By José Tulio Gálvez Contreras
Ph.D. Student in Public and Urban Policy, The New School University
Scholar Makhene introduces Howlett, Ramesh, and Pearl’s idea that agenda setting, “is probably one of the most important, if not the most important, stage of the policy formation process.”[1] Mahkene references multiple models as possible frameworks for agenda setting. She focuses the Sanders’ party nomination candidacy platform during the 2016 democratic nomination race to shed light on how agenda setting fits within the framework of the “funnel of casualty” model. And she incorporates the “issue attention cycle” model as part of her discussion. Mahkene asks which policy model best describes the current policy agenda setting in the United States; who sets the agenda; and which mechanism they use.
Mahkene’s discussion does not adequately demonstrate how the public’s concerns filter to evolve into concrete policies. For example, the author says, “[Sanders] forced Hillary Clinton to address difficult issues such as tax policy, minimum wages as well as college student debt. While many democrats did not agree with his proposals, it would seem he helped swing the party towards a more progressive agenda.”[2] Sanders influenced the current democratic platform, but it is not set in stone. First, none of the concerns Sanders advocated for have been streamlined to into concrete policies. The executive, legislative, and even judicial seats are still at stake and the presidential election concludes a couple of months from now. Hillary Clinton has not won the race, yet. As Scholar Sandoval responds to Mahkene, Donald Trump is still out there!
I agree with Scholar Mahkene that the policy formation is an ever-evolving process and agenda setting is complex. So in response to her questions I propose the Multiple Stream Analysis (MSA) as an alternative framework to explain how agenda setting works and funnels through the different levels of the decision-making process. In my discussion I present the MSA by first, explaining the ambiguity of agenda setting and then showing how MSA presents an opportunity to operationalize agenda setting processes in light of this ambiguity. I furthermore discuss the limitations of MSA. I also propose an example of how it can work. Finally, I conclude.
Agenda Setting
Agenda setting is a complex and ambiguous process. There are multiple ways to frame any policy problem. In agenda setting, competition for attention exists among policy actors and few problems tend reach the top of the agenda.[3] This process entails there is imperfect selection process because new information is difficult to gather and subject to manipulation. Additionally, the time and money are limited, which forces actors to make choices before their preferences are clear. Moreover, in agenda setting there is a departure from ‘comprehensive rationality’ and a linear decision-making process – identifying problems, formulating solutions and making a choice. Eventually, there is “softening”, as some issues take time to become accepted within government or policy networks.
Multiple Stream Analysis
The MSA properly deals with agenda setting for policymaking under conditions of ambiguity. The MSA views the policy process as composed of three streams of actors and processes.[4] The first stream, termed the problem stream, is measured by indicators which establishes the existence of a problem. Problem streams may include research that determines there is a problem. Or, a commonly known occurrence may bring the issue to the consideration of policymakers. The second stream, designated the policy stream, relates to feedback from specialists in the policy area under consideration. The third stream, the political stream, the national "mood" surrounding the identified issue, changes in administration, and political opponents and proponents of an issue. The three streams must come together at the same time, during a ‘window of opportunity’, in which people pay high attention to a problem, a viable solution exists, and policymakers have the motive and opportunity to select it. This outcome is not inevitable. Rather, attention may shift dramatically to a different problem before anyone has had the chance to solve the first one. Many ‘windows of opportunity’ for major policy change open, but most close before anyone has the chance to exploit them.
Limitations
Some of the concerns raise about the MSA include whether the streams are truly independent of each other, whether the hypothesis generated from this model can be quantitatively examined and the whether it pays attention to institutional arrangements. The process of coupling – when the streams come together – is also consider as too idiosyncratic of a process for some detractors of the model. In that light, scholars such as Zahonadis, recommend to continue to study the MSA as a mean to review its applicability under different conditions and domains, as well as to analyze how to integrate MSA within the context of other multiple frameworks in order to better offer advice on democratic governance and practices.
