Political Science 317
Study Guide #5
Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies
This is a classic in American political science, probably the most influential work of all in
the small subfield in which I work, the “politics of public policy.” I know of no book that
provides a better sense of the “real world” of public policymaking, a world that is
chaotic, dynamic and often unpredictable. Kingdon’s book does not oversimplify this
world, and that can make the book tedious at times; there are a lot of details about 1970s
health care policy and transportation issues that you may find less than scintillating. But
pay attention, because in his modest way Kingdon makes a profound argument: he claims
that below the chaotic surface of public policymaking there are patterns and regularities
that characterize the process, patterns that savvy players in the policy world use to their
advantage.
The book does not provide a simple formula for predicting when proposals will be
enacted into law. The processes it describes are not neat enough for that. But if you
master the basic concepts in this book you will be in a much better position to understand
the politics of public policy, and to judge the political feasibility of various health care
proposals—the key skill in this section of the course. Kingdon’s concepts may sound
goofy—“the garbage can model,” “policy windows,” the “policy primieval soup,”—but I
am confident you will find them useful in the balance of the course.
Many early political scientists modeled themselves after physicists, and sought to find
“laws of politics” that. like the laws of physics, could be used to make precise predictions
about outcomes. That quest has, I would argue, proved a miserable failure. Today
political scientists are more likely to compare themselves to meteorologists. Weather,
like politics, is hard to predict because so many diverse factors come together to produce
outcomes and because small changes can echo and create large events. That doesn’t
make meteorology a “pseudo-science” like astrology, but it does mean that weather
predictions have to be probabilistic and modest. Similarly, in political science we can
take pride in the conceptual tools we’ve developed but at the same time be appropriately
modest and probabilistic in our evaluations of events. (If you want unmitigated pride, try
the economists! All professional modesty was beaten out of them in graduate school.)
After you’ve completed the assigned reading, answer the following questions.
Pages 1-70
What question is this book designed to answer? What do HMO’s and long-term care (see
chart on page15) have to do with the question?
What is an agenda? What is an alternative?
What “three p’s” of the policy process does Kingdon identify?
What is “the administration”?
Why does the president seem to have more control over the agenda than Congress? Why
is his (someday her) control of the alternatives more limited?
Kingdon says that for agenda-setting “a top-down model of the executive branch seems
to be surprisingly accurate.”(31) What is a “top-down model” and why does Kingdon
think it accurate for agenda-setting? Why do people lower down in the administration
have more say over alternatives?
In what sense are Kingdon’s findings about both Congress and the executive branch
reassuring from a democratic theory perspective?
Under what conditions are interest groups most influential? (Why do they seem more
influential in transportation than health?)
Interest groups may be more influential in blocking than supporting legislation. Why?
(Hint: remember our discussion about “veto points”?)
“Buses suck hind tit on everything.” So says one observer. (p. 53) What insight about
interest groups does this vivid observation suggest?
Kingdon divides participants into two clusters, the “visible” and the “hidden.” What
divides the two clusters? Which groups go in which cluster?
Pages 71-164
Originally Kingdon thought he would trace the history of policy ideas that eventually
became laws. Why do you suppose he abandoned this research design?
What is a “comprehensive, rational” model of public policymaking? What makes it an
inaccurate portrayal of public policymaking?
What is incrementalism? Is the agenda-setting process “incrementalist”? Is the
development of alternatives incrementalist?
What is the “garbage can” model? What kinds of organizations is it most usefully
applied to?
What are the four streams that characterize the garbage can model? (Ignore the ugly
mixed metaphor.) What are the three streams that characterize the model as Kingdon
revises it to apply to the federal policymaking process?
What is an indicator? (Can you think of an important indicator in health politics?)
What is a focusing event? (Can you think of a recent focusing event in American
politics? Here’s one hint: wardrobe malfunction)
What is feedback? (Can you think of an example in health care politics?)
Why do problems fade? (Can you think of a problem that has faded recently?)
How can budgets promote or retard agenda-setting? (Can you think of an example in
health policy?)
How do conditions become problems? (Again, can you think of an example in health
policy?)
What is the “policy primieval soup”? How does the policy world differ from the problem
world?
What is a policy entrepreneur?
John Maynard Keynes wrote: “the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated
compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.” (p. 125). To what purpose does
Kingdon quote Keynes?
What is “softening up”?
What is the “bandwagon effect” in public policy? (Can you think of an idea in health
policy that seems to have reached this level among health care public policy specialists?)
What happens if a problem gets on the government agenda but no “solution” is available
to pair it with?
What are the basic elements of the political stream?
How is consensus (really, “softening up”) achieved in the political stream? How is this
different from consensus building in the policy stream?
How is the “bandwagon effect” in the political stream different from the same effect in
the policy stream?
Discussion Question:
In the policy stream, proposals are always considered, even proposals like single-payer
that have absolutely no chance of being adopted in the next year or two. But in the
problem stream and in the policy stream there are proposals that are on the “back
burner” and receive little attention and other proposals that are on the “front burner.”
Consider one of these two streams. Provide an example of a health care proposal that is
clearly on the “back burner”within this stream and an example of something that is more
likely to be considered. What exactly puts them where they are? What would have to
change for them to change positions?
Pages 165-195
What are policy windows? Under what conditions do they open?
If you want to beat a policy proposal, delay it. Why are delay tactics so effective?
How does a proposal get on the decision agenda? What usually has to happen?
What exactly does a policy entrepreneur do to try to get her proposal on the decision
agenda? What qualities make a policy entrepreneur effective?
What makes policy windows scarce?
What are some examples of “predictable windows”? “Unpredictable windows”?
What is a spillover? (Can you think of an example in health care policy? Hint: why
might pharmaceutical companies have opposed the prescription drug plan even if it
benefited them in the short run?)
The final chapter simply reviews all the concepts in the book. Read it if you want this
review.
Discussion Question:
Consider a health care policy that you would like to see enacted into law. (It could be an
example you’ve written about previously, or something you’ve read about while taking
this class, or something you’ve simply dreamed up.) What events might create a policy
window for this particular proposal? What might you do in the meantime to prepare for
this window when it opens up?