Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of boxes, figures and tables
- About the author
- Preface
- one A problem-processing perspective on governance
- two The governance of problems: a map
- three Analysing policy problems: a problem-structuring approach
- four Cultures of public policy problems
- five Problem types and types of policy politics
- six Problem-structuring dynamics and meta-governance
- seven Making policy analysis doable and reflexive
- eight The plural democracies of problems: a meta-theory
- nine Public engagement and deliberative designs
- ten Responsible and hopeful governance of problems
- Bibliography
- Index
four - Cultures of public policy problems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 September 2022
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of boxes, figures and tables
- About the author
- Preface
- one A problem-processing perspective on governance
- two The governance of problems: a map
- three Analysing policy problems: a problem-structuring approach
- four Cultures of public policy problems
- five Problem types and types of policy politics
- six Problem-structuring dynamics and meta-governance
- seven Making policy analysis doable and reflexive
- eight The plural democracies of problems: a meta-theory
- nine Public engagement and deliberative designs
- ten Responsible and hopeful governance of problems
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
‘[R]eceived culture’ seems to have had a greater role in defining the range of legitimate alternatives than any policy elite or interest group. (Bosso, 1994: 199)
Introduction
Why do some proximate policy makers prefer to frame and define problems as (over)structured and not un(der)structured? May one predict that policy makers who adhere to different cultures or ways of life will be more inclined to construct and process some problem types rather than other types? How about the congruence between policy makers’ preferred ways of problem framing and structuring, and the cultural inclinations of people in civil society?
This chapter constructs a culturalist theory of the socio-political contexts of problem framing and structuring in the public domain in Western welfare states. Proximate and authoritative policy makers mobilise cultural bias in their authoritative selection of problem definitions, expressed in official policy designs. This triggers and fuels processes of translation and framing dynamics; processes that, through political communications in the media and the practices of policy implementation, impinge on the debates over problem frames among citizens in civil society. In this way, ordinary people interpret official policy intentions and practices; and come to attribute positive or negative meanings to governmental policy performances (Schneider and Ingram, 1997).
Using grid-group cultural theory and the typology of policy problems, it is shown how, in such translation and framing dynamics, each culture or way of life corresponds to a particular problem-framing and problem-definition strategy. Hierarchists will impose a clear structure on any problem, no matter what. Isolates will see social reality as an unstable casino in which any privileged problem structure jeopardises chances for survival. Enclavists (or egalitarians) will frame any policy problem as an issue of fairness and distributive justice. Individualists will exploit any bit of usable knowledge to improve a problematic situation. These four focal or default strategies are part of larger repertories of problemframing and problem-definition strategies; each cultural solidarity type disposes of a differentially composed set of secondary, fall-back strategies. Finally, it is suggested that the links between grid-group cultural theory and policy problem types may serve the policy worker or practitioner as analytic tool for active and (self-)critical problem structuring and (re)framing.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Governance of ProblemsPuzzling, Powering and Participation, pp. 91 - 120Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2010