How do issues get on the agenda

When is the best time to try to get community health and development issues on the local agenda? Who should plan for getting community health and development issues on the local agenda? How do you develop a plan for getting community health and development issues on the local agenda? Skip to main content.

Toggle navigation Navigation. Getting Issues on the Public Agenda » Section 1. 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 p. March and Olsen argue that reforms and any modernisation process constitute examples of symbolic action. 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: symbols associated with the environment are seen positively by public opinion and even groups that would potentially enter into conflicts with environmental protection groups take on the conservation discourse co-opting language using symbols which, in theory, would be contrary to their interests.

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. The occurrence of high-cost strategies was not recorded in any of the cases analysed.

This study aimed to present and discuss, albeit in an introductory way, the politics of governmental agenda access, an issue that, despite its importance, has not has been sufficiently considered by specialised literature. Research on the pre-decision-making phase of the public policy process that involves defining issues that will be considered later on in the decision-making process — or those that will be kept away from it — is one of the most critical issues to understand the production of public policies and democracy itself.

Agenda studies were initially developed from a dialogue extremely close to democratic theory, as put forward by Cobb and Elder ; This connection is less evident in more recent literature, although the agenda-setting process is a vital issue for theory and practising democracy.

Understanding both sides of the agenda — how a question is placed on the agenda and others are systematically denied — may contribute to narrow the interface between agenda-setting models and democratic theory.

Throughout this study, we saw that the power of keeping a subject off the agenda or that is, denying access of an issue is as important as the power of placing it on the agenda. This is an aspect that has been neglected in literature on agenda-setting.

The authors do not place the strategies within the institutional and historical context, where groups fight for access to the agenda, restricting the scope of the proposed explanations.

In this case, with monopolies as the unit of analysis, it would be possible to investigate how the groups that interact with these monopolies impede the process of change on the agenda for strategies, using the strategies presented by Cobb and Ross, especially with regard to the mechanics of production and disseminating images defining and redefining issues.

Parallel to theoretical development on the subject, an empirical analysis is necessary to further understand the means employed by governments in developing both construction strategies and agenda denial. The issue definition process seems to be the key element for both agenda setting and denial. Schattschneider is the starting point for discussion on defining and redefining issues, since the conflict expansion and mobilisation process is developed through issues.

Performing further study on these topics will certainly throw light on agenda access policy, as we have seen, and also on the more far-reaching process of producing public policies. Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review, v. Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework.

Power and poverty : theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Policy Dynamics. Comparative Studies of Policy Agendas.

Journal of European Public Policy, v. Journal of Politics, v. Participation in American Politics : The dynamics of agenda building. Boston: Allyn and Bancon, Cultural Strategies of Agenda Denial. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, The Unpolitics of Air Pollution : a study of nondecision-making in the cities.

Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science , vol. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press, Power and Powerlessness : Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. JOHN, Peter. The policy agendas project : a review. The Politics of Attention : how government priorizes problems. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: Harper Collins, Power : A Radical View. London: Palgrave Macmillan, Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process.

Rediscovering Institutions : The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press, T he need for better theories. In: Sabatier, P. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, The Semi Sovereign People.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. Username Please enter your Username. Password Please enter your Password. Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. Search within Sandra L. Resodihardjo Sandra L. Keywords crisis analysis agenda-setting agenda agenda interaction window of opportunity entrepreneur venue shopping framing problem definition.

You do not currently have access to this article Login Please login to access the full content. In a particularly effective presentation to the Chamber of Commerce, a local man told how he had graduated from high school - in the same class as many of those in the room - unable to read or write, and how he had hidden his problem from everyone, even his wife, for years.

He at last, at her urging, sought help, and learned to read. When he described how stupid and worthless he had felt for so many years, and what it meant for him to be able to do something as simple as go to a restaurant and order what he wanted from the menu, much of the room was in tears.

This learner's talk brought the issue home to the Chamber members. It was no longer "out there," but rather a concern for their community, and a personal concern for many of them, who had known this man most of their lives. Now it was on their agenda. What does this mean? It can mean many things, including literally placing the issue on the local agenda, in the form of a bylaw potential or actual , regulation, referendum, or policy statement, which is the ultimate goal.

Thus, getting a health or community development issue on the local agenda means helping the community see the issue as important enough to take action , and making sure that a sense of responsibility for the issue is assumed by the public at large, elected and appointed officials, and each individual citizen. Any time is a good time to promote community health and development, but certain conditions make the job easier. When an important issue surfaces that needs to be addressed immediately.

The discovery that the town water supply is tainted by leakage from long-buried gasoline tanks is the perfect time to get a discussion of water pollution and water supply on the local agenda.

The advantages are that the issue must be dealt with now, and that it won't go away without some permanent way of addressing it. There's no better time to raise an issue. When an already-troublesome issue reaches critical proportions.

A small child becomes a casualty in a drive-by shooting; a homeless person freezes to death in a doorway on a bitter winter night; a factory closes and the local unemployment rate skyrockets. In circumstances like these, it often becomes easier to get a particular issue into the public consciousness. Everyone hopes not to have to reach this point before people pay attention, but changing people's perceptions is difficult. Sometimes it takes a crisis to make getting your issue on the local agenda possible.

When an external source calls attention to your issue. A new government commission report, a New York Times article about a particular problem or community, a presidential remark, a book by a respected author, a mention on Oprah - any of these can make your issue hot, and make it a good time for you to bring it to the attention of people in your community.

When new information reveals or underlines a serious issue. A university study or government report may alert the community to the fact that it harbors a very high number of cases of an unusual cancer. This information may open the way for an investigation of its possible environmental causes and a plan for action. When political conditions make it easy or appropriate. In an election year, for instance, there are two reasons why it may be possible to call attention to issues and get them discussed.

Even in non-election years, a well-publicized political event or situation may help put your issue in the spotlight.

In many places, a question about an issue can be brought directly to the voters in a referendum. This is a direct vote of the people, which may be binding - i. The mechanism for placing a referendum on a local or state ballot is usually an initiative petition.

This is a petition that needs either the signatures of a set number of registered voters, or the signatures of a set percentage of registered voters. In a small town, this may mean gathering as few as a hundred signatures; in a large city, it may mean tens of thousands. A referendum is usually phrased as a question on the ballot. It may ask voters whether they favor a course of action, whether they approve a particular proposed law, or whether they support a policy position.

Planning is the first step toward action; you'll want to recruit help and support for what you'll do. Choosing a planning group carefully can contribute greatly to the eventual success of your effort. A planning group should involve everyone who might be affected by the issue, or who might have a hand in addressing it:.

Those indirectly affected.