Xia Li
In her précis, Mammotsa Makhene highlights the valuable insights derived from the models such as the funnel of causality and the issue attention cycle to analyze policy agenda-setting process. She also emphasizes the importance of the role of social media in influencing agenda-setting and disseminating information as well as promoting citizens to play more active roles in the process of agenda-setting. In this précis, I would like to focus on the agenda-setting opportunities, namely policy windows, to extend the scope of agenda-setting process.
Different from the other works that examine how to decide policy issues, the analytical framework developed by John Kingdon (1984) drove the academic and public attention to the question about how issues were brought onto government agendas. He introduced policy window model to illuminate the conditions and process of window-open and close. According to his model, three ‘streams’ need to interact for an issue to get attention in the public policy arena: the problem stream – whether there are conditions that lead to serious problems (such as crisis or poor performance of existing programs), the policy stream – what are the possible solutions that examined and proposed by the experts and analysts, and the political stream – whether the politicians are willing to make change and whether there are potential changes in administration or legislation (Howlett, Ramesh $ Pearl, 103).
Beyond the regular size of policy windows, Keeler (1993) developed a theory of the macro-window opening process, which focused on opportunities for “an unusually substantial redirection or reinforcement of previous public policy” (228). He identified two types of factors – political developments, and societal problems – as the required variables to open a macro-window for reform. The size of mandate, affected by the three causal mechanism - authorization mechanism, empowerment mechanism and party pressure and the severity of crisis determine the window size.
Contrast Kingdon’s model with Keeler’s Macro-Window model, some similarities and differences are interesting to notice. In terms of the similarities, both models include the aspects of problems/crisis and political environment. In addition, all the factors in each model operate independently or in combination to open the policy or reform windows. Besides the one obvious difference that Kingdon’s model is mainly for policy change and Keeler’s model is focusing on policy reform, another key distinction is that in Kingdon’s view, policy entrepreneurs play the chief role in the “process by linking or ‘coupling’ policy solutions and policy problems together with political opportunities” (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl 104). While in Keeler’s model, he claimed that the causal mechanisms outlined in the model are the most important factor and the role of leadership should not be exaggerated (232).
In analyzing the policy process of the cases in the United States, I agree with Kingon’s model that the activities of policy entrepreneurs and interest group have a significant influence on agenda-setting. I would argue that in some cases, it even has a decisive affect than the combination of the other two factors. Take the gun control as an example. Most of the major restrictions of gun-control legislation that have been passed by Congress were adopted in response to a sudden crisis such as a mass shooting or a crime wave (the problem stream). Apparently, the existing restrictions of gun-control cannot effectively prevent the increasing gun violence tragedies from happening, which leaves the window open for possible policy change. Nevertheless, the political battle between policy entrepreneurs, or interest group make it harder to pass any new restrictions. Like what Eric M. Ruben argued in his article There is No Constitutional Bar to Further Gun Control, what really presents as tall as a barrier to gun regulation is not the Second Amendment, “but the political disagreement about to protect the public from gun violence”. The failure of passing further gun control regulations shows no matter how serious the crisis or the social problem is, no matter how many possible solutions can be adopted, it is the political stream that has the decisive effect to make the window open for policy change or not.
Social media, as underlined in Mammotsa’s précis, does indeed play a critical role in the stage of agenda-setting. Yet, its adverse impact in policy making process may lead to some disastrous results. Living in an age of information, the public find it even harder to differentiate the truths from lies in a substantial fragmentation of information. Social media as the main channel to disseminate information, can also be utilized by group with special interests to pressure campaigns or influence the policy making process. Because of the asymmetric information, the public may not always make the right decisions. In addition, confirmation bias, a very common psychology and cognitive science term, may be well to explain why there are so many blinders voting for Trump whose most statements are not based on facts. Confirmation bias can be easily understood as a way that people only accept the information that support their opinions or values and discount or ignore everything else. Social media worsens the problems of confirmation bias because the without established media ethics and regulations, the public can find any information to support their either right or wrong arguments. I would not deny the values of social media has for social change and improvement, yet, I would also always be cautious of its limitations and potential negative side effects.
Reference
1. Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh and Anthony Perl. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and
Policy Subsystems, Oxford University Press, 2009 (3rd Edition).
