PPG concepts Flashcards
heuristic model
a simplified approach used to solve complex problems through experience-based techniques, often relying on “rules of thumb” or educated guesses rather than strict algorithms. This model emerged in cognitive science and artificial intelligence research to streamline decision-making, especially in uncertain environments. In practice, it can be seen in business strategy and policy-making, where rigid models may not be applicable. Its relevance lies in helping to address complex issues flexibly, though it may sacrifice accuracy for speed.
The policy cycle
a framework that breaks down policy-making into sequential stages: agenda-setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation and evaluation. Developed in political science, it structures the development and review of policies across democratic and organizational processes. Today, governments and organizations use this model to ensure comprehensive policy oversight. It is significant as it allows for systematic analysis and improvements within policy processes.
Institutions
structures or mechanisms of social order and cooperation that govern the behavior of individuals within a community. Rooted in sociology and political theory, institutions encompass laws, traditions, and organizations that facilitate societal stability. Examples range from legal systems to educational institutions, and their role is essential in providing predictable structures within which societies operate.
Polity
refers to an organized society or state governed by established political structures, rules, and systems. Originating from Greek political theory, it describes both the physical institutions of government and the social organization they serve. Contemporary examples include democratic states and international organizations. Its importance lies in shaping how political authority is structured and legitimized.
Bureaucracy
a formal system of organization marked by hierarchy, standardized procedures, and impersonal relationships, as theorized by Max Weber. It is commonly seen in government agencies and large corporations today. Bureaucracy ensures efficiency and consistency but is often criticized for rigidity and resistance to innovation.
A unitary system
centralizes power within a single, national government, which retains authority over local governments. Common in countries like France, this system contrasts with federal structures by limiting local autonomy. Its relevance lies in promoting a cohesive national policy, though it may limit regional representation.
The federal system
divides powers between a central government and regional governments, allowing both levels to govern independently within certain domains. This structure, seen in the U.S. and Germany, was developed to balance national unity with regional autonomy. It promotes localized governance but can lead to conflicts of jurisdiction.
A confederal system
a loose alliance of sovereign states that retain primary authority, delegating limited powers to a central body. Historically, it has been used in alliances like the Articles of Confederation in the U.S. Its relevance lies in preserving state sovereignty but can weaken centralized governance.
Liberal democracy
a political system combining representative democracy with protections for individual rights and freedoms. Emerging from Enlightenment ideals, it is prevalent in Western nations like the U.S. and the U.K. Liberal democracy ensures that governance respects individual autonomy while promoting public accountability.
Negative liberty
refers to the freedom from external interference, emphasizing personal autonomy and protection against state intervention. Originating in liberal philosophy, it underpins rights like freedom of speech and privacy. Its relevance is in protecting individuals from undue control and enabling self-determination.
Positive liberty
involves the capacity to act on one’s free will, often requiring external support like education or health services. Philosophers like Isaiah Berlin distinguished it from negative liberty. Its relevance lies in ensuring individuals have the necessary means to achieve autonomy, promoting equality and social welfare.
Avowals of Intent as Idea of Policy
refer to official statements by policy-makers declaring their goals or intended actions. These avowals help clarify objectives and can generate public support. They are relevant as a communication tool for transparency and can shape public expectations.
Constitutional Provisions as Idea of Policy
formal, codified guidelines within a nation’s constitution that shape policy frameworks and government structure. They provide foundational legal guidance and establish rights. Such provisions are crucial for maintaining legal consistency and stability in policy-making.
“White Papers” Published by Cabinet Ministries as Idea of Policy
government publications that outline proposals and policies, often used to introduce new legislation. Typically seen in parliamentary systems like the UK, they allow public and legislative review of policy intentions. Their relevance is in fostering debate and refining policies before implementation.
Arms-length agencies
organizations established by the government but operate independently to prevent political influence in their operations. These agencies, common in regulatory and service functions, ensure impartiality and expertise. Their importance lies in balancing government oversight with operational autonomy.
