At every stage of the policy process, whether in defining a problem, setting a goal, choosing a policy instrument, or evaluating a policy, choices must be made. These choices are based on particular interpretations of a particular context and are always, to some extent, subjective. The first empirical research question that the thesis answers is:
How do policy actors within HS2 frame or construct the policy problem?
In order to answer this question the thesis draws on two main literatures which are social problems theory and framing theory. These two literatures are the most useful in
understanding how and why policy actors construct an issue in a particular way. This is because the approach assists the researcher in identifying the positions which different actors adopt on a particular issue, the terms in which their arguments are couched and the evidence they cite for their positions. Social problems theory originates from sociology. During the late
47 1960s into the 1980s many academics argued that “facts” and evidence were not independent, direct observations, but embedded in our underlying implicit assumptions that form our understanding of the world (Aronson, 1984; Mulkay, 1979). Schneider defined social problems as problems that are socially constructed, ‘both in terms of the particular acts and interactions problem participants pursue, and in terms of the process of such activities through time’ (1985:209). Since the topic of social problems emerged the dilemma for many has been about how social problems are conceptualised and how they should be studied. It was Bulmer (1971) who campaigned for a change in the way they were viewed. He argued that social problems are products of a process of collective definition rather than objective conditions and social arrangements. This was developed further by Spector and Kitsuse who defined social problems as:
‘the activities of groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some
putative conditions’ and argue that social problems theory should ‘account for the emergence and maintenance of claim-making and responding activities’
Spector and Kitsuse, (1974:415)
Although this particular theory is concerned with ‘social’ problems, their definition is discussed in a similar way to policy problems. Public policy is inherently concerned with finding solutions to social problems. What determines whether something is a ‘policy
problem’ compared with a ‘social problem’ is often a result of the literature of choice. Just as evidence-based policy making and research utilisation literature share similar traits, so does the literature that discusses policy and social problems. Hajer (1993) viewed political
problems as socially constructed. He studied the global controversy of acid rain in the 1980s to demonstrate how evidence is utilised by competing coalitions and how they interpret a policy problem.
48 The central proposition of social problems theory is that social problems are the ‘definitional activities of people around conditions and conduct they find troublesome, including others' definitional activities’ (Schneider, 1985:209). In short, they are socially constructed rather than objective conditions. Each social problem has its own story and unique natural history that has developed over time. The idea of natural history model was first raised by Fuller and Myers in 1941 but was considered ‘too rigid’ in its specification of a ‘common order of development through which all social problems pass’ by Spector and Kitsuse (1973:147). They proposed a heuristic four-stage natural history model derived from an extensive but informal survey of the histories of several social problems and from detailed histories of six social problems compiled by graduate students in a seminar on social problems:
Figure 1: Heuristic four-stage natural history model, developed from Spector and Kitsuse, (1973)
Stage one is concerned with awareness and comprises ‘collective attempts to remedy a condition that some group perceives and judges offensive and undesirable’ (Spector & Kitsuse 1973:148). It focuses on the early stages of the policy process and their attempts of
Stage 1
• Claimsmaker establishes and defines a condition as problematic, which in effect transforms the condition into a public issue.
Stage 2
• Involves the recognition, legitimation, and acceptance from an institution, agency, or official organisation.
Stage 3
• Members begin to express dissatisfaction with the established procedures for dealing with the social problem at hand.
Stage 4
• Members develop alternative procedures in response to the problematic procedures discussed in stage 3.
49 groups or individuals to assert the existence of some problem, define it as undesirable, to publicise the assertions and stimulate controversy thus creating a political issue over the matter. Stage one is concerned with ‘how claims and grievances are formed and presented, the varieties and nature of the claims and grievances, strategies to press these claims and gain wider attention and support, the power of the group making claims, and the creation of a public controversy are important issues’ (Schneider, 1985:212). If one group ascertains that certain conditions are intolerable another group may claim that the conditions are fine as they are and there is no need for change. Such groups may ‘challenge the claims of the protesting group, mount their own campaign, and lobby against proposed changes’ (Spector and Kitsuse, 1973:151). This is an example of value conflict – each group has different value judgements of a particular condition which brings them into conflict with groups that do not share these values. A social problem may remain at this stage or transform into stage two, depending on whether or not a group’s claims are recognised.
Stage two begins with recognition of these claims by ‘governmental agencies or other official and influential institutions’. To continue beyond stage two a social problem must involve ‘an institution…to deal with the claims and complaints concerning the condition in question’ (Spector & Kitsuse 1973:154). They may do this through a number of channels including demonstrations, use of the media, or confrontation tactics. Social problems thus become ‘routinized in an organisation charged with doing something about the alleged conditions’ (Schneider, 1985:212). Social problems that reach this stage can still disappear. When policy actors claim a response is problematic, stage three begins.
Stage three is what can be thought of as the dissatisfaction stage. It is where claims and demands by groups re-emerge, expressing dissatisfaction with the established procedures for dealing with the policy problem and the failure to generate a condition of trust and
50 for this thesis dissatisfaction exists already and an institution is involved to deal with the claims and complaints. Claims and demands have already re-emerged and so it is stage four at which the empirical research focuses on.
Stage four is concerned with creating alternatives. It is marked by claimants' (policy actors) ‘contention that it is no longer possible to 'work within the system' . . .’ and their attempts to develop alternative institutions (Spector & Kitsuse 1973:156). This stage occurs through the ‘rejection of the response or lack of response of the agency or institution to their claims and demands, and the development of activities to create an alternative, or counter institutions as responses to the established procedures’ (Spector and Kitsuse, 1973:147). This means sociologists of social problems ‘should not concern themselves with the validity of
participants' (their colleagues included) claims about conditions, but with how such claims and definitions are created, documented, pressed, and kept alive’ (Schneider, 1985:212). Documenting claims or definitions about conditions constitutes participation. The point is to account for the viability of these claims, not to judge whether they are true. And while social problems’ participants attribute values to their own and others' activities, sociologists of social problems should not. Gusfield (1981) has characterized this stance as being "on the side" or neutral, rather than choosing "whose side" we are on (Becker, 1967).
Researchers of social problems are not expected to make independent assessments of the claims-making activities they investigate. It is not for them to decide whether or not the claims made by individuals are valid or ‘true’. What is more of interest to them is ‘how participants come to make these statements, what they take to be evidence of the conditions and to whom they direct their claims’ (Spector and Kitsuse, 1977:126). Social problems theory is appealing as a starting point as it has a subjective component to it; it recognises the importance of language within claims-making and argues that social context facilitates definitions and claims. Spector and Kitsuse (1977) state that the activity of making claims or
51 demands for change is central to the core of what they call social problems activities.
Language plays an important role in policy making and actors must master the art of claims- making.