Policy Agendas in British Politics

P. John, A. Bertelli, W. Jennings, S. Bevan

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9780230390409
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political History & Theory
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Using a unique dataset spanning fifty years of policy-making in Britain, this book traces how topics like the economy, international affairs, and crime have shifted in importance. It takes a new approach to agenda setting called focused adaptation, and sheds new light on key points of change in British politics, such as Thatcherism and New Labour.

1

The Policy Agenda and British Politics

The policy agenda is the range of salient issues that the government and other key decision-makers concentrate on at any one point in time (Kingdon 1995, p. 3). Such topics can include the economy, health, education and foreign policy, and the content of the agenda can change according to shifts in priorities. While there is much in politics that is relatively stable, such as institutional rules or constitutions, the policy agenda is intended to reflect the set of problems a society faces at a particular moment in time and reveals how government directs action to areas where it thinks it is needed. The policy agenda is also distinct from the day-to-day tumble of political argument, scandals, leadership rivalries and exchanges between the political parties, which is about how politicians react to the pressure of events and to the controversies that are highlighted by the media—even if those events do often press upon policy. The agenda reflects strategic choices by elected politicians and other decisions-makers in and around government about which issues to attend to and to act upon—or at least give the appearance of acting upon—using the powers and authority of the state or executive under their control. The policy agenda often involves pre-commitment, that is, it is signalled some time in advance as a programme for government to implement. The idea is that a government should try to carry out its plan of action and as a result gain approval from the electorate at the end of its term in office.

Public policy is the substance of politics. Any government must attend to many general concerns, including managing a political party, keeping ministers in office, outmanoeuvring opponents, managing the civil service or more generally maintaining confidence in government. Yet a government or executive’s main job is to make concrete decisions about what to do about problems in society, and this is what most other elite participants in the political process—from interest groups to media organisations—are also engaged with. These issues fall into a number of categories depending on the problems to hand, whether it is regulating firms and markets, managing relations with foreign states, delivering the services of the welfare state, building infrastructure or responding to public disorder and crime, and so on. These are fundamental activities of the modern democratic state and concern different aspects of collective human experience as presented to policy-makers, which range from the need for housing, education and safety to the promotion of good health, for example. Government policies also shape the relationship of the institutions of the state to other actors, such as with its citizens or to other nation states, or concern the internal management or structure of public institutions.

Even though some aspects of these activities overlap, for instance, foreign affairs relates to economic policy in trade agreements, the distinctions are usually clear. Broad classes of topics encapsulate a diverse array of more narrowly and technically defined issues or problems. For example, economic policy incorporates issues relating to inflation, unemployment, the national debt, taxation, exchange rates and interest rates, and education policy covers the school curriculum, vocational training and universities. While much is said about the need to integrate policy across domains, a lot of the activity of modern states is specialised; and this creates a separate set of interactions and relationships between the participants and power holders within each sector. This is a basic claim of students of public policy, such as those who argue for a sub-government approach whereby many decisions are delegated to semi-independent policy communities (e.g. Freeman 1955; Richardson and Jordan 1979) or to policy networks of key organisations and groups (Marsh and Rhodes 1992b; Rhodes 1988; Richards and Smith 2002).

Actors in policy subsystems are usually preoccupied with routine issues, but to secure major reform they need the involvement of key decision-makers in the centre of government. While participants in the world of sub-governments spend the bulk of their time on their topic of specialisation—whether it is energy or agriculture, for example—peak or core decision-makers have the task of managing the national policy agenda. Their time and resources are scarce, and their attention cannot be guaranteed. The Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Cabinet Secretary cannot solely focus on the economy or foreign policy, though sometimes they might wish to do so during a period of crisis. These decision-makers must balance their time between issues and adjust their attention according to their perception of their relative levels of importance. In a foreign policy crisis, such as in 1982 when the UK’s Falkland Islands were occupied by Argentina, the decision-makers at the centre of government may well focus on a single topic, but they will not totally neglect others as that would create a backlog of policy-making. Moreover, acting on just one issue can make a government appear anxious rather than responsible. So within a legislative year, attention will be spread across many domains.

