Policy Making and Governance Concepts

Knowledge required for effective policy-making can be categorized into three key aspects:

1. Analytical: Understanding the 'what' or the nature of the issue, problem, or opportunity, involving data analysis, research, and understanding causal relationships.
2. Operational: Understanding the 'how' or the feasibility and effectiveness of different policy interventions. This involves identifying potential solutions, considering implementation strategies, and evaluating potential consequences.
3. Political: Understanding the 'who' or the actors involved in the policy process, including their interests, power dynamics, and potential alliances. This involves analyzing political feasibility, negotiating compromises, and navigating stakeholder interests.

Uncertainty in policy-making is unavoidable. There are four types of uncertainty:

1. Known Knows: Information we are certain we possess, representing our existing knowledge base.
2. Known Unknowns: Things we acknowledge we don't know, prompting further research and investigation.
3. Unknown Unknowns: Unforeseen events or factors that we are unaware of, posing significant challenges to policy design and implementation.
4. Unknown Knows: Information we unknowingly possess, potentially influencing our decisions in ways we are not fully conscious of, highlighting the need for critical self-reflection.

Common decision-making failures in policy can significantly hinder effective policy outcomes:

1. Hesitation/Paralysis: Unable to make decisive decisions, often stemming from fear of making the wrong choice or facing criticism, leading to missed opportunities or exacerbating problems.
2. Cognitive Bias: Our inherent mental shortcuts and biases can influence our judgments, leading to irrational decisions and overlooking crucial information.
3. Short-Termism: Focusing solely on immediate gains or political expediency, neglecting long-term consequences and sustainability, creating unintended negative consequences.

Network governance refers to a collaborative approach to addressing complex issues involving a network of interdependent actors who work together for a shared public purpose. It emphasizes cooperation, coordination, and shared decision-making among diverse entities.

Network governance can take two main structural forms:

1. Formal: Involves formal agreements, contracts, or institutions between autonomous organizations, providing clear guidelines and structures for collaboration.
2. Informal: Relies on unofficial agreements, shared understandings, and trust among individuals or organizations with common interests. This form emphasizes collaboration, flexibility, and adaptability, but may lack clear institutionalization and enforcement mechanisms.

Multi-level governance expands the concept of network governance to encompass multiple levels of decision-making and collaboration. It acknowledges that addressing complex issues often requires cooperation among actors at different jurisdictional levels.

Multi-level governance takes two main forms (scopes):

1. Type 1 (Russian Doll): Multi-level government arrangements characterized by non-intersecting and hierarchical relationships. For example, the European Union's (EU) policies often operate at a supra-national level, encompassing national governments.
2. Type 2: Functionally specific policy regimes involving overlapping jurisdictions and collaborative efforts between different levels of government. For example, transboundary governance addresses issues like water management, where collaboration across national borders is essential.

Loss of territorial synchrony describes the challenges associated with addressing inter-connected problems within today's context of multi-level governance. Challenges include:

1. Lack of Control: Due to the complexity of interconnected systems, individual governments may have limited control over specific issues.
2. Complexity: Addressing problems effectively often necessitates collaboration across multiple levels, which can be challenging to coordinate and manage.

Agenda setting is the process by which governments decide which issues deserve attention and resources. It is a highly competitive process, as various actors compete to influence the government's policy priorities.

There are different types of agendas that play a role in the policy process:

1. Systematic Agenda: Consists of all conceivable issues that could be considered by those involved in policy-making. It's a vast and overarching concept.
2. Institutional Agenda: Refers to the issues that are currently being actively considered by a specific government institution. More specific than the systematic agenda.
3. Decision Agenda: Includes the issues that are immediately under consideration for action by a government institution. This is the most specific and focused agenda.

Policy windows represent opportunities for specific issues to gain attention and momentum within the policy process. There are four main types:

1. Routinized Windows: Opening routinely due to established cycles, such as budget allocation, elections, or legislative sessions.
2. Discretionary Windows: Emerging based on the preferences and priorities of decision-makers, allowing for strategic action.
3. Random Windows: Unforeseen events, such as crises, protests, or natural disasters, can drastically shift attention and priorities.
4. Spillover Windows: Issues spill over from another sector or field, gaining attention due to their interconnected nature or perceived relevance.

Bottom-up agenda setting emphasizes the role of local actors, decentralized processes, and social mobilization in shaping policy priorities. It gives voice to grassroots concerns and challenges.

Bottom-up agenda setting is characterized by:

1. Social Mobilization: Collective actors, such as social movements, community groups, and non-governmental organizations, exert pressure to raise awareness of an issue and gain support.
2. Media Driven: Media coverage can play a pivotal role in framing, amplifying, and shaping public perception of an issue, influencing its prominence on the agenda.

Top-down agenda setting is driven by elites, political leaders, and centralized processes, prioritizing issues that align with their strategic interests and policy objectives.

Top-down agenda-setting is characterized by:

1. Party Driven: Political parties set priorities based on their platforms and electoral promises
2. State Driven: Government agencies and bureaucracies play a significant role in shaping the agenda, often through policy proposals, initiatives, and regulations.
3. Silent Action: Agenda-setting can occur subtly, as government actions, or inaction, influence the focus of policy debate.
4. Internationally Driven: Global pressures and international organizations can influence national priorities and agenda-setting.

Bottom-up agenda setting is decentralized and driven by grassroots actors while top-down is centralized and driven by elites and institutions.

The agenda-setting process progresses through four distinct stages:

1. Issue Initiation: The emergence of a problem or concern that gains initial attention.
2. Issue Articulation: Framing and defining the issue in a way that resonates with decision-makers and the public.
3. Issue Expansion: Gaining broader support and attention for the issue, building momentum for action.
4. Agenda Entrance: Ultimately, achieving recognition and formal placement of the issue on the government's policy agenda, potentially leading to specific policies or programs.

Issue articulation refers to the process of framing and defining an issue in a way that makes it understandable and relevant to decision-makers and the public. It involves shaping how the issue is perceived and understood, potentially influencing its importance and urgency. There are two main types of issue articulation:

1. Inside: Issue articulation originates from those within the government, such as policy experts, government agencies, or political leaders.
2. Outside: Comes from individuals, groups, or organizations outside the government, influencing the framing of the issue through advocacy, media narratives, or public mobilization.

Global policy networks refer to groups of individuals and organizations that collaborate across national boundaries to address global issues. They work to raise awareness, mobilize support, and influence policy decisions on a global scale.

Influence on the agenda can be achieved through various strategies:

1. Information: Generating, disseminating, and framing new information. This involves making information accessible, providing evidence, and shaping narratives about an issue.
2. Framing Strategies: Altering how an issue is perceived and understood by shaping the narratives, symbols, and language used to discuss it.
3. Preferences: Connecting the issue to core values, interests, and political contexts. By understanding the preferences of decision-makers and the broader public, actors can tailor their messages and arguments to resonate better.

Gatekeepers are actors who influence policy decisions by controlling information flows and deciding which issues receive attention. They are information 'filters' that determine what reaches decision-makers and the public.

Understanding a problem deeply involves progressing through five key stages:

1. Labelling: Defining and classifying the problem. This involves understanding the nature of the problem and giving it a distinct label.
2. Victim Identification: Identifying those who are affected by the problem. This involves categorizing the affected population, potentially influencing policy responses.
3. Responsibility: Determining who or what caused the problem. This stage involves attributing responsibility, influencing who should take action.
4. Dramatise the Situation: Creating a compelling narrative about the problem that resonates with decision-makers and the public. It involves effectively communicating urgency and importance.
5. Action: Identifying potential solutions and mobilizing support for action.

Labeling plays a crucial role in agenda setting by connecting an issue to other issues or concepts, making it easier to place it on the agenda. This is known as 'coupling'.

Victim identification involves shaping perceptions of those affected by an issue. The 'social construction of the target population' refers to how society frames and understands the individuals or groups affected by a problem.
There are two main social constructions:

1. Positive Social Construction: Portraying the affected group as deserving and advantaged, increasing sympathy and support for action.
2. Negative Social Construction: Portraying the affected group as undeserving and disadvantaged, potentially hindering support for action.

Contestation arises during the 'responsibility' stage, as different actors debate and disagree about who or what is responsible for the problem. This can involve power struggles, competing interests, and efforts to influence the debate.