LIST OF WORKSHOPS

In 1993, David Rochefort and Roger Cobb published a major edited book titled "The politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda." Drawing on the studies undertaken by Cobb and Elder on problem agenda setting and Schattschneider’s studies on Semi-Sovereign people, they focused on the problem definition process. This involved defining the meaning of a social situation, its implication, its urgency, and also who was to blame for the situation. They proposed to study the “problem definition phenomenon from both political and policymaking perspectives, to map out the most frequently employed by problem definers, and to analyze the scenarios by which definitions are build and crumble” (p. 4).

In a recent handbook edited by Nikos Zahariadis on public policy agenda setting, Bryan Jones makes reference to the significance of Cobb and Elder’s original work, perceived as the “first systematic scholarly assessment of the pre-decisional component of the policy process” and how it helps us understand the policymaking process beyond the pluralist approach.

While the trajectories and the definition of a public problem has received much attention in an attempt to grasp the problem agenda, a different aspect of the policy agenda has received much less attention, i.e., the solution agenda. However, inspired by Cohen, March and Olsen and Kingdon assume that a solution follows an autonomous trajectory from the problem and has its own rules, actors, dynamics and structure. Kingdon underscores numerous differences such as the structuration of the system of actors, a small, closed and interdependent policy community in the solution stream, a larger issue networks  in the problem stream, and a dynamic of the stream that is very disruptive and ponctuated when a problem is encountered and very incremental and slow in the case of a solution.

Although Nikos Zahariadis proposes to combine both Cobb and Elders’s and Kingdon’s ideas in the introduction of the handbook on policy agenda, he nonetheless focuses on the problem agenda and on how issues manage to attract the attention of government. He underscores how Kingdon’s work helped account for the importance of agency, institutional friction, policy entrepreneurs and time. 

Paradoxically, however, despite the focus on issues and problems, an enigma persists: how is a solution defined and how does it succeed to attract the government’s attention and its decision to take responsibility for the issue? Under the hypothesis advanced by Kingdon, i.e., that solutions and problems are not interrelated, it seems clear that how a solution is defined and manages to attract government attention continues to be the hidden side of the policymaking process.

It is interesting to observe, for instance, that most policy research has taken a constructivist approach to better grasp the “attention” phenomenon. Much of this research considers that a problem does not exist by itself but rather depends on how policymakers define it, support it, propagate it or, on the contrary, suffocate it.  Researchers have constantly viewed a solution as simply a “formula” that uses existing instruments without paying any serious attention to its definition, meaning, support or suffocation. The issue of a solution is frequently reduced to an issue about choosing existing instruments and how these can be coupled with a problem.

However, for a proposal to be recommended as a “solution”, it must be associated with instruments, formalization procedures, expected consequences, potential beneficiaries, references, values, ideologies, redefined problem to be solved, public policy to be changed, etc.

In this workshop, we would like to explore this hidden side of the policy agenda by analyzing the definition and trajectories of a solution in the same manner that the definition and trajectories of a problem has been undertaken. Is it possible to identify how a proposal  emerges as a “solution” proposal? What role does agency, bureaucracy, the advice system and political parties play? How and under what conditions does a proposal attract the attention of decision makers? What can be said about the “dynamic of the proposal” and the conditions of its failure or success? What is the relationship between a proposal and the actors who define it? Can we speak about the owner of a solution in the same way as the owner of a problem (Gusfield)?

Drawing on Cobb and Elders’s studies mentioned above, we would like also to evaluate the politics of definition by analyzing the politicization process of a solution, the importance of definitional struggles, the complex relationship with experts and existing knowledge, and the feasibility argumentation (Majone). More generally, we would like to focus on the conflict and power dimension that the definition process of a solution generates.

In 1993, David Rochefort and Roger Cobb published a major edited book titled "The politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda." Drawing on the studies undertaken by Cobb and Elder, the “first systematic scholarly assessment of the pre-decisional component of the policy process” (Jones, 2016), they focused on the problem definition process. This involved defining the meaning of a social situation, its implication, its urgency, and also who was to blame for the situation. They proposed to study the “problem definition phenomenon from both political and policymaking perspectives, to map out the most frequently employed by problem definers, and to analyze the scenarios by which definitions are build and crumble” (p. 4).

Paradoxically, however, despite the focus on issues and problems, an enigma persists: how is a solution defined and how does it succeed to attract the government’s attention and its decision to take responsibility for the issue? Under the hypothesis advanced by Kingdon, i.e., that solutions and problems are not interrelated, it seems clear that how solution is defined and manages to attract government attention continues to be the hidden side of the policymaking process.

In this workshop, we would like to explore this hidden side of the policy agenda by analyzing the definition and trajectories of a solution in the same manner that the definition and trajectories of a problem has been undertaken. Is it possible to identify how a proposal emerges as a “solution” ? What role does agency, bureaucracy, the advice system and political parties play? How and under what conditions does a proposal attract the attention of decision makers? What can be said about the “dynamic of the proposal” and the conditions of its failure or success? What is the relationship between a proposal and the actors who define it? Can we speak about the owner of a solution in the same way as the owner of a problem (Gusfield)?

Drawing on Cobb and Elders’s studies mentioned above, we would like also to evaluate the politics of definition by analyzing the politicization process of a solution, the importance of definitional struggles, the complex relationship with experts and existing knowledge, and the feasibility argumentation (Majone). More generally, we would like to focus on the conflict and power stuggles that the definition process of a solution generates.

The Workshop is open to all participants who can contribute to this question about the politics of solution definition and how the dynamics of proposals may be grasped. Paper proposals may be theoretical, empirical or methodological.

In 1993, David Rochefort and Roger Cobb published a major edited book titled "The politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda." Drawing on the studies undertaken by Cobb and Elder on problem agenda setting and Schattschneider’s studies on Semi-Sovereign people, they focused on the problem definition process. This involved defining the meaning of a social situation, its implication, its urgency, and also who was to blame for the situation. They proposed to study the “problem definition phenomenon from both political and policymaking perspectives, to map out the most frequently employed by problem definers, and to analyze the scenarios by which definitions are build and crumble” (p. 4).

Paradoxically, however, despite the focus on issues and problems, an enigma persists: how is a solution defined and how does it succeed to attract the government’s attention and its decision to take responsibility for the issue? Under the hypothesis advanced by Kingdon, i.e., that solutions and problems are not interrelated, it seems clear that how solution is defined and manages to attract government attention continues to be the hidden side of the policymaking process.

In this workshop, we would like to explore this hidden side of the policy agenda by analyzing the definition and trajectories of a solution in the same manner that the definition and trajectories of a problem has been undertaken. Drawing on Cobb and Elders’s studies mentioned above, we would like also to evaluate the politics of definition by analyzing the politicization process of a solution, the importance of definitional struggles, the complex relationship with experts and existing knowledge, and the feasibility argumentation (Majone). More generally, we would like to focus on the conflict and power struggles  that the definition process of a solution generates.

Philippe Zittoun is Research Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at LAET–ENTPE, University of Lyon, France and the General Secretary of the International Public Policy Association. His latest book on public policy is The Political Process of Policy-Making (2014, in French and English). He co-edit with B. Guy Peters Contemporary Approaches to Public Policy (2016), and with Charlotte Halpern and Patrick Hassenteufel the book Policy Analysis in France (forthcoming). His research focuses on the roles of knowledge, discourses, and actors’ power over the policy process and is supported by important empirical studies on policies including housing, transport, shale gas, and the environment. He is also an editorial board member of academic journals including Journal of Policy Studies; Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Critical Policy Studies, and others.