AGENDA SETTING- PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT

Posted: January 5th, 2023

AGENDA SETTING- PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT

Student’s Name

Class

Date

Agenda Setting- Public Policy Analysis and Management

Introduction

The public has many needs and concerns that require the attention of administrators to avoid much public pressure. However, it is important to follow a definite approach that would ensure the public’s concerns get considerable audience and relevant authorities take proper mitigating actions. An effective way to address the needs of members of the public is to follow the agenda-setting theory, or the agenda-setting model that describes the capacity of various stakeholders or lobbyists to impact the significance placed on the issues of the public agenda. The concept of agenda-setting outlines the way lobbyists or other interested stakeholders attempt to persuade leaders or the target audience. Cobb, Ross and Ross (1976, 126) describe agenda-setting as the behavior or process to address social problem or issue as a policy concern. In the agenda-setting process, social problem is selected as a governmental issue. The term also refers to a process by which public concerns and possible remedies gain or lose elite and public attention. Birkland (2011, 60), on the other hand, defines agenda setting as the process by which the requirements of different groups in the population are changed into items competing for more attention of public administrators and officials. In other words, it is a procedure that outlines or determines whether public concerns get on the government’s list of priorities and about how issues that were previously on the agenda get eliminated.

Describing Agenda Setting

Agenda-setting is part of public policy making and is similar to other aspects such as policy formation, policy adoption, policy implementation, and policy assessment. Group or stakeholders’ competition to set the agenda is aggressive because no political or societal system has the institutional strength to mitigate all concerns that emerge at any given time. The originators of the agenda must thus struggle to earn priority among all other concerns sharing the restricted space on the agenda or wait for the right time when a pressing matter makes their wants more likely to gain a dominant position on the agenda. Birkland (2011, 62) writes that because the agenda setting process is finite, interested parties must strive to get their concerns across and their desired alternative regulations, on the agenda. Some issues may achieve priority on the agenda while others may not get much attention. Thus, it is essential to consider several critical factors when addressing public concerns to receive adequate attention and not just belated or cursory audience.

Types of Agendas

One way to ensure the concerns of a public group receive the attention they deserve is to ascertain that the issues fall within the major types of agenda that deserve attention. An agenda should be systemic to get attention. These include all the issues or concerns that people or citizens of a particular country think require government response. Such requests could be about health problems or issues of crime. An agenda is also likely to gain considerable concern if it falls under the formal or institutional category. The class comprises of items that the government gives much attention and is likely to address among the many other issues raised. However, while some concerns may shift from systemic to institutional agenda, others may not get this privilege. Therefore, the agenda setting process can be perceived as shifting matters from the societal or informal agenda to the formal agenda of political administration. Issues that do not fall under either of the two options may not get proper audience from the government. Nonetheless, an issue may receive considerable audience if it displays other key elements of agenda setting. The matter could get attention if it fits Birkland’s description of agenda universe. Similar to Cobb and Elder’s systemic agenda, Birkland’s agenda universe entails all aspects that could possibly be identified and addressed in a political or societal system. Also, the matter could receive considerable attention if it falls within the notion of decision agenda that is it includes ideas or presentations that are forwarded and addressed by a governmental institution such as regulations, laws, policies, court cases and rulings, and bills. Therefore, presenters of different agendas must ensure their concerns fall within a category that deserves audience from public authorities.

