Problem definition, shaping and Agenda setting of environment policy

1. What is public policy problem?

2. How do we define a problem?
3. How is the problem shaped?
4. How do public problems become part of the agenda?
5. How can we explain the process of agenda setting?
6. Policy Process through multiple -stream framework

Public Policy Problems:

A public policy problem refers to a situation or challenge that requires the attention of
policymakers or those involved in the development and implementation of public policies. These
problems can range from social issues such as poverty, inequality, and crime, to environmental
concerns like pollution, climate change, and resource management. Public policy problems often
involve complex interdependencies and require multifaceted solutions that balance competing
interests and objectives. The identification and analysis of these problems is a crucial step in the
policy-making process, as it helps to clarify the issues at hand, determine the scope and scale of
the problem, and identify potential policy solutions.
Public policy problems are those that must be addressed by laws and regulations adopted by
government.
There are different types of public policy problems. In democratic political systems, policy
problems arise in very diverse political and institutional contexts. These influence how the
problems are debated and resolved. Policy decision-making is structured through organizational
processes that reflect historical institutional arrangements. Complex policy problems often
involve conflicting interests and divergent perceptions among various stakeholder groups.
Disagreements about problems and policies arise from many factors, including material interests,
socio-cultural values and political (dis)trust. The framing of problems and solutions is expressed
in different ways, through the language of economic benefits, ideological outlooks, group values
and political loyalties. Leaders of political, economic and social organizations argue for the
priority of some issues over others, depending on their judgements about threats, rewards and
opportunities. Leaders typically offer simplified and persuasive narratives about problems and
solutions, in order to attract wide support for their preferred approach. Evidence and expertise
are mobilized selectively by policy actors to influence the perceived credibility of their own
favored policy options.

Problem Definition:
1. Choose a specific environmental issue: This could be climate change, deforestation,
water pollution, biodiversity loss, or any other relevant issue.
2. Define the problem in detail: Explain the nature of the issue, its causes and
consequences, and its scope and scale.
 3. Identify different perspectives on the problem: Consider how various stakeholders like
scientists, policymakers, businesses, and communities might define and frame the
problem.
4. Discuss the challenges of accurate problem definition: Explore issues like competing
interests, scientific uncertainty, and framing bias.
How We Define a Problem:
A problem statement clearly defines the current situation as compared to what should be
occurring (i.e. the gap) and makes a case for solving it. I recommend using the SMART
technique when writing a problem statement. But for now, let’s focus on why we should use
them. A problem statement is a simple yet powerful tool to ensure everyone agrees to solve the
same problem.

How do we define a problem?

A problem is a situation that presents an obstacle or challenge. We encounter problems every
day, and some of them are more difficult to overcome than others.
Defining a problem is a crucial step in the process of addressing and solving challenges. Here’s a
structured approach to defining a problem:
1. Identification:
 Observation: Start by observing and recognizing a situation that deviates from what is
expected or desired.
 Gathering Information: Collect relevant data, facts, and information about the
situation. This may involve research, interviews, surveys, or other means of data
collection.

2. Clarification:
 Stating the Problem Clearly: Express the problem in clear and concise terms. Clearly
articulate what is not working or what needs improvement.
 Avoiding Assumptions: Be mindful of assumptions and biases. Ensure that the definition
of the problem is based on evidence rather than preconceived notions.

3. Understanding the Context:

 Contextual Analysis: Consider the broader context in which the problem exists.
Understand the environmental, social, economic, and cultural factors that may contribute
to or influence the problem.
 Stakeholder Perspectives: Take into account the perspectives of various stakeholders
involved in or affected by the problem. Different stakeholders may have different views
on the nature of the problem.
4. Root Cause Analysis:
 Identifying Root Causes: Look beyond the symptoms of the problem to identify
underlying causes. Addressing root causes is essential for developing effective and
sustainable solutions.
 Systemic Thinking: Consider the interconnectedness of various elements within the
system. Understand how changes in one part of the system may impact others.

5. Setting Boundaries:
 Defining Scope: Clearly define the boundaries of the problem. Determine what is within
the scope of the problem and what is outside of it.
 Prioritization: If the problem is complex, prioritize aspects that are most critical or
urgent for resolution.

6. Quantification and Measurement:

 Measurable Criteria: Establish measurable criteria to assess the extent of the problem.
Quantify relevant variables to track changes and improvements over time.
 Benchmarking: Compare the current state with established benchmarks or desired
standards.

