Players in a policy formulation process angle to have their definition of the problem rise to the surface. Problem definition holds political weight, because “some are helped and others hurt, depending on how a problem gets defined” (Kingdon, 1992, p. 111). If another player defines the problem as located in your department or agency, that player can deflect any scrutiny on his or her own turf. Players have real differences at times over goals, values, and even reality. Boleman (2003) states “[enduring] differences lead to multiple interpretations of what is important, even what is real.” (p. 204-5). Control over what is discussed is a clear advantage. Allison (1999) explains that “individuals may define a problem in radically divergent ways… the definition of the agenda and decision situation can be pivotal” (p. 282). The player who defines the agenda can frame the issue in a way that benefits their goals and priorities. Often those who have the ability to define the agenda are policy entrepreneurs who are able to capitalize on their power bases to get what they want (Kingdon, 1992, p. 179-80). Policy entrepreneurs see problems as opportunities to promote their own goals and agenda.
Just posting as a procrastination device for finishing this darn paper.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Does this mean that Rahm Emanuel is a policy entrepreneur or merely a policy entrepreneur enabler?
In either case, you are correct about controlling the message (and beyond the idea of "winning the news cycle"). The question remains, though, how successful is messaging when it generally does little more than trickle down into a vacuum (I assume we are speaking of the Houses of Congress)?
In the new reality, unfortunately, controlling the message may not be enough to get a project or an initiative going. The driver these days, amid the shortfalls and (questionable) bailouts, is funding.
Post a Comment