Agenda Setters and Global Factors

Other than ensuring that the agenda falls within a category that needs attention, a matter can get on the government’s policy agenda if the presenter gets the backing of effective agenda setters or has the support of global factors. Dye (2017, 56) defines agenda setters as different groups that have the capacity to approach or address the government on matters impacting the public. Agenda setters according to Dye (2017, 56) could be protestors or demonstrators, organized interest groups such as business partners and trade unions, party leaders, newspaper editors, and media. Other factors such as crises that influence public interest and lobbying can also increase the likelihood that a matter receives public audience. Certain global factors or support could also increase the probability of getting audience when setting an agenda. It is imperative to note that some countries may consider the global influencers when judging whether an agenda requires attention or not while other countries may not pay much attention to such regulations when determining the importance of an agenda. These often relate to certain global agreements or treaties created to deal with particular challenges in the world in connection to culture, the environment, child rights, culture, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Some examples of global conventions that could persuade public officers to prioritize certain agendas over others, include but not limited to MDGs that emphasize on addressing issues pertaining to gender equality, health care, education, and poverty, the UN Convention on Child Rights, and SDGs that advocate for quality education, zero poverty, gender sameness, sanitization and clean water, economic growth, and well-being and good health (Dye, 2017, 70). Consequently, any agenda that seeks to alleviate any of the identified public concerns in the SDGs is likely to receive more attention by the government. Other examples of global directives that could promote audience, include the Kyoto Protocol that provides guidelines on how to protect the environment from adverse emissions and Intellectual Property Rights that offer protection against piracy. An agenda may also get top priority if it receives the backing of World Trade Organization agreements or other regulations that protect the elderly or forbid corrupt dealings. Nonetheless, failure to enjoy the support of either of the identified groups could derail the attempts to get an individual or group’s agenda through the agenda setting process.

Non-Decision-Making and MOB

The idea of non-decision is essential in determining whether an issue gets to proceed through the agenda setting process or not. Dye (2005, 39) describes the notion of non-decision-making as happening when influential groups or individuals or the political itself functions to keep matters out of the political sphere. Examples of non-decision-making, include sex education, availing condoms in learning institutions, and gambling in casinos. A non-decision is a choice that results in the thwarting or suppression of latent constraint to the interests and values of the decision-maker (Capella, 2016, 670). Thus, political leaders or public officers may perceive such matters as not being serious social issues that may require considerable attention. Non-decision making, therefore, is likely to suppress the opportunities that an agenda will proceed to acceptance or consideration. The same concept applies to the idea of mobilization of bias, which refers to a set of predominant institutional guidelines, rituals, beliefs, and values that function consistently and systematically to the advantage of others. MOB is about the institutionalized or entrenched actions or merits that particular groups or people have over others in transforming public policy and accessing public amenities. Such individuals or groups often comprise of influential or wealthy people who have connections, politically and socially (Dye, 2017, 39). MOB also means being connected to the right people in the correct place to make sure that a particular issue or concern gets priority and attention of public officers. MOB according to Capella (2016, 680) have the ability to contact-it, which means that one takes advantage of the contacts and connections he or she has with government officers and departments to facilitate audience for their ideas. It is apparent from the explanation that those who enjoy the protection or support of non-decision-making and MOB have a higher chance of their agendas receiving more attention and response in real time. On the other hand, agendas that do not enjoy the support of such groups may not easily excel with selling their agendas, which could be disregarded or even rubbished away if they do not contain weighty issues that really matter to both the government and the public.

Theoretical Structures

An agenda could receive the audience it deserves from government officers when its presenters adhere to all the theoretical structures for agenda setting process. Cobb, Jennie-Keith and Marc (1976 127) identify four critical phases that one must follow in the transmission of an issue from an informal to formal or government agenda. Adhering to what Cobb, Jennie-Keith and Marc (1976 127) also term as an agenda setting continuum ensures that one adheres to the most appropriate framework in getting their agenda heard by the targeted authorities. An effective way to go about it is to consider the first phase called initiation where the public agenda or concern is first identified and expressed. The matter, as already explained should be weighty enough to grab the government’s attention. The problem can be about the need to address human trafficking, child abuse, or corruption. The presenter of the idea should then go through the second phase known as specification where different teams presenting their complaints are welcome to give their views on how to address the problem. The presenting team at this phase may decide to call for the termination of ministers who do not perform their duties as required of them or for their resignation. The group or individual presenting an agenda may also call for increased accountability, effective law enforcement, transparency, and accountability. It is then advisable to transit to the third phase, which Cobb, Jennie-Keith and Marc (1976 127) term as expansion. The phase requires the presenters of the problem to call for external support to make the matter appear weighty and one that deserves quick and proper audience and intervention. A group, for example, may call out to the political groups, trade unions, workers unions, the media, civil society groups, and international groups. For example, inviting Transparency International to intervene the matter could present a better chance to get the agenda through considering the reputation the agency has at the global front. The fourth and final phase is entry where after weeks or months of protests and pressure, the matter gets priority as an agenda that requires consideration. However, it is essential to remember that while some issues may shift from the informal to formal agenda, may be withheld on the informal agenda and may never get the audience or receive action from state authorities. Thus, progressing from the informal to formal agenda may not be obvious. The explanation also shows that it is difficult to get audience when an individual or group does not follow the four key steps for presenting an agenda.