The reason the agenda is distinctive for each government—and for each year it is in office—is that it reflects priority of a given set of issues over another. It is often contended that this is due to practical limits to the number of matters politicians can attend to at any moment in time (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Jones 1995, 1999, 2009; Jones and Baumgartner 2005a, 2005b). Only so many bits of paper can land on a minister’s desk—or e-mails cross a screen—in a given day, week or month, and constraints on her or his attention entail a focus on a smaller number of issues than the total possible. We should be cautious using this argument, however, as a considerable apparatus is in place to process information for the consumption of elected officials. It is the job of the civil service and a cadre of special advisers—and other experts—to screen, process and prioritise information before it reaches the minister or other political decision-maker. To a certain extent, all decision-makers operate with limited information. Yet we would be quite surprised should they behave like lemmings when momentum builds to shift attention across the domains of public policy. We think it necessary to look elsewhere to explain shifts in attention rather than to extend a model of individual decision-making. Any mechanism behind policy agenda change must account for the capacity of organisations and the processing of information at the aggregate level.

The second reason for the limited space of the policy agenda is the degree of institutional capacity to respond to problems and concerns. Practical constraints in the legislative timetable restrict the range of topics that can be discussed, especially when gatekeepers and agenda setters exercise their preferences (Bräuninger and Debus 2009; Shepsle 1979). There are limits to the numbers of laws that can emerge from the legislature in a session, so the government sometimes has to choose, say, between a bill that will reform criminal prosecutions with one that reshapes the health service on the basis of what is politically, quite apart from cognitively, feasible. Further, there are limits to the finances available to fund these schemes as there are often spending ceilings the government cannot exceed. Since most laws cost public money to implement, a government needs to focus on what they can do within their spending targets, postponing legislation that is too expensive if need be. Effective constraints on the size of the agenda mean there is competition for space. Policy-makers need to choose to attend to one issue or another, which may have to do with its urgency or the priorities of decision-makers. It is unlikely that policy-makers would allocate an equal amount of attention to each issue or for initial allocations to remain set in the face of changing social, economic and political conditions.

There are also demands in the political system to respond to one or two pressing public problems rather than to the whole spectrum (Birkland 1997). This might relate to the cycling of issues as government addresses one issue or when the problems associated with it diminish (Downs 1972), whereas the pressing nature of a new problem demands a new set of activities, public statements, commissioning of research, which generate interest and feedback to all public decision-makers and those who work in the media. Crises have a habit of appearing, almost by accident—flooding, oil spills, large administrative errors or wars—and often require instant attention by ministers. Moreover, efforts to reform the system may bubble up from below for or come from international bodies, such as the European Union (EU). These may require a government to reform one sector followed by proximate areas impacted by the original reforms. In the US, the work of Adler and Wilkinson (2013) shows how measures to reform one issue often require a set of related changes. Many of these changes may happen away from the public eye in meetings of regulators and others responsible for the legal control of public activities (Page 2001), and which have further consequences for the larger policy agenda.

In any case, prioritising public policies is essential to the conduct of government. A lack of focus would almost certainly diminish a government’s effectiveness. It needs to create a successful set of policies upon which to base its re-election campaign. There has to be an active choice to prioritise, while at the same time acting responsibly by attending to the range of policy problems that confront citizens. Bertelli and John (forthcoming) relate the task of the government in choosing priorities to that faced by a fund manager in choosing financial assets. When allocating attention to policies, the government considers the return from conditional responsiveness to public priorities, the risk owing to variability in those returns and the uncertainty arising because the public has difficulty in articulating its priorities. Taking more risks in such conditional responsiveness in times when the public does not express clear priorities appears to be part of responsible government as it can help win elections (Bertelli and John forthcoming). The machinery of the state thus can be targeted toward some problems, while at the same time moving away from others when they have been addressed.

Partly for these reasons, it is reasonable to expect relative attention to issues to change in response to emerging issues and the priorities of political leaders and parties. Moreover, scholars have argued that policy entrepreneurs seek to realise opportunities so that certain issues rise to the top of the political agenda (Kingdon 1995; Mintrom and Norman 2009; Walker 1977), while the outcome of elections provide opportunities for political parties to carry out their manifesto promises (e.g. Hofferbert and Budge 1992; McDonald and Budge 2005), or when in government parties seek to make a difference when compared with parties of the opposing stripe (e.g. Alesina et al. 1997; Castles 1982; Garrett 1998; Imbeau et al. 2001; Keman 2006; McDonald and Budge 2005; Midtbø 1999; Robertson 1976; Schmidt 1996; Swank 2002).

Accounts of the policy agenda

To represent how the policy agenda changes over time, scholars have developed a number of approaches that draw on the foregoing insights. There is a large literature on agenda setting: some of it focused on the character (Cobb and Elder 1983) and the extent of bias in the agenda (Schattschneider 1960), while other works consider the causal mechanisms participants ascribe to represent their interests (Button 1978; Majone 1989; Stone 1989). Here we set out three approaches that are particularly concerned with the amount of attention given to specific policy arenas and how it changes, a question that has preoccupied some of the most influential students of public policy. Then we offer our own approach.

Incrementalism

The first approach is incrementalism, which was developed early in the intellectual history of public policy studies (see Braybrooke and Lindblom 1963; Dahl and Lindblom 1953; Davis et al. 1966, 1974; Lindblom 1959, 1975; Wildavsky 1984). This approach claims policy change occurs through a series of small-scale adjustments or non-radical changes. Groups both within and without the bureaucracy negotiate public decisions; policies emerge in gradual steps rather than in dramatic initiatives; policy-makers almost never review all available policy options; decision-makers take the previous time period as the base or benchmark from which to make adjustments to public spending; and politicians and bureaucrats apply norms or rules of thumb to arrive at decisions. The content of policy outputs rarely departs from a limited range of what decision-makers consider to be a fair distribution. Moreover, the political system is able to resist or limit the impact of major shifts in public opinion, and disagreements among competing interests may lead to little or no policy change as policy proposals are vetoed by powerful actors who occupy semi-autonomous fiefdoms amid fragmented political institutions.

Incrementalism has received much criticism from students of public policy. Many scholars question the claim that policy proceeds smoothly. Empirically, there are critical junctures when the agenda of the political system shifts, for instance, when parties have an influence on policy outcomes (Castles 1982; Hofferbert and Budge 1992) or when the indivisibility of a new programme like space exploration demands a large-scale policy change (Schulman 1975, 1980). The advocacy coalition approach to long-term policy change suggests key external shocks rarely happen, but when they do they disrupt the consensus about public policy, alter the membership of the coalitions and create large policy changes (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993).

There has also been a debate about whether confirmation or rejection of the incrementalist model depends on the measures and the data sources that studies use (Gist 1982; Natchez and Bupp 1973). There has been a lack of agreement on what is the definition of an increment, which can seem to incorporate any policy change, however large (Bailey and O’Connor 1975). Berry’s (1990) review of empirical studies observes the variations even in definitions of incrementalism, which makes comparison across the studies and data sources very hard to achieve. He doubts whether scholars measure the same thing and argues it is not possible to have a coherent definition of incrementalism. As a result of a sustained and virulent attack (e.g. Goodin 1982), the conclusion of many scholars is that incrementalism had been ‘thoroughly routed’ (Jones 2001, p. 142).

