Agenda setting in public policy notes (comprehensive)

Context and introductory notices

• Copyright and reproduction notice: The material has been reproduced and communicated by the Australian National University under copyright law. Do not reproduce or remove the notice.

Agenda setting and the policy cycle: core questions

• Focus of the week: agenda setting in public policy.
• Start from framing: identify what we care about and which public policy changes or consolidations are possible.
• Key questions:
  • What do we mean by agenda setting and why is it important to study?
  • Why do researchers, students, and policymakers care about policy agendas?
  • How can we think about and define a policy agenda? Who has policy agendas?
  • Why focus on climate change versus other issues (e.g., national security)?
  • Within climate change, why emphasize a carbon price versus investments in R&D?
  • What shapes policy agendas and under what conditions can an agenda shift occur?
  • What are critiques or reflections on agenda setting?

The policy cycle frames: institutions, interests, and ideas

• Institutions: can be physical, organizational, or social norms that structure how policy is made; they shape how policy is framed and implemented.
• Interests: who wants what on the agenda? Who benefits from certain policy outcomes? Who wants to keep issues off the agenda?
• Ideas: ideologies, assumptions, shared understandings among policy actors; framing matters for what is seen as a policy problem and what counts as a policy solution.
• Configuring the problem: how problems are defined (e.g., housing affordability) changes which policies are seen as appropriate or possible.
• Interactions across the three frames: institutions, interests, and ideas interact to shape what counts as a policy problem and which solutions gain traction.

Framing policy problems and framing the policy cycle

• Framing matters: the way a problem is described can lead to different policy responses (e.g., poverty framed as personal responsibility vs. systemic failure).
• Example framing: housing affordability can be seen as a problem of individual wealth accumulation or as a government failure to provide affordable housing/supportive policies.
• The policy cycle flows from agenda setting to policy formulation, implementation, evaluation, and back to iteration; problem framing guides the rest of the cycle.
• Canonical examples keep recurring (e.g., housing affordability) to illustrate how different frames lead to different policy responses.

What counts as an agenda? The hierarchy of agenda levels

• The agenda universe: all potential ideas that could be discussed; effectively near-infinite.
• The systemic agenda: ideas discussed in society and considered publicly as policy ideas.
• The institutional agenda: ideas discussed by active participants in the policy process (bureaucracy, interest groups, government) and engaged in deliberation.
• The decision agenda: ideas that actually lead to formal policy change (formulation, implementation, evaluation).
• Dynamics: multiple agendas exist simultaneously and intersect; productivity, renewable energy, and climate policy can intersect with other policy agendas (e.g., productivity policy). A policy change can occur when multiple agendas cohere to justify it.
• The role of outsiders: researchers, citizens, and interest groups can analyze and influence which ideas move from systemic to institutional to decision agendas.

The policy agenda framework: tasks for researchers and students

• Distinguish between broad vs. narrow policy agendas; the boundary is not fixed.
• Data can show which policy domains attract attention across surveys, but there is variability and overlap.
• Reasons issues do or do not enter the decision agenda depend on competition for attention and resource constraints.
• The same issue may be treated differently in different times or contexts depending on framing, attention, and political context.

What explains agenda entry? Factors beyond chance

• Pure randomness explains some variation but is unsatisfying; researchers look for objective conditions and other factors.
• Objective conditions and data: indicators like poverty measures or disaster events can raise salience (e.g., natural disasters can push climate change onto the agenda).
• Political cycle: proximity to elections tends to shift attention to issues salient to voters; immediately after elections, authorities may focus on different (often more distant) issues.
• Ideas and framing: narratives, ideologies, and the way problems are framed influence which policy responses are considered viable.
• Attention and attention entrepreneurs: some actors are exceptionally good at drawing and sustaining attention (e.g., attention entrepreneurship); attention tends to be limited in duration unless sustained by powerful actors or mechanisms.
• Institutional and technological environment: the structure of institutions and the availability of technology influence how attention is distributed and how issues can be framed.

The three streams model (Kingdon): convergence to agenda-setting

• Problem stream: indicators, crises, or recognized signs of a problem; are there identifiable and agreed-upon problems?
• Policy stream: potential solutions and proposals among policymakers, experts, and analysts; are there viable policy options?
• Political stream: public mood, electoral calendar, and the distribution of power; who can push or block proposals?
• Convergence: an issue moves onto the policy agenda when these three streams converge.
• Note: Kingdon distinguishes the governmental agenda from the institutional agenda; many formulations refer to the broader institutional agenda, while the governmental agenda is the subset actively considered by government actors.

Inside government: competition for agenda space

• The competition for agenda space within government is relentless and often proportional to attention and resources, not necessarily to actual impact.
• A useful heuristic: more attention does not always mean higher impact; attention is a necessary but not sufficient condition for impact.
• Policy advice is crucial: clear, concise, and actionable recommendations increase the likelihood that issues gain traction.
• The party and ministerial preferences matter: in Westminster systems, party platforms help explain agenda priorities, but individual ministers (e.g., Penny Wong, Chris Bowen, Tanya Plibersek) can significantly shape the policy agenda within their portfolios.
• Cabinet and institutional constraints still apply; ministers do not have complete autonomy, but individual preferences matter.

Elites, outsiders, and how agendas are shaped

• Elites (heads of departments, ministers) are exposed to both internal and external advice:
  • Internal: departmental briefings, ministerial advisers shape preferences.
  • External: lobbyists, advocacy groups, think tanks influence the agenda.
• Time and capacity constraints mean that advice needs to be efficient and targeted with clear recommendations to influence elite thinking.

A framework for outside influence: four-mode matrix of policy communities

• Four modes defined by the combination of old vs. new ideas and limited vs. competitive policy actors:
  • Monopolistic/old ideas with monopolistic actors → relatively stable, incremental change (status quo).
  • Old ideas with new entrants (new actors) → reframing and some policy change, but limited.
  • New ideas with the same actors → increased contestation and possible reform, but not necessarily wholesale change.
  • New ideas with new entrants → high contestation and potential for innovative policy change, but risk of policy chaos or uneven uptake.
• This matrix helps explain how the policy community structure shapes the pace and direction of reform.

Case study: productivity and the economic reform roundtable

• The Australian government is convening an Economic Reform Roundtable focused on productivity.
• Participants: academics, business leaders, unions, and public servants; organized with some pre-meetings.
• Why productivity as a lens? It reframes a narrow technocratic policy to include broader concerns and cross-cutting policy domains.
• Reframing efforts include
  • Care economy: childcare and aged care; improving efficiency can raise female labor force participation and overall productivity.
  • First Nations economies: integrating indigenous economic activity into productivity discussions.
  • Skills and technology: ongoing relevance, with emphasis on how education and R&D affect productivity.
• Expansion of the policy community: from economists and the Productivity Commission to a broader set of actors, bringing new ideas and priorities.
• Three-stream framing for productivity:
  • Problem stream: indicators show productivity growth flattens post-World War II peak; a slowdown in productivity growth is observed.
  • Policy stream: generation and convergence around solutions to boost productivity.
  • Political stream: timing near or just after elections affects openness to considering productivity as a priority.
• Outcome: productivity is used to illustrate agenda expansion, moving from a purely economic concept to a social-inclusive agenda that also informs education, care, and indigenous economy considerations.

Critical questions for empirical deep dives

• How responsive are institutional agendas to shifts in public opinion? Compare public opinion data with parliamentary debates; overlap exists but is not perfect.
• Why are some issues actively considered while others are not? Consider agenda denial and the empirical challenges of explaining why certain issues meet all criteria yet are still ignored (Cobb and Ross emphasis).
• Representation and participation: who participates in agenda setting? How inclusive is the process and who may be excluded?
• The importance of examining not just what is on the agenda but what is off the agenda.

Tutorial focus and application: housing affordability case study

• Objective: apply the three-stream model to housing affordability as a policy domain.
• Questions to explore in tutorials:
  • What are the problem, policy, and political streams in housing affordability?
  • How can the attention cycle explain why some housing affordability issues dominate or fade from discussions?
  • Which formal political institutions influence whether housing affordability issues reach the agenda, and which do not?

Closing notes and reflection on agenda setting

• Agenda setting connects to the broader policy cycle and helps explain why issues appear or disappear from government attention.
• The analysis involves examining institutions, interests, and ideas, as well as external and internal influences on elites and policy communities.
• The upcoming sessions will revisit and solidify the concepts and apply them to concrete cases like housing affordability.
• The lecturer noted an upcoming break and that further discussions will continue in the next lecture and tutorial.