How does policy agenda change

Bringing this debate and applications closer to the context of Brazil and Latin America, connecting researchers and studies in development, is crucial to strengthen and disseminate studies and to build a solid and structured field.

This special issue begins with two guest articles, one focusing on Brazil and the other with an international scope. Professor Capella emphasizes the contribution of Cobb and Elder in the U. The article shows the scenario of the Brazilian research on the topic, exploring adaptations and uses of these theoretical models.

Capella found works produced between and , with a clear growth of production from the s. Baumgartner and Jones created the punctuated equilibrium theory and the U.

The authors highlight the development of CAP in the U. They highlight the debates on indicators that explain the dynamics of change in the local contexts without losing the ability to carry out international comparative analysis. Finally, the article by Baumgartner, Bryan, and Bonafont contributes to future agendas by systematizing the recent wave of dissemination of CAP in Latin America.

The study points out research challenges and opportunities beyond regional limits, observing a wider analytical and geographical scope that leads to a more diverse and disseminated CAP. The authors focused on methodological and analytical aspects that structure the projects related to CAP, offering details on the coding system adopted, and highlighting the tools to capture political attention in a comparative manner over time.

Bevan and Palau reflect on the production of recent data in Latin American countries, with examples from Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador, discussing the types of locus and data sources researchers in Latin America have chosen to conduct their studies. These first three articles provide a broader, theoretical, and methodological overview of agenda-setting studies and the dynamics of change in governmental agenda. The fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of this issue form a second group of contributions emphasizing case studies approaching both the dynamics of policy attention in domestic and comparative perspectives.

The authors studied the instruments used by the Colombian presidents to establish priorities and act, underlining the CONPES national council of social and economic policies and bills. The documents related to these two instruments formed a database of more than 44 thousand observations, which were analyzed in three parts.

The first part presented the dynamics of prioritizing public policy issues. The second analyzed how the attention was distributed between the two selected instruments. Finally, the third part of the analysis established connections between the type of public policy and the instrument used CONPES or bill , demonstrating and discussing the existence of a strategic dynamic to conduct political issues with specific instruments. The authors used a common methodological structure to collect data and organized the information from the countries into three different data sets, obtaining more than 90 thousand observations.

The third group of articles in this special issue presents national and international case studies demonstrating the construction and application of different analytical models, methods, and tools, as well as the elaboration and implementation of sectoral policies.

The author, Jairo Santander, uses discourse analysis and relies on cognitive and interpretive perspectives to discuss the social constriction of the problem, its solutions, and the paths adopted within the Colombian anti-drug policy. These elements were considered the main sources to analyze the social construction of reality and understand narratives strategically built during the elaboration of public policies. The study takes the reader back to the mids, in a detailed analysis of the agenda-setting process of the Brazilian National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project.

John Kingdon is the pioneer of a new generation of studies on policymaking and policy change, and his concepts and ideas are directly or indirectly present in all studies published in this special issue. The last three articles of this special issue of the Brazilian Journal of Public Administration RAP offer analyses on different sectoral policies, using the advocacy coalition framework ACF.

Understood as synthetic models to analyze policymaking processes, they may apply to different types of sectoral policies, as the following articles demonstrate.

Despite skepticism - not to say pessimism - regarding the processes of learning and building knowledge for policymaking, the authors develop a reasoning that not only presents a broader concept of what is learning and its relationship with knowledge; but also introduces a conceptual model, built from the dialogue between ACF and policy learning, for future applications in empirical analysis.

Their research encompasses several actors and institutions organized around values, ideas, and interests, and focuses on the confluence of external and internal shocks to the subsystem of environmental policy currently occurring in the country. The case addresses an interesting topic of public policy studies worth being included in this special issue: the analysis of subnational policies considering their relationship with national guidelines.

This special issue seeks to deepen and disseminate studies on agenda-setting and policy change, bringing together researchers, students, practitioners, and other interested parties in an important and decisive, but often overlooked, moment of the public policy process. Revisiting the main authors, theories, analytical models and, above all, dialoguing with different authors working with different policies and approaches, coming from the most diverse countries, is indeed an opportunity for learning and development of the field.

Bachrach, P. Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review , 56 4 , Baumgartner, F. Agendas and Instability in American Politics 2nd ed. Cobb, R. Journal of Politics , 33 4 , Participation in American Politics: The dynamics of agenda building. Cohen, B. The press and foreign policy. Jones, B. The Politics of Attention. Democracy, Authoritarianism, and Policy Punctuations. International Review of Public Policy , 1 1 , Kingdon, J.

Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies 3rd. Lasswell, H. The policy orientation. In: H. Lasswell Ed. Lazarsfeld, P. Mccombs, M. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly , 36 2 Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions.

American Political Science Review , 97 1 The panel seeks to stimulate comparative and cross-theoretical debate, by bringing together papers from different theoretical and empirical angles.

Although the interplay between agendas and policy change should be the central focus, papers may use any relevant theoretical approach. In terms of empirical focus, the panel is not restricted to any geographical area or scope, so papers may range from the local to the global level of government and focus on any part of the world.

You are currently browsing offline. ECPR Admin. Useful Information We are the leading scholarly society concerned with the research and teaching of political science in Europe, headquartered in the UK with a global membership. Groups and Networks Our groups and networks are pushing the boundaries of specialist sub-fields of political science, helping to nurture diversity and inclusivity across the discipline.

Joint Sessions of Workshops This unique event has helped tens of thousands of scholars over nearly five decades hone research, grow networks and secure publishing contracts. About Current Event Past Events. General Conference An engaging platform for discussion, debate and thinking; Europe's largest annual gathering of political scientists from across the globe. Methods School A comprehensive programme of cutting-edge qualitative and quantitative methodological training delivered by experts across two annual events.

Standing Groups Our Standing Groups organise a range of annual events, including summer schools, conferences and workshops, open to all. About Current Events Past Events.

Journals Our highly regarded peer-reviewed journals, produced in partnership with the world's leading academic publishers, share the best scholarly thinking. The Loop Sharp analyses of topical news from a political science perspective, research summaries and the latest expert thinking. The Loop Write for The Loop. Cobb and Elder develop this line of argument, analysing in detail the mechanisms by which groups seek to expand the conflict, extending the sphere of political participation.

According to the authors, by focusing on the notion of the agenda it would be possible to develop a theoretical perspective that could explain how groups articulate their demands and turn them into issues that acquire visibility and require government action, the process fundamental to democracy.

Thus, for the authors:. We are concerned with how issues are created and why some controversies or incipient issues come to command the attention and concern of decision-makers, while others fail. In other words, we are asking what determines the agenda for political controversy within a community. How is an agenda built i. Setting off from this questioning on who participates and how the agenda is built, the authors conducted the first systematic studies on setting the governmental agenda in the field of political science, based on a distinction between a systemic and institutional agenda COBB and ELDER, 5.

The issues manifest themselves on the systemic agenda when they arouse the attention of public opinion or when a considerable part of the public demands some kind of concrete action with respect to a particular concern. The government agenda comprises the issues considered by decision-makers, whether at local, state or federal level.

During the expansion process, the issue can be redefined, as other groups become involved. In this process, many advocates of an issue may no longer support it, because they think the redefinition somehow brings ideas very distant from the original understanding of the problem. Additionally, while groups and individuals opposed to an issue seek to limits its expansion process, proponents seek to involve other groups, attempting to defeat the apathy and inertia of those who were previously demobilised COBB, ROSS and ROSS, The first outside initiative model involves processes in which issues emerge in groups outside of the government and are expanded to first reach the systemic agenda, and then the governmental agenda.

In this case, the demands are articulated in general terms, to later be translated into more specific demands, in the pursuit of establishing alliances between different groups on common questions, placing the debate on the systemic agenda. This expansion is essential for the success of an issue on the governmental agenda but, on the other hand, it is also a crucial moment for the proposing group, as the more groups that enter into the conflict, the greater the chance of the initial group losing control over the issue.

The second form of connection between the systemic and governmental agendas analysed by the authors mobilisation model locates the origin of an issue within government bureaucracy.

An example of this would be launching a new programme for a public policy on health care or education, for example, and does not originate from incorporating a demand publicly acknowledged by the government. The third relationship between systemic and governmental agendas identified by Cobb, Ross and Ross the inside initiation model also originates within the government but, unlike the previous model, does not follow on to the systemic agenda.

In this case, issues emerge in government agencies or influential groups, with access to decision-makers, without any effort by the proponents to expand the issue with the public. Whether for technical or political issues e. To the authors, each of these agenda-setting models is related to the specific characteristics of the political system in which agenda construction is developed.

