Public policy and Governance deeltentamen 2
Lecture 1:
Agenda setting definitions:
- Knill & Tosun: ‘put simply, this stage is about getting an issue on the agenda’.
- Birkland: ‘The process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose public
and elite attention’.
Definition of agenda by Birkland: ‘an agenda is a collection of problems, understandings of
causes, symbols, solutions, and other elements of public problem that come to the attention of
members of the public and their government officials’.
Different types of agenda:
1. Agenda universe: all matters that possibly could become part of a discussion or could
become a public problem. All problems that are not deemed convincing and that are
not worthy enough for attention are part of this agenda universe.
2. Systemic agenda: it contains all the problems/issues that members of the political
community perceive as worthy of public attention. Problems that manage to get the
agenda status and enter the sphere of government authority.
3. Institutional agenda: contains elements that are up for active and serious consideration
by policymakers. Problems that are up for spending a lot of time and resources on.
They are becoming more concrete.
4. Decision agenda: problems that will be acted upon. when a problem has been dealt
with by de system and is ready for the final decision making. Everything of the policy
is already prepared, but there still needs to be a vote on accepting or rejecting the
policy.
Knill & Tosun also add the drafting agenda, which is an agenda with a list of subjects that
are currently receiving attention within the government.
We might argue that there is a competition between problems. Moving up the agenda is
competition between potential public interests.
The higher you get on the agenda’s, the more competition between the interest groups,
because NGO’s and so will try to interfere with the policy/issue.
1
, Getting your topic on the agenda is also dependent on the institutional system of a
country. In the Netherlands or other countries with coalitions, there is only a small
window of opportunity to get your topic on the agenda. This opportunity is after the
elections and this is when lobbying becomes very important, because once the afspraken
between the coalition parties are made, there is no room to change things anymore.
In America, there are two institutions with law making power. This opens up a lot of
opportunities for organizations to get their topic on the agenda. Lobbying thus takes
place during the whole year.
Models that explain how agenda setting works. This is the process perspective:
1. Outside initiative model: describes a situation in which actors outside the government
initiates an issue for reform which they then seek to expand into the public domain.
This can be done with media coverage, public lobbying, protests and so on. The
initiative for agenda-setting comes from actors outside the government.
Bottom up approach.
2. Mobilization model: politicians move topics between agenda’s. Institutions/political
leaders seek to move issues from the systemic to the institutional agenda in order to
muster the support needed to attain their objectives. The institutional agenda is thus
directly affected by decision makers. After the initiation of the issue, decision-makers
then elucidate it and explain what they seek from the public.
Top down approach.
This often happens with topics that are not well-known to the public and that are put
forward by experts (for example aids).
3. Inside Access Model: this model describes a pattern of agenda-setting that seeks to
exclude public participation. The initiators seek to place an issue on the institutional
agenda and want a ‘private decision’. Thus, only small circles of people are involved
and there is no public attention. This is mostly done by insiders of the government.
Top down model. Politicians want to involve a small number of people in the issue.
There is a focus on stakeholders.
This model often happens when an issue is very technical, so expertise is needed.
2
,Three perspectives on why topics get onto the agenda:
1. Power distribution perspective: this explains why certain issues are moved on to the
agenda, while others are not by the different dimensions of power. The first and
second dimension of power in particular are very relevant in the agenda setting
process:
I. The first dimension: the government can be pressurized by lobbying, protests
and media attention in order to get issues on the agenda.
II. The second dimension: mobilization of bias/silencing people. How topics can
be kept off the agenda. This thus explains why some topics don’t make it onto
the agenda.
Example: symbolical politics. There is a topic for which many people want
to see a different policy and this topic is on the institutional agenda. The
politicians say that they are interested in the topic and that they will do
something about it, but they are not making serious regulations or policies on
the topic. The topic never makes the decision agenda.
2. Institution based perspective: only limited changes can enter the important agenda’s.
Processes of policy change are incremental, so that minimal adjustments get made to
existing policy arrangements. This implies that there is only very limited change
between the agenda’s and institutions. These limited changes depend on whether the
actors involved in the decision making of these agenda’s share the same vision or not.
If they share the same vision there is a bigger chance that the topic gets on the agenda.
Only at very specific moments (e.g. with a big crisis) there is room for radical change.
A well-known theory that fits in this perspective is punctuated equilibrium.
