Discussing the Policy Choices - Essay Example

Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould first proposed the concept of punctuated equilibrium (PE) to explain the evolutionary speciation patterns of organisms observed in the fossil record. In their original work, Eldredge and Gould (1972) described the process of speciation as rapid, episodic, and best represented by a PE process instead of a gradual process (p. 84). In evolutionary paleontology, the PE process works over a long period of time according to the following principles. First, any population of organisms has slight genetic variations within its individual members. Second, environmental changes isolate a small group of organisms within that population. Third, these new environmental conditions favor the further development of genetic variations within the isolated group. Over a short amount of time, which can last thousands of years in evolutionary paleontology terms, the descendants of the isolated group become a new species morphologically different from the original population (Eldredge & Gould, 1972, p. 94-95; Gould 2002, p. 766-768). As a result, organisms rarely show any gradual evolutionary change throughout their phylogeny. Instead, new species appear quite suddenly in the fossil record. Working from the theoretical insights of Eldredge and Gould, Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones used PE to explain their observations on public policy. Baumgartner and Jones (1 993) found that for long periods of observations on different policy subsystems, policy change rarely occurred (p. 17- 18). However, on rare occasions certain policy conditions fluctuated such as the venue for a policy debate or the public's image of a specific policy problem. Fluctuations in venue and image often led to a quick policy change that was immediately followed by additional long periods of policy stasis (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, p. 38). As a result, Baumgartner and Jones concluded that the evolution of any public policy followed a PE pattern rather than a gradual, incremental pattern. While Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones owed much of their insights on PE to Eldredge and Gould, they also used previous research from agenda-setting studies, the policy subsystems literature, and social choice theory to help configure the idea of PE to existing research on public policy. By using these three concepts from social science research, Baumgartner and Jones brought a theory from evolutionary paleontology to political science. This made PE a viable model of the policy process. With the incorporation of agenda-setting, the PE model had its basic political science foundation. Political scientists classify agenda-setting as a debate among advocacy groups, agencies, policymakers, the public, the media, and any other interested organizations over the problems that should be on the active policy agenda of policymakers (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, p. 10; Kingdon, 1995, p. 3). Once on the agenda, governmental debates over a policy problem occur and the probability of policy change increases. Therefore, agenda-setting becomes important in the PE model because it helps to describe the most fundamental part of policy change. Bringing a policy problem to the agenda is a tough process. Successful agenda-setting usually happens when the public directs the right mix of attention to policymakers on a policy problem that already has various solutions advocated by organized interests (Hunt, 2002, p. 75-76). This helps to change the image of the policy problem from the perspective of policymakers. Such a change in image also causes more policymakers to consider solving the problem with new legislation. When more policymakers know more about a specific policy problem, a change in venue for debates over the problem often occurs. By moving the policy discussion from its usual venue, such as a particular Congressional committee, policy change is more likely to occur. With the interaction of changing images and venues, more people become involved in the policy process and it becomes more open and more susceptible to change. This is an important process because policy venues are usually closed to outsiders. This helps to explain long periods of policy stasis. With the same actors involved with a particular policy and with the public usually indifferent to such a policy because the policy image has remained constant, policy change rarely occurs. However, with the interaction of changing images and different venues, the policy process becomes more open. The notion of a closed policy system originates from the subgovernment literature. The sub-government literature helped Baumgartner and Jones explain periods of stasis in policymaking, while agenda-setting research helped them understand why policy changed. To understand why policy change would quickly revert back to policy stasis, Baumgartner and Jones looked at the expansive literature on social choice theory. Basic research on social choice examines how individual preferences become group choices (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, p. 13). Researchers expand this basic concept to consider the fact that no policy and no election in a democratic society can ensure political equilibrium (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, p. 14). In other words, for every issue and every policy there will be an opposing group with views at odds with the current policy and political reality. This fact ensures non-equilibrium in policymaking. So if policymaking is not in equilibrium, how can this be resolved with the notion of long periods of policy stasis that is central to a PE model of policymaking According to Baumgartner and Jones (1993), the answer lies in the fact that most of the public is apathetic toward policymaking (p. 38). As a result, it takes a skilled policy entrepreneur to define a policy issue in terms that motivate the public to act (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, p. 38). In addition to public apathy, a closed policy subsystem helps to exclude new entrants to the policy process. All of these forces act to quickly ensure policy stasis after a policy change. A PE model of policymaking explains policy change as being dependent on a positive feedback system and serial processing. Baumgartner and Jones (2002) make clear that public policy subsystems are either in a state of positive feedback or negative feedback (p. 3). Most of the time, policy systems are in a negative feedback situation. This is policy stasis: a time of stability with no new policy outputs. During this time, small shocks to the policy subsystem can occur, but they are so small that the various policy actors within the policy subsystem can react to them and readjust actions accordingly (Baumgartner & Jones, 2002, p. 8-9). For example, when a pesticide storage container leaks into the drinking water supply of a small town, it causes a loud and vocal response from local citizens. Citizens complain about the problem to their elected officials and the media. In response, legislative bodies hold hearings on the matter. But ultimately, since it is an isolated incident, the legislative body passes no new pesticide regulations. Therefore, no new policy outputs occur. This is policy stasis and negative feedback. Actors within the policy subsystem readjust their plan of action to meet the crisis at hand. In this case, policymakers held hearings to examine the issue. But what if pesticide storage containers leaked into the groundwater supplies of communities across the nation In response to such a serious situation, more citizens across the country voice their concern to policymakers and the media. With greater media coverage, the image of pesticide regulations changes. Multiple legislative bodies across the country hold hearings on pesticide regulations. Now, policymakers, pesticide regulatory agencies, and agri-chemical interest groups know that a change in pesticide regulations has to occur. When the policy process opens up like this in response to a crisis, positive feedback occurs and often results in policy change. The process of positive feedback occurs as the public and the media focus more attention on a particular policy problem. This reveals new aspects of a policy problem to various actors in the policy subsystem. But more importantly, policymakers shift their attention to these new aspects since humans are serial information processors who can only think about one dimension of issue information at a time (Baumgartner & Jones, 2002, p. 15; see also Simon, 1985; Simon, 1997). As more of the policy subsystem shifts to this new aspect, more actors within the policy subsystem start to focus on this new aspect in a mimicking type of behaviour (Baumgartner & Jones, 2002, p. 16). The resulting effect is like rolling a boulder down a hill. As the boulder rolls down the hill, momentum constantly builds up in a positive reinforcing cycle. Except in the PE model, the need for policy change constantly builds up in policy actors due to a continual focus on a policy problem by the public and the media. In the PE view of public policy, policy subsystems are closed, unchanging systems maintained by dominant policy actors (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, p. 7-8). Points of stability such as the same venue for policy debates and a steady image of a public policy ensure that policy change rarely occurs (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, p. 38). When these points of stability become upset, new groups and new policymakers enter the policy process. As a result, when policy change happens, it is a remarkable event. Political scientists have used either the ACF or PE models to study the policy process for over two decades. However, political scientists have yet to directly compare these models to determine their accuracy and appropriateness for examining the policy process. This dissertation attempts to do that by using the ACF and PE models to examine policy change and the process of policy belief change among advocacy coalitions in the federal pesticide regulatory subsystem from 1982-2003. This is not an easy process since the models were never really designed for such an endeavor. For example, ACF researchers specify that policy beliefs play a major role in the policy process. Advocacy coalitions, bound by policy beliefs and the current socioeconomic and political reality, compete with one another to influence policy change (John, 2003, p. 490-491; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 118-119; Schlager & Blomquist, 1996, p. 657). However, policy beliefs are rarely mentioned in the PE model. About the only time they are mentioned is in discussions on agenda setting where they are mentioned as tipping-point mechanisms for policy change (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 147). As a result, the ACF model focuses more on group interactions and the changes in policy beliefs that occur because of those interactions rather than just on policy change like the PE model (Wood, 2006, p. 2). Even though an emphasis on policy beliefs sets the ACF and PE models apart, the two models do have similarities. For example, both models focus on the policy subsystem rather than on a specific group or institution. This continues the line of interest group research as first envisioned by Bentley in 1908. In addition, the two models emphasize policy change in their theoretical constructs. The ACF model explains that policy change occurs due to fluctuating policy conditions such as socioeconomic conditions and political factors that lead advocacy coalitions to change their policy beliefs. Similarly, the PE model explains that policy change occurs due to fluctuating policy conditions such as policy venues and policy images that cause a change in the perceived importance of an issue among the public, media, policymakers, and other organized entities. Both models also have their respective faults. The PE model often places too much emphasis on agenda-setting when describing the policy process (True, Jones, & Baumgartner, 1999, p. 97). While agenda-setting is important, it is only one aspect of the process of policy change. The process of policy change can also happen in other stages of the policy process such as enactment, implementation, or evaluation. In addition, the PE model really makes no attempt to specifically outline what forces lead to changing policy venues and policy images. In contrast, the ACF model at least theorizes that socioeconomic conditions and political factors are the primary motivators behind policy change and policy belief change. However, even more faults can be found with the ACF model. The largest fault of the ACF is that it is too broad. As a theoretical framework, the ACF is a mix of theories that attempts to explain the behavior of interest groups, agencies, policymakers, and other organized entities in the policy process; why policy changes at a particular time; the role of scientific and policy information in the formation of policy beliefs; and the cognitive processing limitations of individuals involved in the policy process (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 153-154). Unlike the PE model that primarily focuses on the process of policy change, the ACF model focuses on too many topics. As a result, because the ACF model explains so much, researchers continually question whether it really explains anything at all. Despite these problems, both models make useful contributions to research. At the most fundamental level, both models theorize about how policy changes. For the ACF model, policy beliefs of advocacy coalitions become transformed due to new socioeconomic conditions and political factors. In turn, these transformed beliefs help to change public policy. For the PE model, policy changes due to fluctuating policy images and policy venues that allow more people to enter the policy process and debate public policy. The issue that has to be further explored in both models is the role of policy beliefs in policy change. Read More