In liberal democracies, the first form of articulation from the systemic to governmental agenda would be more likely, whereas the second from the government to systemic agenda would be typical of hierarchical societies where leaders have large amounts of power.

Authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes with a high concentration of wealth and status tend to build their agendas following this third explanation. John Kingdon advances the agenda concept, to propose a differentiation between the concept of the governmental agenda, as defined originally by Cobb and Elder and the notion of a decision agenda. However, given the complexity and the volume of issues presented to decision-makers, only some will be seriously considered within the governmental agenda at any given moment.

These issues make up the decision agenda: a subset of the governmental agenda, which considers issues ready for decision-making by policy formulators, or are about to become public policy. According to the author, this differentiation is necessary because both agendas are affected by different processes.

The author argues that changes to the decision agenda are the result of a combination of three factors: the way a problem is perceived problem stream , the set of available alternatives policy stream and changes in political dynamics and public opinion political stream. Changes to the governmental agenda require only two of the three aforementioned factors: one clearly perceived problem and a favourable political situation problem and political streams.

Thus, a public policy only begins if an issue reaches the decision-making agenda, having passed through the governmental agenda. The agenda-setting model developed by Kingdon breaks with the logic of policy production stages, proposing a more fluid explanatory model, organised around flows.

For Kingdon, each of the three streams is developed relatively independent of the others. Some mechanisms, such as systematically produced indicators monitoring government programmes and performance reports and especially major events disasters, catastrophes and major accidents , contribute to attracting attention on an issue. However, these mechanisms do not automatically transform the issues into problems. The interpretation of these events and their understanding, as problems requiring government action, is what determines the success of an issue on the agenda.

In the second stream are ideas related to solutions and alternatives, developed by experts researchers, congressional aides, academics, civil servants and analysts belonging to interest groups, etc. These alternatives are not necessarily related to understanding specific problems, they circulate through communities of experts and while some are discarded, others survive and are considered by government actors. Finally, the third stream comprises the dimension of public opinion general understanding of certain issues , organised political forces positioning of interest groups in relation to a question, for example and the government itself moving people in strategic positions within the governmental structure, management changes and in the composition of Congress, among other factors.

In certain circumstances, these three streams converge, creating a possibility for change on the agenda. With these opportunities policy window , a problem is recognised, a solution is available and political conditions make it a propitious time for change, allowing integration of the three streams and enabling issues to rise up the agenda.

These are individuals willing to invest in an idea and may be part of the government in the Executive Authority, occupying high positions or in bureaucratic roles; in Congress, as congressmen or aides , or otherwise taking part in interest groups, the academic community or the media, for example.

For Kingdon, all of the actors involved in policy production have problematic preferences. Allowing a different understanding of the issue, the ambiguity may be strategically manipulated to serve different purposes. The second adjustment proposed by Zahariadis is related to opportunities for change.

To Kingdon, opportunities for change are processed independently from all other elements of the political system. Besides these two adjustments to the model, Zahariadis , proposes some important amplifications of the original Kingdon model.

The first points to the possibility of using the model to understand the more general process of policymaking. In part, this means breaking with the perspective of the policy cycle, already widely criticised by theorists in the field of public policies 8. Another important application of the model is related to the way Kingdon reconciles two factors in the political world: ideas and interests.

For the authors, the change in agenda occurs when the perception of a policy is changed, mobilising actors who were previously removed from the decision-making process. Monopolies are reinforced by institutional arrangements that keep the decision-making process limited to a small group of actors, restricting access by others.

These monopolies are responsible for maintaining stability in the production of public policies and restricting new issues on the governmental agenda. While a shared vision of symbols, problems, solutions and causal relationships prevail for a particular policy — i. There is, then, a prevalence of slow, gradual and incremental changes, configuring a balance in the production of public policy. However, at times, new players gain access to monopolies, creating instability and opportunity for change on the agenda.

According to the authors, this takes place because of changes in the way a question is understood, or through changes in policy image. When an issue rises up to the agenda, the monopoly ceases to exist and the system becomes prone to change, since the attention of government leaders and the public can lead to the introduction of new ideas and new actors. New ideas and institutions tend to remain over time policy legacy , creating a new state of balance in the political system that, after a period, tends to return to this stability.

