| Chapter 1: | Introduction |
|
|
historical norms and institutional arrangements, seems inclusive enough to incorporate a broader discussion of policy ideas. Unfortunately, Parsons’ empirical analysis focuses narrowly on legal frameworks and does not explore the ideas upon which those frameworks are based.
Second, the Streeter and Parsons studies both suffer from a limitation that plagues post-positivist discourse frameworks in general: a failure to appreciate the unique and privileged role that “the state” plays in the policy process. Post-positivists tend to characterize the policy process as an exchange of ideas within a discourse community consisting of politicians, civil servants, organized interests, and other privileged intellectual elites. Although the preferences of state actors, such as FCC officials, are by no means dismissed, neither are they accorded any special analytical significance. For the purposes of this study, however, a close examination of state decision-making activities is essential. Because state actors possess formal decision-making authority, their preferences and their knowledge about the world are the forces that most immediately shape the content of public policy. The knowledge held by state actors may include broad, historically situated frames, but it also includes experience accrued through practical problem solving. Practical experience becomes particularly important when state decision makers confront a novel, technically complex policy problem, such as that presented by cable television. When confronted with new policy problems, decision makers may attempt to simplify matters by framing them in light of analogies drawn from past experience. When problems are complex and multifaceted, however, framing by analogy may prove insufficient as a road map for their resolution. Consequently, problems of this kind may take years or even decades to resolve, as state decision makers experiment with solutions, accrue knowledge, and reorient their mental frames. As decision makers