Australian Agenda for Combating HIV - Essay Example

Australian Agenda for Combating HIV Introduction In any country, the number of possible public matters or problems usually exceeds the ability of the government to address them. The proponents of any such issue, therefore, must try to win a position for it in the decision-making process. While one dimension of power is being able to sway the decision-making process, it is perhaps even more vital to have a say in setting the agenda. This article discusses the agenda-setting models in addition to analysing how these models have been involved in the formulation of health policy in Australia (Ackrill, 2011). Combating the transmission of HIV/AIDS, which remains among one of a number of communicable infections, has been one of the key components of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, the number of those struggling with the disease have been on the increase, hence necessitating the development of further health policy to address the predicament (Bache, 2011). Without question, the way governments handle healthcare or welfare programmes has significant consequences for politics and policy. Conversely, a number of variables can affect the crosswise systems of policy and politics (March, 1972). In particular, the writings and literature on policy agenda setting have argued that matters of public importance have agenda-setting features, which affects the politics. Prior to making important policy decisions, political actors and parties should first formulate an agenda for the deliberate purpose of placing particular matters at the center of political attention (Cram, 2005). In political science, the agenda-setting strategy embraces the idea that by dedicating their total attention to issues like healthcare, immigration, and the economy, different actors inside the political system can be able to inform the understanding of its fundamental processes and patterns (Cobb, 1972). Multiple Streams (MS) Model (Kingdon model) The multiple streams (MS) model, which is also referred to as the Kingdon model, puts forward a persuasive rationalisation of how ideas are put in open guidelines. In the public policy-making process, two factors determine whether issues will get on the agenda or not (NCHECR, 2005). One of the factors is the participants outside and inside government, while the other factor is the process, which includes a policy stream, a problem stream and a political stream. Each one of these three streams has a distinctive life; however, when the three streams come together, an obvious problem turns out to be imperative on the agenda. Consequently, policies that match the dilemma get attention and later a policy adjustment becomes probable (Shearman & McDougall, 2006). It is occasionally predictable but not always that the three streams will come together. Therefore, policy entrepreneurs that promote their own suggestions must be well set to take advantage of such opportunities (Ertl, 2006). Conversely, these strategy centers on policy entrepreneurs outside and inside the state who take the help of the agenda setting changes to policy windows to get matters to the state’s recognized agenda. Conceives policy emanates throughout the three split flows or procedures; the difficulty flow, or the discernment of tribulations as open issues involving government actions (Kingdon, 1995). In such cases, government notices the issues or problems that are in need of being addressed. In the policy stream, there are continuing analyses of problems so issues and the anticipated solutions are put forward to address the problems of the community (Allison, 2007). Hall Model According to the model by Hall, for a public problem or interest to be considered in a policy formulation or agenda setting, it has to be of legal value. Therefore, the model proposes that if a problem or issues are to receive government consideration and attention, they need to be of high legitimacy. Therefore, when the subject is of interest to the public and the government, yet the government has no legality or right to take action, then no action will be taken or policy be formulated (Yamamoto et al., 2006). Similarly, when the state has the legal right to intervene yet the issue is of no public or state concern or interest, no action will be taken. The extent to which the government or the public feel they must be concerned and have the right to intervene must be a matter of the feasibility. That is, any intervention is dependent on whether the government can do anything about the identified problem (ANCAHRD, 2000). For the agenda to be pushed through, it needs to have support, and the support can be from the private sector or the public sector. Similarly, the issue needs to gain support from the government officials who will push the agenda. The private sector includes those non-governmental bodies that are likely to be affected directly or indirectly by the policy. On the other hand, the public figures comprise everybody or the citizens that are likely to benefit from the policy. Thus, the agenda or the policy has to gain support from both parties involved for a legal policy to be developed (Australian Department of Health and Ageing, 2010). In addition, the rational actor model, together with structure, draws on realism, which regards the nation as composed of lucid unitary actors, and as the middle units in global relations. It stipulates that the state's objectives and nationwide security are what decide policy choices. State events are determined by global politics thus local politics is not pertinent. Drawing on the supposition of lucid choice, verdicts are prepared from cautiously measured government options, with the help of cost analysis for every option for making the most of the utility (Baumgartner & Jones, 2003). Commonalities and Differences of the Models Ordinarily, the two models share a need for support to push the agenda into the realm of policy. In relation to the Hall model, the necessary support could come from either public or private figures. For instance, to gain support, the issues need to be of concern to both the state administration and the community. If the issue affects only one party, it is likely that it will not gain support from other parties. Similarly, the Kingdon model requires a number of participants. For the agenda to be pushed forward, the participation of both the government and the public is required (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2004). Therefore, both models address the needs of the public. The disparity between these two models is that, in the Kingdon model, the issue has to be of concern to the government; therefore, when the matter of concern does not take the attention of the government, it is not likely to be considered in policymaking (Yamamoto et al., 2006). On the contrary, the Hall model does not put forward the government's interest. The Hall model considers the support from both parties, as well as whether the government has the legal right to take action. Differences also arise because the Kingdon mode considers the political stand. The political party can play a part in pushing for an agenda, which could enable the party to achieve their manifestos or objectives. Some of the participants are those within the government and some are those outside. Because those within the government include the political appointees, they usually place proposals and ideas on the agendas of significant people. Such actors are mainly interested in promoting matters from inside their own groups and arrive at a number of their main concerns from their connections with the president House. These actors also generate considerable numbers of the options from those that are preferred by the president House people (Birkland, 2006). In the Kingdon model, the political stream consists of such issues as the difficulty of assembly promotion, the outcome of votes, the need to establish an open atmosphere for discussion, the philosophical views or circulation of members in the legislature, as well adjustments of administration. Adjustments or alterations in the flow of opinion have a commanding effect on agendas. In the political stream, the building of agreements is determined through bargaining. Contrary to the nature of the political involvement in the Kingdon model, the Hall model is not involved in political matters, as it addresses the matters that are of concern to the government and those that address the problems of the public (Health Outcomes International et al., 2002). Strengths and weakness of the models It is argued that Kingdon’s model is a proactive model, in that it postulates conditions in which the decision makers do not need have to wait for a problem to arise before crafting a solution. Rather, one formulates a solution first, looks for the right problem to arise, and under the right political conditions, attaches his or her solution to that problem (NCHECR, 2005). According to Yamamoto et al. (2006), this differs from the conventional perception of policy making as a responsive or approachable process to problems and events; that is, it enables the participants in a problem to be proactive and practical in bringing pre-existing elucidation to an agenda that would otherwise not be available (Yamamoto et al., 2006). Kingdon stated that the model is about ideas and issues whose time has come; seen in this light, pre-existing resolutions are such ideas. Bearing in mind the emphasis on the pre-existing answer, and the manipulation of policy entrepreneurs to affix these solutions to troubles, Kingdon’s model is more appropriate for testing and analysing policymaking arguments than other relevant domestic-policy models. The other strength related to the Kingdom model concerns the participation of different stakeholders. The participants are the government and the public, hence, it is the concerns of these parties that must be addressed. As for the model's weakness, Legro (2000) presented one of the more likely analyses. He exposed the unfeasibility of fabricating a solution based on Kingdon’s model. In addition, the model is considered deficient in shrewdness, in which it differs from ACF. As a process involves different participants, finding a solution will take a long time, plus the model is dependent on the problem capturing the attention of the government. If this latter does not occur, there is a possibility that no rule will be formulated. If the concerns or problems of the community are not addressed, the population will not benefit. Similarly, one weakness of the Hall model is that it only formulates policies that the government is in a position to address. When the predicament that is of public concern is not yet an issue of legal debate, the government will not give the matter its attention, hence the population’s problems will not be addressed (Yamamoto et al., 2006). Elements of Kingdon's model in relation to reducing HIV in Australia Kingdon (1995) stated that there are three main families or streams of processes, which unite in the governmental-agenda setting. This consists of the problem acknowledgment or the 'problem stream', refinement and formation of policy proposals or the 'policy stream', and lastly the 'political stream' or the politics involved in policy formulation. The problem stream is where tribulations or problems, through gauges or indicators, capture the attention of the decision makers. Kingdon (1995:109) revealed that conditions and the situation become an issue or problem when actions have to be taken. Kingdon further argued that entrepreneurs strive to emphasise a problem by stressing its indicators. In relation to cases of HIV/AIDS cases in Australia, despite the government intervention, the incidence rate has been on the rise, increasing at an alarming rate. Therefore, the increase of HIV cases is the indicator of the problem in Australia, which calls for intervention to curb the increasing incidences (Health Outcomes International et al., 2002). In that regard, it is essential to try to define and understand the problem in a manner that puts the attention and consideration of policymakers, as well as the entire public, on the problem. Conversely, issues and predicaments do not become perceptible via indicators only; frequently, they need an extra push by a focusing occurrence such as a disaster. It is always important to correlate the problem with the disaster. A disaster is defined as an event, fabricated or natural, progressive or sudden, which occurs with such severity that the affected society has to react by taking extraordinary measures. Ackrill (2011) argued that disasters are constantly unexpected and that an impulsive event will lead to an uneven amount of concentration on the matters exposed by the latest disaster (Ackrill, 2011). Cram (2005) stated that democratic political structures show substantial stability over a long duration of time but that permanence is disturbed or punctuated with eras of volatile and significant changes. That, in turn, has the effect of bringing changes in the matters that land on the program or the agenda (Cram, 2005). In 2013, it is estimated that over 25,708 citizens are infected with HIV/AIDs in Australia. These figures point to the problem being one of the major ones confronting the society. When policies that address the problem are applied with appropriate urgency, people living with HIV can be helped to live a better life and receive appropriate medical attention. This will also help to reduce the cases of transmission among citizens (ANCAHRD, 2000). Under this situation, any change or alteration in policy would have to be accompanied by accessibility to the adjustment in ideas. Legro (2000) revealed that adversity causes an alteration in how the adversary is perceived, leading to a modification in the level of warfare toward that adversary. Legro (2000) further added that a modification in behavior or actions depends on whether decision makers identify that idea modalities are not sufficient anymore and that these must be substituted with new forms of ideas. Finally, Birkland (2006:20) argues that change is more probable when thoughts become more outstanding after actions compared to when they do not. Conversely, in the second stream, Kingdon (1995) proposed that for novel ideas to become important, they must be proposed to the participants before the focusing actions can take place (Legro, 2000). The policy stream is where the refinement and formation of fresh ideas and policy suggestions take place. The policy fraternity, composed of researchers, congressional members, academics, staffers, and interest group analysts, interrelate and circulate information in what Kingdon referred to as the 'primeval soup'. Bills are brought, dialogues are made and proposals are usually formulated, in an attempt to soften up the universal public and the targeted community to the lately proposed ideas. These societies have policy entrepreneurs who assume the place of advocates for their favoured ideas, and whose crucial characteristic is their keenness to spend time and resources for pushing their policies from the beginning to the end. Numerous ideas are created, but only those with particular criteria survive the assortment process: technical viability, value suitability within the policy population, public acceptance, tolerable costs and receptiveness among selected officials. Lastly, when a chance is offered, a solution or proposal has to be prepared, or else the chance could be lost (Yamamoto et al., 2006). The political stream includes changes in the election results, the national ideological mood or partisan distribution in administrations and the congress. How politicians distinguish the national mood, also recognised as the atmosphere in the country, adjustments in the public estimation, or a wide range of social actions influences what policies will be supported. A transformation in the management, or in the supporter’s division, in the congress, leads to the prominence of a diverse and new precedence for the agenda. In addition, Kingdon recommends that suggestions be added to the program via a process of the pairing of these streams. Alison (2007) illustrated that pairing entails policy entrepreneurs winning advantage through policy opportunities or windows, in either the political stream or problem stream, by attaching the predicament to a favoured solution, and approaching it through an approachable political system (Allison, 2007). On the other hand, to thrive in their venture, policy entrepreneurs have to be equipped to act rapidly when a window of prospects opens, otherwise the chance may vanish before they have the opportunity to push their suggestions through. Finally, the presumption in the structure is that if the government carries out an action, that act is the consequence of a pre-existing resolution attached to a predicament at the correct political instance and pushed onto the program by sneaky entrepreneurs (Ertl, 2006). In summary, all of the five fundamentals of this structure can be achieved only through a long, drawn-out process. Primarily, the difficulty flow covers all the circumstances that the legislative representatives describe as tribulations; such as, in the case of HIV cases, for example, they have to settle on to ensure it is done impressively (Kingdon, 2003). Indicators (statistical), focusing actions or feedback might signal such circumstances (from accessible programmes). Subsequently, the guiding principle flow refers to all the policy options accessible for a scrupulous meadow, figuratively suspended in a strategic primeval soup. Subsequently, the opinion flow comprises all that Kingdon referred to as the country-wide feeling (fundamentally, the community view towards a specific matter) and determination earnings (which brings ideological change). Major criteria for picking guidelines are scientific probability, their normative reception by its society as well as the limitations for their own prospects. Conversely, these flows alone contain no instructive worth, considering the deficiency of plan entrepreneurs and strategy windows.(Kingdon, 1995). Conclusion Healthcare systems have to keep pace with the ongoing remarkable advancements in innovation. Governments have been forced to react not only to the challenges of increasing demand and costs, but also to matters concerning the quality of care and effectiveness. There are various approaches to explaining the Australian health policy agenda setting. The commonly used models include the Kingdon model, the Hall model and the rational actor model. According to the model by Hall, for a public problem or concern to be considered in policy formulation or agenda setting, it has to be of legal value. Therefore, the model proposes that if a problem or issues are to receive government consideration and attention, they must be of high legitimacy. In the rational actor model, the structure draws on realism, which regards the nation as being composed of lucid unitary actors, and as the middle units in global relations. In Kingdon’s model, the difficulty flow covers most of the given circumstances that the legislative representatives describe as tribulations in those instances when the legislative settles on doing something impressive concerning HIV cases. Indicators (otherwise or statistical), focusing actions, or feedback might signal such events (from available programmes). Subsequently, the strategy flow refers to all policy options accessible for a scrupulous meadow, figuratively suspended in the strategic primeval soup. Subsequently, the political flow comprises all that Kingdon referred to as being the countrywide feeling (fundamentally, the community view towards a certain matter), also determination earnings (which brings ideological change). Major criteria for picking rules concern scientific feasibility, as well as the normative reception from the given society as well as their prospect difficulties. Conversely, these three flows specifically contain no instructive worth towards the deficiency of rule entrepreneurs as well as policy window. References Australian Department of Health and Ageing (2010). Sixth National HIV Strategy 2010–2013. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.health.gov.au%2Finternet%2Fmain%2Fpublishing.nsf%2FContent%2Fohp-national-strategies-2010-hiv%2F%24File%2Fhiv.pdf&ei=ERw4U9PeHMzWsgb744G4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGI9YETJetZ9ETvxjH9kNIW-xVboA&sig2=EyjGJQdYdMPtEgAfEIiVYA&bvm=bv.63808443,d.Yms Australian National Council on AIDS, Hepatitis C and Related Diseases (ANCAHRD) (2000). Needle & Syringe Programs: A Review of the Evidence. Canberra: ANCAHRD. http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/TR.102.pdf Ackrill, K. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: the case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of Public Policy, 47–89. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501763.2011.520879#preview Allison, G. (2007). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Gladstone: Little Brown. Bache, G. B. (2011). Politics in the Aberdare Union, 3rd edition. Journal on Agenda Setting, 67. Baumgartner, F. B., & Jones (2003). Agendas and Instability in Bungendore Politics. Bungendore: University of Bungendore Press. Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change after Catastrophic Events. Talbingo: Talbingo University Press. Cobb, R., & (1972). Politics and Government; 1945-1989: Political Participation; Social Conflict. Allyn: Allyn and Bacon. Cram, L. (2005). Policy-making in the United Union. Conceptual Lenses and the Integration Process. Aberdare: Adventure Works. Ertl, H. (2006). European Union policies in education and training: the Lisbon Agenda. Comparative Education, 455. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. (2004). Australia-New Zealand & Southeast Asia Relations: An Agenda for Closer Cooperation. Singapore: ISEAS. Retrieved from: http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=y6V6kcDny-AC&pg=PA65&dq=Australian+Agenda+to+Combat+HIV&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tRg5U6rZPKmM5ASYhYHwDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Australian%20Agenda%20to%20Combat%20HIV&f=false Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. Bulgonia. Retrieved from: http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=Km1ceyA8p1cC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=strength+and+weakness+of+kingdon+model&source=bl&ots=TvIHpQFPiT&sig=PEQGpIw_ONKEAKBZeC8HyjZ-9CE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XoM1U5qXB-nH7Ab99YHICA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=strength%20and%20weakness%20of%20kingdon%20model&f=false Legro (2000). Modification in Behavior or Actions. Batemans Bay: Klin. Health Outcomes International, et al. (2002). Return on Investment in Needle and Syringe Programs in Australia. A report to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, prepared in cooperation with the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research and Prof. Michael Drummond. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Retrieved from: http://www.healthnetworks.health.wa.gov.au/modelsofcare/docs/HIV_Model_of_Care.pdf National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (NCHECR) (2005). HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis and Sexually Transmissible Infections in Australia Annual Surveillance Report 2005. Sydney: NCHECR. Retrieved from: http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/hiv/resources/2005AnnualSurvReport.pdf Shearman, P., & McDougall, D. (2006). Australian security after 9/11: New and old agendas. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Retrieved from: http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=f-5sdItrUeIC&pg=PA187&dq=Australian+Agenda+to+Combat+HIV&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sx05U5mfMsix4wSUjoCgAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Australian%20Agenda%20to%20Combat%20HIV&f=false Yamamoto, T., Itoh, S., Nihon Kokusai Kōryū Sentā, & Sekai Kikin Shien Nihon Iinkai (2006). Fighting a Rising tide: The response to AIDS in East Asia. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. Retrieved from: http://www.jcie.org/researchpdfs/RisingTide/australia.pdf Read More