2. Keeler, John T.S. 1993. “Opening the Window for Reform: Mandates, Crises, and Extraordinary
Policy-Making,” Comparative Political Studies, 25(4): 433–486. (C)
3. Eric M. Ruben. “There is No Constitutional Bar to Further Gun Control”. June 15, 2016. The New York Times
In her précis, Mammotsa Makhene highlights the valuable insights derived from the models such as the funnel of causality and the issue attention cycle to analyze policy agenda-setting process. She also emphasizes the importance of the role of social media in influencing agenda-setting and disseminating information as well as promoting citizens to play more active roles in the process of agenda-setting. In this précis, I would like to focus on the agenda-setting opportunities, namely policy windows, to extend the scope of agenda-setting process.
Different from the other works that examine how to decide policy issues, the analytical framework developed by John Kingdon (1984) drove the academic and public attention to the question about how issues were brought onto government agendas. He introduced policy window model to illuminate the conditions and process of window-open and close. According to his model, three ‘streams’ need to interact for an issue to get attention in the public policy arena: the problem stream – whether there are conditions that lead to serious problems (such as crisis or poor performance of existing programs), the policy stream – what are the possible solutions that examined and proposed by the experts and analysts, and the political stream – whether the politicians are willing to make change and whether there are potential changes in administration or legislation (Howlett, Ramesh $ Pearl, 103).
Beyond the regular size of policy windows, Keeler (1993) developed a theory of the macro-window opening process, which focused on opportunities for “an unusually substantial redirection or reinforcement of previous public policy” (228). He identified two types of factors – political developments, and societal problems – as the required variables to open a macro-window for reform. The size of mandate, affected by the three causal mechanism - authorization mechanism, empowerment mechanism and party pressure and the severity of crisis determine the window size.
Contrast Kingdon’s model with Keeler’s Macro-Window model, some similarities and differences are interesting to notice. In terms of the similarities, both models include the aspects of problems/crisis and political environment. In addition, all the factors in each model operate independently or in combination to open the policy or reform windows. Besides the one obvious difference that Kingdon’s model is mainly for policy change and Keeler’s model is focusing on policy reform, another key distinction is that in Kingdon’s view, policy entrepreneurs play the chief role in the “process by linking or ‘coupling’ policy solutions and policy problems together with political opportunities” (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl 104). While in Keeler’s model, he claimed that the causal mechanisms outlined in the model are the most important factor and the role of leadership should not be exaggerated (232).
In analyzing the policy process of the cases in the United States, I agree with Kingon’s model that the activities of policy entrepreneurs and interest group have a significant influence on agenda-setting. I would argue that in some cases, it even has a decisive affect than the combination of the other two factors. Take the gun control as an example. Most of the major restrictions of gun-control legislation that have been passed by Congress were adopted in response to a sudden crisis such as a mass shooting or a crime wave (the problem stream). Apparently, the existing restrictions of gun-control cannot effectively prevent the increasing gun violence tragedies from happening, which leaves the window open for possible policy change. Nevertheless, the political battle between policy entrepreneurs, or interest group make it harder to pass any new restrictions. Like what Eric M. Ruben argued in his article There is No Constitutional Bar to Further Gun Control, what really presents as tall as a barrier to gun regulation is not the Second Amendment, “but the political disagreement about to protect the public from gun violence”. The failure of passing further gun control regulations shows no matter how serious the crisis or the social problem is, no matter how many possible solutions can be adopted, it is the political stream that has the decisive effect to make the window open for policy change or not.
Social media, as underlined in Mammotsa’s précis, does indeed play a critical role in the stage of agenda-setting. Yet, its adverse impact in policy making process may lead to some disastrous results. Living in an age of information, the public find it even harder to differentiate the truths from lies in a substantial fragmentation of information. Social media as the main channel to disseminate information, can also be utilized by group with special interests to pressure campaigns or influence the policy making process. Because of the asymmetric information, the public may not always make the right decisions. In addition, confirmation bias, a very common psychology and cognitive science term, may be well to explain why there are so many blinders voting for Trump whose most statements are not based on facts. Confirmation bias can be easily understood as a way that people only accept the information that support their opinions or values and discount or ignore everything else. Social media worsens the problems of confirmation bias because the without established media ethics and regulations, the public can find any information to support their either right or wrong arguments. I would not deny the values of social media has for social change and improvement, yet, I would also always be cautious of its limitations and potential negative side effects.
Reference
1. Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh and Anthony Perl. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and
Policy Subsystems, Oxford University Press, 2009 (3rd Edition).
2. Keeler, John T.S. 1993. “Opening the Window for Reform: Mandates, Crises, and Extraordinary
Policy-Making,” Comparative Political Studies, 25(4): 433–486. (C)
3. Eric M. Ruben. “There is No Constitutional Bar to Further Gun Control”. June 15, 2016. The New York Times