by Rita Sandoval
In her précis Mammotsa Makhene utilizes the multivariate model introduced by Howlett et al. to analyze the agenda-setting that occurred leading up to the Democratic primary in United States 2016 presidential election. Makhene argues that the funnel of causality can be employed to analyze the ability of Bernie Sanders to engage in successful agenda-setting throughout his campaign. She highlights the ability of Sanders to shift the campaign discourse by presenting an agenda that captivated the american public in the pre-primary issue-attention cycle.
In addition to the funnel of causality, the Multiple Streams Approach can be used to analyze agenda-setting in political campaigns (Sabatier and Weible, 27). Both models enable analyst to identify policy entrepreneurs and policy windows that play important roles in the agenda-setting process. However, the MSA goes a step further to identify three streams-problems, policies and politics-that play an integral roles in the agenda-setting process. Utilizing the MSA model provides further insight into how a policy entrepreneur, such as a presidential candidate, can manipulate a policy window to place an issue on an agenda and garner support for the policy solution they favor.
In an exercise of model application, one can utilize the MSA to analyze Donald Trump’s 2016 bid for the presidency. In the 2016 presidential election cycle, Trump has acted as a policy entrepreneur in several policy systems. For the sake of brevity, this analysis will focus on the system related to immigration. Trump has been able to utilize the open policy window related to immigration policy to promote his policy solution. This policy window is currently open for two principal reasons: 1) the nation's weak economy has increased the publics concern regarding undocumented workers and 2) terrorism has fueled a new wave of xenophobia. Trump has therefore utilized this policy window to pander to the growing adherence to conservative ideology amongst the public. Therefore, his power as a policy entrepreneur stems from his ability to manipulate the politics stream flowing through the immigration policy window.
The MSA provides important insights into why policy entrepreneurs are able to dominate systems by taking the reigns over one or more of its streams. First, the framework introduces the notion of meaning creation. An example of this process is Trump’s use of xenophobia to bait people who identify with a “traditionalist” American identity into his camp. He has essentially utilized a policy window to solidify an identity that touts patriotism but is actually based upon “othering”. Second, the MSA compliments rational choice and constructivism by acknowledging the practice of manipulation. As demonstrated by Trump’s presidential campaign, policy windows can be intentionally manipulated to promote desired political outcomes without actually providing the best policy options.
As mentioned by Nikolas Zahariadis, despite the MSA’s applicability to real life policy systems, the approach does not offer adequate framing of the role of institutions in agenda-setting and policy implementation (Sabatier and Weible, 43). However, as demonstrated by Trump’s policy recommendations regarding immigration, in the agenda-setting stage policy feasibility is not always a top priority. Interestingly enough, the institucional structure of the US government is what many hope will keep Trump from implementing the policy solutions he advocates for. As demonstrated by this example, the MSA could do well with integrating a model for how it's three streams, policy entrepreneurs and windows interact with a states institutional structure. Integrating a perspective on how the approach’s three streams interact with a states institutional structure could help clarify the relationship between hoe agendas translate into actual policy.
In her précis Mammotsa Makhene utilizes the multivariate model introduced by Howlett et al. to analyze the agenda-setting that occurred leading up to the Democratic primary in United States 2016 presidential election. Makhene argues that the funnel of causality can be employed to analyze the ability of Bernie Sanders to engage in successful agenda-setting throughout his campaign. She highlights the ability of Sanders to shift the campaign discourse by presenting an agenda that captivated the american public in the pre-primary issue-attention cycle.
In addition to the funnel of causality, the Multiple Streams Approach can be used to analyze agenda-setting in political campaigns (Sabatier and Weible, 27). Both models enable analyst to identify policy entrepreneurs and policy windows that play important roles in the agenda-setting process. However, the MSA goes a step further to identify three streams-problems, policies and politics-that play an integral roles in the agenda-setting process. Utilizing the MSA model provides further insight into how a policy entrepreneur, such as a presidential candidate, can manipulate a policy window to place an issue on an agenda and garner support for the policy solution they favor.
In an exercise of model application, one can utilize the MSA to analyze Donald Trump’s 2016 bid for the presidency. In the 2016 presidential election cycle, Trump has acted as a policy entrepreneur in several policy systems. For the sake of brevity, this analysis will focus on the system related to immigration. Trump has been able to utilize the open policy window related to immigration policy to promote his policy solution. This policy window is currently open for two principal reasons: 1) the nation's weak economy has increased the publics concern regarding undocumented workers and 2) terrorism has fueled a new wave of xenophobia. Trump has therefore utilized this policy window to pander to the growing adherence to conservative ideology amongst the public. Therefore, his power as a policy entrepreneur stems from his ability to manipulate the politics stream flowing through the immigration policy window.
The MSA provides important insights into why policy entrepreneurs are able to dominate systems by taking the reigns over one or more of its streams. First, the framework introduces the notion of meaning creation. An example of this process is Trump’s use of xenophobia to bait people who identify with a “traditionalist” American identity into his camp. He has essentially utilized a policy window to solidify an identity that touts patriotism but is actually based upon “othering”. Second, the MSA compliments rational choice and constructivism by acknowledging the practice of manipulation. As demonstrated by Trump’s presidential campaign, policy windows can be intentionally manipulated to promote desired political outcomes without actually providing the best policy options.
As mentioned by Nikolas Zahariadis, despite the MSA’s applicability to real life policy systems, the approach does not offer adequate framing of the role of institutions in agenda-setting and policy implementation (Sabatier and Weible, 43). However, as demonstrated by Trump’s policy recommendations regarding immigration, in the agenda-setting stage policy feasibility is not always a top priority. Interestingly enough, the institucional structure of the US government is what many hope will keep Trump from implementing the policy solutions he advocates for. As demonstrated by this example, the MSA could do well with integrating a model for how it's three streams, policy entrepreneurs and windows interact with a states institutional structure. Integrating a perspective on how the approach’s three streams interact with a states institutional structure could help clarify the relationship between hoe agendas translate into actual policy.