The issue lifecycle

Issue process models are one tool issues managers can use, issues lifecycle models are another. Much work has been done on modelling the lifecycle – or stages - that issues go through. The value in developing models of the issue lifecycle is that they can be used to identify where an issue is at a point in time (Mahon & Waddock, 1992). Knowing where an issue is in the cycle can be useful for developing an organisational response to “the movements of public attention”, for example, by implementing new issue-related policy (Newig, 2004, p. 150). Issue lifecycle models have been applied to issues as diverse as climate change (Trumbo, 1996), air pollution (Henry & Gordon, 2001), the environmental effects of paper mills run by four major Canadian and Finnish forestry companies (Nasi et al., 1997), a United States tax on married couples (Gerde &

White, 2001) and the debate in Australia around gun control (Reynolds, 1997). Henry and Gordon (2001) summarised issue lifecycle models as following three distinct phases: (1) developing or rising interest, (2) declining interest and (3) stable interest with occasional mild fluctuations. While the issue models share general similarities, each approaches the lifecycle from a different perspective.

The first, and most influential, issue lifecycle model is Downs’ (1972) ‘Issue Attention Cycle”. It has endured for the four decades since its creation and has been seminal in the issue lifecycle literature. Downs’ model has five stages. The first stage is the ‘pre-

problem state’. During this phase, the issue already exists, but the general public is unaware of its existence, although some experts and special interest groups may already be aware. Downs comments that the problem during the pre-problem stage may be “far worse” than when the public eventually find out about it (p. 39). The second phase is the ‘alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm’ stage. In this stage, the public discovers an issue exists and excitedly decides that society will be able to solve it. Downs comments that this phase works on the assumption that society has the ability to solve all problems without much effort. The third stage is ‘realising the cost of significant progress’. This is when society gradually comes to terms with the fact that dealing with the issue will take considerable resources, in particular, money and sacrifices by societal groups. The fourth stage is ‘gradual decline of public interest’. Downs says that after society realises the cost of dealing with the issue, some people will feel threatened, others will be discouraged and some may be bored by the issue. Further, people may experience a combination of the three aforementioned states. Attention in the issue wanes and other issues receive attention instead. The fifth stage is the ‘post-problem state’. This is when the issue is ‘dormant’, but not solved. The issue receives little attention, although, occasionally stories may focus on the topic. Downs says that issues that have gone through the cycle are more likely to “sporadically recapture public interest” or become attached to or mentioned in terms of another issue (p. 41).

Since Downs proposed the ‘attention cycle’ model, other writers have evaluated his work. The primary issue that has been raised with Downs and the other issues lifecycle models is that they suggest issues go through, as Nasi et al. put it, “a predictable evolutionary trajectory” (1997, p. 298). As Lamertz, Martens, and Heugens point out,

linear, sequential path suggested by evolutionary frameworks” (2003, p. 83). Downs did acknowledge that the stages might occur out of order, but suggested that they “almost always occur” in the sequence he listed them (1972, p. 39). Trumbo was still able to apply Downs’ model to climate change, but noted that “it is unlikely that the stages of Downs’ cycle operate independently or in any strict linear sense” (1996, p. 275). Recently, Henry and Gordon (2001) and Newig (2004) have confirmed, from their observations from quantitative analysis of issues, that issues cycles do exist. This seemingly supports the idea that issue lifecycle models do describe how issues evolve.

Peters and Hogwood (1985) too went ‘in search of the issue-attention cycle’. They questioned Downs’ reliance on perception over quantitative analysis. Further, they found that the decline in interest – the fifth stage in Downs’ model – could be explained by lulls in issue-related activities. They also pointed out that Downs’ model is primarily focused on social issues (for example, AIDS, environmental pollution) rather than Government response to issues. This focus, therefore, does not take into account Government legislation to deal with an issue and attempts to implement it. These actions, Peters and Hogwood suggest, may sustain interest in an issue for longer. They also thought that issue attention would have a relationship with issue-related activity: the more activity, the more attention. However, Peters and Hogwood agreed with Downs’ proposition that issues receive more attention after their peak, rather than before. They also suggested that there are two types of issues cycles: (1) those that are initiated in response to events (e.g. wars, energy crises) and (2) those that reflect political priorities (e.g. issues during election campaigns). Newig and Hesselmann (2004) agreed with Peters and Hogwood that visibility was a key factor in the attention an issue received. They also agreed with Downs, saying that the ability to ‘solve’ the problem aided its continued coverage. Further, they suggested a third factor, acuteness, as being another important factor in issue attention.

