Political Limits to the Processing of Policy Problems

Abstract

This contribution addresses political limits to the processing of policy problems in the United States. Our foci are the forces that limit policymakers' attention to different aspects of problems and how this affects the prospects for problem resolution. We theorize about three sets of forces: interest engagement, linkages among relevant institutions for policymaking, and partisan conflict. We show how the interplay of these forces limits efforts to address complex problems. Based on secondary accounts, we consider these underlying dynamics for ten complex problems. These include the thorny problems of the financial crisis, climate change, and health care; the persistent problems of K-12 education, drug abuse, and food safety; and the looming problems associated with critical infrastructure, the obesity epidemic, ocean health, and terrorism and extreme events. From these accounts we identify different patterns that we label fractured, allied, bureaucratic, and anemic policymaking.

How Solutions Chase Problems: Instrument Constituencies in the Policy Process

“…This idea of a third set of actors involved in policy formulation and adoption potentially forms an important foundation and refinement of the subsystem concept of policymaking. Significantly for the present article, however, it also provides a route to the better integration of policy theories with empirical studies that have highlighted the otherwise anomalous activity of “solutions chasing problems” (May, Jochim, and Pump ). Detaching consideration of the merits of policy means from goal definition, that is, helps explain the pursuit of specific kinds of tools and designs in policymaking, regardless of their feasibility or political viability at any specific point in time (Bock ; Gunter, Hall, and Mills ; Larner and Laurie ; Palier ; Stavins ) allowing, at least in theory, for the possibility of solutions preceding problems, as Kingdon () observed in his work.…”

Contemporary Policy Challenges in Protecting the Homeland

“…Many subsystems in the homeland security policy domain lack policy learning or even clear objectives. May, Jochim, and Pump () describe this policy domain as Fractured Policymaking, where “despite the evident limits of this regime, the homeland security apparatus has been sustained politically by partisan coalitions in Congress who benefit from fomenting concerns about terrorism" (p. 110). In this case, a political system must acknowledge and equitably address normative concerns, but so too must there be some ability to limit those concerns.…”

A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem-solution space

“…Several policy sciences scholars have attempted to determine the 'wickedness' of policy issues and problem structures (Roberts 2000;Head 2008;Hoppe 2011;May et al 2013;Alford and Head 2017;Carley and Christie 2017). Accordingly, the degree of wickedness can be seen as combination of different dimensions (Head 2008).…”

“…contestation referring to the degree of normativity related to an issue. Contestation is seen as the result of diverging claims, values and framings, or the inherent conflicts of interest resulting from social pluralism and stakeholder divergence (Hoppe 2011;Alford and Head 2017);(ii) complexity understood in institutional terms is caused by the multi-scalar and multidimensional nature of societal problem (May et al 2013;Carley and Christie 2017).…”

“…Wicked problems are also known as persistent problems in the transition literature(Rotmans and Loorbach 2009;Schuitmaker 2012). Other terms such as unstructured or incorrigible problems(Hoppe 2011), complex problems(May et al, 2013), or grand challenges(Cagnin et al 2012;Kuhlmann and Rip 2014) are related.…”