Agenda Setting Models

Besides, it is important to follow the various agenda setting models that offers guidelines on how to present agendas more effectively, and in a way that may receive audience. The various models that Cobb, Jennie-Keith and Marc (1976 135) discuss in their book are related to various political regimes or structures. The first one is the outside initiation model that relates to democratic and pluralist societies. The model works in such a way that a civil society or part of the government garners support from other factions to urge the government to address a particular matter, which is of public interest. However, the model does not provide guarantee that the issue will receive the audience it requires. Another suitable model is the mobilization structure where the government is the source of an issue or problem and seek support from the public and other influential groups (Cobb, Jennie-Keith and Marc, 1976, 135). The third possible model is the inside initiation model where individuals or groups close to the government initiate a problem but do not require government support. The model is common in more authoritarian states such as Libya and Russia. Following either of the models may increase the chances of receiving audience because these framework tend to follow a definite outline.

Policy Streams and Policy Window

Finally, whether an agenda receives audience or not will depend on whether a party or individual considers policy streams and policy windows. Policy stream means the work of policy analysts and experts who assess the nature of the problem and give possible suggestions for addressing them. The analysis offers a better chance to understand whether the call deserves audience, or whether it does not deserve the attention it seeks. On the other hand, the presenters of an agenda may choose to take advantage of policy window, which refers to an opportunity that may enhance how the government attends to an agenda. However, failing to consider these two factors may deny one the chance to get their agenda through.

Conclusion

The paper shows that several factors must exist for an agenda to get an opportunity to progress through the target audience. An essential requirement is that an agenda should fall either within the systemic or institutional categories to receive attention. An agenda that falls within the two categories are more likely to address the requirements of citizens and their concerns. The study shows that an agenda may receive audience from public officers when it meets other relevant qualities. Such qualities are represented using terms such as decision agenda and agenda universe. Whether an agenda gets the audience it deserves will determine whether it receives the support of global factors or parties that propel its progress. The paper identifies agenda setters as playing essential roles in promoting the agenda and ensuring the target audience gets the message. Global treaties and directives also give some level of pressure to the government, which creates the urge to adhere to the demands of certain public agendas. Some of the essential international regulations that may compel the government to give audience to a public policy, include the Kyoto Protocol, SDGs, MDGs, the UN Convention on Child Rights, and piracy laws. A person’s or group’s agenda may also get necessary audience when it enjoys the influence of non-decision-making and MOB, which refers to external influences and individuals who have the power to impact how the government or public officers attend to a particular agenda. It is also essential when advocating for a public agenda to consider the appropriate framework for setting an agenda and the different agenda setting models. More fundamentally, taking into account the concepts of policy windows and policy streams may determine whether an agenda gets the audience it deserves or not. 

Bibliography

Birkland, Thomas. “Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting.” Journal of Public Policy, vol. 18, 1998, pp. 53-74.

Capella, Ana. “Agenda-Setting Policy: Strategies and Agenda Denial Mechanisms.” Organizations & Society, vol. 23, no. 79, 2016, pp. 675-691.

Cobb, Roger, Jennie-KeithRoss and Marc Ross. “Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process.” American Political Science Review,vol. 70, no. 1, 1976, pp. 126-138

Dye, Thomas. Understanding Public Policy. Pearson, 2017.

Howlett, Michael, Ramesh Mart, and Perl Anthony. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press, 2009.