Crisis Policymaking and the Ration of Attention

This paper takes an interest in how attention is rationed in crisis policymaking processes. Crises transpire as problems in the streams metaphor implied by the Multiple Streams Framework, featuring qualities such as great values at stake, a sense of urgency and uncertainty. Policy responses to crises are often high in consequence. Overreaction to terrorism may injuriously affect civil rights, and neglect of natural hazards can put inhabitants of coastal zones at unnecessarily high risks, for instance. It is therefore important to better understand the forces at play at the political-administrative top when pressured to relate to a crisis situation. The Multiple Streams Framework provides a fruitful platform for the analysis of how attention is rationed, even though the argument here is that it is in need of a higher degree of specificity. For example, a cursory review of crisis policymaking cases reveals that coupling is often doctrinal and not necessarily consequential, as suggested by the framework. Crises tend to be symbolically burdened, which hampers the room for meaning making manipulation. At the same time, crises (including subsequent policymaking) are often marked by short-circuited bureaucratic structures, which increase the role of manipulative efforts. This only goes to show that assumptions regarding how independent variables vary and interrelate need to be empirically substantiated. This paper will pursue a theory developing ambition, where the aim is to better understand how attention is rationed in crisis policymaking. Empirically, the paper will draw on primarily Swedish experiences of crisis policymaking over the past decades.