Agenda-setting instruments: means and strategies for the management of policy demands

Abstract

Students of public policy have spent considerable effort setting out the types of policy instruments or tools available to policymakers in different stages of the policy process. A nascent strand of this important work concerns the agend-asetting phase, where scholars aim to understand the instruments -procedural and substantivethat government uses to shape the issues that it has to address. There is however limited engagement between scholarship on interest groups and this ongoing discussion around agendasetting tools. This paper aims to fill this gap by identifying different types of agenda-setting tools deployed by government which are used to shape engagement from organised interests. These tools are classified as those which governments use to routinise demands, regularise demands, generate demands, and impose issues onto the agenda. The paper refocuses attention of policy scholars onto the means and strategies that policymakers deploy to manage government agendas, a process which has clear implications for what becomes a policy problem and thereafter potentially subject to governmental action.

The Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools

“…The family of tools discussed in this chapter share the characteristic that they permit issues (back) on the agenda at set intervals (Bali and Halpin, 2021). Given their procedural anchorage, each of the tools de facto require those wishing to continue the policy to justify this position.…”

“…Further drawing on this typology, and as propagated in Howlett and Shivakoti (2014), the evaluation tools can be conceived as cases of authoritative policy instruments. Authority implies that governing bodies of the public sector, such as government agencies or parliaments, possess the power to demand evaluations (Bundi 2016;Pattyn et al 2019;Bali and Halpin 2021). They mandate certain procedural requirements in the policy-making process, to ensure that policies pass the test of effectiveness, efficiency, or other evaluation criteria often stipulated in law or regulations.…”

Do Australian policies enable a primary health care system to identify family adversity and subsequently support these families—A scoping study

“…Actors often advocate for issues and proposed solutions to be placed on the agenda; however, government policymakers must become engaged in the process for an issue to be formally addressed through policy 30 . Governments utilise several procedural tools within the agenda setting process to manage the range of issues and proposed solutions presented, including advisory groups, public submissions and citizen juries 35 . These different forms of consultation seek to build consensus between actors and policy makers as to the policy problem, and the range of solutions that seem credible 30 .…”

“…30 Governments utilise several procedural tools within the agenda setting process to manage the range of issues and proposed solutions presented, including advisory groups, public submissions and citizen juries. 35 These different forms of consultation seek to build consensus between actors and policy makers as to the policy problem, and the range of solutions that seem credible. 30 Within this policy scoping 78% of priority policies described some degree of consultation; however, a limitation of this review is that details of consultation, including the type, level and length of engagement with actors and public was not collected.…”

Conflict Resolution as A Game: The Government's Policy Agenda has Been Neglected Through Negotiation and Compensation

“…Furthermore, Firdaus et al, (2023) defines policy agenda as a process by which problems and alternatives gain or lose the attention of the public and elites, or the activities of various actors and groups that cause a problem from getting greater attention or prevent certain problems from getting attention. Agenda setting consists of four elements: power, perception, potential, and proximity (Bali & Halpin, 2021;Herd & Moynihan, 2019;Sabatier, 2019). Power is the priority element, allowing individuals or groups to influence policy decisions.…”