Social Conditions and Social Problems

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
How and when social conditions become social problems
Tactics used to place a problem on the agenda
Why some issues are more likely to get on the agenda than others are
Model of power, which can better explain the process of agenda setting
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Getting an issue into an agenda is one of the essential steps in policy development to address certain perceived social problems. This implies that, unless an issue appears on an agenda, addressing it in a policy becomes a nightmare. Scholars have researched extensively to determine the processes of getting issues into an agenda, issues that make an agenda, and when such issues deserve to form part of an agenda.

Despite the fact that, numerous conditions impair people’s abilities to contextualize issues relating to justice and fairness, evidently, not every condition is a problem requiring government interventions through policies. From this perspective, the paper aims at shedding light on how and when social conditions become social problems and tactics that are utilizable in an attempt to place a problem on an agenda.

The paper also seeks to unveil whether there are some issues more likely to get on the agenda than others, and sum up by examining models of power that explain the process of agenda setting conclusively.

Concepts of social problems imply that, some set of events, conditions, or even groups of people give rise to situations that are troublesome and hence alteration or reorientation of such conditions is necessary. Numerous studies claim that various social movements have the capacity to introduce new issues into the sphere of public agendas successfully (DiNitto Para 1).

A myriad of conditions exists in societies that threaten their well-being and hence requires solutions. However, not all social conditions, even if they threaten the existence of the society qualify as social problems. Social problems scholars, agrees on some fundamental objective realities within the society which while a condition complies with them, it qualifies as a social problem.

For an objective reality to amount to a social problem, it needs to incite a public outcry. This means that people within the society needs to engage in the discussions of the problem proactively. More precisely, this means that the public pays more attention to the social condition in question. Secondly, the conditions need to establish a conspicuous gap between social reality and perceived social ideals.

Therefore, the condition should enormously oppose the values embraced by the wider society (Bachrach and Baratz “Two Faces of Power” 951). Additionally, Birkland informs that, the condition that is likely to amount to a social problem requires involvement of the larger proportion of people in its definition (98).

This implies that, incase a minute segment of the total population is interested in a given condition, the condition fails to quality as a social problem. Rather the situation is taken to entangle some interest group persuading the wider society to take some action about the condition.

Importantly, in case a condition needs to amount to a social problem, a solution that is achievable through people’s collective action has to exist. For instance, if people believe they have the inability to “fight a city hall”, even if the larger population is concerned about bureaucracy practiced by the government, the condition does not amount to a social problem. It rather becomes part of people’s lives; hence, they must accommodate it.

Tactics used to place a problem on the agenda

One of the immense challenges in setting of an agenda is the determination of the tactic to deploy in placing a problem into an agenda. The policy makers may not have full awareness of a social condition that warrants incorporation in the list of social problems. To make them informed about the severity of the problem, it is then necessary to define the problem clearly and conclusively (DiNitto Para 5).

Problem definition is the greatest tactic that would enable placement of a problem into an agenda. In this context, proper problem definition aids in establishing balance of indirect power relationships, which may act in disfavor of the problem being placed into an agenda.

Bachrach and Baratz identify these indirect power relationships as “those in which communication between the power wielder and the power receiver is obstructed” (“Power and Its Two Faces Revisited” 904). A balance of these power relationships is critical especially where the problem defined challenges the status quo of the policy makers.

To ensure successful placement of a problem into an agenda, it is essential then to ensure that the problem is free from all factors that may hinder it from incorporation into an agenda. Such factors include irrelevancy and non-decision making among others.

Why some issues are more likely to get on the agenda than others are

Some issues are more likely to get into the agenda than others are. Among the reasons why some issues do not make it to the agenda level include problem definition, crowding an issue with other issues, the problem may be an illegitimate concern of the state, non-decision making, and issues irrelevancy. The seriousness of issues is expressed in their definition.

Poorly defined problems would consequently end up neglected in the agendas. However, even though the problem may have been defied properly, its concerns may be irreverent to the state. Perhaps, by considering the concept of non decision-making issues raised by Bachrach and Baratz, it is apparent why some issues end up as being agendas while others do not.

As Bachrach and Baratz reckon, “non decision making in a power context is based on the presumption that political consensus is commonly shaped by status quo defenders, exercising their power resources and operated to prevent challenges to their values and interests” (“Power and Its Two Faces Revisited” 901).

A social condition, which attracts keen interests from the wider society, constitutes a social problem, which needs solution often arrived at, after the issue of concern is incorporated in a public agenda. However, some issues, which attract immense public interest, are primarily non-issues. This is perhaps because the concerned population may lack the ability to site solution as they may lack the power to do so.

