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.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
National Ganga River Basin Authority.
- 2.
Ganga Action Plan I (GAP I) ran between 1985 and 2000; Ganga Action Plan II (GAP II) ran between 1991 and 2001.
- 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.
Incidentally these activities coincided with the upcoming May 2009 general elections.
- 5.
http://nmcg.nic.in/NamamiGanga.aspx (accessed 08/09/17).
- 6.
http://nmcg.nic.in/about_nmcg.aspx (accessed 08/09/2017).
- 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.
Autonomous research institute like Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) and NGOs like Eco Friends, Kanpur; Sankat Mochan Foundation, Varanasi; and more.
- 9.
References
Ackrill, R., Kay, A., & Zahariadis, N. (2013). Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 871–887.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.
Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.
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.
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.
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.
Brunner, S. (2008). Understanding policy change: Multiple streams and emissions trading in Germany. Global Environmental Change, 18(3), 501–507.
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.
Cobb, R., Ross, J. K., & Ross, M. H. (1976). Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review, 70(1), 126–138.
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.
Downs, A. (1972, Summer). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. Public Interest, 28.
Eshbaugh-Soha, M., & Peake, J. S. (2005). Presidents and the economic agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 127–138.
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.
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.
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.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
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.
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.
Lober, D. J. (1997). Explaining the formation of business-environmentalist collaborations: Collaborative windows and the Paper Task Force. Policy Sciences, 30(1), 1–24.
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.
McFarland, A. S. (1991). Interest groups and political time: Cycles in America. British Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 257–284.
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.
Ostrom, E. (2007). Collective action theory. In C. Boix & S. C. Stokes (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The need for better theories. Theories of the Policy Process, 2, 3–17.
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.
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.
Soroka, S. N. (2003). Media, public opinion, and foreign policy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(1), 27–48.
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.
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.
Wood, B. D., & Peake, J. S. (1998). The dynamics of foreign policy agenda setting. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 173–184.
Zahariadis, N. (1992). To sell or not to sell? Telecommunications policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 355–376.
Zahariadis, N. (1995a). States, markets, and public policy: Privatization in Britain and France. Policy Studies Journal, 23(2), 378–383.
Zahariadis, N. (1995b). Markets, states, and public policy: Privatization in Britain and France. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zohlnhöfer, R., & Rüb, F. (2016). Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints. Colchester: ECPR.
Websites and Online Sources
Business Line. (2000). CAG raps Ministry over lack of progress in Ganga action plan. Accessed September 8, 2017, from http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2000/12/28/stories/142825cg.htm
CAG. (2000). CAG report: Ganga action plan (copy with author).
Center for Science and Environment (CSE). (2013). Status paper on River Ganga: Past failures and current challenges. New Delhi: CSE. Accessed November 23, 2016, from http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Status%20Paper%20Ganga%202013.pdf
CPCB. (2009). Status of water supply, wastewater generation and treatment in class I cities and class II towns of India. Accessed September 8, 2017, from http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/NewItems/NewItem_153_Foreword.pdf
CPCB. (2013). Pollution assessment: River Ganga. Accessed September 8, 2017, from http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/NewItems/NewItem_203_Ganga_report.pdf
CPCB. (2015). River stretches for restoration of water quality. Accessed September 8, 2017, from http://cpcb.nic.in/RESTORATION-OF-POLLUTED-RIVER-STRETCHES.pdf
Ganga River Basin Management Plan (GRBMP). (2010). River Ganga at a glance: Identification of issues and priority actions for restoration (Report No. 6). Accessed November 23, 2016, from http://nmcg.nic.in/writereaddata/fileupload/33_43_001_GEN_DAT_01.pdf
Ganga River Basin Management Plan Interim Report. (2013, September). Accessed December 17, 2018, from https://nmcg.nic.in/writereaddata/fileupload/25_GRBMPInterim_Rep.pdf
India-WRIS website, a (Water Resources Information System of India). Hydro-electric Projects in Ganga Basin. Accessed September 8, 2017, from http://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/wrpinfo/index.php?title=Hydro_Electric_Projects_in_Ganga_Basin
India-WRIS website, b (Water Resources Information System of India). Major and Medium irrigation projects. Accessed September 8, 2017b, from http://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/wrpinfo/index.php?title=Major_%26_Medium_Irrigation_Projects
National Mission for Clean Ganga website (a). Accessed September 8, 2017, from http://nmcg.nic.in/NamamiGanga.aspx
National Mission for Clean Ganga website (b). Accessed September 8, 2017, from http://nmcg.nic.in/about_nmcg.aspx
Press Information Bureau; Government of India; Ministry of Water Resources. (2016, January 5). Accessed January 15, 2016, from http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=134183
Singh, D. (2016). Modi plans to reboot Swachh Bharat Mission, Ganga Rejuvenation. India Today. Accessed November 23, 2016, from http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/modi-plans-to-reboot-swachh-bharat-mission-ganga-rejuvenation/1/565368.html
The Economic Times. (2015). Government working on including criminal provisions in law on River Ganga. Accessed November 4, 2016, from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-05-18/news/62323247_1_river-surface-pollution-trash
The Hindu. (2015, December 11). NGT bans plastic from Gomukh to Haridwar to clean Ganga. Accessed January 15, 2016, from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/ngt-bans-plastic-from-gomukh-to-haridwar-to-clean-ganga/article7973038.ece
The NGRBA Programme: An Introduction. Online documents from Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Accessed November 23, 2016, from http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/ngrba/The%20NGRBA%20Programme%20-%20an%20intro_2.pdf
The Times of India. (2015, June 15). No sanction to any new dam on Ganga if it impedes uninterrupted flow of water: Ministry. Accessed January 15, 2016, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/No-sanction-to-any-new-dam-on-Ganga-if-it-impedes-uninterrupted-flow-of-water-Ministry/articleshow/47872943.cms
Zee News. Accessed September 8, 2017, from http://zeenews.india.com/news/general-elections-2014/narendra-modi-attends-ganga-aarti-in-varanasi-thanks-people-for-support_932777.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06061-9_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06060-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06061-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)