North Dakota Access Pipeline Case
The case of the North Dakota Access Pipeline serves as a perfect illustration to demonstrate how agenda setting fits within the MSA’s context. The agenda issue came afloat with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s opposition to the pipeline, arguing it could traverse sacred ground and burial sites and pose health and environmental problems.[5] If built, the pipeline will stretch more than 1,100 miles from oil fields in North Dakota to a river port in Illinois. The tribe argues that the pipeline could threaten their sole water source and that, more importantly, they were not consulted before the pipeline was approved. In terms of the policy stream, the tribe’s bid to block the four-state pipeline got a boost from the Obama administration, which temporarily halted the project just minutes after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled against the tribe. The decision to put on hold the project set off a firestorm among industry leaders and lawmakers who say the administration has overstepped its authority. The political stream then in the fact that the Obama administration not only has pressure from several dozen environmental organizations and multiple Native American groups, but also is coming under increasing pressure from lawmakers and oil industry groups. As of now, even though the federal government’s suspension of the construction is temporary, the future of the North Dakota Access Pipeline looks uncertain. The policy window is short because currently the United States i undergoing an electoral process and whoever is elected next may have a different view on the subject in comparison to what the current administration believes is correct. A clear outcome can be resolve by either allowing the construction of the pipeline or generating policy that ultimately bans construction of such magnitude.
Conclusion
Ambiguity is a fact of political life. This ambiguity makes policymaking messy, complex, costly, and less coherent. In consideration of Mahkene’s questions, the MSA offers a fruitful way to explain how political systems make sense of an ambiguous world. This lens supplies the analytical tools to explore how and under what conditions entrepreneurs manipulate the policy process not only to pursue their self-interest but also to promote meaning to policymakers, with problematic preferences. The case of the North Dakota Pipeline is excellent to provide a small overview on how agenda are set and how the issues filter through the various levels of decision making. The MSA is not, however, the only framework and explanation that best describe agenda setting. Multiple other frameworks exist and can be explored, this is just one option that presents a compelling paradigm for application in agenda setting towards policy formulation.
References
[1] Mahkene, Mammotsa. Discursive Perspectives on Agenda Setting. Lead Discussion Post. 2016.Available at http://peppaii-milano-2016.weebly.com/week-04-policy-formulation-and-agenda-setting
[2] Id.
[3] Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh and Anthony Perl. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Chapter 4: Agenda Setting. Oxford University Press, 2009 (3rd Edition).
[4] Sabatier, Paul A. and Christopher M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Chapters 2: “Ambiguity and Multiple Streams,” by Nikolaos Zahariadis. Westview Press, 2014 (3rd Edition).
[5] Healy, Jack and Schwartz, John. U.S. Suspends Construction on Part of North Dakota Pipeline. The New York Times. (2016). Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/us/judge-approves-construction-of-oil-pipeline-in-north-dakota.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
Ph.D. Student in Public and Urban Policy, The New School University
Scholar Makhene introduces Howlett, Ramesh, and Pearl’s idea that agenda setting, “is probably one of the most important, if not the most important, stage of the policy formation process.”[1] Mahkene references multiple models as possible frameworks for agenda setting. She focuses the Sanders’ party nomination candidacy platform during the 2016 democratic nomination race to shed light on how agenda setting fits within the framework of the “funnel of casualty” model. And she incorporates the “issue attention cycle” model as part of her discussion. Mahkene asks which policy model best describes the current policy agenda setting in the United States; who sets the agenda; and which mechanism they use.
Mahkene’s discussion does not adequately demonstrate how the public’s concerns filter to evolve into concrete policies. For example, the author says, “[Sanders] forced Hillary Clinton to address difficult issues such as tax policy, minimum wages as well as college student debt. While many democrats did not agree with his proposals, it would seem he helped swing the party towards a more progressive agenda.”[2] Sanders influenced the current democratic platform, but it is not set in stone. First, none of the concerns Sanders advocated for have been streamlined to into concrete policies. The executive, legislative, and even judicial seats are still at stake and the presidential election concludes a couple of months from now. Hillary Clinton has not won the race, yet. As Scholar Sandoval responds to Mahkene, Donald Trump is still out there!
I agree with Scholar Mahkene that the policy formation is an ever-evolving process and agenda setting is complex. So in response to her questions I propose the Multiple Stream Analysis (MSA) as an alternative framework to explain how agenda setting works and funnels through the different levels of the decision-making process. In my discussion I present the MSA by first, explaining the ambiguity of agenda setting and then showing how MSA presents an opportunity to operationalize agenda setting processes in light of this ambiguity. I furthermore discuss the limitations of MSA. I also propose an example of how it can work. Finally, I conclude.
Agenda Setting
Agenda setting is a complex and ambiguous process. There are multiple ways to frame any policy problem. In agenda setting, competition for attention exists among policy actors and few problems tend reach the top of the agenda.[3] This process entails there is imperfect selection process because new information is difficult to gather and subject to manipulation. Additionally, the time and money are limited, which forces actors to make choices before their preferences are clear. Moreover, in agenda setting there is a departure from ‘comprehensive rationality’ and a linear decision-making process – identifying problems, formulating solutions and making a choice. Eventually, there is “softening”, as some issues take time to become accepted within government or policy networks.
