Tracey Freiberg
PEPPA II
Précis: 2/18/2014
Policy Formulation and Agenda Setting
Ninety one percent of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownerships[1]. Gun control regulations and deliberation shot to the top of political agendas as well as news headlines after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, and continued to make headlines well into recent history with the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings in 2012. As a result, numerous bills and regulations have been proposed on items such as child safety locks, banning the sale of firearms and access to firearms. This issue serves as a broad example of various aspects of agenda setting and policy formulation.
In the process of agenda setting and policy decisions, timing has a great influence over the action, or inaction, taken. There can be deadlines, catastrophic events, elections and the like that will get the public attention, and consequentially the demand for new policies. John Kingdon[2] defines four policy windows[3] that create situations for key players in the policy process to place their issues on the agenda. Policy windows assess an important aspect of timing in policy making –within the elaborate and highly competitive agenda setting environment, policy windows create an opportunity for a player to promote their agenda or ideas. Each of the four windows draws on an important aspect of the timing in policy making. A brief introduction to each type of window as it applies to the gun control issue, followed by a discussion of applicability, will help the reader understand one analytical framework for agenda-setting[4]. (Howlett, p 103)
The first policy window is called a routinized political window, defined as institutionalized procedural events. These events are predictable, in some cases cyclical. The best example of this window is the electoral cycle. The implementation of a new administration can reallocate the emphasis of certain issues and agendas. For example, the election of Barack Obama brought the issue of gun control to the foreground, a conversation that continues throughout his tenure. In the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama promised to push the gun control agenda, “with or without Congress.” [5] When the actors have the ability to influence policy through well-defined values, the policy outcomes are easy to predict and the timing is easier to plan.
Similarly, when individual actors’ behavior is involved, discretionary political windows lead to less predictable windows. In the United States, relationships within political circles balance electoral concerns with beneficial partnerships. When a certain faction needs a vote, they will leverage other values/platforms to create small alliances. The bargaining occurring within Congress makes each actor less predictable, narrowing the time of the political window and the avoidance of rash decisions.
Occasionally, related issues are drawn into already open windows. These opportunities are called spillover problem windows. For example, the gun control issue is irrefutably open, and has ignited issues of school safety and commerce regulations, among others. These subsequent issues can alter the implications of the open issue and, if implemented correctly, can be used concurrently to alleviate several inadequacies.
According to Kingdon, the random problem window occurs with a random event or crises. Single events such as the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 and the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings in 2012 propel the open issues to the foreground. This instantly triggers schools to use metal detectors and remove student privileges while state and federal governments debated the use of the 2nd Amendment within their constituencies. As the definition states, most of these cases are unpredictable, creating a frenzied push for policy.
The important takeaway from this model is subjective – which of these windows make the most sense in real life? Which is the most effective? Is there another way for someone to make their ideas known? As always, the best procedure will depend on the situation. The unpredictability of the random problem window, and the chaos that follows, creates the best evidence for new policy. However, in order to avoid tragedy and public suffering, political actors need to keep abreast on current issues and potentially harmful trends. Attention, as illustrated by Zahariadis[6], is scarce and policy makers will limit their attentions to a finite set of issues. Employing subject matter experts and other advocates will help identify high priority topics.
Baumgartner and Jones move forward with this idea of defining the problem and who is involved. Although this moves away from the timing aspect this memo, who defines the problem and assesses its nature is a material part of how the rest of the policy process will go. Perhaps a topic for next week while I’m learning and presenting about pluralism...
[1] “Background on Gun Control”; On the Issues; www.ontheissues.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm
[2]Kingdon, John. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: HarperCollins; 2003.
[3] When a policy window occurs, the problem stream, the policy stream and the political stream occur simultaneously.
[4] Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh and Anthony Pearl; Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems; Oxford University Press; 2009.
[5] Siddiqui, Sabrina. “Obama Pledges Gun Control ‘with or without Congress’ in 2014 State of the Union Address”. Huffington Post; January 28, 2014.
[6] Zahariadis, Nikolaos. “The Multiple Streams Framework: Structure, Limitations, Prospects”. The Theory of the Political Process. Westview Press; 2007.