7. Stakeholder Involvement:
 Consulting Stakeholders: Involve relevant stakeholders in the problem-definition
process. Their insights can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the problem.
 Feedback and Validation: Seek feedback from stakeholders to validate and refine the
problem definition. This ensures that diverse perspectives are considered.

8. Problem Framing:
 Framing Positively: Frame the problem in a way that emphasizes the opportunity for
improvement rather than focusing solely on negative aspects.
 Linking to Goals: Connect the problem to broader goals or objectives. Understand how
solving the problem contributes to larger organizational, community, or societal
aspirations.

9. Documentation:
 Clear Documentation: Document the problem definition clearly. This documentation
serves as a reference point throughout the problem-solving process and helps in
communication with stakeholders.
By systematically going through these steps, individuals or teams can develop a comprehensive
and well-defined understanding of the problem they are facing. This clarity is essential for
devising effective solutions and making informed decisions.
How the Problem Shapes:
Defining a problem in the context of environmental policy involves identifying and articulating
specific issues or challenges related to the environment that require attention, intervention, or
regulation. Here are key steps to define a problem in the context of environmental policy:
1. Identify the Environmental Issue:
 Clearly identify the specific environmental problem you are addressing. This could
include issues such as air and water pollution, deforestation, climate change, loss of
biodiversity, or unsustainable resource use.

2. Define the Scope:

 Clearly outline the boundaries of the problem. Understand the geographical, temporal,
and sectoral dimensions of the issue. Determine whether the problem is local, regional, or
global in scope, and whether it is a short-term or long-term concern.

3. Understand the Causes:

 Analyze the root causes of the environmental problem. Identify human activities,
industries, or natural processes contributing to the issue. Understanding the causes helps
in developing effective and targeted policy interventions.
4. Assess Impacts:
 Evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the problem. Understand
how the issue affects ecosystems, human health, livelihoods, and overall well-being. This
information is crucial for prioritizing and designing appropriate policy responses.
5. Consider Stakeholder Perspectives:
 Identify and involve relevant stakeholders, including communities, industries, NGOs, and
government agencies. Consider their perspectives, interests, and concerns. Stakeholder
engagement is essential for crafting inclusive and effective environmental policies.
6. Review Existing Policies:
 Examine existing environmental policies and regulations to determine their effectiveness
and gaps in addressing the identified problem. Understand the legal and institutional
framework relevant to the issue.
7. Set Policy Goals and Objectives:
  Clearly define the goals and objectives that the environmental policy aims to achieve.
These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
Goals provide a roadmap for addressing the identified problem.
8. Consider Interconnected Issues:
 Recognize the interconnected nature of environmental issues. Many environmental
problems are interlinked, and policies need to consider these interdependencies to avoid
unintended consequences.
9. Evaluate Policy Options:
Explore and assess different policy options for addressing the problem. Consider a combination
of regulatory, economic, and voluntary measures. Evaluate the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and
potential social and economic impacts of each option.
10. Prioritize and Plan Implementation:
 Prioritize the most effective and feasible policy options. Develop a phased plan for policy
implementation, including monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the policy
success over time. By following these steps, policymakers can systematically define and
address environmental problems, leading to the development of effective and targeted
environmental policies.
How Public Policy Problems Become Part of Agenda:
Public policies’ problems become parts of agenda in such ways;
 When an important issue surfaces that needs to be addressed immediately.
The discovery that the town water supply is tainted by leakage from long-buried gasoline tanks is
the perfect time to get a discussion of water pollution and water supply on the local agenda. The
advantages are that the issue must be dealt with now, and that it won’t go away without some
permanent way of addressing it. There no better time to raise an issue.
 When an already-troublesome issue reaches critical proportions.
A small child becomes a casualty in a drive-by shooting; a homeless person freezes to death in a
doorway on a bitter winter night; a factory closes and the local unemployment rate skyrockets. In
circumstances like these, it often becomes easier to get a particular issue into the public
consciousness. Everyone hopes not to have to reach this point before people pay attention, but
hanging people’s perceptions is difficult. Sometimes it takes a crisis to make getting your issue
on the local agenda possible.
 When an external source calls attention to your issue.
A new government commission report, a New York Times article about a particular problem or
community, a presidential remark, a book by a respected author, a mention on Oprah - any of
these can make your issue hot, and make it a good time for you to bring it to the attention of
people in your community.
 When new information reveals or underlines a serious issue.
A university study or government report may alert the community to the fact that it harbors a
very high number of cases of an unusual cancer. This information may open the way for an
investigation of its possible environmental causes and a plan for action.
 When political conditions make it easy or appropriate.
In an election year, for instance, there are two reasons why it may be possible to call attention to
issues and get them discussed.
Politicians up for election or re-election are eager to please constituents and show their concern,
and may be willing to take up your cause as a campaign issue.
Additionally, in many localities, you can put your issue on the ballot.
Even in non-election years, a well-publicized political event or situation may help put your issue
in the spotlight.

The Process of Agenda Setting:

The process of agenda setting is mostly known as access-ability of agenda setting. Some
arguments are mentioned below
Accessibility; is the cognitive process via which agenda-setting is done. Accessibility suggests
that how frequently and prominently news media coverage occurs affects how easily identifiable
certain subjects are in the audiences memory. Respondents often cite the most easily recalled
news story—the one that the media has been covering the most—when asked what the most
pressing issue facing the nation is. The influence of a very large number of communications,
each with a distinct content but all aimed at the same general topic, combined with one or a few
messages is what causes the agenda-setting effect.
For instance, numerous news sources might cover the results of a big sporting event. The story is
very readable for the audience because of the frequent coverage of the athletic event. This might
affect the audience perception of the events importance, which is an important aspect of agenda-
setting.
Three models describe the agenda-setting process:
1. Awareness model;
2. Priorities model;
3. Salience model;
Awareness model
The awareness model proposes that an issue is on an individual’s agenda because they have seen
it in the media. If the media does not report on an issue or topic, then it will most likely not be
thought about by an individual. For example, if the media reports on Topic X, an individual is
more likely to be aware of Topic X over Topic Y.
Priorities model
The priorities model is a way of looking at the process that explicitly describes where our
priorities lie. The issues the media prioritizes will likely be prioritized by the individuals as
well. For example, if the media reports on Topic X, an individual will care about Topic X and its
updates (even if Topic Y is more pressing, it is not being reported on).
Salience model
The salience model lies somewhere in between the awareness model and the priorities model. In
this model, individuals’ agendas do not exactly reflect the media’s agendas. However, some
issues or topics that are consistently presented in the media will appear at the top of individuals’
agendas. For example, if the media reports on Topic X, an individual will care about Topic X to
a lesser extent than the media cares.
Multiple Stream Framework (MFS) for Policy Making Process
The multiple streams framework (MSF), created by John Kingdon in 1984 (and significantly
updated in 2010), is a reputable method for examining how policies are made across a range of
nations and policies. Numerous English-language journal articles that employ MSF have been
published, showcasing its flexibility and depth of theory. In fact, as complexity and "a post-
policy" world become increasingly embedded in governmental decision-making, it's possible that
the policy environment will eventually become more favorable to the application of the MSF.
Assumptions:
1. The idea that reason is rendered useless by ambiguity in problem formulation is a
fundamental tenet of the MSF. Goal maximization is unattainable because different
players will interpret the same scenario in different ways. Is homelessness a result of
morality, housing, or poverty, for instance? There are supporters of each method, but
selecting one definition above the others makes it difficult to come to an agreement.
2. Time and other resources are limited, which is a second premise shared by satisficing
techniques and bounded rationality. While there seems to be an almost infinite number of
problems that may be handled, individual decision-makers are restricted in their time and
ability to address them.
3. In contrast to the rational actor model's premise, decision-makers in the MSF may have
changing preferences for certain policies. These may alter as a result of new information
superseding outdated or limited information, or as a result of changes in the decision-
making timeline. Emergencies must be handled right away using the resources at hand.
Furthermore, decision-makers frequently lack knowledge on whether a suggested remedy
will truly be helpful. We refer to this as having ambiguous technology. There may not be
enough data to determine how successful a novel strategy will be when it is proposed.
Furthermore, because a variety of institutions and individuals are involved, flexible
participation in the decision-making process allows for the introduction of new concepts
or obstacles.
4. As a result, policy problems, policy solutions, and political conditions shift constantly
and lack clear links to each other. These are the streams in the multiple stream
framework; let's examine each stream and add a few concepts that are also part of the
MSF. The final assumption in the MSF is that independent processes occur when policy
decisions are made.
 Framework:

