

triggering devices A means of issue initiation within Cobb and Elder’s model of agenda setting; unforeseen domestic and international events are perceived in such a way as to transform a problem into an issue of concern so that it is put on the agenda.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 141 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Applied Internet Exercises CHAPTER 4

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Cobb and Elder suggest that two interrelated agendas—the systemic and institu- tional—help us understand which issues enter and rise on the public and politi- cal agendas of the nation. Demonstrate how the issue of gay marriage rose on the agendas.

2. Which beliefs are most influential in affecting how an individual and that per- son’s society perceive reality?

3. What does the process and dynamic of agenda setting suggest for the ebb and flow of the policy-making process? Does this agenda-setting dynamic help or threaten the goal of making “good” public policy? Why?

4. Kingdon suggests that agenda setting involves three streams. Which, in your opinion, is the most and least important for whether a given issues enters the agenda or not? Discuss.

5. Aside from the areas of national security, national defense, terrorism, or war, which other issues can be “clearly” identified and defined as public problems? Discuss.

6. Which level of social reality, as described in Figure 4.2, do you believe is the most and least important? Why?

Applied Internet Exercises: Problem Identification and Agenda Setting

1. Your task is to describe how an issue such as the shooting at Columbine High School rose and fell within the systemic (public) and institutional (government) agenda. a. First, using one or two media sources (CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo! news wire service, or LexisNexus),

assess the agenda prominence of the school violence issue 2 weeks before the shootings on April 20, 1999. Was this issue of any prominence on the systemic agenda before April 20?

b. Second, using both http://thomas.loc.gov website and other news sites (i.e., LexisNexus), research and record any specific political statements made by institutional actors concerning gun violence and the date/number of pieces of gun-related legislation introduced within 2 weeks of April 20, 1999. Did this issue have any prominence on the institutional agenda at that time?

c. Third, using the same research resources, track the evolution of the coverage and political attention given the Columbine deaths. Assess how much focus and attention was given this issue in the 2 weeks following the shootings. Did the issue of gun violence remain prominent on both agendas during this period?

d. Finally, what dynamics or factors may explain why the issue of gun violence does not have more a prominent status within the policy agenda?

2. Congratulations, you have just been hired as a political consultant specializing in the area of domestic policy for the upcoming presidential campaign. Your candidate, being a smart political animal, wants to be aware of the most important social problems and how the public perceives them. Using the following media sites on the Internet, your first task is to research how issues of poverty and the plight of the poor have been presented to the public over the last 12 weeks:

(continued)

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 142 11/27/12 3:27 PM

Suggested Readings CHAPTER 4

Applied Internet Exercises: Problem Identification and Agenda Setting (continued)

• Your city’s major local paper • The Los Angeles Times—http://www.latimes.com • The New York Times—http://www.nytimes.com • The Washington Post—http://www.washingtonpost.com • CNN—http://www.cnn.com • MSNBC—http://www.msnbc.com • Time—http://www.time.com • Newsweek—http://www.newsweek.com • U.S. News & World Report—http://www.usnews.com

Once your research is completed, provide a written analysis for your client that includes the following:

• Background: Offer a brief ideological and historical explanation as to how Americans per- ceive poverty and related issues.

• Research and Analysis: Before your written analysis of the issue, document the following based on your research:

• A numeric count of the number of stories within the various media outlets dealing with the issue of poverty and the poor

• A numeric count of the number of stories within the various media outlets dealing with wealth and economic success

• Problem Identification: Provide a written analysis that assesses, based on what you have determined over the last 8 weeks, how the issue of poverty is being framed and presented to the U.S. public. Specifically, how is this issue being framed in terms of:

• Causality • Severity • Incidence • Proximity • Crisis • Conclusion: Given your research, explain what conclusions, if any, can be drawn about how

the issue of poverty and the poor is currently being framed.

Suggested Readings

Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda building. Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.

Downs, A. (1972, Summer). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. Public Interest, 28, 38–50.

Pump, B. (2012). New research on agendas In S. Theodoulou and M. Cahn (Eds.), Pub- lic policy: The essential readings (2nd ed.) (pp. 312–315). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 143 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Suggested Readings CHAPTER 4

Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition. Lawrence: Kansas University Press.

Stone, D. A. (2012). Causal stories as problem definition. In S. Theodoulou and M. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (2nd ed.) (pp. 300–305). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Theodoulou, S. Z. The structure and context of policy making. In S. Theodoulou and M. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (2nd ed.) (pp. 287–299). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Wood, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2007, July). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 552–568.

the80472_04_c04_113-144.indd 144 11/21/12 12:48 PM