By Bart
The prominence of inequality in the current election cycle, which Mammotsa
presents as a case study in policy agenda-setting, raises interesting questions in regards to theories of agenda setting. While I appreciate Mammotsa’s application of a number of theories to the case study, I personally feel that this particular case study of agenda setting highlights the importance of discursive analysis.
I was glad to see that Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl gave significant attention to the post-positivist, and in particular the discursive, approach to agenda setting. From this perspective, facts matter, but discourses—world views and explanatory narratives—create meaning by defining what is the problem and who or what is responsible. However, I was somewhat confused by Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl’s dismissal that “…nor the pure post-positivist approach, with its emphasis on ideas, has withstood subsequent testing…”. Post-positive policy analysis is not a homogeneous field, but many post-positivist researchers never intended to produce testable hypotheses, so it seems a bit odd to judge them based on claims that were never made.
I would argue that the rise of inequality as a central theme in the current election cycle is the result of a changing discourse. The “facts” of inequality in the United States have been known and readily available to the public for decades. While it has gotten worse recently, it has been getting progressively worse since the 1970s, and yet has not been steadily growing as a political issue, but rather has only come to national prominence fairly recently. I contend that what has changed is not the facts of the situation, but the discourse and social meaning around them.
Baumagarten and Jones (1991), as quoted in Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl, say that “when they are portrayed as technical problems, experts can dominate the decision-making process. When the ethical, social or political implications of such policies assume center stage, a much broader range of participants can suddenly become involved.” The discourse around inequality seems to have shifted from reliance on economic expertise, who advanced neoliberalism through explanations of inequality as temporary but unavoidable side effects of globalization and technological change, to understandings of inequality as the product of a broken and unfair political system. (As a side note, the Atlantic recently featured an article on the cultural reasons American Economics departments have been much later to the inequality discussion than their European counterparts) There seems to have also been a shift in discourse that assigns moral connotations to inequality and shifts the focus from equality of opportunity to equality of outcomes. The problem of inequality became political, rather than technical, opening up the dialogue to a wider range of non-expert voices.
As for why the discourse around inequality is changing, social media and public opinion, as Mammotsa points out, likely plays a role. One might also point to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, in the way that Keeler (1993) examined the role of crises and policy mandates, though even the Occupy Wall Street movement did not emerge for several years afterwards, so crisis as the trigger for change is questionable.
Turning to the larger election, I think few people would argue that the presidential race is about competing perspectives on what policies would best solve the problems facing the country. Instead, Fischer’s (2003) discursive policy approach that identifies multiple socially constructed realities behind policy agendas would explain that Trump and Clinton supporters seem to have entirely incompatible interpretations of existing situations, and are seemingly unfazed by facts to the contrary.
As a final response to Mammotsa’s emphasis on social media and the democratization of ideas, I would caution that this has not been entirely positive. Social media benefitted the grassroots movement behind Sanders, but it has also proliferated the xenophobic and racist rhetoric fueling Trump’s campaign. It has also given new power and voice to conspiratorial and pseudoscientific discourses that have been a boon to the anti-vaccination movement, leading to resurgences in diseases such as mumps and whooping cough. And from a policy agenda-setting perspective, by focusing on popular issues such as GMOs, for which a large body of scientific research has identified no public health risk, policymakers and resources may be distracted from more consequential issues.
In conclusion, I think Mammotsa brought up a great and very pertinent example to analyze the policy agenda-setting process. The emergence of inequality at the forefront of the current political debate demonstrates the importance of discourse—the framing, meaning, and social understandings of concepts—to the policy process. While I’m a bit pessimistic on the potential of social media to improve our political system, I agree that it’s an important issue that deserves much more attention in policy research.
References
Fischer, Frank (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices.
The prominence of inequality in the current election cycle, which Mammotsa
presents as a case study in policy agenda-setting, raises interesting questions in regards to theories of agenda setting. While I appreciate Mammotsa’s application of a number of theories to the case study, I personally feel that this particular case study of agenda setting highlights the importance of discursive analysis.
I was glad to see that Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl gave significant attention to the post-positivist, and in particular the discursive, approach to agenda setting. From this perspective, facts matter, but discourses—world views and explanatory narratives—create meaning by defining what is the problem and who or what is responsible. However, I was somewhat confused by Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl’s dismissal that “…nor the pure post-positivist approach, with its emphasis on ideas, has withstood subsequent testing…”. Post-positive policy analysis is not a homogeneous field, but many post-positivist researchers never intended to produce testable hypotheses, so it seems a bit odd to judge them based on claims that were never made.
I would argue that the rise of inequality as a central theme in the current election cycle is the result of a changing discourse. The “facts” of inequality in the United States have been known and readily available to the public for decades. While it has gotten worse recently, it has been getting progressively worse since the 1970s, and yet has not been steadily growing as a political issue, but rather has only come to national prominence fairly recently. I contend that what has changed is not the facts of the situation, but the discourse and social meaning around them.
Baumagarten and Jones (1991), as quoted in Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl, say that “when they are portrayed as technical problems, experts can dominate the decision-making process. When the ethical, social or political implications of such policies assume center stage, a much broader range of participants can suddenly become involved.” The discourse around inequality seems to have shifted from reliance on economic expertise, who advanced neoliberalism through explanations of inequality as temporary but unavoidable side effects of globalization and technological change, to understandings of inequality as the product of a broken and unfair political system. (As a side note, the Atlantic recently featured an article on the cultural reasons American Economics departments have been much later to the inequality discussion than their European counterparts) There seems to have also been a shift in discourse that assigns moral connotations to inequality and shifts the focus from equality of opportunity to equality of outcomes. The problem of inequality became political, rather than technical, opening up the dialogue to a wider range of non-expert voices.
As for why the discourse around inequality is changing, social media and public opinion, as Mammotsa points out, likely plays a role. One might also point to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, in the way that Keeler (1993) examined the role of crises and policy mandates, though even the Occupy Wall Street movement did not emerge for several years afterwards, so crisis as the trigger for change is questionable.
Turning to the larger election, I think few people would argue that the presidential race is about competing perspectives on what policies would best solve the problems facing the country. Instead, Fischer’s (2003) discursive policy approach that identifies multiple socially constructed realities behind policy agendas would explain that Trump and Clinton supporters seem to have entirely incompatible interpretations of existing situations, and are seemingly unfazed by facts to the contrary.
As a final response to Mammotsa’s emphasis on social media and the democratization of ideas, I would caution that this has not been entirely positive. Social media benefitted the grassroots movement behind Sanders, but it has also proliferated the xenophobic and racist rhetoric fueling Trump’s campaign. It has also given new power and voice to conspiratorial and pseudoscientific discourses that have been a boon to the anti-vaccination movement, leading to resurgences in diseases such as mumps and whooping cough. And from a policy agenda-setting perspective, by focusing on popular issues such as GMOs, for which a large body of scientific research has identified no public health risk, policymakers and resources may be distracted from more consequential issues.
In conclusion, I think Mammotsa brought up a great and very pertinent example to analyze the policy agenda-setting process. The emergence of inequality at the forefront of the current political debate demonstrates the importance of discourse—the framing, meaning, and social understandings of concepts—to the policy process. While I’m a bit pessimistic on the potential of social media to improve our political system, I agree that it’s an important issue that deserves much more attention in policy research.
References
Fischer, Frank (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices.