Description
2 Discussions
Unformatted Attachment Preview
In the next couple of weeks, you will have read Kingdon’s work on the
“garbage can” model of agenda setting. The central thesis, you might
recall, is that policy formulation and agenda setting rarely follow a neat,
sequential, or even rational order. The schoolhouse rock approach (ID a
problem, generate solutions, pick the best one, implement it) is often
insufficient in explaining how “an idea’s time come[s].” Problems, policy
solutions, and political considerations all operate as independent streams.
A successful policy entrepreneur is able to link or “couple” a problem and
a solution when the political winds shift in a favorable direction. This might
mean that policy actors already have some solutions they’d like to see
implemented before the recognize a problem they can tie to their pet
solution (if all you know how to use is a hammer, lots of things look like
nails). A real-time example of this phenomenon might be found in recent
policy proposals from across the world that ostensibly are designed to
contain the pandemic, but might also be useful in tracking citizens, limiting
gatherings, etc. Some worry that even after the pandemic is contained,
governments may want to keep some of these measures in place so that
they have more control over citizens of their respective jurisdictions.
Take a look at this CNN piece from relatively early in the pandemic. Are
we seeing the Garbage Can Model here? Consider, too, Downs’
argument (from the “issue-attention cycle” reading) that we, collectively,
have a finite attention span and will lose interest in news stories over time.
Is this what we are seeing with so-called “Covid fatigue?”
Curious to hear your observations!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/coronavirus-and-the-threat-to-de
mocracy-intl/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/coronavirus-and-the-threat-to-de
mocracy-intl/index.html
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