Thus, in the model proposed by the authors, stability results from two key elements: the predominance of an image and creating institutional arrangements able to support it, limiting access from other groups. On the other hand, a change in public policies is the result of unsuccessful mobilisation strategies, restraint or even blocking other groups, leading to destruction of the monopoly and, consequently, the promotion of new images.

These studies led authors to see a direct relationship between agenda-setting processes and the allocation of government attention. The authors focus on the dynamics of processing information in the context of producing public policies, seeking to understand how allocating attention is processed in government institutions.

They demonstrate that the dynamics of changing agendas is related to government attention and setting priorities. Thus, literature on agenda-setting has developed in political science since the s, under strong influence of the debate related to conflict and power issues.

More recently, studies have developed in the area of public policies and, while retaining many of the original concerns, they expand these analyses, incorporating important new concepts and approaches to understand agenda-setting. However, these studies do not focus on one important dimension in the agenda-setting process: access-denial to issues on the agenda, the topic that we will develop in the next section.

One facet little analysed by literature, however, is the process by which issues fail to reach the governmental agenda. Far from being an automatic process, the success or failure of an issue on the agenda involves a series of factors: the connection between problems, solutions and the political context, as highlighted by Kingdon , or the change in policy image and mobilising new actors in the process, as put forward by Baumgartner and Jones , or even the three mechanisms analysed by Cobb and Elder In this section, we seek to explore the main explanations for issues being systematically absent from the governmental agenda in agenda-setting literature.

For the authors, conflict surrounding the agenda develops on two different levels. Firstly, the conflict is processed around consideration or otherwise of the issued placed for decision-makers by the government.

The second conflict emerges in the competition to interpret the issues and worldviews underlying these interpretations or, in other words, what problems will become the subject of government action.

In the latter, the concept of policy image composed both by empirical data and emotional appeals, precisely reflects the relationship between interests and how a policy is discussed. For Cobb and Ross , it is possible to observe two opposing sides in any of these types of conflicts: the proponents, seeking to draw attention to an issue and gain access to the governmental agenda for several reasons, and opponents who seek to restrict an issue from accessing the agenda.

Thus, to understand agenda denial, the authors transfer the analysis to the role of the opponents who are identified in two groups by the authors. The first group of opponents or, in other words, actors engaged in suppressing new issues on the agenda, is within the government itself. For Cobb and Ross , the individuals formally responsible for decision-making, such as bureaucrats belonging to the executive authority, individuals in commissioned positions, politicians and members of the legislative and judicial branches are the main opponents in the confrontational agenda-setting process.

For the authors, these individuals do not always act as opponents, since they can also appear as proponents of an issue, seeking space on the agenda.

However, for Cobb and Ross, the most common position for these individuals is avoiding risk and opposing change processes for a number of reasons, including ideology and information, among others. In the Kingdon model, such individuals may support an issue in favourable periods of the political cycle, such as times when people in key positions are changing political stream. Following this period, change on the governmental agenda is less likely.

Baumgartner and Jones show that changes on the agenda are processed in short periods, and are followed by sub-system policy, characterised by stability, in which the policy monopoly is closed to new issues, blocking the access of new groups and ideas onto the agenda.

In situations where agenda-change represents a benefit for a particular group, due to losses imposed on another group, the conflict between proponents and opponents is established in a relatively open way. The dispute over control of an issue is one of the central features of opposition between groups. In some pubic policies, some groups are seen to have legitimacy over an issue and it becomes difficult for an opponent to defend, or present different views on it.

Therefore, the dispute over agenda-setting involves proponents whose performance is analysed by agenda-setting theories, and opponents, whose behaviour Cobb and Ross try to explain. For this, they set off from the principle that opponents will seek to achieve their objectives at the lowest possible cost.

When they face limitations in their strategies to block access of an issue to the agenda, they increasingly seek alternatives that involve higher costs. We will now analyse the different strategies adopted by opponents, according to the approach developed by the authors.

To Cobb and Ross , low-cost strategies are characterised as involving the lowest possible amount of financial resources, people and time. In these denial strategies, opponents avoid direct confrontation with the proponents. One typically characteristic tactic is to ignore a problem that exists.

Ignoring a problem means that an issue has little chance of gaining access to the agenda because no government action is required. This means that opponents seek to deny that a situation presents a problem. One clear example is the treatment cities often receive when there are major floods: public officials cannot simply ignore the issue with the media and public opinion.