MATERIALES

Before presenting the theoretical framework that shapes this research, some final reflections on agenda setting are pertinent. The agenda setting scholarship is well- established. However, it is important to note that much of this research has been conducted within particular national jurisdictions (for example, Baumgartner & Jones, 1991, 1993; Cobb & Elder, 1983; Dudley & Richardson, 1996; Kingdon, 2003). This has meant that the development of agenda setting models has primarily been pertinent to - and reflected the institutional characteristics of - national political systems. Thus, emphasis has been placed on governmental decision-making processes and the political

47 actors that operate within these confines. For instance, the influence of certain actors in the national environment, such as political parties, is greater than at the regional level. Conversely, other actors such as policy entrepreneurs may wield similar influence across national and regional jurisdictions (Oborn et al., 2011; Princen, 2011). In general there are limited venues in the nation-state hence limiting access points and strategic opportunities for policy advocates. Certain policy windows, for instance routine political windows such as elections and budgetary cycles, while commonplace in the nation-state occur less frequently in a regional political system, thus providing different, and perhaps more regular, opportunities for policy proponents operating in this type of venue. The institutional context, therefore, is significant.

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model provides a strong foundation from which to examine the agenda setting process. However, limitations can be identified. One criticism of his work is related to his singular focus on the US political system. By using the context of the US nation-state as his level of analysis, Kingdon’s model may be less suitable for other institutional contexts, and further application or adaptation of his model in a range of jurisdictions has been recognised as a necessary area for future research (Robinson & Eller, 2010; Zahariadas, 2007).

That said, Kingdon’s model has increasingly been applied to other regional and supranational jurisdictions, at least in part in response to the growing importance of these forums as the site of much contemporary policy-making (Oborn et al., 2011; Princen, 2009, 2011). This emphasises that the core components of the agenda setting process are relevant to a range of institutional forums. The more recent work that has occurred in regional and supranational contexts has both drawn on Kingdon’s model of agenda setting and enhanced his work to reflect different institutional milieu (for example, Joachim, 2003; Kalu, 2004; Princen, 2009, 2011). The findings from the regional and supranational research highlight the complexity of agenda setting in these contexts with numerous state and non-state actors, often from different countries, vying to promote, block or maintain competing policy ideas. Multiple venues are frequently available and policy actors attempt to effectively navigate these so as to mobilise support and facilitate their favoured policy outcomes. The dynamics of decision-making are also more complex with decision-makers having to balance both national and regional interests and consider the wider ramifications of policy implementation. Examining the agenda setting process in regional or supranational environments adds

48 value to the current agenda setting scholarship. In particular, it illuminates how ideas are placed upon agendas in these jurisdictions as well as how access is granted/inhibited to the actors involved in the agenda setting process. Furthermore, it elucidates which venues are available, the types of policy windows and their patterns of opening and closing, and the constraints and opportunities for policy advocates. It also enables comparative empirical work not only across similar regional or supranational institutions but also with national political systems (Robinson & Eller, 2010; Zahariadas, 2007). In sum, understanding of the agenda setting process and policy- making more generally, is increased.

Kingdon’s work emphasises the role of policy entrepreneurs as individuals actively seeking policy change although this is based on limited empirical evidence (Oborn et al., 2011; Robinson & Eller, 2010). These entrepreneurs may be either within or outside of formal political structures and Kingdon draws particular attention to official policy actors such as politicians and the chief executives of government departments. In so doing limited attention is leveled at other policy actors who are also active, and influential, in agenda setting processes (Oborn et al., 2011). There is limited empirical scholarship on the role of political actors across subnational, national, regional and supranational political environments and further conceptual work on individual agency in agenda setting would certainly be of value (Oborn et al., 2011).

While Kingdon’s work acknowledges a connection between structure and agency - that is, between the venues for policy change and the empirical strategies and influence of policy actors - the interrelationship between these two factors have been extended by other agenda setting scholars (Baumgartner & Jones, 1991; Joachim, 2003; Ness, 2010; Peters, 2001; Princen, 2009; Richardson, 2006). Joachim (2003) suggests:

The historical, cultural and political context matters in the definition of ideas and interests; institutions not only constrain social actors but also are empowering by providing a “tool chest” for action; and the way in which institutions are “selective” by privileging certain actors and issues while marginalising others (p. 270).

