The Nature of the Government - Report Example

Abstract In every society, there are literally thousands of issues that demand the attention of the government. How is it that some issues are fast-tracked for action while others linger for years without any seeming interest on the powers that be? Agenda setting has to do with why some issues are able to hold the policy attention of legislators and the public for a long time while others fade almost as soon as they have appeared. The issue of domestic violence, for example, has been able to move forward and remained on the agenda in part because it cuts a broad swath into society, meaning that it affects every strata of society, and also because women were not only willing to make their voices heard again and again on the issue but also women had the support of key male figures as well as female politicians in positions of power who could continue to raise the issue and urge action. Without the continual engagement of stakeholders such as women and their relentless pressure, this issue might have become an also-ran, as many other cases have become. Invariably, whether an issue remains on the agenda touches on what forces or power are behind the issue. In analyzing this issue, therefore, there is a need to consider some theories of power and to examine whether they do succeed in explaining what happens in real life such as the domestic violence legislation noted above. Introduction Society is made up of individuals as well as collectivities and interest groups. Some are passive while others are active when it comes to the exercise of political power. Whether the government of a country is freely elected or not, the citizens feel the need to look up to that government or leadership to address problems and issues that they cannot address on their own. Some individuals and groups have come to understand that even though a government may have good intentions it may be hampered in taking action by one constraint or another and that sometimes it is necessary to exert some pressure so that one’s agenda is taking seriously enough to be acted upon. Over the years, Australians have grappled with the issue of policy formulation in many areas and through research that connects with some of the best ideas on public policy around the world, some homegrown notions have emerged that help to deepen knowledge about the policy creation process in general. In this paper, Kingdon’s theory is considered on the one hand and Jones and Baumgartners punctuation theory on the other to see how they inform understanding of the agenda setting function in society. Kingdon vs Jones and Baumgartners’ Punctuation theory In Kingdon’s Organized Anarchy Model, there is a constant flow of issues that may or may not get onto the legislative agenda. These “streams” “flow largely independently of one another” (Henry 2007, p. 288), comprising the problems stream, the political stream, and the policy stream. The problems stream involves highlighting a particular problem to policy makers and the public and doing so through a clear definition of the problem and “either applying a new public policy to the resolution of the problem or letting the problem fade from sight” (Henry 2007, p. 288). These usually involve some type of categorization or comparison and may involve values that strike a chord with groups such as Liberals or Conservatives. In other cases, a problem may be categorized as a “civil rights problem” much as women have tried to highlight issues of women’s oppression or violence against women as a human rights issue. For example, “Feminist and human rights scholars have approached this…in a number of ways. Some have argued domestic and other forms of violence amounted to torture under international standards; others have suggested that systems of gender iscrimination in society create an environment where violence against women is condoned (Lambert & Pickering 2001; cited in Craven 2003). In the political stream, the government in power takes the lead in creating a list of issues or problems that they want to deal with. Those usually involved in such policy formation are “high-level political appointees and the president’s staff…the media; and interest groups. A consensus is achieved by bargaining among these participants, and at some point a “bandwagon” or “tilt” effect occurs that is a consequence of an intensifying desire by the participants to be “dealt in” on the policy resolution and not to be excluded” (Henry 2007, p 288). In the policy stream, the decision agenda is created. This comprises the list of alternatives from which a key public policy may emerge. “Here the major forces are not political, but intellectual and personal…The major participants in the formation of the decision agenda are called the hiden cluster of policy actors. These include career public administrators; congressional staffers; and interest groups” (Henry 2007, p. 288). In Kingdon’s formulation there is a move from the creation of a decision agenda to a point at which “trial balloons” are released to get discussion, both public and private going regarding possible solutions. Whether ideas that emerge at this stage survive may depend on whether they are feasible or whether they appeal to a broad segment of the population or even whether there is enough money to carry it out. “When these three streams – problem, politics, and policy – meet, a public policy can result. Kingdon calls these convergences windows. Windows open where there is a shift in the national mood (usually indicated by transformative electirons) or new popular perceptions” (Henry 2007, p. 288). But indeed, whether problems get the kind of attention they deserve depends to some extent on what Kingdon refers to as indicators, which is an assessment of the magnitude of a problem. In fact, “Success in agenda setting depends on transforming conditions into problems that must be attended to” (Hancock 2009). In Baumgartner and Jones formulation of the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET), there is a recognition that there are times when an agenda may seem to be stalled or to be static. “During policy implementation, policy advocates or policy entrepreneurs attempt to maintain stasis and protect their interest…Maintaining stability or agenda equilibrium is common in the public arena because it makes sense politically” (Meagan 2003, p. 345). The maintenance of agenda equilibrium may actually involve making small changes that do not make waves, that is, changes that draw very little attention but might nevertheless be important to those who are seeking to push the agenda item through. In fact, such breaks are important because “they signal changed priorities in the agenda. Punctuations indicate successful mobilization of support that insert a new item onto the agenda, change the relative positions of the current items on the agenda, or