Skip to main content

Agenda Setting in India: Examining the Ganges Pollution Control Program Through the Lens of Multiple Streams Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Policy Research in the Global South
  • 585 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter contributes to the existing knowledge about the nature of agenda setting dynamics in the Global South by investigating issue-attention patterns in context of pollution control activities in the Ganges river basin in India over a span of three decades (1985−2016). It is grounded in a discourse analysis that shows how Kingdon’s multiple stream approach materialized over the period of investigation and subsequently converged into opening up of a favourable policy window, post 2014 general elections with a change in the national leadership. The specific roles played by different actors and their key motivation are discussed in detail. Finally, the findings indicate that securing political advantage was the main driver in the whole process. The final opening of policy window was facilitated by carefully planned collective action between a handful of political actors sharing similar political ideologies as well as vantage points. The deplorable condition of the river, and repeated government failure to deliver results, was exploited by the opposition party to create a national mood charged with public sentiments and an urgent need to address the issue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    National Ganga River Basin Authority.

  2. 2.

    Ganga Action Plan I (GAP I) ran between 1985 and 2000; Ganga Action Plan II (GAP II) ran between 1991 and 2001.

  3. 3.

    36 Class I cities and 14 Class II towns discharge approximately 2723 MLD of urban sewage, of which only 1208 MLD is the capacity of installed STPs (sewage treatment plant). Additionally, 6087 MLD of open drain water from different run-offs flow into the river.

  4. 4.

    Incidentally these activities coincided with the upcoming May 2009 general elections.

  5. 5.

    http://nmcg.nic.in/NamamiGanga.aspx (accessed 08/09/17).

  6. 6.

    http://nmcg.nic.in/about_nmcg.aspx (accessed 08/09/2017).

  7. 7.

    Nearly 16% of the country’s total sewage generated is discharged in Ganges only (Ganga River Basin Management Plan Interim Report 2013, Avaialbe at: https://nmcg.nic.in/writereaddata/fileupload/25_GRBMPInterim_Rep.pdf (accessed 17/12/2018); CPCB Report 2013). 

  8. 8.

    Autonomous research institute like Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) and NGOs like Eco Friends, Kanpur; Sankat Mochan Foundation, Varanasi; and more.

  9. 9.

    Zee News; http://zeenews.india.com/news/general-elections-2014/narendra-modi-attends-ganga-aarti-in-varanasi-thanks-people-for-support_932777.html (accessed 08/07/17).

References

  • Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (2004). “The world changed today”: Agenda-setting and policy change in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Review of Policy Research, 21(2), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (2006). Agenda setting in public policy. In F. Fischer & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 89–104). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A., & DeYoung, S. E. (2012). Focusing events and policy windows. In E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, S. (2008). Understanding policy change: Multiple streams and emissions trading in Germany. Global Environmental Change, 18(3), 501–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R., Ross, J. K., & Ross, M. H. (1976). Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review, 70(1), 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, P., & Tamminga, K. R. (2012). The Ganges and the GAP: An assessment of efforts to clean a sacred river. Sustainability, 4(8), 1647–1668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1972, Summer). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. Public Interest, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshbaugh-Soha, M., & Peake, J. S. (2005). Presidents and the economic agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guldbrandsson, K., & Fossum, B. (2009). An exploration of the theoretical concepts policy windows and policy entrepreneurs at the Swedish public health arena. Health Promotion International, 24(4), 434–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (1997). Issue-attention and punctuated equilibria models reconsidered: An empirical examination of the dynamics of agenda-setting in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 30(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (1998). Predictable and unpredictable policy windows: Institutional and exogenous correlates of Canadian federal agenda-setting. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 31(3), 495–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, J. (2016). Clear enough to be proven wrong? Assessing the influence of the concept of bounded rationality within the multiple-streams framework. In R. Zohlnhöfer & F. W. Rüb (Eds.), Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints. Assessing the multiple-streams framework (pp. 35–50). Colchester: ECPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lober, D. J. (1997). Explaining the formation of business-environmentalist collaborations: Collaborative windows and the Paper Task Force. Policy Sciences, 30(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, I., & Benson, D. (2014). Radical institutional change in environmental governance: Explaining the origins of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 through discursive and streams perspectives. Global Environmental Change, 29, 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, A. S. (1991). Interest groups and political time: Cycles in America. British Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 257–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., MacKuen, M., & Crigler, N. A. (Eds.). (2007). The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2007). Collective action theory. In C. Boix & S. C. Stokes (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Princen, S. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1993). Policy changes over a decade or more. In P. A. Sabatier & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning. An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 33–34). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The need for better theories. Theories of the Policy Process, 2, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, E. B. (1994). Paradoxes of national antidrug policymaking. The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda (pp. 98–116). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M., & Singh, A. K. (2007). Bibliography of environmental studies in natural characteristics and anthropogenic influences on the Ganga River. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 129(1–3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S. N. (2003). Media, public opinion, and foreign policy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S., Lawlor, A., Farnsworth, S., & Young, L. (2012). Mass media and policymaking. In M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, S. Fritzen, & E. Araral (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 204–214). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vliegenthart, R., Walgrave, S., Baumgartner, F. R., Bevan, S., Breunig, C., Brouard, S., Bonafont, L. C., et al. (2016). Do the media set the parliamentary agenda? A comparative study in seven countries. European Journal of Political Research, 55(2), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, B. D., & Peake, J. S. (1998). The dynamics of foreign policy agenda setting. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1992). To sell or not to sell? Telecommunications policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1995a). States, markets, and public policy: Privatization in Britain and France. Policy Studies Journal, 23(2), 378–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1995b). Markets, states, and public policy: Privatization in Britain and France. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and multiple streams. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 25–59). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2016). Political leadership, multiple streams and the emotional endowment effect: A comparison of American and Greek foreign policies. In R. Zohlnhöfer & F. W. Rüb (Eds.), Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints. Assessing the multiple-streams framework (pp. 147–166). Colchester: ECPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N., & Allen, C. S. (1995). Ideas, networks, and policy streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany. Review of Policy Research, 14(1/2), 71–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawahri, N. A., & Hensengerth, O. (2012). Domestic environmental activists and the governance of the Ganges and Mekong Rivers in India and China. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 12(3), 269–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohlnhöfer, R., & Rüb, F. (2016). Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints. Colchester: ECPR.

    Google Scholar 

Websites and Online Sources

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maitreyee Mukherjee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mukherjee, M. (2019). Agenda Setting in India: Examining the Ganges Pollution Control Program Through the Lens of Multiple Streams Framework. In: Grimm, H.M. (eds) Public Policy Research in the Global South. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06061-9_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics