2.3.1 Theoretical Bases
The behavior perspective studies the behaviors of policy participants, such as bureaucrats and experts involved in policy issue construction and agenda setting, focusing on their roles and functions in policy process. The behavior perspective and the process perspective overlap with each other in many aspects. Some researches from the behavior perspective can actually be regarded as a micro mechanism of the process perspective.
However, studies from behavior perspective do not seek to establish integral theories for issue framing and agenda setting.
There are extensive theoretical foundations for policy issue and policy agenda studies from behavior perspective. The garbage can model for organizational choices and the three streams model for agenda setting and other policy process theories provide lots of insights to examine the behaviors of policy participants. These theories have remained some interesting issues to be further elaborated, such as the roles of professional communities and policy entrepreneurs in the three stream model (Cohen et al., 1972;
Kingdon, 1995). Many theories about organization and institution are also theoretical bases for the behavior perspective; individual motives and resources together with the institutional incentives are the important factors in shaping behaviors of policy actors (Scott, 2008; Simon, 1985; Simon, 1990). Studies on bureaucratic politics claimed that
participants of policy process are not homogeneous, as they are concerned with different issues and make their decisions according to their diversified values and interests, in a
“pulling and hauling” manner (Allison&Halperin, 1972). Thus, questions such as how bureaucratic behaviors influence policy agendas and what functions they have in policy agenda setting are very worthy of studying. Besides, theories related to the utilization of knowledge also provide opportunities to have dialogues with studies from behavior perspective. The school of knowledge utilization believes that gradual accumulation of knowledge related to policies can alter decision-makers’ cognition (Sundquist, 1978). As a result, different participants in policy process, such as consulting committees, policy entrepreneurs, professionals in governmental sectors, mass medias, interest groups and issue networks, are vital to agenda setting and policy change (Weiss, 1991).
2.3.2 Explanatory Frameworks and Models
In traditional studies on policy issues and policy agendas from behavior perspective, attention is mainly focused on the behaviors and roles of policy participants such as bureaucrats and experts.
Bureaucratic organizations are directly involved in decision-making process, so they play a key part in agenda politics. The way they handle information has significant impact on the progress of agenda that they are concerned with (Workman et al., 2009). By studying America’s emergency preparedness policies, researchers have found that influential sectors of bureaucratic organizations would amplify policy signals from their principals and attract high level policy attention, which would generate crowd-out effect on other issues (May et al., 2008). Different from previous findings, Peter May and her colleagues also found that the “disruption” of agendas created by exogenous impacts were smaller than normally imagined, which could be attributed to buffers between policy subsystems comprised of different bureaucratic organizations. The buffering effect would weaken spillover effect between issues (May et al., 2009a; May et al., 2009b). By studying the agenda setting in local decision-making institutions, researchers have found that influence from bureaucrats and interest groups was much larger than the public, experts and media; and that influence of budget constraints and other feedbacks was larger than objective indices of problems and focusing events (Liu et al., 2010). In addition, Bruno Takahashi et al. have studied the roles of legislators and advisors, and found that they relied more on news reports and online information when there is no sufficient
information (Takahashi&Meisner, 2013).
The role of experts in policy agenda is also a focus in policy process studies. In China’s climate change policy process, experts can exert their influence in agenda setting through media and by providing decision-makers with policy advices (Wübbeke, 2010;
Wübbeke, 2013). Zhu Xufeng, through his investigation on Chinese think tanks in policy process, discovered that Chinese think tanks were deeply affected by knowledge, administrative networks and social networks. Scholars in think tanks have double roles:
they can exert influence on policy agendas as either advisors or advocates (Zhu, 2011;
Zhu, 2009). Besides, he also found that policy change in China could in turn affect the modes and ways by which experts influence agenda setting (Zhu, 2013).
The behavior perspective not only pays attention to the roles of different participants in issue framing and agenda setting, but also investigates the different patterns of agenda setting according to the behaviors of policy actors. Peter May thus defined four modes for agenda setting, according to the initiator of debate and the nature of public support.
They are outside initiation (initiator of debate : societal actors; nature of public support:
high), inside initiation (initiator of debate: societal actors; nature of public support: low), consolidation (initiator of debate: state; nature of public support: high ), and mobilization(initiator of debate : state; nature of public support: low) (Howlett et al., 1995;
May, 1991). Among agenda setting researches in China, Wang Shaoguang’s work was famous for proposing six agenda setting models in China. These models, closed door model, inside access model, outside access model, mobilization model, reach-out model and popular pressure model, were different over two dimensions: degree of public participation and initiators of agenda (王绍光, 2006). In nature, Wang’s categorization is a kind of extension and application of agenda setting model aforementioned to China.
Although their models differed from each other, they all focused on policy participants and their roles.
2.3.3 Explanatory Power and Limitations
Compared to the linear logic of the process perspective and nonlinear logic of the system perspective, studies from behavior perspective focus on the “marginal” effect in agenda setting, which means that they do not attempt to build a integral theory to explain issue framing or agenda setting, but try to study policy actors together with their roles in policy process. Existing studies from behavior perspective show that the can more
precisely depict and illustrate the characteristics of actors such as bureaucrats and experts.
Under the logic of behavior perspective, the previous nonlinear policy process would approximate to linear process. Consequently, it is easier to validate models with empirical studies and researchers thus can better explain the roles policy participants have. Studies from behavior perspective can be seen as a valuable and important supplement, support and improvement for both process perspective and system perspective.
A coin has two sides, the same is true with studies from behavior perspective.
Although behavior perspective can better explain and verify the functions and roles of different actors in policy process, it is unable to reveal the dynamics of policy issues and policy agenda. It is also incapable of describing the non-linear characteristics of policy process. Besides, researches from behavior perspective are still unable to construct a integral theory about agenda setting, largely owing to its underlying logic of linear approximation. To regain the dynamic theories requires scholars to understand the dynamic mechanisms between policy actors involved in policy process, which the real puzzle lie in.