delete a current item” (Meagan 2003, p. 345). Issue identification: Changes in the norms of a society often help to bring into the open what may have been prevalent but hidden in the past. Such may be the issue with domestic violence involving women and children which has been on the agenda of Australian policy making for years. As women have been able to find their voices through agitation and open challenge to the patriarchal systems that kept them down for centuries, they have also been able bring out into the open some of the problems that numerous women have encountered far too often but failed to articulate in the public arena. In the past two decades, concurrent with the rise of feminism has been a continual attempt to ensure that there are policies in place to protect the victims and to ensure that domestic violence moves from what used to be partial tolerance to zero tolerance. As Chappelle (2001) notes, the term 'domestic violence' did not exist in the early part of the 1970s. "However, it soon became a focus for concern as feminists moved into policy positions, and, working with community activists, became cognizant of the violence against women in private. The very act of naming the problem, was, according to former feminist bureaucrat Anne Summers, a significant moment" (Behrens 2001, p61). In the Bridgman, Davis, Althaus notion of policy cycle, Issue Identification may only be a convenient starting point for discussion. Critics such as Everett (2003) point out that the cycle "tends to overlook the politics of decisions that precede the stages outlined in the policy cycle approach" (Hancock & Perryman 2009, p 5). This is a valid point but simplistic all the same in that it ignores the intent of Althaus, Bridgman and Davis (2007) to present the policy cycle as an explanatory tool rather than a representation of what they believe to be the exact steps in the policy process. Policy analysis: The rational model of policy analysis and what the uninitiated might suppose happens in the halls of government may include notions of the policy process "as an exercise in informed problem-solving: a problem is identified, data is collected, the problem is analyzed and advice is given to the policymaker, who makes a decision which is then implemented" (Colebatch 2006, p309). The reality, however, is not necessarily so clear cut. With regards to the issue of domestic violence, following the identification of the problem, there was also the added problem of getting different governments, all with their own policy analyses staffs, to consider the issue. Rather than being a straightforward issue of analysis and decision making there are indications that so much else might intrude in the meantime, with interest groups giving their input while others might try to distract policy makers from taking certain actions. The domestic violence issue in Australia was able to get traction because there were a number of so-called "'femocrats', feminist politicians and community activists, to convince governments to develop policies to address the problem, and to maintain the issue on the policy agenda. This was a difficult task not the least because feminists were asking politicians to transgress the liberal principle of non-intervention in the private sphere" (Chappell 2001, p61). The role that feminists played does nothing to diminish Colebatch's insistence that the policy process is not linear. As Chappell notes, "at a more practical level, in Australia any adequate policy response required not only horizontal coordination across a range of portfolios -- including police, health, community services, women's affairs, education, attorney generals and immigration -- but also vertical coordination between different levels of government" (Chappell 2001, p61). And then there is the responsibility that the two levels of government in Australia have to the United Nations as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women. It is obvious from this slice of the multiplicity of players that the process is neither linear nor simple. Policy instruments: Once government buys into a certain idea, they are left with the task of finding the right means to achieve their goals. This means, of which, broadly speaking, there are four: advocacy, control over money, governmental action, and law, need to be chosen carefully to match the problem at hand. As Althaus, Davis, & Bridgman note, "Analytically, it is important to keep objectives separate from instruments" (Bridgman & Davis 1998, p 58). It is interesting that while other issues of concern to women, including rape, abortion, and child care, have not been able to garner policy attention, domestic violence has. Three major reasons account for this, according to Chappell (2001). First is the massive empirical evidence available in the form of police reports and other reports that domestic violence is a reality and that it cuts across social strata. Also, "it has been...Demonstrated that domestic violence imposes a heavy burden on the state" (Chappell 2001, p62). Third, is the enlistment of different groups to help shape the discourse on domestic violence. The Commonwealth/State National Committee of Violence Against Women (NCVAW), which was set up by former Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, in 1990, in seeking to influence policy at the federal and state levels "was careful not to proscribe a universal policy framework for each level of government. Instead, it provided general base-line 'objectives' and 'directions for action' which could be used by the states to guide policy formulation in this area" (Chappell 2001, p64). In other words, this group kept its eye on the goal while leaving the instruments to the best judgment of the governments in question. Consultation: It is perhaps in discussions about consultation that Colebatch's objections to the linear approach come into full play. Considering that there are usually so many stakeholders, some of which may have conflicting ideas, it is easy to appreciate the truism that "policy work is less about giving well-crafted advice to a decision-maker, more about the construction and maintenance of relations among stakeholders -- the diplomacy of public authority" (Colebatch 2006, p314). While no men may have come forward to advocate for continued opportunity to assault women, it was necessary for advocates to ensure that well-meaning obstacles were effectively refuted so that they would not remain barriers to the goals sought. Also, knowing the nature of the government is useful as advice concerning a problem can then be couched in terms that make it easier for those within a particular ideological spectrum to understand. The shifts in presentation or recognition of a problem are described by one senior female policymaker thus: Domestic violence has been put back on the agenda but now with a very conservative slant. It is now about family values and we are back to notions of women and children as victims. This is very different approach to the former National Committee on Violence Against Women [which was funded by the former federal ALP government] which wanted to use government to redress the issues the than push responsibility back onto the family (1999; cited in Chappell 2001, p63). Coordination: Considering the large number of players that might be involved in a legislative outcome apart from the general population, there may need to be an interplay among numerous groups. Those charged with policy analysis are likley to interact with people with disparate ideas as they seek to portray the process as fair and rational, at least on the surface. The reality that there are different fiefdoms potentially involved in the creation of policy is aptly captured by Kingdon (1984) who "saw the critical element in policy work as being the bridging of the gap between the distinct streams (problem, policy and political), which may occur when 'policy entrepreneurs' take advantage of windows of opportunity to link the problem with the policy, and the policy with the political endorsement" (Colebatch 2006, 316).There are numerous power plays involved in the process, some of which may emanate from the private sector while others come from the public. As Hancock and Perryman (2009) note, "Policy is often nebulous and crosses budgetary and government departmental boundaries and has both short and long-term impacts, which need monitoring and evaluation. Policy involves a range of players, both within and outside government" (p6). Without proper coordination and gathering of information, some players are bound to make their voices and their power felt more than others. Decision: The launching of the Partnerships Against Domestic Violence by John Howard in November 1997 through a so-called domestic violence summit was of great symbolic importance. Still, it also may have forced the hand of state premiers to commit themselves to addressing the issue knowing that the federal government considered this issue important. In fact, referring back to the part about instruments, it is significant that "contrary to the former strategy, it has a funding component, providing seed money for research programs into preventative domestic violence strategies. The federal government made an initial commitment of $25 million dollars over three and a half years. Of these funds, it allocated $12 million to 'cooperative work between the Commonwealth and States/Territories' and $13 million to Commonwealth portfolios for new initiatives where to be 'developed in consultation with the states' (Howard 1997; cited in Chappell 2001, p65). This policy instrument locked in the states towards a continuation of efforts to deal with domestic violence rather than making it a one-time grant that would become divorced from action once more funds were not forthcoming. Implementation: In the case of PADV the states are given a great deal of autonomy in its　implementation. The flexibility has resulted in a complex array of programs being implemented by the states but all with the ultimate goal of making domestic violence a thing of the past. Evaluation: Evaluation is an important part of any policy measures. After all, if the policies are not working then why spend energy and resources on it? In the case of the domestic violence situation, "Two years int the program, there seem to be varying responses about its value across jurisdictions. Interviews with policy-makers in Queensland and Tasmania indicate that the PADV has been particularly beneficial in these less populous states where it has always been difficult to secure funding for domestic violence. In their view, the annual allocation of $200,000 has been of 'enormous value', with policy makers in Queensland and now able to make progress in an area which has long been of interest - intervention for children who witness violence(Nancarrow 1999; cited in Chappell 001, p66). Conclusion The agenda setting theories of Kingdon and Jones and Baumgartners’ PET are both useful in considering a problem such as domestic violence and how it has been able to remain on the Australian legislative and policy agenda for so many years. So often, scholars cling to one theory or another and come to believe that it ought to be able to be able to explain some real life phenomenon in its totality. But human beings are not machines, which makes human behavior and actions a minefield for theoretical predictions. Even so, it is possible to see elements of truth in both theories. For example, it is true that interest groups, as Kingdon notes, have been influential in pushing the issue of domestic violence on the policy agenda. On the other hand, Jones and Baumgartners’ PET cannot be dismissed out of hand, because the forms in which domestic violence issues came into public and legislative attention has not remained unchanged over the years. Rather, people have sometimes worked behind the scenes to try to tweak ideas when the issue might temporarily might even have seemed not to be commanding much attention. In this regard, what happens behind the scenes is as much important as the more overt symbolic and overt actions that might occur in support of an item on the policy agenda. As Kingdon notes, “We still encounter considerable doses of messiness, accident, fortuitous coupling, and dumb luck. The fortuitous appearance or absence of key participants affect outcomes. There remains some degree of unpredictability” (Kingdon 216. Bibliography Beazley announces domestic violence policy. 2006, AAP General News Wire, Nov 24, p.1. Bridgman, Peter & Davis, Glyn. 1998. Australian Policy Handbook.Australia, Allen & Unwin. Bridgman, Todd & Barry, David. 2002. Regulation is evil: An application of narrative policy analysis to regulatory debate in New Zealand. Policy Sciences, 35.2, 141. Chappell, Louise. 2001. Federalism and Social Policy: The CAse of Domestic Violence. American Journal of Public Administration, 60.1, 59-69. Colebatch, Hal K. 2006. What work makes policy? Policy Science, 39, 309-321. Craven, Zoe. Human Rights and Domestic Violence. Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.au [Retrieved May 8, 2009] Hancock, L. & Perryman, S. 2009. Public Policy Analysis. Australia, Deakin University. Henry, Nicholas. 2007. Public Administration and Public Affairs, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Interest Groups. 2008. National Journal, 40.1, 56. Kingdon, J. W. 1979. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Little Brown and Co, Toronto. Meagan, M. Jordan. 2003. Punctuations and agendas: A new look at local government budget expenditures. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22.3, p. 345. Zimmerman, K.F. 2004. Advising Policymakers throuhg the Media, Journal of Economic Education, 35.4, 395-405. Read More

   In the political stream, the government in power takes the lead in creating a list of issues or problems that they want to deal with. Those usually involved in such policy formation are “high-level political appointees and the president’s staff…the media, and interest groups. A consensus is achieved by bargaining among these participants, and at some point, a “bandwagon” or “tilt” effect occurs that is a consequence of an intensifying desire by the participants to be “dealt in” on the policy resolution and not to be excluded” (Henry 2007, p 288).

In the policy stream, the decision agenda is created. This comprises the list of alternatives from which a key public policy may emerge. “Here the major forces are not political, but intellectual and persona. The major participants in the formation of the decision agenda are called the hidden cluster of policy actors. These include career public administrators; congressional staffers; and interest groups” (Henry 2007, p. 288). In Kingdon’s formulation, there is a move from the creation of a decision agenda to a point at which “trial balloons” are released to get the discussion, both public and private going regarding possible solutions.

Whether ideas that emerge at this stage survive may depend on whether they are feasible or whether they appeal to a broad segment of the population or even whether there is enough money to carry it out. “When these three streams – problem, politics, and policy – meet, a public policy can result. Kingdon calls these convergences windows. Windows open where there is a shift in the national mood (usually indicated by transformative elections) or new popular perceptions” (Henry 2007, p. 288). But indeed, whether problems get the kind of attention they deserve depends to some extent on what Kingdon refers to as indicators, which is an assessment of the magnitude of a problem.

In fact, “Success in agenda setting depends on transforming conditions into problems that must be attended to” (Hancock 2009). In Baumgartner and Jones's formulation of the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET), there is a recognition that there are times when an agenda may seem to be stalled or to be static. “During policy implementation, policy advocates or policy entrepreneurs attempt to maintain stasis and protect their interest…Maintaining stability or agenda equilibrium is common in the public arena because it makes sense politically” (Meagan 2003, p. 345). The maintenance of agenda equilibrium may involve making small changes that do not make waves, that is, changes that draw very little attention but might nevertheless be important to those who are seeking to push the agenda item through.

In fact, such breaks are important because “they signal changed priorities in the agenda. Punctuations indicate successful mobilization of support that insert a new item onto the agenda, change the relative positions of the current items on the agenda, or delete a current item” (Meagan 2003, p. 345). Changes in the norms of society often help to bring into the open what may have been prevalent but hidden in the past. Such may be the issue with domestic violence involving women and children which has been on the agenda of Australian policymaking for years.

As women have been able to find their voices through agitation and open challenge to the patriarchal systems that kept them down for centuries, they have also been able to bring out into the open some of the problems that numerous women have encountered far too often but failed to articulate in the public arena. In the past two decades, concurrent with the rise of feminism has been a continual attempt to ensure that there are policies in place to protect the victims and to ensure that domestic violence moves from what used to be partial tolerance to zero tolerance.

As Chappelle (2001) notes, the term 'domestic violence' did not exist in the early part of the 1970s. "However, it soon became a focus for concern as feminists moved into policy positions, and, working with community activists, became cognizant of the violence against women in private. 

Read More