Australian Politics and Policy - Senior, 2019a

Australian Politics and Policy
For a problem to be considered deserving of a policy response – having what
the influential political scientist John Kingdon 4 refers to as ‘policy salience’ – there
first needs to be:
• broad agreement that a problem exists
• a broadly shared understanding about the nature of the problem
• a broad acceptance of available solutions.
Moreover, propositions about the existence and nature of problems, not to mention
the nature of possible solutions, need to be tested in a variety of forums: for
example, within the broader community and the electorate; within communities of
interest, including geographical regions, industry sectors and civil society; within
professional ‘epistemic’ communities of subject area specialists; and within political
parties themselves.
The existence and importance of ‘problems’ is often highly contested, both in the
community at large and within political parties. Even where there is broad agreement
about problems, ‘solutions’ are often controversial. There are many reasons
why it is difficult to reach a majority view about the nature of policy problems
and preferred solutions. Different actors and stakeholders bring different things to
the table and their perspectives are shaped by their lived experience, education,
qualifications, attachment to particular interests, attachment to community, ideology,
religious beliefs and personal convictions.
Policy makers also need to be attuned to perceptions of ‘winners and losers’.
In other words, who benefits from the policy and who perceives themselves to be
adverselyaffectedbythepolicy?Theyalsoneedtobeawareofthepotentialfor
‘interests’ (e.g. civil society organisations, industry groupings, communities) to
mobilise for or against policy proposals. Taking all of these factors into account, it is
easy to see why it can be so difficult to reach agreement about problems and solutions.
Theoretical perspectives
In his book Analyzing public policy, Peter John 5 outlines the principal approaches
for understanding the policy-making process:
• Institutional approaches, whichtaketheviewthatthatpoliticalorganisations–
such as parliaments, legal systems and bureaucracies – shape public decisions
and policy outcomes. 6
• Groups and network approaches, which claim that associations and informal
relationships, both within and outside political institutions, shape decisions and
outcomes. These approaches not only consider the effects on policy of unique
4 Kingdon 1995.
5 John 2012, 12.
6 Linder and Peters 1990; van Heffen and Klok 2000.
506