Advertisement

Making and Unmaking “problems”

  • Carol Bacchi
  • Susan Goodwin
Chapter
  • 7.1k Downloads

Abstract

This chapter pursues a central task in the book, explaining what is accomplished by focusing on how policies produce or constitute “problems”. To begin, it canvasses how “problems” are conceptualized in classic rationalist, and in more recent interpretive and critical realist approaches to policy analysis, and indicates the possible deleterious implications of assuming the existence of problems as objective and uncontroversial states. Second, the chapter draws on WPR applications in two policy areas—alcohol and drugs policy and gender equality policy—to show how the interrogation of problematizations provides important insights into how governing takes place. In this way it illustrates the distinctive contribution of a poststructural questioning of “problems”.

Keywords

“social problems” “wicked problems” rationalism framing “gender equality” “alcohol problems” 

Bibliography

  1. Alexander, S., & Coveney, J. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of Canadian and Australian public health recommendations promoting physical activity to children. Health Sociology Review, 22 (4), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANCD (2012). 1st Recovery Roundtable Report. Canberra: Australian National Council on Drugs.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, E. (2007). Moral panic over meth. Contemporary Justice Review, 10 (4), 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Public Service Commission (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  5. Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. Bacchi, C. (2015b). Problematizations in alcohol policy: WHO’s “alcohol problems”. Contemporary Drug Problems, 42 (2), 130–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bacchi, C., & Bonham, J. (2014). Reclaiming discursive practices as an analytic focus: Political implications. Foucault Studies, 17, 173–192.Google Scholar
  9. Bambra, C., Smith, K. E., Garthwaite, K., Joyce, K.D., Hunter, D.J. (2011). A labour of Sisyphus? Public policy and health inequalities research from the Black and Acheson Reports to the Marmot Review. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 65 (5), 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjørnholt, M. (2012). From work-sharing couples to equal parents: Changing perspectives of men and gender equality. In C. Krekula, M. Åberg, M.J. Samuelsson (Eds.), Gender and change: Power, politics and everyday practices. Karlstad: Karlstad University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Calvo, D. (2013). What is the problem of gender? Mainstreaming gender in migration and development in the European Union, PhD Thesis, Department of Sociology and Work Science, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  12. Carson, L., & Edwards, K. (2011). Prostitution and sex trafficking: What are the problems represented to be? A discursive analysis of law and policy in Sweden and Victoria, Australia. The Australian Feminist Law Journal, 34, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, S. (2002) [1972]. Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Council of the European Union (2004). EU Drug Strategy 2005–2012. Brussels.Google Scholar
  15. Dery, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  16. du Rose, N. (2015). The governance of female drug users: Women’s experiences of drug policy. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elsey, H., Tolhurst, R., Theobald, S. (2005). Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS in development sectors: Have we learnt the lessons from gender mainstreaming? AIDS Care, 17 (8), 988–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1994a) [1981]. So is it important to think? In J.D. Faubion, (Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 3, Hurley, R. and others (trans.). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  19. Fraser, S., & Moore, D. (2011). Governing through problems: The formulation of policy on amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) in Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22, 498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, R. (2006). The work the document does: Research, policy, and equity in health. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31 (1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Grebe, C. (2009). Reconciliation policy in Germany 1998–2008: Construing the “problem” of the incompatibility of paid employment and care work, PhD Dissertation, University of Nottingham, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Weisbaden.Google Scholar
  23. Hearn, J., & McKie, L. (2010). Gendered and social hierarchies in problem representation and policy processes: “Domestic violence” in Finland and Scotland, Violence Against Women, 16 (2), 136–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoppe, R. (2002). Cultures of public policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4 (3), 305–326.Google Scholar
