Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy: Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies (American Gov

leondumoulin.nl: Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy: Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies (American Government and Public Policy).
Table of contents

Simply select your manager software from the list below and click on download. She is currently on leave to serve as director general for the Norwegian Competition Agency. Meyer has also been a junior minister for the Norwegian government and a commissioner for finance and health in the city government of Bergen.

Structure of the Court System: Crash Course Government and Politics #19

Her main research interests are mergers and acquisitions and strategic change. The purpose is to explore how politicians can gain acceptance for radical reforms by managing politics in two arenas: In the external arena, the management of politics consists of influencing Parliament indirectly through creating and sustaining demand for radical reforms among public stakeholders.

The problem for political leaders is that the radicalness of reform is often sacrificed in the decision-making process in government before they reach the Parliament. To successfully bring radical reforms to the Parliament, political leaders therefore need to manage influence from multiple stakeholders and overcome non-decision making. Skip to main content. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. When Radical Reforms Are on the Agenda: Managing Politics in Government.

Vol 48, Issue 2, pp. Download Citation If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. When Radical Reforms Are on the Agenda. Via Email All fields are required. Send me a copy Cancel.

Request Permissions View permissions information for this article. Article first published online: March 16, ; Issue published: Abstract Full Text References Abstract. Keywords radical change , political reforms , ethnography , managing power. Remember me Forgotten your password? Subscribe to this journal. Vol 48, Issue 2, Additional Guidelines for Publication. Tips on citation download. Membership roles in field research. Google Scholar , Crossref. Explaining the Cuban missile crisis 2nd ed. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, - Journal of Management Studies, 39, - Two faces of power.

American Political Science Review, 56, - American Political Science Review, 57, - The skill factor in politics. University of California Press. Market and non-market components. California Management Review, 37 2 , 47 - An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50, - Telling the whole story: The case of organizational autoethnograpy. Culture and Organization, 13, - Power, politics, and organizational change: Winning the turf game.

A perspective on the field of organizational development and change: Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, - Modernisering av offentlig sektor: New Public Management i praksis [ Modernizing the public sector: New public management in pratice ]. Organisasjonsteori for offentlig sector [ Organizational theory for the public sector ]. 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.

Access Check

Another important application of the model is related to the way Kingdon reconciles two factors in the political world: 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: 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.

Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy | Georgetown University Press

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: 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: 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: 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 Radical Reforms Are on the Agenda

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.

Ignoring a problem, however, is not always a viable tactic: 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: In this case, the issue is dealt with as an isolated incident, seeking to avoid any possibility of standardisation: Opponents may also seek to show that the issue is exaggerated or misunderstood. A third tactic does not involve ignoring the issue or limiting its effects, but rather in disqualifying the group that puts the problem forward.

In this case, the issue is disassociated from the group that defends it and the alternative to agenda denial comprises questioning the legitimacy of the applicant group and the issue it defends.


  1. IP-адрес данного ресурса заблокирован в соответствии с действующим законодательством.;
  2. SearchWorks Catalog;
  3. Services on Demand.
  4. Blocked/Доступ ограничен.
  5. McCaulays CFA Level I Practice Exams Volume II of V?
  6. Robin McKinley: Girl Reader, Woman Writer (Studies in Young Adult Literature);
  7. Tornado, Wind & Hail Claims Trade Secrets You Must Know To Get What You Paid from Your Insurance Pol;

If the group proposing change is recognised as being legitimate, it is respected and has credibility in the community, denial is not usually directed towards the group and tends to be restricted to the issue proposed. On the other hand, there are strategies that avoid attack and do not seek to block the issue or the applicant group placation strategy. Both strategies attack and placation involve a higher volume of resources and establish a broader level of conflict than in the previously analysed strategies.

