Lesson Report:
**Title:
Classifying Policy Problems & Introducing the Policy Cycle (Week 2)**
In this session, students practiced extracting clear problem statements from short policy vignettes and distinguishing conditions from policy problems. The class also introduced the five-stage policy cycle and applied it to a local Bishkek case (the bus lane policy on Yuzhny Magistral), setting up a research-based homework assignment to map that policy’s life cycle. The overarching objective was to deepen students’ analytical vocabulary and to connect abstract concepts (conditions vs. problems, policy vs. politics, policy cycle) to concrete examples.
—
## Attendance
**Number of students explicitly mentioned absent:** 4
– Three unnamed students absent whose partners (Kyle, Ali, and Julia) were present but without their original partners.
– One unnamed student currently in Pakistan due to personal issues and therefore not attending in person.
*(Note: Several new students joined for the first time this week; they were present, not absent.)*
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Activities)
### 1. Course Logistics, E-course Access, and Partner Re-Grouping
– Instructor noted being sick (voice affected) but proceeded with planned work.
– Reconnected to last Thursday’s task: students had three short **vignettes** whose purpose was:
– To **identify the core policy problem** in each text.
– To write a **clear, objective problem statement** that extracts the policy-relevant issue from general complaints.
– To classify each as either a **policy problem** or a **condition**, with justification.
– There was confusion about where the vignette file was posted:
– It had not been correctly posted on the e-course page.
– Instructor uploaded the file in real-time, placing it under **“Week 2â€�** on e-course and also referenced a Google Docs link.
– Partner activity logistics:
– Students were asked to sit **next to their assigned partners**.
– Those whose partners were absent raised their hands.
– New students (first class/first week) needed partners; instructor paired them into groups, including pairing a new member with Abu Bakr.
– One online/remote student (Hadija) was explicitly integrated into the discussion and provided contributions via Zoom.
**Objective of this segment:** Ensure all students had access to the three vignettes and were properly paired so they could complete the problem-statement and classification tasks.
—
### 2. Review of Vignette 1: *“Mountain Range Incident�* – Condition vs. Policy Problem
**Activity type:** Whole-class review and conceptual recap
– The instructor quickly re-walked through **Vignette 1**, which had been discussed at the end of the previous class, to bring latecomers and new students up to speed.
**Core problem in the vignette:**
– A **sudden microburst** (intense, short-lived severe weather) occurs in a **mountain reserve (Eagle Peak)**.
– As a result of the microburst:
– Hikers were **caught in dangerous weather**, became **lost**, and **sustained injuries**.
– The key point: the issue is **not just “bad weatherâ€�**, but:
– A **specific type of severe, unpredictable weather event** (microbursts),
– In a **specific location** (Eagle Peak),
– Having a **concrete harmful outcome** (injured, lost hikers in need of rescue).
**Condition vs. policy problem analysis:**
– Students and instructor revisited criteria and reasoning:
– **Serious harm?** Yes, hikers were injured and in danger.
– **Recurring / future risk?** Yes, other hikers could face similar risk in the future.
– **Government responsibility and capacity?** This is where it becomes a **condition**, not a policy problem:
– Microbursts are **rare and unpredictable**.
– **Scientists explicitly state** in the vignette that these events **cannot currently be predicted or prevented** with available technology.
– The relevant government service (park service / rescue services) **did respond appropriately**:
– They used available technology and procedures.
– They successfully **rescued** the hikers.
– The government is already operating **at the limit of its realistic capability** for this specific risk.
– Therefore, though there is real harm, the class agreed:
– This is best classified as a **societal condition** rather than a **policy problem**.
– Rationale:
– We **cannot reasonably expect the government** to control or prevent microbursts.
– Institutions charged with response **are already doing their job**.
– There is **no clear, feasible additional policy lever** that would meaningfully and realistically reduce the harm given scientific constraints.
**Teaching objective:**
Reinforce the **definition of “condition�** as a harmful situation that is not reasonably fixable by government action, despite being serious, and to stress the importance of **specificity** (place, mechanism, consequences) in drafting problem statements.
—
### 3. Vignette 2: *“Asthma on Elm Street�* – A Clear Policy Problem
**Activity type:** Guided class discussion and analytical deep dive
**Step 1 – Identifying the problem:**
– Students described the core issue as an emerging **environmental public health crisis**:
– **Asthma rates among children** in one district have risen to **400% above the city average**.
– This increase is **highly localized**: within a **five-block radius** in a single district.
– The area is near a **former smelting plant**; testing reveals **heavy metal contamination** in **soil and water**.
– Key features emphasized:
– **Concreteness and measurability**:
– 400% increase in asthma rates (clear, quantifiable change).
– “Highest asthma rates in the worldâ€� for that locality.
– Precisely bounded area: **5-block radius**.
– **Plausible causal linkage**:
– Heavy metals traced to the **defunct smelting plant**, suggesting industrial pollution as a root cause.
**Step 2 – Condition vs. policy problem:**
– Several students argued this is a **policy problem**, and the instructor guided them to articulate why:
– **Serious harm**:
– Significant morbidity among children (asthma is painful, chronic, and can be life-threatening).
– **Scale and concentration**:
– Not a diffuse global trend; it is a **highly localized cluster** of harm.
– This local concentration makes **responsibility assignment** more plausible and practical.
– **Potential government responsibility and capacity**:
– Government can:
– Fund and organize **investigations** to clarify causation.
– Conduct or contract **environmental remediation** (soil cleanup, water treatment).
– Regulate or hold accountable the former industrial operator(if evidence supports).
– **Uncertain causality does not negate policy status**:
– Students noted that the cause is still under **investigation**, and it may not be solely the smelting plant.
– Instructor emphasized: **the policy problem is the spike in illness itself**, not the legal proof of the factory’s guilt.
– 400% increase in asthma + heavy metals = **sufficient basis** to treat as a public problem needing action.
– **Policy ≠only “new lawâ€�**:
– Instructor clarified that **“public policyâ€� is broader than legislation**:
– An organized **investigation** itself is a form of policy:
– Experts must be assembled.
– Their time must be financed.
– A mandate and scope must be authorized.
– This broadens students’ conception: **fact-finding and assessment** can be a first-stage policy response.
**Step 3 – Spatial scale and policy vs. condition:**
– Instructor tied this to earlier examples (e.g., “Bishkek is too hotâ€� = condition):
– If the same asthma spike were **global**, it would be much harder to assign **clear responsibility** and **design a targeted intervention**.
– Because it occurs in a **small, bounded area**:
– The problem is more **manageable**.
– It is more reasonable to say: **local or national government should act**.
– Discussions introduced the notion of **negative externalities** (to be revisited later in the course):
– Industrial activity can shift health/environment costs onto nearby residents.
– Government intervention is often justified to address these externalities.
**Teaching objective:**
Illustrate a textbook **policy problem**: localized, measurable, harmful, with plausible and meaningful governmental interventions. Emphasize that **investigation and assessment** are valid first steps in the policy response, not just “end-state� solutions.
—
### 4. Vignette 3: *“Main Street Dilemma�* – Borderline Case & Link to Politics
**Activity type:** Open debate and conceptual linkage to politics and stakeholder interests
**Step 1 – Clarifying the problem:**
– Students initially framed the grievance as: **bookstores are closing**.
– Instructor pushed for a more precise articulation:
– The core issue is **structural economic and social change** on Main Street:
– Longstanding **small local businesses** (e.g., bookstores) are closing.
– They are being replaced by **large corporate “big-boxâ€� stores** and **online retailers**.
– **Rents are rising**, with some **predatory behavior by landlords** (“predatory landlordsâ€� mentioned).
– Residents experience:
– Loss of **neighborhood diversity and community feel**.
– Economic displacement and threat to **local livelihoods**.
**Step 2 – Condition vs. policy problem debate:**
– The class was **genuinely divided** and this was used intentionally to illustrate **politics**:
**Arguments that it is a *condition*:**
– **Changing consumer preferences**:
– People increasingly prefer online shopping and e-books (described as part of a “century of innovationâ€�).
– Historical analogy: there was a time with no printed books; technological shifts and new preferences are normal and ongoing.
– **Market evolution**:
– Small shops can sometimes relocate to **more affordable districts** or adjust business models.
– Local economic change is framed as **natural market adjustment**, not necessarily a state responsibility.
– Concern about **government overreach**:
– If government intervenes every time preferences or technology shift, we risk excessive interference in markets and private choice.
**Arguments that it is a *policy problem*:**
– **Localized, community-wide impact**:
– The changes affect a **specific downtown area** and the broader **community**, not just a few isolated individuals.
– **Evidence of potential unfairness**:
– Wording like “predatory online retailers and landlordsâ€� implies:
– **Market power imbalances**.
– Potential **price gouging** or rent inflation beyond competitive levels.
– In such cases, many governments **do intervene** (anti-monopoly policies, rent controls, support for SMEs, zoning).
– **Possible policy tools** (raised by students):
– Lowering or capping commercial **rents**.
– Providing **tax breaks or other benefits** to local businesses.
– Designating or preserving **special local-business zones** (Spain/Barcelona example: protecting certain markets or districts).
– **Collective values at stake**:
– Not just market efficiency; also **social cohesion, neighborhood identity, and community life**, which many consider legitimate policy concerns.
**Step 3 – Need for better information and quantification:**
– Instructor asked: **What do we need to know to confidently classify it?** Students suggested:
– **Number of people affected** (scale and intensity).
– **How severely** they are affected (e.g., loss of income, increased social isolation, knock-on effects on other services).
– **Public preferences**:
– What do residents want? (surveys, local votes, etc.)
– **Data sources**:
– Local market data (rent trends, business turnover).
– Social media and other qualitative sources for context and sentiment.
– The class concluded that **numbers and concrete evidence** are missing in the vignette:
– This ambiguity explains why some see a **condition** (natural evolution) while others see a **policy problem** (harmful transformation requiring intervention).
**Step 4 – Linking to “politics� vs. “public policy�:**
– Instructor revisited the earlier distinction:
– **Public policy**: the **authoritative steps** government takes to address a recognized policy problem.
– **Politics**: the **process of debate and power struggle** over:
– What counts as a problem.
– Whose interests prevail.
– Which issues get on the **policy agenda** at all.
– The Main Street vignette served as a live example of **politics**:
– The in-class disagreement mirrored real-world debates on:
– Free markets vs. regulation.
– Community preservation vs. modernization.
– Who has the **power to define** Main Street’s changes as a policy problem (or not) is at the heart of politics.
**Teaching objective:**
Use an ambiguous, value-laden case to:
– sharpen students’ ability to **argue both sides** of the condition vs. policy problem distinction, and
– concretely demonstrate how **politics shapes which problems become public policy**.
—
### 5. Introducing the Policy Cycle
**Activity type:** Mini-lecture with board work and Q&A
– Instructor introduced the **policy cycle** as a tool to understand the **“life of a policyâ€�**:
– From first recognition to possible end or revision.
– Presented a **five-stage model** (using simplified terminology for now):
1. **Agenda Setting**
– Getting **attention** on the issue from people with power (mayors, deputies, ministers, etc.).
– Making important actors **aware** that:
– The issue exists.
– It might be a **collective problem** worth addressing.
2. **Formulation (Design)**
– Designing **possible solutions**:
– Brainstorming alternatives.
– Drafting policy instruments (laws, programs, investigations, task forces, etc.).
– Students were reminded that solutions can be more than laws: they include **programs, processes, and investigations**.
3. **Adoption**
– Formal **decision to approve** a chosen policy option:
– Voting by a legislature.
– Approval by a minister/mayor or cabinet.
– Other official steps that give the policy **legal or institutional force**.
4. **Implementation**
– **Doing the work**:
– Turning a signed document into concrete action.
– Assigning responsibilities to agencies and officials.
– Allocating budgets, deploying staff, building infrastructure, enforcing rules.
5. **Evaluation / Review**
– Assessing:
– **Did the policy work?**
– What were **intended and unintended consequences**?
– Depending on evaluation:
– Successful policies may be continued or scaled.
– Failing/harmful policies may be revised or terminated.
– This closes the loop and often sends the issue **back to agenda setting** or formulation for revision, making it a **cycle**.
– Instructor stressed:
– Policies commonly **fail or break** at various stages, not only at implementation.
– Understanding **where** they fail is crucial before we can explain **why** and propose improvements.
**Teaching objective:**
Provide a **structured framework** (policy cycle) that students will use repeatedly for analyzing real-world cases, including the forthcoming homework on Bishkek bus lanes.
—
### 6. Application Case: Bishkek Bus Lanes on Yuzhny Magistral
**Activity type:** Applied discussion + preparatory groundwork for homework
**Case recap:**
– Policy context: Around **summer 2023**, the Bishkek mayor’s office implemented a **bus lane policy** on Yuzhny Magistral.
– Policy design:
– On a road with **three lanes**, the **rightmost lane** was designated as a **bus-only lane**.
– Passenger cars entering this lane were subject to a **fine (штраф)** if caught by police.
– Intended policy goal:
– **Alleviate traffic congestion** in Bishkek by giving public transport priority and thereby making buses faster and more attractive.
– Observed outcome (from students’ lived experience & instructor’s framing):
– Some of the bus lanes **still exist**; others were **removed** months later.
– Compliance issues:
– **Private cars often used the bus lane** when police were not visibly present.
– The policy’s **effectiveness and longevity have been mixed**, raising the question of **policy failure or partial failure**.
**Discussion: Where did this policy “fail� in the cycle?**
Students proposed different hypotheses:
– **Implementation failure (student view):**
– Problem: Drivers **ignored the bus lane rules** unless enforced.
– Fines were not enough to ensure compliance, or enforcement was inconsistent.
– Suggests that the **implementation** stage was weak:
– Insufficient enforcement capacity.
– Poor monitoring and follow-through.
– **Formulation (design) failure (another student view):**
– Without **physical barriers** separating bus lanes from regular lanes, design **did not anticipate** realistic behavior:
– People will opportunistically use the lane if they can.
– Example from Islamabad, Pakistan:
– They have a **physically segregated bus corridor** with walls or barriers:
– Other vehicles and pedestrians **cannot enter**.
– This is a more robust design against non-compliance.
– Under this view:
– The **design itself was flawed**, not just its execution.
– In other words, the policy failed already at **formulation**, because it relied too heavily on idealized driver behavior and simple fines.
– **Agenda-setting and adoption aspects:**
– Instructor noted:
– Policies can also **fail before adoption** if they never gain enough **political attention and support** (agenda-stage failure).
– Or fail at **adoption** if political or bureaucratic processes block or water them down.
– These points prepared students to think about the **timeline and institutional steps** for the homework (e.g., when the idea first surfaced, who pushed it, how it was formally approved).
**Instructor’s framing:**
– Emphasized the importance of:
– Distinguishing between **where** in the cycle a failure happened and **why** it happened.
– Grounding claims in **observable evidence**, not just impressionistic “I think it failed here.â€�
**Teaching objective:**
Use a **local, familiar case** to:
– Anchor the abstract **policy cycle** in reality.
– Prepare students for evidence-based analysis (homework).
– Highlight that policies can fail at multiple points and for different reasons (design, implementation, political resistance, etc.).
—
### 7. Homework Assignment: Bus Lane Policy Timeline (Preparation for Policy Failure Analysis)
**Task overview:**
– Students must **research the Bishkek bus lane policy** using **news sources** (local/international):
– Examples: 24.kg, Kaktus.media, etc.
– They must construct a **stage-based timeline** of the policy cycle for this case:
For each of the five stages:
1. **Agenda Setting** – When and how did the traffic/bus-lane issue get recognized publicly and politically?
2. **Formulation** – When and how were specific design choices (which roads, which lanes, fines, signage, etc.) proposed?
3. **Adoption** – When did an official body (mayor’s office, city council, etc.) decide to proceed, and how (decree, vote, directive)?
4. **Implementation** – When were bus lanes physically marked and enforcement started? Any changes or rollbacks?
5. **Evaluation / Review** – Any official statements or media coverage about whether the policy was working, complaints, or formal changes (e.g., lanes removed or modified)?
**Requirements:**
– For each stage, they must:
– Identify **approximate dates / period**.
– Briefly describe **what was happening** and **which actors were involved**.
– Provide **at least one concrete source** (news article, official statement, etc.) that supports the timeline entry.
– **Crucially**:
– Students are **not** to:
– Judge **whether** the policy is good or bad.
– Argue **where it failed**.
– At this stage, they must **only reconstruct factual sequence** (“what happened when, and by whomâ€�).
**Future use:**
– In the next class, students will:
– Use this timeline to make a **structured argument** about:
– **Where** in the policy cycle the bus-lane policy most likely “diedâ€� or significantly failed, and
– Support their claim with the **evidence** they’ve collected.
**Teaching objective:**
Train students in **evidence-based policy analysis**, focusing first on **accurate descriptive reconstruction** of policy processes before moving to evaluation and prescription.
—
### 8. Administrative / Course-Structure Notes
– A new student asked about the **course syllabus**:
– Instructor indicated that the syllabus is **under review** and should be available by **Friday**.
– Question about **readings / textbook**:
– There will be **assigned readings starting next week**.
– For this week, focus is on **vignettes and the bus-lane research**.
– Remote attendance logistics:
– At least one online student asked how to access the **Zoom link**.
– Instructor directed them to a previous **welcome email** (with “Politics of Truthâ€� in the subject) containing the Zoom link.
– E-course enrollment and access:
– A student in another related class asked for the **e-course passkey** (“ICP 300â€�).
– Implied need to ensure all students can access e-course and posted materials (vignettes, later syllabus, etc.).
– Latecomers / first-time attendees:
– New students missed the in-class explanation of **“condition vs. policy problemâ€�**, but:
– Instructor has a **board photo** with those definitions and promised to email it so they can catch up.
—
## Actionable Items (Organized by Urgency)
### High Priority – Before Next Class
– **Clarify and re-emphasize the homework instructions**:
– Possibly post a brief, written assignment description on e-course:
– Task: Policy-cycle timeline for Bishkek bus lanes.
– Deliverable: Short written timeline with dates, stage labels, and source links.
– Emphasize: factual description only, no evaluative argument yet.
– **Ensure all students can access the vignette document and e-course materials**:
– Verify that the three-vignette file is correctly uploaded under **Week 2** and accessible.
– Confirm that new/late-added students are enrolled on e-course and can see Week 2 content.
– **Share foundational definitions with new students**:
– Email or post the **board screenshot** capturing:
– Definitions of **“conditionâ€� vs. “policy problemâ€�**.
– Any associated criteria (harm, government responsibility/capacity, etc.).
– This will allow first-time attendees to interpret the vignettes correctly.
### Medium Priority – Within the Next Week
– **Publish and distribute the finalized course syllabus**:
– Once administrative review is complete:
– Upload to e-course.
– Announce in class / via email.
– Highlight upcoming **readings starting next week**, so students can prepare.
– **Standardize remote participation procedures**:
– Ensure the **Zoom link** (and any meeting ID/password) is:
– Easily accessible on e-course (e.g., under a “Zoom linkâ€� or “Online accessâ€� section).
– Sent or re-sent to any students who joined late and may have missed earlier communications.
– **Verify roster and communication channels**:
– Cross-check who is on the **official roster** vs. who appeared in class.
– Make sure all current students (including those abroad, e.g., in Pakistan) are receiving:
– E-course announcements.
– Key emails (homework instructions, Zoom links, etc.).
### Lower Priority / Ongoing
– **Monitor understanding of key concepts**:
– Informally check that students can now:
– Write **clear, specific problem statements** that go beyond vague complaints.
– Correctly classify cases as **conditions** or **policy problems**, and articulate their reasoning.
– Apply the **policy cycle stages** to new cases.
– **Plan follow-up sessions on politics vs. policy**:
– Build on the **Main Street** debate in future classes:
– Explicitly connect to stakeholder power, interest groups, and agenda setting.
– Integrate these discussions with upcoming content on **bureaucracy, negative externalities, and policy failure**.
—
If you’d like, I can next help you turn the bus-lane homework into a grading rubric or checklist, so students’ submissions are easier to assess and compare.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Bus Lane Policy Timeline (Applying the Policy Cycle)
You will trace the life of Bishkek’s bus lane policy on Yuzhny Magistral through the five stages of the policy cycle. This will help you practice distinguishing agenda setting, formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation/review, and describing a policy process using real-world evidence without jumping ahead to opinions about success or failure.
Instructions:
1. **Review the policy cycle stages from class.**
In your notes (and from today’s board), the stages were:
1. *Agenda setting* – Powerful/authoritative actors start to pay attention to the issue (e.g., mounting concern about traffic congestion; mayors, deputies, ministries acknowledging “there is a problem we should address�).
2. *Formulation* – Designing the solution on paper (e.g., deciding on dedicated bus lanes on Yuzhny Magistral, whether there will be fines, how the lanes will be organized).
3. *Adoption* – Officially approving the solution (e.g., mayor’s decree, city government decision, other formal approval that gives the plan legal force).
4. *Implementation* – Doing the work on the ground (e.g., painting bus lanes, putting up signs, beginning enforcement with “straf� for drivers who use the bus lane, adjusting traffic organization).
5. *Evaluation/Review* – Looking at what happened and making changes (e.g., public criticism, data on congestion, decisions to remove some lanes, modify the policy, or keep parts of it).
Keep these definitions in front of you while you work.
2. **Recall the specific policy we discussed.**
In class, we talked about the bus lanes installed on Yuzhny Magistral around the summer of 2023:
– Yuzhny Magistral has three lanes in each direction.
– The rightmost lane was designated as a **bus-only lane**; private cars entering it could receive a **straf** (fine).
– This was introduced as a way to address Bishkek’s severe **traffic congestion**.
– Some bus lanes were later **removed** or changed, while others may still exist.
Keep this concrete case in mind: you are not inventing a policy; you are reconstructing what actually happened.
3. **“Read the news� about Bishkek’s bus lanes.**
Your main task is to gather factual information from real sources:
– Use **local news outlets** (for example: 24.kg, Kaktus.media, AKIpress, etc.), official statements from the Bishkek mayor’s office or city council, and any **international coverage** if available.
– You may use **Russian, Kyrgyz, or English** sources—whatever you can read reliably.
– Helpful search ideas (adapt the language as needed):
– “автобуÑ�ные полоÑ�Ñ‹ Бишкек ЮжнаÑ� магиÑ�тральâ€�
– “выделенные полоÑ�Ñ‹ общеÑ�твенного транÑ�порта Бишкекâ€�
– “bus lane Yuzhny Magistral Bishkekâ€�
– “пробки Бишкек ЮжнаÑ� магиÑ�траль решение мÑ�рииâ€�
– Look for: announcements, debates, official decisions, implementation reports, and later articles about public reaction or changes to the policy.
4. **Identify evidence for each stage of the policy cycle.**
For each of the five stages, find at least **one concrete event or document** that illustrates that stage in the life of the bus lane policy. You are reconstructing **when** each stage occurred and **what** was happening.
For each stage, aim to answer:
– **Agenda setting:**
– When did traffic congestion on Yuzhny Magistral start being treated as a serious public issue in the media or by officials?
– Can you find articles or statements where officials or deputies explicitly talk about the traffic problem and the need to “do somethingâ€�?
– **Formulation:**
– When did you first find specific proposals for **dedicated bus lanes** (or similar solutions) being described?
– Look for articles or official materials that outline how the bus lanes are supposed to work (location, rules, fines, etc.).
– **Adoption:**
– When was the bus lane policy officially approved?
– Look for mayoral decrees, city council decisions, or official announcements indicating that the plan is now formally decided, not just an idea.
– **Implementation:**
– When did physical changes begin (painting bus lanes, installing signs, setting up cameras or police enforcement)?
– Find reports, photos, or news stories about the lanes being created, enforcement beginning, drivers being fined, or instructions to drivers.
– **Evaluation/Review:**
– When did authorities or media start discussing whether the bus lanes were working or not?
– Look for: criticism, support, data on congestion or travel times, and especially any decisions to modify, expand, reduce, or cancel parts of the bus lane scheme on Yuzhny Magistral.
5. **For each stage, write a short, factual entry.**
Organize your findings by stage. For **each** of the five stages, include:
1. **Stage name** (Agenda setting, Formulation, Adoption, Implementation, Evaluation/Review).
2. **Approximate date or date range** for when that stage occurred (e.g., “May–June 2022� or “Decree on 15 March 2023�).
3. **2–3 sentence factual description** of what happened in that stage, written in a neutral, descriptive tone, for example:
– Describe who did what (mayor, city council, ministry, police, media, etc.).
– Explain briefly why this event belongs to this stage (e.g., “This marks agenda setting because high-ranking officials first publicly recognized traffic congestion on Yuzhny Magistral as a problem requiring government action.â€�).
4. **At least one source link** (URL) that supports your description for that stage. If multiple articles are relevant, you may list more than one.
Important:
– **Do not** include personal opinions about whether the policy was good or bad.
– **Do not** decide yet at which stage the policy “failedâ€� or whether it should have been done differently.
– Your goal is **careful description plus evidence**, not evaluation.
6. **Arrange the entries into a clear timeline.**
After drafting your five stage entries:
– Order them **chronologically**, from the earliest agenda-setting events to the latest evaluation/review events.
– Make sure the overall picture reads as a **coherent timeline** of the bus lane policy’s “lifeâ€�: how attention built, how the idea was designed and approved, how it was put into practice, and how it was later discussed or altered.
– If dates overlap (for example, some formulation and agenda-setting activities intermix), place them in the order that best reflects how the policy progressed, using your sources as a guide.
7. **Prepare your final document.**
Create a single, clearly organized document containing:
– A brief title at the top (e.g., “Timeline of Bishkek Bus Lane Policy on Yuzhny Magistralâ€�).
– A separate subheading for each stage (Agenda setting, Formulation, Adoption, Implementation, Evaluation/Review).
– Under each subheading:
– The date or date range.
– Your 2–3 sentence factual description.
– The link(s) to the source(s) you used.
Use a format that is easy to read (you may use a list or a simple table), and make sure all links are complete and accessible.
8. **Bring this to next class ready to use.**
You will use this timeline in the next class session to construct a **structured argument** about where in the policy cycle the bus lane policy most likely “died� or encountered serious problems. For this homework, however, you should stop at **description with evidence only**—no analysis or judgments yet.