MFS contains three particular stages, following,

1. Problem Stream:
In the MSF, unfavorable circumstances are not, objectively speaking, difficulties. Action on the
political front cannot begin until situations are identified as problems. In actuality, there are
numerous ways to characterize an objective situation as a problem. A large number of people
receiving welfare or unemployment benefits is a circumstance rather than a fundamental issue.
Different actors could see this as a problem and attempt to persuade other actors that action is
required. However, some may view it as an economic issue, with the government lacking the
resources to sustain such a large number of jobless people. When another player observes the
scenario, he sees a moral dilemma because so many lazy people would rather get benefits than
work to support themselves. According to a third actor, the issue is that too many undocumented
immigrants are replacing Americans in the workforce. There are a ton of different possible ways
to characterize the state of affairs as problematic. The MSF draws attention to how difficult and
politicized it is to define problems.
Debates and definitions of problem streams occur within policy communities, which are
typically made up of academics, interest organizations, and field-based bureaucrats. Typically,
proponents of each distinct perspective on the issue exist, who could be referred to as "problem
entrepreneurs." These individuals don't necessarily have a specific solution in mind; they just
want the government to take notice of the issue and act on it as they see it. The steady
accumulation of knowledge over time or abrupt focusing events, such a stock market fall, an
abrupt deterioration of the situation, a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster, can lead to problem
definitions. The issue is now on the government's agenda for resolution.
2. Policy Stream:
Policy entrepreneurs have a solution they think will work in practically any circumstance, just as
problem entrepreneurs advocate for the government to act on specific descriptions of
circumstances that they see as problems. Deregulation and free markets are two remedies that
have been promoted in a variety of contexts, including the airline sector and voucher schools.
Any scenario that you can think of that you would classify as a problem is probably being
promoted by someone who believes that the free market is the best approach to address it. Policy
entrepreneurs frequently have a specific ideology in mind. As a result, they can make decisions
without depending on research or concept pilot tests. Ideas for policies are created by
professionals, in think tanks, and in academics. Researchers point out that not every proposed
policy has an equal likelihood of getting approved. Some are deemed to be excessively costly,
while others are impractical or exceed the bounds of acceptable policy in any particular situation.
However, the MSF describes policy suggestions that make it past the first round of scrutiny as
problems in search of a problem to fix.
3. Political Stream:
Probably the hardest to convey is the political stream. It is the result of a confluence of factors
including the mood of the country, elected politicians involved in decision-making, and active
interest groups on all fronts.
Eventually, there's a chance to take action when there's a clearly defined issue and a workable
remedy. There is political will to take action. A policy window is the name given to this brief
window of time. Policy entrepreneurs at this point pair, or join, an issue with a policy and seek to
obtain a majority of decision-makers to endorse this problem/policy package with their votes.
New laws are adopted if this happens, which happens regularly when policy windows close
without any action being made. The algorithm advances to the next choice whether or not new
legislation is generated.
This method of discussing policymaking makes it evident that it is not a logical process in which
well-defined objectives are met by specially tailored answers. Instead, the process is haphazard
and relies on deftly phrasing and combining clearly specified issues with generic answers in
order to win over the majority of decision-makers in the short window of opportunity for action.
The takeaway for those crafting social welfare policies is to become into adept proponents of
specific issue descriptions and workable remedies. Even if political circumstances may be out of
anyone's control, some circumstances (such those after elections or other turning points) are
more suited to serving as windows for policy decisions. One needs to come prepared, having put
in a lot of work beforehand. A comparable chance might not come up for a while after a certain
window closes.
Problems of MFS:
i. The model operates on the assumption that there is a single, undifferentiated "policy
subsystem," without specifying the many players or their relationships.
ii. By concentrating on three distinct groups of actors—the advocacy coalitions, the
instrument constituencies, and the epistemic community—the paradigm oversimplifies
the stage of policy creation. Opponents contend that this method might not fully represent
the dynamism and complexity of formulating policy.
iii. The approach has drawn criticism for giving insufficient thought to contextual and
implementation issues in the formulation of policy responses.
iv. The model overlooks other crucial elements that support the effectiveness of policies
since it concentrates on financial fixes.
Conclusion

In conclusion, while the path to addressing environmental challenges may be complex, this
report serves as a reminder that through careful problem definition, inclusive policy shaping, and
an adaptable agenda, we can pave the way for a more sustainable and just future. As Masters of
Development Studies, we have a responsibility to be part of this crucial journey, shaping policies
that protect our planet and ensure a future where environmental well-being thrives alongside
human development.