Even if solutions are available, they may largely violate the interests and the status quo of those influential figures that would set the mechanisms of enabling the incorporation of the issue into an agenda. This implies that, though a social condition may be an agenda issue, the larger population may be forced to embrace it as part of their lives since they are incapacitated to for push for likely solutions to it.

Several reasons accounts to why some issues are just taken as “non issues” in agenda setting. Taking, for instance, a condition entailing “actual disagreements in preferences among two or more groups”, (Bachrach and Baratz “Two Faces of Power” 951) as a comprising issue, is confusing. The question is, even if disagreements exist, do they attract the attention of the wider society.

If so, does the wider society have the power to solicit suggested solution? Moreover, if so, is the power limited to the extent that it does not violate the status quo of those in power? Any precondition for compliance with the two queries may make an issue end up being a non-issue. Arguably, the distinctions between issues from non-issues largely rest on social politics.

However, as Debman claims, citizens are usually apolitical until when government actions turn out to violate certain goals and rights (890). This means that, any issue of concern to the government does not concern the public in case it does not violate the public’s rights and goals. The repercussion is that such an issue may fail to end as an issue since it would have inadequate larger population endorsement.

Hence, its implementation would turn out as challenging, and the government may be forced to drop it. This means that for issues to remain as issues, the symbiotic relationship existing between the leaders and the citizens’ needs to being consistent and in harmony.

The implication of this is that, social conditions amount to issues subtle for incorporation in the agendas if they threaten both the interests of the public and the leaders- who essentially are the politicians.

However, a challenge emerges where the leaders pretend to be concerned by issues that appear to erode their interests and those of the citizen while, in essence, their interests are favored. In such a situation, the wider population is placed at cross road.

Model of power, which can better explain the process of agenda setting

The process of agenda setting is perhaps well explained by structured power model. Structured power model requires legislative support for one to retain power. This implies that, such a model is highly expected to result in better and more equitable outcomes of policies (Battaglini and Coate 118).

Deploying structured power model in agenda setting ensures equity, even in the light of bias mobilization, beliefs, values, institutional features, nature of the problem to be incorporated in the agenda, manipulative ability of people in “power”, and even policy window. Public policies are executed in the name of the larger population, which has distinct interests in the agenda-giving rise to the formation of such policies.

In setting agendas using unstructured models, the judgment of political leaders and unquantifiable factors are considered. Therefore, incorporation of personal tastes, qualitative factors and individual ethical judgments may impair the comprehension of the problem.

The solution to these challenges in agenda setting is thus “to adopt an analytical model that incorporates hypothesis which, while difficult to verify empirically, compel the investigator to explore a broader range of aspects of polity within the power context” (Bachrach and Baratz “Power and Its Two Faces Revisited” 901). This agrees well with the argument that agenda setting needs profiling with a structured power model.

The fact that, a structured model produces a broader spectrum of elements to consider in the agenda setting process, it infers that, a single best solution is also possible to get without ignoring essential factors. More importantly, problems are hard to structure without negating consideration of qualitative attributes. This means that personal tastes are widely eliminated in the agenda setting process.

Conclusion

Analyzing social problems require attendance to conflict entangling the definition of the problem being handled. Even in incidences involving certain social conditions that afflict the society, government interventions may be widely absent to resolve the matter. In the paper, this has been argued as being contributed by the fact that not all social conditions amounts to social problems.

Consequently, while setting an agenda, the setter should structure the problem and analyze it to garner information on whether it constitutes all the essential elements of a social problem. In addition to these concerns, the paper endeavored also to unveil whether there are some issues more likely to be on the agenda than others are, and endorsed a structured model of power as being the best process of agenda setting.

Works Cited

Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. “Power and Its Two Faces Revisited: Reply to Geoffrey Debman.” American Political Science Review 69.3 (1975): 892-904. Print.

Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. “Two Faces Of Power”. American Political Science Review 56.4 (1962): 947-952. Print.

Battaglini, Marco, and Stephen Coate. “Inefficiency in Legislative Policymaking: A Dynamic Analysis.” American Economic Review 97.1 (2007):118-149. Print.

Birkland , Thomas. After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2008. Print.

Debman, Geoffrey. “Non Decisions and Power: The Two Faces of Power of Barach and Baratz”. American Political Science Review 69.3 (1975): 889-891. Print.

Dinitto, Andrew. Agenda Setting: An Introduction to Literature, 2011. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!