Policy Process -- Agenda Setting

Policy Process -- Agenda Setting

The Policy Process: Agenda Setting

The crafting of a new policy is not an easy task. This is especially true in the democratic policy-making process, wherein more than one participant has a say in the formulation of a particular policy. Due to seemingly endless negotiations, the result of one stage does not define the results of the stages that follow.

The main reason for this is because the policy process is largely defined by events and events do not unfold in neat and sequential stages.

As Kingdon (1984) argues, "independent streams flow through the system at once… participants do not first identify problems and then seek solutions for them… advocacy of solutions often precedes the highlighting of problems to which they become attached."

Thus, many of the traditional theories of policy making have been accused of being "too catholic in its disciplinary sources, yet overly narrow in its focus as it addresses real problems of the world rather than intellectual puzzles of political science"

Further, of the many problems or issues that garner enough public support only a few of them fall into the government's reluctant hands or reach the stage of agenda setting.

Thus, as Polsby (1984) asked, "Where do new public policies come from?"

Accordingly, this paper shall describe the first stage of the policy process or initiation or agenda setting and it will go on to discuss the events of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the extent of its influence on policy change.

Definition of Agenda Setting

Firstly, how does one define 'agenda setting'? In general terms, agenda setting is seen as "issue definition, interest group activity, and the consequences for policy formulation of a growing voting public."

Cobb and Elder (1972) view agenda as "a general set of political controversies that will be viewed at any point in time as falling within the range of legitimate concerns meriting the attention of polity."

As pioneers of the research on agenda setting, Cobb and Elder have also identified two different types of agendas: the systematic or the public agenda and the institutional, governmental, or formal agenda.

The first type of agenda or systematic or public agenda includes all the issues that are considered to be important and worthy of attention by the members of political community and it concerns itself with matters that are within the rightful jurisdiction of existing governmental authority.

Cobb and Elder state that this type of agenda consists of the following items which:

(1) Receive widespread attention or at least awareness;

(2) Are believed to require some type of action by a large share of the public; and,

(3) Are believed by the public to be an appropriate concern of some governmental unit and fall within the bounds of its authority

The second type of agenda, on the other hand is the governmental or institutional type of agenda. This agenda includes all items that are openly up for the active and serious consideration of policy makers.

Clearly, even if a certain policy makes it to the systematic or public agenda, it does not mean that it will make it to the governmental or institutional agenda. In other words, issues or policy problems are taken as matters of definition and not so much a priori givens.

Evaluation of Agenda Setting in the Policy Process

More so, at given times, the same thing may have different meanings for different people.

In this case, the same issue may be viewed differently and hold more or less meaning to one person than another. More than mere facts, values and beliefs play a major role in the government's decision of which issues deserve its attention.

In an arena where the number of issues far exceed the capacity of governmental institutions to process them all, issues tend to compete against each other for a spot on the government's agenda.

As seen in this light, an agreement is reached usually through compromise. However, the final word comes from the government and the result of the conflict is either not what was initially envisioned by the advocates or worse yet, the problem may not even be acted upon by the authorities in decision making.

Why is this so? Bachrach and Baratz (1963) assert that the other side of decision-making is "nondecision-making."

There are certain issues that are not taken into consideration by the government because of a number of factors: "dominant values, accepted rules of the game, existing power relations among groups, and instruments of force."

One or a combination of these issues have great influence in the decision making process.

Weiss (1989) pointed out that policy problems grab the attention of the public at given times and places.

Nevertheless, no matter how huge or hot the issue may be, it will eventually lose its luster over time and will be replaced by a shiny new issue, which now has to be addressed by government institutions.

The public, the news, the media and even policymakers eventually lose interest in problems or issues that were once on the top of the agenda.

John Kingdon (1995) notes that the "window of opportunity" is fleeting when it comes to policy change.

Taken in the context of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the tragic events led to the alarming discovery of the United States problems that it failed to address properly.

The whole world still remembers that fateful day that changed the course of events in history. The scale and organization of the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center was "unimaginable" to the experts.

On a more positive note, these attacks were hoped to be a rationale and trigger for policy change, as stated by several media sources.

This is because historic events like these are the kind that wake people up and leave a lasting impact on the way that they think.

However, as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) stated in the Congressional Record:

It has been said over and over that 'the world has changed'… Our response to this tragedy is causing more changes throughout the society. However, in another sense, it has a lot more to do with our perceptions of the world than with the world itself. The world was changing long before September 11, and threats that existed before that infamous day are no less present today.

Thus, even though the events of September 11 were significant enough to encourage change in people and in the nation, the threat of terrorism was already firmly embedded the policy process.

In addition, September 11 was able to open that window of opportunity for policy change due largely to ideas that had already existed.

As such, Congress's increased interest in the matter paled in comparison to the sudden interest of media in the issue.

This was simply because the Congress already had a preexisting interest in the threat of terrorism.