Multiple Stream Analysis
The MSA properly deals with agenda setting for policymaking under conditions of ambiguity. The MSA views the policy process as composed of three streams of actors and processes.[4] The first stream, termed the problem stream, is measured by indicators which establishes the existence of a problem. Problem streams may include research that determines there is a problem. Or, a commonly known occurrence may bring the issue to the consideration of policymakers. The second stream, designated the policy stream, relates to feedback from specialists in the policy area under consideration. The third stream, the political stream, the national "mood" surrounding the identified issue, changes in administration, and political opponents and proponents of an issue. The three streams must come together at the same time, during a ‘window of opportunity’, in which people pay high attention to a problem, a viable solution exists, and policymakers have the motive and opportunity to select it. This outcome is not inevitable. Rather, attention may shift dramatically to a different problem before anyone has had the chance to solve the first one. Many ‘windows of opportunity’ for major policy change open, but most close before anyone has the chance to exploit them.
Limitations
Some of the concerns raise about the MSA include whether the streams are truly independent of each other, whether the hypothesis generated from this model can be quantitatively examined and the whether it pays attention to institutional arrangements. The process of coupling – when the streams come together – is also consider as too idiosyncratic of a process for some detractors of the model. In that light, scholars such as Zahonadis, recommend to continue to study the MSA as a mean to review its applicability under different conditions and domains, as well as to analyze how to integrate MSA within the context of other multiple frameworks in order to better offer advice on democratic governance and practices.
North Dakota Access Pipeline Case
The case of the North Dakota Access Pipeline serves as a perfect illustration to demonstrate how agenda setting fits within the MSA’s context. The agenda issue came afloat with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s opposition to the pipeline, arguing it could traverse sacred ground and burial sites and pose health and environmental problems.[5] If built, the pipeline will stretch more than 1,100 miles from oil fields in North Dakota to a river port in Illinois. The tribe argues that the pipeline could threaten their sole water source and that, more importantly, they were not consulted before the pipeline was approved. In terms of the policy stream, the tribe’s bid to block the four-state pipeline got a boost from the Obama administration, which temporarily halted the project just minutes after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled against the tribe. The decision to put on hold the project set off a firestorm among industry leaders and lawmakers who say the administration has overstepped its authority. The political stream then in the fact that the Obama administration not only has pressure from several dozen environmental organizations and multiple Native American groups, but also is coming under increasing pressure from lawmakers and oil industry groups. As of now, even though the federal government’s suspension of the construction is temporary, the future of the North Dakota Access Pipeline looks uncertain. The policy window is short because currently the United States i undergoing an electoral process and whoever is elected next may have a different view on the subject in comparison to what the current administration believes is correct. A clear outcome can be resolve by either allowing the construction of the pipeline or generating policy that ultimately bans construction of such magnitude.
Conclusion
Ambiguity is a fact of political life. This ambiguity makes policymaking messy, complex, costly, and less coherent. In consideration of Mahkene’s questions, the MSA offers a fruitful way to explain how political systems make sense of an ambiguous world. This lens supplies the analytical tools to explore how and under what conditions entrepreneurs manipulate the policy process not only to pursue their self-interest but also to promote meaning to policymakers, with problematic preferences. The case of the North Dakota Pipeline is excellent to provide a small overview on how agenda are set and how the issues filter through the various levels of decision making. The MSA is not, however, the only framework and explanation that best describe agenda setting. Multiple other frameworks exist and can be explored, this is just one option that presents a compelling paradigm for application in agenda setting towards policy formulation.
References
[1] Mahkene, Mammotsa. Discursive Perspectives on Agenda Setting. Lead Discussion Post. 2016.Available at http://peppaii-milano-2016.weebly.com/week-04-policy-formulation-and-agenda-setting
[2] Id.
[3] Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh and Anthony Perl. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Chapter 4: Agenda Setting. Oxford University Press, 2009 (3rd Edition).
[4] Sabatier, Paul A. and Christopher M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process. Chapters 2: “Ambiguity and Multiple Streams,” by Nikolaos Zahariadis. Westview Press, 2014 (3rd Edition).
[5] Healy, Jack and Schwartz, John. U.S. Suspends Construction on Part of North Dakota Pipeline. The New York Times. (2016). Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/us/judge-approves-construction-of-oil-pipeline-in-north-dakota.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article