LIST OF PANELS

           Approximately 25 years ago when environmental policies became more visible in the developed world a concept entitled “focusing events” began to be used. Thomas Birkland defined them as large scale, sudden events that grab the attention of the public.  By 2021, Birkland had received funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation to continue the earlier work by applying those earlier concerns attached to environmental issues to the COVID-19 pandemic.

            While Birkland and his co-authors had some misgivings about the fit between the environmental policy experience and COVID -19, they were able to use both topics to illustrate important aspects of the policy development process.  There seemed to be a link between the literature dealing with the stages of the policy process and this topic.  Several scholars were interested in the initial stage that focused on framing the policy problem and providing a point of departure for decisionmaking, implementation and evaluation.

           Most examples of the early stages of this version of the policy process are triggered by some external action that is known and predictable (for example, the schedule of election timing). In this case, however, the process of developing policies and procedures to deal with the various shifts and needs of victims of COVID-19 has been incredibly complex.   As such, it does not always fit into the rational decisionmaking processes that many people in the policy field have defined and often assumed.

            As a result, it is difficult to find a situation comparable to these developments.  The topic itself has been a short hand term for contemporary policies and changes that flow from a seemingly uncontrollable disease. It constantly changes.   It involves a range of players, issues and conflicts that seem to be unlike anything else experienced earlier.  As such, it has moved beyond formal and traditional policy players but continues to involve those players in the story.  In that sense, the work seemed to return to Birkland’s definition of “focusing events.”     

           By the end of 2021 an examination of the visible publications in the public policy field indicated that issues that emerged from the early stages of dealing with COVID-19 were already occupying interest in the policy field.   For the most part it was found attached to a range of policy topics, methodologies, and approaches.  Some of these topics were familiar while others seemed to be new. The globalization of the topic sparked increased interest in comparative analysis approaches that seemed to emphasize similarities rather than differences between program approaches.  Importantly, interest in this topic was exhibited across the globe and did not appear to be delivered along with a narrow political or technical agenda. 

                         These developments seemed to bring policy researchers back to classic public policy literatures such as those dealing with implementation, federalism, and budgeting to provide relevant perspectives.    Given the limits of existing research resources it is not surprising that policy researchers are likely to find ways to include COVID-19 issues in their existing research designs.  There were several aspects of these existing designs that seem to have been relied upon or, in some cases, ignored.  These included biases that might have ignored the meaning and limitations of available data. As a result, analysts were likely to emphasize similarities rather than differences between activities in different settings.

            This experience provides a contrast between two very different sets of players and agendas charged with policy framing.  It is not clear whether these tendencies are likely to emerge from the characteristics of different settings or whether they emerge from increasingly complex policy issues. 

The Classic Policy Setting

            Centralization

            Monolithic authority

            Stability

            Efficiency goals

            Clearly defined

            Predictability

            Planned

            Concept of life cycle

            One size fits all

            Geographically limited

            Data stable, clearly defined

            Concept of life cycle

            Clarity about client

            Authority defined

Characteristics of the COVID-19 experience

            Emergent resources

            Decentralization

            Federalism

            Constant change

            Conflict expected

            Conflict attached to diversity

            Shifting theories

            Emergent, changing players

            Equity goals (in background)

            Effectiveness goals

            Diversity anticipated

            Open ended

            Players move in and out

            It all depends

            Authority diffused

            Differences expected

This panel will only accept onsite presentations.

If possible, this discussion will be in person.  It seeks to explore a range of different approaches to policy analysis definitions and reflects the uncertainties and complexity of the diverse and multiple players involved in this topic. Possible themes include effects of geographical, structural and value topics and diversity embedded in the stages of the policy process..

We are interested in papers that explore:

1.     The role of global policy framing of national policy discourses through a range of possible subnational players, policy research, or advocacy.  New forms of federalism may emerge from this topic.

2.     Description of ways in which policy actors at all levels interconnect and operate in a range of activities that create new forms of “spaces” that are neither global or national, but both.

3.     Renewed attention to implementation processes that may have emerged from new global policy frameworks.

References:

Graham T. Allison, 1971, Little Brown, Essence of Decision:  Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Balveer Arora,  Beryl Radin, Cheryl Saunders, and MD Rihwani., 2007, 4th International Conference on Federalism, Unity in Diversity. Conference Reader, pp. 277-300.

Julia Belluz, Brad Plumer, and Brian Resnick, VOX, “The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists,” https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-proces

Thomas A. Birkland, 1998, “Focusing Events, Mobilization , and Agenda Setting,
 Journal of Public Policy, Volume 18, Issue 1, January 1998, pp. 53074.

Rob A. DeLeo, Kristin Taylor, Deserai A. Crow, and Thomas A. Birkland, 2021, 2:l Regular Issue, International Review of Public Policy, “During Disaster: Refining the Concept of Focusing  Events to Better Explain Long-Duration Crises.”

Erving Goffman, 1986, Northeastern University Press,  Frame Analysis:  An Essay on the Organization of Experience.

Albert O. Hirschman, 1982, Princeton University Press, Shifting Involvements:  Private Interest and Public Action.

Herbert Obinger, Stephan Leibfried and Francis G. Castles, 1984, Cambridge University Press, Federalism and the Welfare State:  New World and European Experiences.

Beryl A. Radin, et al, 1996, University of  Kansas Press, New Governance for Rural America.

Beryl A. Radin, 2019,  Routledge,  Policy Analysis in the Twenty-First Century:  Complexity, Conflict and Cases.

Beryl A. Radin, 2020, "What Have We Learned in the Fields of Public Policy and Public Administration That Might Be Relevant to the Coronavirus Pandemic?", American Review of Public Administration, July 17, 2020

Beryl A. Radin, 2020, Cambridge Elements, Defining Policy Analysis:  A Journey that Never Ends. 

Beryl Radin, 2021, Academia Letters “Policy makers:  Don’t forget Implementation and Experimentation,”, June, 2021.

Beryl Radin, Academia Letters, August 2021, . “SHOULD WE USE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR APPROACHES FOR POLICY AND MANAGEMENT CHANGE?

Article 2604. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2604.

Beryl A. Radin and David L. Weimer, 2018, "Compared to What? The Multiple Meanings of Comparative Policy Analysis," Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, , Published online: 09 Mar 2018).

Richard Simeon and Beryl A. Radin, “Federalism,” in  Paul Quirk, editor, Oxford University Press, The United States and Canada:  How Two Democracies Differ and Why it Matters, pp.144 – 167. 

Deborah Stone, 2002, Policy Paradox  The art of political decision making, New York:  W.W. Norton and Company. 

Deil S. Wright, 1988,  Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, Third Edition, Brook/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, California.

X. Wu, M. Ramesh, and Michael Howlett, “Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities.“ November 2015 Policy and Society 34(3-4) DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001