In this chapter I conclude by considering two final issues that help to
explain the importance of focusing events in policy making. First, I
consider the process by which focusing events can lead to actual policy
change, not simply greater attention to the problem. After considering
the mechanism through which policy change can occur, I discuss two
types of focusing events that have not yet been considered in this study.
Such events include, on the one hand, focusing events in domains
where very few potential focusing events have occurred before, and,
on the other hand, focusing events in domains where the particular
event is quite common, but where important features of the event
make particular events much more important in agenda terms. These
different kinds of potential focusing events suggest that there is consid-
erable room for more research on this phenomenon.

The results of the case studies suggest that focusing events can
work as a catalyst for policy change by serving as signals of policy
failure and opportunities for participants in policy making to "learn."
This learning is facilitated by the opportunities for policy advocacy
afforded by a focusing event. This discussion is framed by Sabatier's
(1988) advocacy coalition framework of policy change and learning. In
particular, focusing events provide the raw material for what Sabatier
calls "policy-oriented learning." Focusing events also open up policy
communities to greater scrutiny, and therefore, as found in Baumgart-
ner and Jones's study of the collapse of policy monopolies, lead to
changes in the configuration of participants in policy making and,
sometimes, to policy change itself.

For some time, students of the policy process considered policy analysis
to be an apolitical and technical activity that is divorced from normative
assessments of policy. But while "policy analysts of the decisionist
persuasion would like to project the image of technical, nonpartisan

-131-