In spite of a plurality of critiques, it is possible to identify what Lindblom (1979, p. 517) calls a ‘core meaning’ to the term, which is a political pattern in which policy change only occurs at the margins, that is, ‘what will be the case tomorrow will not differ radically from what exists today’. When defined in this way, few scholars would claim that the model provides an inaccurate account of at least some periods of decision-making, such as the US in the interwar years, even if it is possible to find other periods when large changes did occur. At certain stages of decision-making, bureaucrats and politicians can evaluate the full range of options and take decisions that reflect the preferences of policymakers. At other phases, notably implementation, a more incremental style would prevail (Etzioni 1967). It is important not to underestimate the incremental model of decision-making as it corresponds with much of the routine of policy-making, and represents how decision-makers seek predictability and order in the policy process, such as when putting laws and budgets into place.

The issue attention cycle

A second account that has received some attention, especially in the textbooks (e.g. Parsons 1995, p. 115), is the issue attention cycle (Downs 1972), though it has recently—and unjustly—receded from view. This is the idea that problems hit the policy agenda because of a crisis. Publics and elites get focused on them, but after a while the interest declines. Downs (1972, p. 39) writes, ‘public attention rarely remains sharply focused upon any one domestic issue for very long—even if it involves a continuing problem of crucial importance to society … Public perception of most “crises” … does not reflect changes in real conditions as much as it reflects the operation of a systematic cycle of heightening public interest and then increasing boredom with major issues’. Stages of the issue attention cycle are as follows:

1. Pre-problem: some undesirable concern exists but has not been addressed, and may be even worse than when it is ultimately discovered.

2. Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm: an external event, like a riot in a city, leads to a call to do something.

3. Realising the cost of significant progress: costs come to light that may be significant, such as large public expenditures, substantial changes in lifestyles or technological difficulties.

4. Gradual decline of public interest: overall interest fades in the absence of a solution to the problem.

5. Post-problem: attention fades even though many policies and new institutions may have been introduced to deal with the problem.

Issues that have been through the cycle do get, on average, more attention than those that have not, so pre-problem conditions are not reintroduced, which is a common misperception of the model. Downs does not claim that all issues are capable of such a cycle, meaning that his is not a general theory of agenda setting. These kinds of issues usually affect a minority of the population, and solving them would incur high costs. So they tend to be issues that are on the outside the core agenda, which attract interest but then in time get relegated to the periphery once again. The issue attention claim has not been tested systematically (but see Peters and Hogwood 1985), and also attracts critics who believe that major agenda shifts do have the potential to stay in place (Baumgartner and Jones 2009, pp. 86–89, 101–102). Nonetheless, the model remains plausible and there is good reason to expect some issue attention cycles to appear in data on the priorities of policy-makers.

Punctuated equilibrium

The third approach is the punctuated equilibrium model, which posits long periods of stability in decision-making interspersed with periods of rapid change. In this, stable groups of policy actors, often protected by separated political institutions as in the US context, keep policy change to a minimum during long periods of equilibrium. However, political systems can at times undergo rapid changes that are in contrast to gradual adjustments to previous decisions. Periods of equilibrium can be punctuated by a large change in the priorities of the decision-making agenda, such as due to a change in partisan control, a decline in private sector profits or from a shift in public opinion (Jones et al. 2002, pp. 13–15). Issues gather momentum because interested participants, like those in the media, gravitate toward them. Once issues have enough impetus to change, they move rapidly from stasis to innovation in what Baumgartner and Jones (1993, p. 125) call positive feedback. It is important to note that punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of decision-making as such, but a claim about how focusing events affect decision-making processes (Kingdon 1995).

This claim has roots in the theory of organisations. Serial processing—when the results of one action are effectively requir...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• 1. The Policy Agenda and British Politics
• 2. Policy-Making and British Politics
• 3. Measuring the Policy Agenda: Policy, Public and Media in Britain
• 4. Change and Stability in Executive and Legislative Agendas
• 5. Policy Punctuations
• 6. Structural Shifts in British Political Attention
• 7. Public Opinion and the Policy Agenda
• 8. The Media
• 9. Budgets and Policy Implementation
• 10. Conclusion
• Notes
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index