Although Kingdon (2003) briefly glances at institutionalism in his latest work on agenda setting he does not adequately consider the implications of this theoretical perspective. These implications may include how institutional constraints and opportunities affect policy actors, and specifically, decision-makers, in their choice of

49 issues and alternatives for consideration and implementation. Furthermore, venues are also shaped by norms and rules, thus affecting accessibility as well as the actual decision-making process (Robinson & Eller, 2010). As highlighted in more recent research, agenda setting processes are affected by historical and temporal factors and are shaped and constrained by both structures and individuals (Ness, 2010; Ness & Mistretta, 2009; Oborn et al., 2011). Kingdon (2003) largely confines institutional factors to the political stream; however, following the work of Princen (2009) in particular, the contention here is that the institutional context affects all aspects of the agenda setting model.

In Kingdon’s later work he suggests the institutional concept of punctuated equilibrium has been offered as an alternative metaphor to policy windows in some agenda setting research. Punctuated equilibrium refers to disturbances which break old patterns and lead to the establishment of new institutional arrangements (Jervis, 2000; Kingdon, 2003; Pump, 2011; Wilson, 2000). While Kingdon notes this concept he does not apply it to his own empirical work which further highlights Kingdon’s limited application of new institutionalist ideas. Kingdon does, however, acknowledge that while most policy subsystems change incrementally, occasionally certain issues come to the forefront and at these times windows of opportunity may become available for policy proponents (Kingdon, 2003).

Further analysis of what occurs during these moments when issue priorities are changing very rapidly would assist with understanding what may precipitate these periods of instability and how decision-makers are responding to these breakdowns in institutional or policy arrangements (Baumgartner & Jones, 1991; Baumgartner et al., 2006, p. 962; Dudley & Richardson, 1996; Hudson & Lowe, 2009). Examples of these sudden external shocks include climatic change, environmental disasters, economic crises, and war (Hudson & Lowe, 2009; Kingdon, 2003; Wilson, 2000). These ‘turning points’ or focusing events promote mobilisation and are often shepherded by policy actors who are aware of the coupling of divergent forces (Cobb & Elder, 1983; Jervis, 2000; Thelen, 2000; Wilson, 2000). According to Hudson and Lowe (2009), whilst these concepts enable some understanding of the success or failure of policy actors pushing their ideas through the windows of opportunities, little is yet known as to when windows may occur or how big they have to be to stimulate change. In addition, further

50 work could examine the role of policy entrepreneurs and other policy actors during these focusing events (Oborn et al., 2011).

In Kingdon’s model the critical role of decision-makers as the final arbiters of policy decisions is also understated (Princen, 2009). Kingdon purports that within the policy stream ideas need to be seen by decision-makers as meeting certain criteria such as being politically and publicly acceptable. However, in his model, a policy outcome immediately follows the policy window and, therefore, the extent of the role of the decision-makers is hidden. Put another way, the capacity for agency on the part of decision-makers is unspecified. Yet decision-makers not only decide whether an idea or proposal is acceptable, they also determine whether it will be advanced once the opportunity for it to be considered has occurred (through the policy window). Before a policy outcome can occur it is the decision-makers that decide whether to ignore, dismiss or accept a policy proposal (Princen, 2009). It is this specific aspect of their role that is not clear in Kingdon’s model. In sum, the work and influence of decision-makers is evident not only within the policy stream but also once an idea has moved through a policy window (Princen, 2009). Including the receptivity of decision-makers as an additional separate and specific element immediately prior to agenda success would better illuminate the agenda setting process.

Empirical studies on various aspects of agenda setting in different venues add depth and breadth to the literature on this component of policy change (Baumgartner et al., 2006; Birkland, 1998; Joachim, 2003; Princen, 2009; Shibuya, 1996). Approaches to agenda setting both in national jurisdictions and to a lesser extent at the regional level are well traversed, although, as noted, minimal literature on agenda setting, or even the broader policy-making process in the Pacific, and specifically in the sub-regional intergovernmental body of the PIF, has been identified (Fong Toy, 2006; Shibuya, 1996).