A further problem with Downs’ model not suggested by Peters and Hogwood or Newig and Hesselmann is that while the ‘Issue Attention Cycle’ can offer insights into the phases of social issues, its value is limited when dealing with issues that were not caused by people (as in the case of a naturally-forming dam-break lahar). Further, social issues seldom have a set timeline within which they must be dealt with while naturally- occurring issues may need to be dealt with immediately (a crisis) or over a longer

period. However Downs’ and other theorists have put forward their own models which have offered new perspectives on issue evolution.

Buchholz’s (1992) ‘Public Issues Life Cycle’ has four stages. First is the ‘changing expectations’ stage. This is when a gap exists between how an organisation behaves and the public’s expectations of how they should behave. Buchholz explains that issues arise because of value changes in wider society. These value changes may be driven by technological advances, an increasingly-educated public or changes in “basic institutions” such as the family or church (p. 3). Second is the ‘political stage’. The issue gains media coverage and is picked up by interest groups. At this stage politicians may then become involved and start developing policy, which in turn may involve public consultation. Third is the ‘legislative stage’. Legislation and regulations to handle the issue are introduced. Fourth is the ‘litigation stage’. The newly-implemented

legislation may be debated. Changes to the legislation or litigation may be pursued. Buchholz’s model addresses one of Peters and Hogwood’s primary concerns about Downs’ model. The focus of the ‘Public Issues Life Cycle’ is on the development of public policy from an organisational or Governmental perspective. However, this perspective assumes that public policy is developed for all issues. Further, like Downs’, Buchholz’s model is primarily concerned with social issues.

Another model that shares similarities to Buchholz’s model is Hainsworth’s (1990a) ‘Issue Process Model’. Hainsworth’s also discusses the development of public policy. According to this model, issues go through four stages. The first stage is ‘Origin’ – when “an organisation or public attaches significance to a perceived problem” (p. 84). The second stage is ‘Mediation and Amplification’ – the interested groups take sides on an issue and start debating the issue. At this point, media pick up on the debate. The third stage is ‘Organisation’ – when the positions on the issue held by the various groups solidify. This stage also sees the beginning of resolution between groups to find a solution for the issue that either benefits all groups or minimises damage. The issue’s visibility continues increasing, which results in the involvement of Government

officials. The fourth stage is ‘Resolution’ – public policy is developed around an issue by Government officials. At this point the issue may be resolved or enter into a

The last issues lifecycle model discussed in this section is Meng’s (1992) ‘Five Stage Issues Lifecycle’. First stage, potential issue. Second stage, emerging issue. Third stage, current issue. Fourth stage, crisis issue. Fifth stage, dormant issue. However, Coombs (2002) points out that this model is actually based on the work of Crable and Vibbert (1985). According to Crable and Vibbert, issues go through four status levels. When a person or group identifies an issue as being important, it has potential status. While an issue may have potential status, it still must get the support of the wider public to gain traction: “people must see how the issue relates to or affects them and their concerns” (Crable & Vibbert, 1985, p. 6). If an issue’s ‘potential’ receives the endorsement of the wider public, the issue then has imminent status. Crable and Vibbert suggest that this ‘endorsement’ may come from a person or group. The endorsement of groups and individuals give an issue legitimacy (Crable & Vibbert, 1985). While an issue has

imminent status it is “coming together” or “picking up steam”. “People [begin] to see connections between themselves and others” (Crable & Vibbert, 1985, p. 6). This leads onto the third level of status, current status. At this level of status, the issue has two qualities. First, the issue has “current or present interest” (Crable & Vibbert, 1985, p. 6). Second, the issue has reached acceptance as a topic of discussion in wider society. During this status, three things occur that shape the evolution of the issue. First, media pick up on the issue, giving it widespread coverage. Second, media coverage of the issue creates ‘sides’ of those for and against. Third, individuals are selected to play roles in the ‘drama’. Once the issue is widely known, it is given a fourth level of status:

critical status. Issues become critical “at a moment of decision – a crisis, in the sense that something is willed (and predicted) to happen” (Crable & Vibbert, 1985, p. 6). At this stage, people choose an argument with which they are comfortable. People want a resolution to the issue. They are “actively concerned” (Crable & Vibbert, 1985, p. 6). Further, they hope their preferred solution will be chosen. However, even if a solution is implemented the issue does not ‘end’. Crable and Vibbert say, “issues may be

‘resolved’ – in the sense of a temporary ‘answer’ – but they are never ‘solved’ in the sense of a final answer” (1985, p. 5). Meng referred to this issue status level as ‘dormant’.