Quasi Non-Government Organizations (Quangos)
Quangos are entities funded by the government but function independently, blending aspects of the public and private sectors. Prominent in the UK, they provide specialized public services. Their value lies in flexibility and efficiency, though they may lack transparency
territorial Synchrony
The geographic alignment between a sovereign state’s boundaries, its government jurisdictions and the location of economies, cultures, problems & publics. Maintaining synchrony ensures consistent service delivery and policy implementation. Its relevance lies in reducing disparities and enhancing national coherence.
Implementation Deficit as a Consequence of Loss of Territorial Synchrony
An implementation deficit arises when policies are unevenly applied across regions, often due to a lack of territorial synchrony. This leads to inconsistencies in service delivery and policy outcomes, undermining effectiveness and fairness.
Learning Deficit as a Consequence of Loss of Territorial Synchrony
A learning deficit occurs when decentralized policy applications prevent sharing of best practices across regions. This limits organizational learning and adaptability, weakening overall policy development and execution.
Legitimacy Deficit as a Consequence of Loss of Territorial Synchrony
Legitimacy deficit refers to the public perception of unfair or inconsistent governance due to regional disparities in policy implementation. This undermines trust in government and can reduce civic engagement
The market model of politics views
political interactions as transactions where individuals act in self-interest, akin to economic markets. Developed from public choice theory, it underpins policies that favor deregulation and competition. Its relevance lies in promoting efficiency but may overlook collective societal needs
The polis model
contrasts with the market model by emphasizing collective goals, community interests, and public good over individualism. Originating from political theory, it stresses civic engagement and equity, valuing collaboration over competition in governance. Its importance lies in promoting social cohesion and addressing common societal issues.
public policy
Public policy refers to the principles and actions adopted by government authorities to address societal issues and achieve specific objectives. It originated from the need for systematic governance and effective decision-making, especially during the emergence of modern states in the 19th century. Today, public policy encompasses a wide range of areas, including health care, education, and environmental regulation, and is shaped through legislative processes, executive actions, and public input. Its relevance lies in influencing the well-being of citizens, guiding government priorities, and fostering accountability, ultimately playing a crucial role in shaping societal outcomes and addressing collective challenges.
the policy actor model
- Political skills
- Analytical skills
-Managerial (operational) skills
Policy or political acumen
Policy or political acumen refers to the ability to understand and navigate the complexities of political processes and policy-making effectively. This concept has roots in the study of political science, where recognizing the nuances of governance and the interplay between different stakeholders is essential for successful leadership and advocacy. Today, political acumen is vital for politicians, lobbyists, and public administrators, as it allows them to craft effective policies, build coalitions, and influence public opinion. Its significance lies in enhancing decision-making and strategic planning, ultimately leading to more informed and responsive governance that addresses the needs and concerns of constituents.
structure
pre-existing governance organisations, institutions and policies in which any new decision must be situated
agency
the capacity of any given actor or group to take a decision in accordance with their wishes, values, ideals, and responsibilities
atributes of liberal democracy
- The Rule of Law (Constitution)
- Freedoms & Rights that balance positive & negative
liberties - Democratic participation (free & fair elections) and
representation by an elected assembly - Vertical Accountability: government answers to the
public via democratic elections - Horizontal Accountability: separation of powers between
legislature, judiciary and executive (Trias Politica) - Equality in Justice for all citizens before the law – a “veil
of ignorance” - Reasoned decision-making
Baseline
refers to an accurate assessment of the “business-as-usual” scenario—essentially what would happen if no changes were made and existing trends continued. It serves as a reference point for evaluating the effects of proposed policy actions.
Current Conditions: Understanding the status quo.
Current and Expected Trends: Analyzing ongoing trends that could affect the situation.
Effects of Existing Policies: Evaluating how current policies are impacting the baseline conditions.
Foreseeable Policies or Programs: Considering the potential impacts of other policies that may come into play.
The Rational Decision Model
a structured approach that emphasizes a logical and systematic process for making choices. Originating from economic theories, this model assumes that decision-makers can identify problems, gather relevant information, weigh options, and select the most effective solution based on objective criteria. In practice, it is commonly used in governmental and organizational settings to guide policy development and implementation. Its relevance lies in promoting thorough analysis and justification of decisions, although it may overlook the complexities and unpredictability of real-world scenarios.
The Incremental Decision Model
suggests that policy decisions are often made through small, gradual changes rather than sweeping reforms. This model emerged as a critique of the rational decision-making process, emphasizing that policymakers frequently work within existing frameworks and adapt policies incrementally based on past experiences and feedback. Contemporary examples can be seen in various sectors’ budget adjustments and regulatory reforms. Its significance lies in recognizing the practical constraints of policy-making, allowing for flexibility and learning over time, albeit sometimes at the cost of innovation or comprehensive solutions.
The Garbage Can Model
presents a more chaotic view of decision-making, arguing that policies emerge from a mix of problems, solutions, and participants in a seemingly random manner. Developed by Cohen, March, and Olsen, this model highlights the unpredictability of policy processes, where decisions can arise without a clear agenda or rational analysis. This model is often applied in organizations or settings with ambiguity and conflicting interests. Its relevance is in acknowledging that not all decision-making follows a linear path and that political and organizational environments can lead to serendipitous outcomes, emphasizing the importance of adaptability and timing in policy-making.
issue framing
refers to the defining and presenting a particular problem in a way that shapes public perception and influences the policy agenda. Originating from communication and political theory, this concept highlights how the framing of an issue can affect the opinions, beliefs, and actions of stakeholders, including policymakers and the public. Current examples include how climate change is framed either as an environmental crisis or an economic opportunity, which can lead to different policy responses. The relevance of issue framing lies in its power to steer discussions, prioritize certain aspects of a problem, and mobilize support or opposition, thereby playing a crucial role in determining which issues receive attention and how solutions are formulated.
Hobson’s choice in policy-making
refers to a scenario where decision-makers are presented with one clearly favorable option alongside a range of undesirable alternatives, effectively making the preferred choice the only viable option. This concept is rooted in the idea that by highlighting a good option while minimizing or presenting the others as unfeasible or less beneficial, decision-makers can steer stakeholders toward a specific course of action. An example can be seen in environmental policy discussions, where a government might promote renewable energy as the optimal choice while framing fossil fuels as harmful and outdated. The significance of Hobson’s choice lies in its ability to simplify complex decisions, making the preferred option appear more attractive, but it can also lead to concerns about transparency and the exclusion of diverse perspectives in the policy-making process.
Willingness to pay
refers to the maximum amount individuals or groups are prepared to spend to secure a specific benefit or avoid a loss associated with a policy change. This concept is rooted in economic theory and is often used in cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the potential impact of proposed policies, particularly in areas like environmental regulation, public health, and infrastructure development. Current examples include assessing public support for new transportation projects or environmental protections by gauging how much people would be willing to invest in these initiatives. The relevance of willingness to pay lies in its ability to provide policymakers with insights into public priorities and values, helping to allocate resources effectively and justify policy choices based on the perceived benefits to society. However, it can also raise ethical considerations regarding equity, as not all individuals may have the same capacity to express their willingness to pay, potentially skewing policy outcomes in favor of wealthier stakeholders.
Deontological morality
an action is morally right or wrong in and of itself, regardless of the intended consequences of that action. An ethical framework that emphasizes the importance of following rules, duties, and obligations when determining the morality of an action, regardless of the consequences that may arise. Rooted in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, this approach asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong based on established principles and moral laws. For example, telling the truth or fulfilling a promise is considered morally obligatory, regardless of any potential negative outcomes. In contemporary contexts, deontological morality is often applied in legal and professional ethics, where adherence to codes of conduct is paramount. Its significance lies in providing a clear and consistent approach to ethical decision-making, promoting accountability and integrity, although it can sometimes conflict with consequentialist perspectives that prioritize outcomes over rules.
Utilitarian morality
an ethical framework that evaluates the morality of actions based on their consequences, specifically aiming to maximize overall happiness or utility for the greatest number of people. Rooted in the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism posits that the best action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over harm. For instance, a policy decision that benefits a majority, even if it disadvantages a minority, may be deemed justifiable within this framework. In contemporary settings, utilitarian principles are often applied in public policy, economics, and health care, where cost-benefit analyses aim to determine the most effective interventions. The relevance of utilitarian morality lies in its pragmatic approach to ethics, promoting outcomes that enhance collective well-being. However, critics argue that it can lead to morally questionable decisions, as it may sacrifice individual rights and justice for the sake of the greater good.
rationality
- a decision-making principle (maximising benefits for the greatest number of people)
- good evidence (to enhance our understanding of problems, objectives, and potential solutions)
- a coherent objective
- some logic: deduction, induction, abduction
Soft power
is a form of influence that a country or organization exerts by attracting and persuading others, rather than through coercion or force. Coined by political scientist Joseph Nye in the late 20th century, this concept emphasizes the use of cultural appeal, political values, and foreign policies to shape global perceptions and encourage voluntary cooperation. Current examples include the United States leveraging Hollywood, music, and educational exchange programs to enhance its global image, or South Korea promoting its culture through K-pop and media. Soft power is significant because it enables countries to foster goodwill, build alliances, and achieve strategic goals without military or economic pressure, although its effectiveness can be limited by conflicting interests or cultural resistance.
decisionism and technocracy
Decisionism, associated with the ideas of political theorist Carl Schmitt, emphasizes the role of authority and sovereignty in decision-making, particularly in exceptional situations where quick, decisive action is needed. This approach values the ability of a leader or governing body to make bold decisions based on their judgment, even when it bypasses standard procedures or expert advice. Decisionism is often seen in times of crisis, where decisions are made rapidly by those in power without prolonged consultation, focusing on the legitimacy of decisive action rather than procedural consensus.
Conversely, technocracy prioritizes expertise and data-driven decision-making by specialists, scientists, or technical experts. In this model, decision-making relies on specialized knowledge and analysis to solve complex problems, assuming that experts, rather than elected officials, are best suited to make informed choices. This approach is prevalent in policy areas like climate science, public health, and economic planning, where technical expertise is essential.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a philosophical approach that values practical outcomes and real-world applications over abstract principles or theoretical consistency. Emerging in the late 19th century, pragmatism argues that the truth of an idea or policy lies in its usefulness and effectiveness in achieving desired results. Rather than being bound by fixed doctrines, pragmatists adapt their ideas to suit the context, focusing on what works best in a given situation.
Today, pragmatism is seen in policy-making, business, and law, where flexible, outcome-oriented approaches are often preferred over rigid adherence to ideology. Its relevance lies in its adaptability, as it encourages openness to new ideas and solutions that can address current challenges. However, critics argue that pragmatism can sometimes lack moral or ideological consistency, potentially overlooking long-term values for short-term gains.
Epistemic authority
refers to the credibility and trustworthiness of a person or institution in providing knowledge, particularly in areas requiring specialized expertise. This authority is granted to individuals or groups recognized as reliable sources of information, such as scientists, academics, or expert institutions, based on their knowledge, qualifications, and demonstrated competence in a specific field. The concept originates from epistemology, the study of knowledge, where understanding the sources and justification of beliefs is central.
In contemporary society, epistemic authority is significant in fields like medicine, law, and environmental science, where experts’ insights guide public understanding and policy decisions. Epistemic authority is valuable for promoting informed decision-making and helping people navigate complex information. However, reliance on epistemic authority can be challenged by misinformation, public mistrust, or situations where authorities disagree, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in maintaining this trust.
De jure authority vs de facto authority
De jure authority refers to the power granted by legal or formal frameworks, where an individual or institution is authorized by law or official rules to hold and exercise power. This is authority “by law.” For example, an elected president has de jure authority to govern because they hold office through legal means and are officially recognized as the legitimate leader.
De facto authority, on the other hand, is the power exercised in practice, regardless of whether it has formal legal backing. It refers to authority “in fact” rather than “in law.” A military leader who takes control of a country through a coup, for instance, may hold de facto authority by effectively governing, even though they lack de jure authority under the nation’s legal system.
The relevance of understanding de facto versus de jure authority is important in political science and law, as it highlights situations where actual control does not match legal legitimacy. Such situations often lead to debates about legitimacy, especially in contexts of political transitions, disputed governments, or conflicts between official and practical sources of power.
Territorial synchrony
refers to the alignment and coordination of policies and services across different geographic regions within a country. It ensures that national standards, regulations, and services are consistently implemented and accessible across territories, preventing disparities in policy outcomes between regions. The concept is particularly relevant in governance structures where local governments or agencies have varying levels of autonomy, such as in federal or decentralized systems.
In practice, maintaining territorial synchrony can be seen in efforts to provide equal healthcare, education, or infrastructure standards nationwide, regardless of local differences. The importance of territorial synchrony lies in promoting equity and unity within a country, as well as ensuring that all citizens, regardless of location, receive similar levels of public services and protections. However, challenges to territorial synchrony can arise when regions have distinct needs or priorities, which may lead to disparities in service quality, known as an “implementation deficit.”
network governance
refers to the approach to public problem‐solving in which we no longer simply rely on the state to impose solutions, but instead conceive of problem‐solving as a collaborative effort in which a network of actors, including both state and non‐state organizations, play a part
Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) i
nvolves calculating and comparing the total costs and total benefits of a project, policy, or action in monetary terms. CBA quantifies both the costs (such as resources, time, or environmental impact) and the benefits (such as economic gains, improved quality of life, or social value) to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs. This method is useful for assessing whether an initiative is worth pursuing based on its overall economic impact. However, one challenge with CBA is that not all benefits or costs are easily quantifiable in monetary terms, particularly social and environmental factors.
institutional void
where there are no clear and generally accepted rules and norms according to which politics is to be conducted and policy measures are to be agreed upon.
Risk-based decision-making
is an approach where choices are made based on the evaluation and management of potential risks involved in various options. This method involves assessing the likelihood and impact of risks to minimize negative outcomes and increase the chances of success, particularly in complex or uncertain situations. Originally used in fields like finance, engineering, and safety, it has expanded into areas like public policy, healthcare, and environmental planning, where decision-makers must balance benefits against potential hazards.
For example, in public health policy, a risk-based approach might involve evaluating the potential spread of a disease when deciding on vaccination strategies or lockdown measures. The relevance of risk-based decisions lies in their ability to systematically address uncertainty, helping policymakers, businesses, and institutions to make informed choices that weigh both short-term and long-term impacts. However, these decisions can sometimes be constrained by incomplete data or unforeseen factors, which may lead to over- or underestimating risks and affecting outcomes.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)
focuses on comparing the costs of different ways to achieve a specific outcome or goal without necessarily converting those outcomes into monetary terms. CEA is often used when the primary objective is clear but difficult to monetize, such as improving public health, educational outcomes, or environmental quality. For example, CEA may compare different treatments for a disease based on cost per life saved or cost per unit improvement in health. CEA is valuable in resource allocation when effectiveness is the main concern, though it does not provide a direct measure of total benefit relative to cost, as in CBA.
Rationality Project
In the context of public policy, the Rationality Project seeks to improve the quality and effectiveness of policy-making by promoting rational, evidence-based approaches to decision-making. By applying principles of logic, data analysis, and scientific reasoning, policymakers can aim to make choices that are better informed and less prone to common cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or overconfidence. This approach emphasizes using empirical data, risk assessments, and cost-benefit analyses to evaluate potential policy outcomes systematically, ensuring that policy decisions are aligned with the best available evidence.
For example, in public health policy, the Rationality Project’s principles encourage the use of data-driven modeling to anticipate disease spread and evaluate interventions, rather than relying on intuition or political pressures. Similarly, in environmental policy, rational approaches can help assess the long-term costs and benefits of various energy sources, prioritizing actions that yield the greatest positive impact for society.
However, while the Rationality Project promotes more objective and transparent policy-making, critics point out that public policy also involves values, ethics, and social considerations that may not fit neatly into a purely rational framework. Issues like equity, cultural differences, and political realities often complicate the application of purely rational approaches. Thus, while the Rationality Project provides valuable tools, a balanced approach that incorporates ethical and social dimensions is crucial for truly effective and inclusive policy-making.
new public manegement
New Public Management (NPM) emerged as a reform movement in the 1980s, significantly shaped by the political ideologies of leaders like UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan. Rooted in neoliberal principles, NPM aimed to make public administration more efficient, market-oriented, and customer-focused, challenging traditional bureaucratic methods. Thatcher and Reagan promoted NPM reforms as a way to reduce government spending, curb the influence of the state, and introduce private-sector practices into public services.
Under Thatcher, NPM reforms involved extensive privatization, outsourcing, and a push toward “value for money” in public spending. Her administration transferred several public services, including utilities and transport, to private companies, aiming to reduce government involvement and increase efficiency. Similarly, Reagan’s administration emphasized deregulation, tax cuts, and downsizing government agencies, promoting competitive outsourcing and performance-based evaluations in public programs.
These NPM reforms significantly impacted public sectors in both countries, leading to a more business-like approach in government services. However, they also sparked debates over accountability, equity, and service quality. Critics argue that while NPM improved efficiency in some areas, it sometimes prioritized cost-cutting over public welfare, reduced job security for public sector employees, and introduced profit motives that could undermine public interest in essential services. Despite these critiques, NPM remains influential in public administration globally, particularly in countries pursuing efficiency-driven governance models.
The subsidiarity principle
is a governance concept that advocates for decisions to be made at the most localized level capable of effectively addressing an issue, rather than at a centralized authority. In practice, subsidiarity can be seen in the European Union, where national or local governments manage issues like regional development or social policy unless they require broader EU-level intervention. Similarly, federal systems such as the United States or Germany embody subsidiarity by dividing responsibilities across local, state, and national governments.
Jurisdictions
refer to the legal authority or area within which a particular government, court, or institution has the power to create, enforce, or interpret laws. Jurisdictions define the geographic, subject-matter, or institutional scope of authority, delineating which entities are responsible for governing or regulating different areas. This concept applies at various levels, from local to national to international, and is foundational to organizing governance and legal systems.
For example, a city government has jurisdiction over municipal issues such as local policing, zoning, and public utilities, while a national government has jurisdiction over broader issues like defense, immigration, and trade. Courts also have defined jurisdictions, with some handling only federal cases and others dealing with specific types of disputes, such as family law or criminal law.
Jurisdictions are essential for maintaining order, as they clarify which authorities are responsible for particular issues, helping to prevent conflicts of authority and enabling efficient governance. However, overlapping or unclear jurisdictions can lead to confusion, conflicts, and inefficiencies, especially in cases involving multiple governing bodies or cross-border issues.
Three models of network coordination
- Participant governed
- Lead organisation governed
- A “Network Administrative Organisation”: external, independent organisation nominated to coordinate
“issue-attention” cycle
immediate concerns and calls for action run up against the difficulties and costs involved in correcting or altering relevant policy behavior. Government and public attention drifts elsewhere until the issue is again raised to the forefront of public or government attention by some event and/or interest group.
agenda
a list of issues to which the public, the media, governmental officials and others in the policy community are saying some serious attention at any given time and that are sometimes acted upon. What is on the agenda is influenced by demographics, political/ economic situation
stages of the agenda-setting cycle
Inside issue initiation: This stage occurs when policy actors within the government identify and define policy problems, often using their institutional knowledge and resources to shape solutions. Government insiders control the timing and framing of the issue as it moves through policy-making processes.
Outside issue initiation: Initiated by external actors like interest groups, the media, or the public, this stage involves pushing an issue onto the government agenda, often using public pressure and advocacy. These actors must have political resources and skills to navigate obstacles and influence government decision-makers.
Issue articulation: Policy actors clarify and frame the issue in this stage, often using data and theoretical frameworks to ensure their definitions are valid and persuasive. This framing helps shape the public and government’s understanding of the problem, directing the policy discourse.
Issue expansion: This stage involves broadening the scope of the issue by gaining wider support, involving more stakeholders, and aligning the issue with other relevant problems. Actors work to increase the salience of the issue, ensuring that it gains more attention across different sectors and actors.: make others care abt ur issue
Agenda Entrance: In this final stage, the issue successfully enters the formal government agenda, often facilitated by identifying policy windows. This entrance can be strategic, influenced by timing, political support, and readiness of proposed solutions.
Agenda universe
Systemic agenda: all ideas, usually kind of radical, but they are brought all to the table to discuss
Institutional agenda: all issues that are currently being considered by a governmental institution= they made their way into decision-making settings
Decisions agenda: all issues that are about to be acted upon in a governmental institution
venue shopping
Venue shopping in agenda setting is a strategy used by interest groups, policymakers, or activists to advance their issues by shifting their advocacy to different policy-making arenas or “venues” where they believe they have the best chance of success. Rather than focusing exclusively on a single legislative body or agency, they may present their issues across various levels of government (local, state, national), branches (legislative, executive, judicial), or even within the private sector, media, and public opinion.
For example, environmental advocates might “shop” for venues by initially lobbying for climate policy in a state legislature; if unsuccessful, they might turn to federal courts, regulatory agencies, or international bodies, adjusting their approach to the venue’s unique decision-making processes. Venue shopping is often used when existing channels are unresponsive or resistant, and it allows advocates to capitalize on differences in jurisdiction, political makeup, or policy priorities across venues.
groups and models for agenda-setting
bottom-up: social mobilization, media-driven
top-down: party-driven, state-driven, silent action, international
Policy Entrepreneur
A policy entrepreneur is an individual or organization that promotes innovative ideas and works to influence the policy agenda by seizing opportunities to advance their preferred policies or reforms. Policy entrepreneurs may be politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, or lobbyists who identify issues, build coalitions, and strategically navigate the political landscape to push their ideas forward. They are often proactive in creating alliances, framing issues compellingly, and taking advantage of “policy windows”—moments when political conditions make it easier to introduce change.
Policy entrepreneurs are crucial in bringing attention to emerging issues or overlooked problems, as they actively work to shape public opinion, garner media attention, and persuade decision-makers. For example, Rachel Carson, with her book Silent Spring, acted as a policy entrepreneur by raising awareness of environmental dangers, which contributed to policy changes in environmental protection.
policy windows
- routinized windows: in which routinized procedural events such as budget cycles dictate agenda openings;
- discretionary windows: where individual political preference on the part of decision-makers dictates window openings;
- random windows: where unforeseen events, such as disasters or scandals, open agenda windows; and
- spill-over windows: where related issues are drawn into already opened windows in other sectors or issue areas, such as when railway safety issues arise due to the increased attention paid to airline or automobile safety due to some crisis or accident (Howlett 1998).