3. Contingency perspective: They argue that agenda setting is affected by chance rather
than the exercise of power or the role of institutions. This perspective assumes the
garbage can model of policy making. Only when pre-existing solutions can be coupled
with perceived problems the issue is put on the agenda. The three independent streams
of problems, proposals and politics need to come together at a critical time in order to
open up the ‘policy window’, resulting in an issue being put on the agenda.
Two different dimensions of problem definition:
1. Cognitive dimension:
a. Problem definition is a formulation of the problem, which includes a preferred
solution. This process is called ‘A leap from is (= definition of the current
situation) to ought’ (= how should it be solved?).
3
, b. An interesting aspect of this problem definition is ‘naming’; giving the
problem a name. There is a strong label/story needed to make the problem
definition more convincing.
c. You also have to propose facts; proposition of facts. See different types of
propositions of facts below.
d. Another important aspect are numerical estimates. Examples is this is showing
incidence, growth or the range.
e. Lastly, examples can be very effective. Show pictures of the damage in the
houses in Groningen.
2. Moral dimension:
a. An important aspect is ‘shaming’; you name the person/group responsible for
the damage. Shaming may lead to the desired change, but it may also maintain
the status quo.
b. Values are being proposed, not facts. The focus is on what is good/moral or
bad/immoral. It is a justification for the solution with support for action.
Categories which influence how a problem can be framed. Different propositions of facts:
1. Causality; what are the effects of the issue?
2. Predictive.
3. Historical.
4. Severity; how serious are the issue and consequences?
5. Incidence; the expander must show that the problem is of huge scope and causing
misery for many people.
6. Novelty; labeling an issue as something new and unprecedented can result in wide
media coverage.
7. Proximity; implies that the issue is directly or indirectly affecting the personal
interests of a broad public.
8. Crises; labeling the issue as a crisis would alert the public that the issue is urgent.
9. Problem populations; how the image of target groups is manipulated (e.g. as helpless).
Lecture 2:
Policy design according to Sidney: “identifying and/or crafting a set of policy alternatives to
address a problem and narrowing that set of solution in preparation for the final policy
decision”.
Elements of a policy design explained with the example of tax evasion (= belasting
onderduiking):
4
Lecture 1:
Agenda setting definitions:
- Knill & Tosun: ‘put simply, this stage is about getting an issue on the agenda’.
- Birkland: ‘The process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose public
and elite attention’.
Definition of agenda by Birkland: ‘an agenda is a collection of problems, understandings of
causes, symbols, solutions, and other elements of public problem that come to the attention of
members of the public and their government officials’.
Different types of agenda:
1. Agenda universe: all matters that possibly could become part of a discussion or could
become a public problem. All problems that are not deemed convincing and that are
not worthy enough for attention are part of this agenda universe.
2. Systemic agenda: it contains all the problems/issues that members of the political
community perceive as worthy of public attention. Problems that manage to get the
agenda status and enter the sphere of government authority.
3. Institutional agenda: contains elements that are up for active and serious consideration
by policymakers. Problems that are up for spending a lot of time and resources on.
They are becoming more concrete.
4. Decision agenda: problems that will be acted upon. when a problem has been dealt
with by de system and is ready for the final decision making. Everything of the policy
is already prepared, but there still needs to be a vote on accepting or rejecting the
policy.
Knill & Tosun also add the drafting agenda, which is an agenda with a list of subjects that
are currently receiving attention within the government.
We might argue that there is a competition between problems. Moving up the agenda is
competition between potential public interests.
The higher you get on the agenda’s, the more competition between the interest groups,
because NGO’s and so will try to interfere with the policy/issue.
1
, Getting your topic on the agenda is also dependent on the institutional system of a
country. In the Netherlands or other countries with coalitions, there is only a small
window of opportunity to get your topic on the agenda. This opportunity is after the
elections and this is when lobbying becomes very important, because once the afspraken
between the coalition parties are made, there is no room to change things anymore.
In America, there are two institutions with law making power. This opens up a lot of
opportunities for organizations to get their topic on the agenda. Lobbying thus takes
place during the whole year.
Models that explain how agenda setting works. This is the process perspective:
1. Outside initiative model: describes a situation in which actors outside the government
initiates an issue for reform which they then seek to expand into the public domain.
This can be done with media coverage, public lobbying, protests and so on. The
initiative for agenda-setting comes from actors outside the government.
Bottom up approach.
2. Mobilization model: politicians move topics between agenda’s. Institutions/political
leaders seek to move issues from the systemic to the institutional agenda in order to
muster the support needed to attain their objectives. The institutional agenda is thus
directly affected by decision makers. After the initiation of the issue, decision-makers
then elucidate it and explain what they seek from the public.
Top down approach.
This often happens with topics that are not well-known to the public and that are put
forward by experts (for example aids).
3. Inside Access Model: this model describes a pattern of agenda-setting that seeks to
exclude public participation. The initiators seek to place an issue on the institutional
agenda and want a ‘private decision’. Thus, only small circles of people are involved
and there is no public attention. This is mostly done by insiders of the government.
Top down model. Politicians want to involve a small number of people in the issue.
There is a focus on stakeholders.
This model often happens when an issue is very technical, so expertise is needed.
2
,Three perspectives on why topics get onto the agenda:
1. Power distribution perspective: this explains why certain issues are moved on to the
agenda, while others are not by the different dimensions of power. The first and
second dimension of power in particular are very relevant in the agenda setting
process:
I. The first dimension: the government can be pressurized by lobbying, protests
and media attention in order to get issues on the agenda.
II. The second dimension: mobilization of bias/silencing people. How topics can
be kept off the agenda. This thus explains why some topics don’t make it onto
the agenda.
Example: symbolical politics. There is a topic for which many people want
to see a different policy and this topic is on the institutional agenda. The
politicians say that they are interested in the topic and that they will do
something about it, but they are not making serious regulations or policies on
the topic. The topic never makes the decision agenda.
2. Institution based perspective: only limited changes can enter the important agenda’s.
Processes of policy change are incremental, so that minimal adjustments get made to
existing policy arrangements. This implies that there is only very limited change
between the agenda’s and institutions. These limited changes depend on whether the
actors involved in the decision making of these agenda’s share the same vision or not.
If they share the same vision there is a bigger chance that the topic gets on the agenda.
Only at very specific moments (e.g. with a big crisis) there is room for radical change.
A well-known theory that fits in this perspective is punctuated equilibrium.
3. Contingency perspective: They argue that agenda setting is affected by chance rather
than the exercise of power or the role of institutions. This perspective assumes the
garbage can model of policy making. Only when pre-existing solutions can be coupled
with perceived problems the issue is put on the agenda. The three independent streams
of problems, proposals and politics need to come together at a critical time in order to
open up the ‘policy window’, resulting in an issue being put on the agenda.
Two different dimensions of problem definition:
1. Cognitive dimension:
a. Problem definition is a formulation of the problem, which includes a preferred
solution. This process is called ‘A leap from is (= definition of the current
situation) to ought’ (= how should it be solved?).
3
, b. An interesting aspect of this problem definition is ‘naming’; giving the
problem a name. There is a strong label/story needed to make the problem
definition more convincing.
c. You also have to propose facts; proposition of facts. See different types of
propositions of facts below.
d. Another important aspect are numerical estimates. Examples is this is showing
incidence, growth or the range.
e. Lastly, examples can be very effective. Show pictures of the damage in the
houses in Groningen.
2. Moral dimension:
a. An important aspect is ‘shaming’; you name the person/group responsible for
the damage. Shaming may lead to the desired change, but it may also maintain
the status quo.
b. Values are being proposed, not facts. The focus is on what is good/moral or
bad/immoral. It is a justification for the solution with support for action.
Categories which influence how a problem can be framed. Different propositions of facts:
1. Causality; what are the effects of the issue?
2. Predictive.
3. Historical.
4. Severity; how serious are the issue and consequences?
5. Incidence; the expander must show that the problem is of huge scope and causing
misery for many people.
6. Novelty; labeling an issue as something new and unprecedented can result in wide
media coverage.
7. Proximity; implies that the issue is directly or indirectly affecting the personal
interests of a broad public.
8. Crises; labeling the issue as a crisis would alert the public that the issue is urgent.
9. Problem populations; how the image of target groups is manipulated (e.g. as helpless).
Lecture 2:
Policy design according to Sidney: “identifying and/or crafting a set of policy alternatives to
address a problem and narrowing that set of solution in preparation for the final policy
decision”.
Elements of a policy design explained with the example of tax evasion (= belasting
onderduiking):
4
