Comments on Anderson's ch 3

As always, unless otherwise noted, references to Anderson are to his 2011 7th edition assigned as a text for this course.

.
Policy design and problem definition

For the “crafting of alternatives or options for dealing with a problem,” a part of the “policy  formation process,” Anderson (84) uses the term “policy formulation;” an alternative term I prefer is policy design. Policy design not only avoids the confusingly similar formation and formulation words but also nicely suggests the creative process involved in designing a policy for a problem.

As I will argue below, while problem definition and policy design can be distinguished analytically, most of the time they are closely related.

 
About policy problems

You might note that Anderson’s definition (85) of a policy problem as “a condition or situation that produces needs or dissatisfactions” is similar to a point made earlier about policy as steering.

Now is a good time to make explicit the point that just as some condition dissatisfies some people, causing them to push for a corrective policy, that condition must at the same time produce results satisfying to others. To give a smoldering example, some have argued, in response to political protests that involved setting the US flag on fire, there should be law banning flag burning. There wouldn’t be a need for such a law if everyone was disinclined to burn the flag, but some people wish to do so.  Another way of illustrating the point that public policy arises from differences in preferences as to our collective behavior, some states had laws requiring organized prayer in public schools (see slides 5 and 6), presumably because without such state requirements some children would not engage in daily prayer, a dissatisfying condition; subsequently, some people, dissatisfied with the requirement of school prayer, successfully challenged the constitutionality of school prayer, thus leading to the dissatisfaction of others. There is no need for public policy if everyone spontaneously behaves in ways all approve.  Efforts to make a public policy will only occur if some condition advantages some people and disadvantages others.

I don’t see why Anderson suggests that policy problems necessarily affect “a substantial number of people and [have] broad effects.”  Any individual, group, or institution suffering discomfort from the status quo should be able to get an issue on the agenda if they have the political resources (including political skill), even if the policy has only limited impacts.  For example, issues having to do with the recovery of assets by Holocaust survivors don’t affect a substantial number of people and don’t seem to have broad effects.

Problem definition and policy design

What’s the difference between a recession and a depression? A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours.  Which is to say, I would go further than Anderson (87) to say that policy problems are entirely socially constructed, in that they are perceived, understood, and worried by people operating from their own mental sets. For example, what is poverty?  Is it the lack of money? Or the lack of other resources—skills, physical and mental health, nutrition?  Is it some absolute condition, say, being below some income floor? Or is it, instead, being relatively deprived compared to others?  Beyond alternative conceptions of what poverty is are alternative explanations for the incidence of poverty.  A standard division of competing explanations says that poverty is variously explained as a function of (1) the defects or deficiencies of the poor themselves, or (2) as a product of the workings of society (such as failures of the educational system or as a product of the way the economic system operates), or as a matter of plain bad luck (Harper, 2001).  Another example of the social construction of problems comes from Robinson (1982) in a brilliantly-titled article, “Apples and Horned Toads.” In that article on energy policy, Robinson compares the analytical frameworks of those who favor the “hard path” (nuclear energy, and other technological approaches) and those who favor the “soft path” (such as conservation).  Robinson argues that not only do the hard and soft sides differ on policy solutions, but they disagree on the nature of the energy problem (insufficient supply on the one side, excessive demand on the other) and, furthermore, disagree about the role of energy in society. 

Robinson’s discussion makes the point that different policy recommendations often stem from different definitions of the problem. As a result, as noted above, separating policy design from problem definition is problematic.  To illustrate the point, think about the poverty example given earlier.  If poverty is a structural problem (that is, rooted in the workings of society), then the proper policy involves making changes in society.  If, on the other hand, poverty is based in deficiencies in the poor themselves, one would want to try to change poor people if that’s possible (and, if not, one might choose to do nothing, and just accept the existence of poverty).  But if poverty is the random result of bad luck, one might decide to compensate the poor—sort of a reverse lottery in which prizes are given to the unlucky.  Different analyses of the problem lead to different policy remedies.

To anticipate the politics of policy adoption which is coming up next, another lesson from Robinson (1982) can be mentioned.  In debates about what policy should be chosen, Robinson points out that what appear to be policy debates—where people argue about facts, history, predictions, and so forth—are often not a matter of different sides disagreeing with each other, but instead cases of people talking past each other.  In other words, they’re not talking about apples and oranges, but instead about apples and horned toads.  Because the hard path side and the soft path side have entirely different analytical frameworks, entirely different ideas about what the problem is and how the problem is situated in society, they are operating in different “realities.”

    
Not all problems are the same.  Anderson (88-90) talks about different “dimensions” of policy, which suggests that there might be another (complicated) policy typology based on several  interrelated characteristics.  He distinguishes between policies which are

• Visible v invisible
• Tractable v intractable
• Tangible v intangible
• Large v small (magnitude)
• Simple v complex
• Severe v minor

To which might be added

• Fast-moving v slowly developing
• Cyclical (unemployment or crime, rates for which rise and fall) v secular (a long-term trend, say the decline of small farming operations)
• Marked by focusing events (97) or not

Agenda-setting

While politicians and other official policymakers (recall Anderson: 48-59) are important in agenda-setting, in which problems are identified and policy solutions are proposed, I think he misdirects attention by his emphasis on the president and members of Congress as agenda-setters (95-96; 109).  Remember that while elected politicians do have certain policy priorities and preferences, as politicians they are principally focused on efforts to promote their political careers.  Accordingly, they are in the market for policy problems and solutions that will benefit them politically.  When politicians find a hot policy, they can be well-positioned to help the issue get on the agenda.

If one wants to find the principal idea people for policy ideas—problems and solutions—look at interest groups (which by definition exist to act on behalf of people with a common interest in getting certain policies adopted by government), various policy research institutions (American Enterprise Institute, Resources for the Future, to name just two), staff members in government agencies (bureaucrats), and policy entrepreneurs, a term I reserve for independent individuals (nearly gadflies) who develop a passion for some problem and agitate the system to address it (Anderson: 69).  Policy entrepreneurs I think of include people such as Jack Kevorkian, Candy Lightner, Howard Jarvis, Ralph Nader, and Rachel Carson. Many policy ideas—involving the definition of problems and the design of corrective policies—are generated by interest groups, policy research institutions, bureaucrats, and policy entrepreneurs, but these ideas go nowhere if the generators are unable to find politicians who embrace the ideas and use their political positions to advance them to the public agenda.  (One of the interesting things to watch is the reaction of these policy generators as their proposals are changed, as they typically are, in the politics of the policy adoption phase.)

The role of mass media (newspapers, magazines, radio, network and cable television, and increasingly internet-based media) are vitally important in agenda-setting, at least for those policy issues that turn on a widespread public engagement like health care reform or budget deficits (recall the Lowi and Wilson typologies).  The classic statement, by Shaw and McCombs, is “the mass media may not be successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about.” For interest groups and policy entrepreneurs like Candy Lightner and Howard Jarvis, generating media attention is key to advancing their policy ideas.  Even politicians who espy a policy idea as politically promising are likely to invest energy in the problem only if their efforts are rewarded by media attention.  Because print and electronic media are guided by the need to generate advertising revenue (and this applies to many internet-based media operations as well), the issues that are likely to get substantial and sustained coverage are those which interest the audiences. (On media, recall Anderson: 65-67.)

The distinction between different types of agendas (Anderson: 90-93) gets confusing.  I cannot offer a rule for distinguishing when an issue is on the institutional/decision agenda as opposed to the systemic agenda except to say that the issues in the first category (on the institutional/decision agenda) are those on which official policymakers are spending a lot of time and energy and issues which are likely to be resolved soon, one way or the other.  Other issues that are getting attention from those seriously engaged in public policy would be regarded as items on the systemic agenda; this follows from Anderson’s (91) quoting of Cobb and Elder that the systemic agenda “consists of all issues that are commonly perceived by members of the political community as meriting public attention….” (emphasis added).  This leads me to suggest that one might also conceive of a mass agenda which is made up of those issues that citizens mention when asked, as for example by the Gallup Poll, to identify the “most important problem facing the country today.”  Just as there is a very imperfect match between the systemic and institutional agendas, there are typically big differences between the mass agenda, on the hand, and the systemic and institutional agendas on the other.  The mass agenda typically tends to be very unstable; see, for example, the importance placed on terrorism over ten years’ time. 

Framing

When policy partisans engage in the political process of policy definition, they strategically employ political symbols that will resonate with those who are not already aligned with one position or another, that is, who can be mobilized.  Think how often policies are pitched in terms of liberty/freedom or justice/equality.  Other key words that work as positive symbols include terms such as opportunity, security, as rights.  Note, too, the frequency with which “American” dresses up a policy proposal.

Bits & pieces

In his discussion of federal paperwork-reduction legislation (84), Anderson provides an opportunity to make a distinction between the manifest and latent functions of public policy.  As for the manifest function, this is the expressed, open, explicit purpose of the policy, in this case, to encourage agencies to reduce the form-completing time demands on citizens.  But policy can also have a latent function.  Latent functions are harder to define, but they are other ways in which some social thing (like public policies) has certain effects or results.  What is important about latent functions is that they are not widely recognized as having the effects they do, even by those who promote the thing.  Public schooling has the manifest function of providing young people with knowledge and skills, but schools have latent functions—developing positive views toward the political system, integrating social classes, freeing parents for employment.  Or, to take another example, colleges not only provide advanced knowledge and skills but, if you stop to think about college relations which frequently end up in marriage, a latent function of colleges is to assist in the formation of socially-desirable marriages (and families) composed of socially-matched individuals.  In Anderson’s case, the required OMB review of paperwork requests provides, as a latent function, OMB additional leverage over agencies, not the manifest function of the policy.

Anderson (86) says “a condition must also be seen as an appropriate topic for governmental action and, further, as something for which there is a possible governmental remedy or solution.” The word “seems” is key here.  One of the tasks of policy advocates in the problem definition and policy design work is to make that case.  In any event, whether some condition is “an appropriate topic” for a policy response is a deeply political issue.  (The principles justifying government intervention will be discussed in another presentation on normative public choice theory.)

In a line that might appear on a sampler in your grandmother’s parlor, Anderson (88) says, “To deal effectively with a problem, one must treat its causes rather than its symptoms.”  While getting at the root of a problem may be desirable, I don’t think it is necessarily the case that remedying symptoms is insufficient.  Take hungry school children.  Some students arrive at school not having been adequately or well-fed at home, perhaps because their well-meaning parents don’t have enough money to buy food, perhaps because of parental neglect, or perhaps because of parental incompetence.  Whatever the causes, poorly nourished kids may not perform well academically or may be disruptive in the classroom.  A policy solution might be to offer poorly nourished children (and, maybe, all children) breakfast at school.  This might not get at the root cause of the problem, but it might still solve the problem of poor student performance.

Undefined terms: Anderson uses two important terms without defining them—salience (93) which I define elsewhere and incrementalism (108) which comes in for discussion in Chapter 4 (129-30).

 I think Anderson has an overly optimistic view of the agenda status of various environmental questions. For example, see a Times article on energy use, one piece but a major one in environmental policy.