PEPPA II
Précis: 2/18/2014
Policy Formulation and Agenda Setting
Ninety one percent of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownerships[1]. Gun control regulations and deliberation shot to the top of political agendas as well as news headlines after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, and continued to make headlines well into recent history with the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings in 2012. As a result, numerous bills and regulations have been proposed on items such as child safety locks, banning the sale of firearms and access to firearms. This issue serves as a broad example of various aspects of agenda setting and policy formulation.
In the process of agenda setting and policy decisions, timing has a great influence over the action, or inaction, taken. There can be deadlines, catastrophic events, elections and the like that will get the public attention, and consequentially the demand for new policies. John Kingdon[2] defines four policy windows[3] that create situations for key players in the policy process to place their issues on the agenda. Policy windows assess an important aspect of timing in policy making –within the elaborate and highly competitive agenda setting environment, policy windows create an opportunity for a player to promote their agenda or ideas. Each of the four windows draws on an important aspect of the timing in policy making. A brief introduction to each type of window as it applies to the gun control issue, followed by a discussion of applicability, will help the reader understand one analytical framework for agenda-setting[4]. (Howlett, p 103)
The first policy window is called a routinized political window, defined as institutionalized procedural events. These events are predictable, in some cases cyclical. The best example of this window is the electoral cycle. The implementation of a new administration can reallocate the emphasis of certain issues and agendas. For example, the election of Barack Obama brought the issue of gun control to the foreground, a conversation that continues throughout his tenure. In the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama promised to push the gun control agenda, “with or without Congress.” [5] When the actors have the ability to influence policy through well-defined values, the policy outcomes are easy to predict and the timing is easier to plan.
Similarly, when individual actors’ behavior is involved, discretionary political windows lead to less predictable windows. In the United States, relationships within political circles balance electoral concerns with beneficial partnerships. When a certain faction needs a vote, they will leverage other values/platforms to create small alliances. The bargaining occurring within Congress makes each actor less predictable, narrowing the time of the political window and the avoidance of rash decisions.
Occasionally, related issues are drawn into already open windows. These opportunities are called spillover problem windows. For example, the gun control issue is irrefutably open, and has ignited issues of school safety and commerce regulations, among others. These subsequent issues can alter the implications of the open issue and, if implemented correctly, can be used concurrently to alleviate several inadequacies.
According to Kingdon, the random problem window occurs with a random event or crises. Single events such as the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 and the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings in 2012 propel the open issues to the foreground. This instantly triggers schools to use metal detectors and remove student privileges while state and federal governments debated the use of the 2nd Amendment within their constituencies. As the definition states, most of these cases are unpredictable, creating a frenzied push for policy.
The important takeaway from this model is subjective – which of these windows make the most sense in real life? Which is the most effective? Is there another way for someone to make their ideas known? As always, the best procedure will depend on the situation. The unpredictability of the random problem window, and the chaos that follows, creates the best evidence for new policy. However, in order to avoid tragedy and public suffering, political actors need to keep abreast on current issues and potentially harmful trends. Attention, as illustrated by Zahariadis[6], is scarce and policy makers will limit their attentions to a finite set of issues. Employing subject matter experts and other advocates will help identify high priority topics.
Baumgartner and Jones move forward with this idea of defining the problem and who is involved. Although this moves away from the timing aspect this memo, who defines the problem and assesses its nature is a material part of how the rest of the policy process will go. Perhaps a topic for next week while I’m learning and presenting about pluralism...
[1] “Background on Gun Control”; On the Issues; www.ontheissues.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm
[2]Kingdon, John. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: HarperCollins; 2003.
[3] When a policy window occurs, the problem stream, the policy stream and the political stream occur simultaneously.
[4] Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh and Anthony Pearl; Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems; Oxford University Press; 2009.
[5] Siddiqui, Sabrina. “Obama Pledges Gun Control ‘with or without Congress’ in 2014 State of the Union Address”. Huffington Post; January 28, 2014.
[6] Zahariadis, Nikolaos. “The Multiple Streams Framework: Structure, Limitations, Prospects”. The Theory of the Political Process. Westview Press; 2007.