If, within this avoidance alternative, the opponents do not directly confront the proponents, strategies to attack communication between the two groups are clearly established, with the opponents having the initial goal of negatively characterising the applicant group or the issue it has raised. Blocking the issue may initially take the form analysed in the previous topic, preventing its recognition as a problem. Questioning the premises on which the proponents seek to construct the problem is an additional tactic: If indicators alone historical patterns, evaluation results and activity monitoring, etc.

Just as numbers can draw attention to an issue, they can also remove concern when they are characterised as fragile or represented so as to minimise a problem. Another way of disqualifying an issue is to portray it unfavourably, raising suspicion within public opinion. Opponents can employ tactics based on arguments that exploit ambiguity and uncertainty around the issue and that gives rise to fear of possible changes, arising from the issue appearing on the agenda, highlighting, for example, negative impacts, hidden costs that could make the situation worse and unpredictable future problems, among others.

Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy: Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies

On developing the concept of policy image, Baumgartner and Jones In the case of agenda restriction, therefore, the opponents emphasise the negative aspects of an issue, while the proponents seek to represent it positively, in order to mobilise support. The first attack-tactic is directed towards the issued proposed.

The second form of blocking is direct confrontation with applicant groups and not the issue itself, used especially when the groups proposing an issue are new and not well-known, with a low level of legitimacy. An extremely common tactic is to connect the applicant group with one known to be unpopular. Another tactic is to hold certain groups responsible for their own problems, trying to characterise a public issue as a private matter, limited to the individuals involved, thereby decreasing pressure for government action. The third tactic blocking groups and their issues from the agenda consists of exploiting the idea of a victim.

One of the appeals frequently used by proponents is to demonstrate that the group is the victim of a situation social, racial, economic, ethnic, and physical, etc. In this case, the opponents seek to block the group and neutralise the idea of a victim in some way.

Another attack tactic consists of fraud, spreading false rumours, lies, and slander, as a way of blocking groups from the decision-making process. Therefore, the media can be an important vehicle for disseminating inaccurate information, or whose veracity is questionable about a group.

This is the case, for example, when a confrontation is directed at the group leader, negatively investigating his behaviour and motivations. Thus, a first group of average cost strategies comprises attacking the issue or group that proposes it. This strategy is usually employed by public officials formally entrusted with decision-making and involves some tactics analysed by Bachrach and Baratz with respect to blocking issues from the decision-making process.

Cobb and Ross mention four actions to exemplify this type of strategy. The first is establishing a committee to discuss and analyse the issue presented by the proponents. Establishing a discussion forum eases the conflict, delays the decision process, may weaken the applicant group over time and represents a way for the opponents to deal with the problem without too much effort. Another way of diluting the conflict is to create a symbolic experience from which the opponents point out a small part of the problem, in order to demonstrate their commitment to the issue.

For example, focusing on positive results attained by a project executed, and extending this positive evaluation to a programme as a whole or the policy itself may be a form of symbolic action. Highlighting actions taken in the past, with the promise of intensifying the pace of actions in the present also allows opponents to signal that the government is dealing with the problem.

As noted by March and Olsen March and Olsen argue that reforms and any modernisation process constitute examples of symbolic action.


  1. 404 Not Found.
  2. Getting Bogged Down? How to Avoid Project Overload (Project Management Book 1).
  3. Nikolaos Zahariadis?
  4. IP-адрес данного ресурса заблокирован в соответствии с действующим законодательством..

The co-optation of applicant members in the proponent group is the third tactic of symbolic placation. The authors indicate the environmental sector as a fertile example of this type of tactic: Finally, postponement is another symbolic action tactic, in which opponents agree that the issue raised by the proponents is valid, but impossible to deal with. In this case, the limited nature of available resources is emphasised — financial and technical constraints and restricted time or personnel, among others — to resolve particular problems.

The third type of strategy put forward by the authors is less frequent because it involves high costs for the proponents and opponents. Cobb and Ross describe tactics involving political, economic or legal threats against applicant groups, as examples of such actions. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations.

View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web.