Suchergebnisse

The paper examines the agenda setting process in Singapore and shows how the Singapore government defines problems, initiates proposals and manages policy agenda. Three cases have been chosen for investigation: the Vehicle Quota System (VQS), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) project, and the policies introduced to address the issue of rising costs in the city-state. The paper observes that, firstly, issue specifications are often context-specific, but nevertheless political. Second, the actual implementation of policies is often very much dependent on public acceptance and support. Thirdly, there is more beneath-the-surface political activity in Singapore than the standard model of bureaucratic polity leads us to expect. Fourthly, the influence that non-governmental groups exert on problem definition and issue expansion is often indirect and minimal. Overall, problem perception and issues are propelled to the public consciousness by politicians and policy elites. (AJPS/DÜI)

Problem definition is a package of ideas that includes, at least implicitly, an account of the causes & consequences of undesirable circumstances & a theory about how to improve them, serving as the overture & integral part of policymaking, & as a policy outcome. In each of these roles it seems to exert influence on government action. Distinguishing among the roles clarifies the nature of that influence. Here, a case study approach is used to the transition from one problem definition to another in the domain of information collection by the federal government. 53 References. Modified HA

Explores the role of problem definition in agenda setting, showing how competing definitions of the education problem received agenda status, based on their visibility, political sponsorship, and potential solutions, 1989-95. Problems included weak governance, inadequate school programs, limited finances, lack of citizen support, and social problems.

The key to understanding agenda setting is how and why conditions become defined as public problems. This process has been dubbed problem definition by past literature, yet past work offers little more than descriptive accounts of the process. We apply a threshold model to explain how problem definition can exhibit both incremental and punctuated change. We then demonstrate the model by explaining redefinition of the sexual harassment issue following the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings. Using Box‐Tiao (1975) and nonlinear time varying parameter regression methods, we show that the hearings permanently altered individual and social nonacceptance of sexual harassment, as well as initiated a process of positive feedback. Given that there are many conditions similar to sexual harassment, and given that disturbances are quite frequent, sudden change should be a common feature of the American system.

The key to understanding agenda setting is how & why conditions become defined as public problems. This process has been dubbed problem definition by past literature, yet past work offers little more than descriptive accounts of the process. We apply a threshold model to explain how problem definition can exhibit both incremental & punctuated change. We then demonstrate the model by explaining redefinition of the sexual harassment issue following the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings. Using Box-Tiao (1975) & nonlinear time varying parameter regression methods, we show that the hearings permanently altered individual & social non-acceptance of sexual harassment, as well as initiated a process of positive feedback. Given that there are many conditions similar to sexual harassment, & given that disturbances are quite frequent, sudden change should be a common feature of the American system. 1 Table, 5 Figures, 42 References. Adapted from the source document.

Profound changes in risk regulation have been brewing over the last few decades. These changes include an explosion of new institutional forms and strategies that decenter risk regulation and introduce a role for meta‐regulation, a growing reliance on risk‐based analysis to organize decision making and management, an increasingly preventive approach to regulation that requires an expansion of surveillance to better characterize and monitor risks, and a sharpening of contestation over strategies for evaluating and responding to risk. We distill two perspectives from the existing literature on risk regulation that can plausibly provide overarching explanations for these trends. The first perspective explains these trends as a reflection of the refashioning of state, market, and society to privilege economic liberty—an explanatory framework we call "neoliberal governmentality." The second perspective argues that these trends reflect practical demands for more efficient and effective risk regulation and management—an explanatory framework we refer to as "functional adaptation." The central purpose of this paper is to advance a third explanation that we call a "problem definition and control" approach. It argues that trends in risk regulation reflect interactions between how society defines risks and how regulatory regimes seek to control those risks.

AbstractFor governments to regulate, they must first define the problem and decide which policymakers have the authority to make decisions. Technological development can disrupt the authority‐allocation process by fostering uncertainty about which actors are responsible for making policy. This article examines the role that changing technology has played in the development of cybersecurity policy in the United States. New technologies have increased the type and scope of assets vulnerable to cyberthreats, and with them the number of governing units who can claim jurisdiction over cybersecurity‐related issues. Uncertainty about the nature of the problem has led the U.S. Congress to rely heavily on bureaucratic witnesses and focus on how existing regulations can be brought to bear. Emerging technologies create regulatory challenges for governance not only through unforeseen consequences but through uncertainty over who can regulate. Fragmented authority can produce piecemeal responses and a reliance on existing frameworks that benefit regulated industries.

The paper defines the problem and outlines approaches to the study of the status of acting in the system of modern theater. Actors have occupied an indisputable preeminent position in the theater since the antiquity until the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, when director's theater emerged in the avant-garde tradition and there was confrontation between the old and new artistic systems ("actor's" and "director's" theater), which today shapes the dynamics of the theatrical process. The experience of the Satirikon Theater and its director K. Raikin, which eagerly apply the actor's transformation in their performances, is considered essential for determining the essence of contemporary understanding of acting. This experience is summarized in several theses, confirmed by examples from the performances of Satirikon of the 2000s.