  25. Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, power and participation. Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G.J. Miller, M.S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kingdon, J.W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 1st edition 1984. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  28. Kok, M., & de Coninck, H. (2007). Widening the scope of politics to address climate change: Directions for mainstreaming. Environment Science & Policy, 10 (7–8), 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lancaster, K. (2014). Social construction and the evidence-based drug policy endeavour. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 948–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lancaster, K., Duke, K., Ritter, A. (2015). Producing the “problem of drugs”: A cross-national comparison of “recovery” discourse in two Australian and British reports. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26, 617–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lancaster, K., Hughes, C.E., Chalmers, J., Ritter, A. (2012). More than problem-solving: Critical reflections on the “problematisation” of alcohol-related violence in Kings Cross. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31, 925–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lancaster, K., Ritter, A., Colebatch, H. (2014). Problems, policy and politics: Making sense of Australia’s “ice epidemic”. Policy Studies, 35 (2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lancaster, K., Seear, K., Treloar, C. (2015). Laws prohibiting peer distribution of injecting equipment in Australia: A critical analysis of their effects. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16 (12), 1198–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lasswell, H.D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
  35. Levine, H.G. (1984). The alcohol problem in America: From temperance to alcoholism. British Journal of Addiction, 79, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindblom, C.E. (1980). The policy-making process, 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, F., & Aston, S. (2014). A “special population” with “unique treatment needs”: Dominant representations of “womenʼs substance abuse” and their effects. Contemporary Drug Problems, 41, 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mohanty, C.T. (1991). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. In C.T. Mohanty, A. Russo, L. Torres (Eds.), Third world women and the politics of feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Osborne, T. (1997). Of health and statecraft. In A. Petersen, & R. Bunton (Eds.), Foucault: Health and medicine. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2004). Realist evaluation, funded by British Cabinet Office,www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf. Accessed 31 December 2015.
  41. Payne, S. (2014). Constructing the gendered body? A critical discourse analysis of gender equality schemes in the health sector in England. Current Sociology, 62 (7), 956–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pease, B. (2011). Governing men’s violence against women in Australia. In E. Ruspini, J. Hearn, B. Pease, K. Pringle, (Eds.), Men and masculinities around the world: Transforming men’s practices. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Poulson, H. (2006). The elusive gender: the International Labour Organization and the construction of gender equality, PhD Thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  44. Powell, A., & Murray, S. (2008). Children and domestic violence: Constructing a policy problem in Australia and New Zealand. Social & Legal Studies, 17 (4), 453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  46. Schön, D.A. (1979). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Seear, K., & Fraser, S. (2014). The addict as victim: Producing the “problem” of addiction in Australian victims of crime compensation laws. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 826–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shapiro, I. (2002). Problems, methods, and theories in the study of politics, or what’s wrong with political science and what to do about it. Political Theory, 30, 596–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon, H. (1961) [1945]. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization, 2nd edition. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, K.E., Hunter, D.J., Blackman, T., Elliot, E., Green, A., Harrington, B. E., Marks, L., McKee, L., Williams, G.H. (2009). Divergence or convergence? Health inequalities and policy in a devolved Britain. Critical Social Policy, 29 (2), 216–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sutton, C. (1998). Swedish alcohol discourse: Constructions of a social problem (Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy & Sociology), Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Sociologica Upsaliensia, 45.Google Scholar
  52. Turnbull, N. (2005). Policy in question: From problem solving to problematology, PhD thesis, School of Social Science and Policy, University of New South Wales, Sydney.Google Scholar
  53. UKDPC (2008). The UK Drug Policy Commission Recovery Consensus Group: A vision of recovery. London: UK Drug Policy Commission.Google Scholar
  54. WHO (World Health Organization) (1980). Expert Committee Report on Problems Related to Alcohol Consumption (WHO Technical Report Series 650), World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  55. WHO (World Health Organization) (2010). Global strategy on the harmful use of alcohol. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  56. WHO (World Health Organization) (2015). Health in all policies: Training manual. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  57. Wildavsky, A. (1979). The art and craft of policy analysis. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol Bacchi
    • 1
  • Susan Goodwin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations