Scholars refer to this power as "indirect power" that in Bachrach and Baratz' view (1962) wields more influence over policy outcomes than direct power, that is to actually decide upon policies (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. In other words, the power to effectively influence policy makers' agenda is equal to decide what is decided upon. The assumption is that what is decided upon by the coercive power of the state has been already determined beforehand. Cobb and Elder recognize that drawing the government's attention to certain problems is an act of wielding power. Agenda Setting and Indirect PowerĬobb and Elder (1983) define agenda setting as a process in which issues become part of "that set of items explicitly up for the active and serious consideration of authoritative decision makers" (Cobb and Elder, 1983, p.86). This is to say that contrary to what is expected from this essay question, namely to use examples, this cannot be done regarding some theoretical frameworks that remain abstract without any empirical testing. Further, the essay can give examples only for those theories that lend itself to it. In this paper we will only focus on those parts of the theories presented above that are related to our topic of government agenda. Most of the theories at hand do not solely address the question of agenda issues and changes, but are comprehensive models engaging with policy processes in general. The reader should note that for the purpose of not overrunning the scope of the essay, it will delve into the theories in so far as it suffices to understand agenda setting. In the end, the paper will give a conclusion. After examining what Baumgartner and Jones put forward as "punctuated equilibrium", it will discuss Kingdon's policy window model and how it incorporates theoretical elements of the previous frameworks. In the fourth step, it will present Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition framework. Thirdly, the essay will introduce Heclo's subsystems theory. Secondly, it will turn to the early agenda-literature, the pluralist and the iron triangle frameworks. The essay will first show in what way agenda setting is about political power. However, it is, as the paper argues, Kingdon's policy window and three streams building up on the other theories that has the most explanatory power and is the most rigorous theoretical framework. It will show that the subsystem theory, the advocacy coalition framework, and the punctuated equilibrium model do all contribute to our understanding of how issues move up and down the agenda. It will argue that agenda setting is a political power struggle in a highly complex and dynamic process where the way an issue is defined and perceived by the public matters most for agenda changes. Further, what was decisive for education to become a highly important agenda item in the same period when child care became high-profile? This essay will show that neither the pluralist, nor the iron triangle framework is able to provide a convincing explanation. It aims to explain why, for instance, child care in the US suddenly moved from relative obscurity to the government agenda (Nelson, 1984). This essay attempts to find an answer to these questions. The question therefore is: Who decides what a problem is and if it deserves government attention? And more importantly, how does policy agenda change and what role do policy actors play in this context? Policymakers are not only pushed by various interest groups, think tanks, and other organized constituents to pay attention to different issues, but are also in disagreement among each other regarding which issues merit space on the agenda (Dery, 2000, p. But if policies are reactions to social problems, prior to action policymakers must determine what the most pressing issues are that deserve government attention. Underlying this generally accepted definition is the intuitive notion that policy is a solution-oriented response to problems in the societal system. Policy can be defined as a deliberative action (or no action) undertaken by the government to achieve a desired end (Dye, 1987, p.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |