This entry begins with an overview of the thinking behind the WPR premise that analytically it is useful to begin from “proposals” or “proposed solutions” (“solutions”) and to “work backwards” to identify problem representations. It proceeds to draw on two recent articles that make effective use of this analytic strategy as a means to illustrate how to apply this thinking. I also consider some possible theoretical slippages in the selected articles.
The two selected articles are:
Celik, F. B. 2025. Unpacking democratic participation in the European Green Deal: the case of Climate Pact, Journal of European Integration, DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2025.2455688
Skjold, S. M. (22 Jan 2025): From “user-oriented” to “holistic”: evolving contours of personalization in Norway’s activation policy between 2000 – 2023, Critical Policy Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2025.2456151
Why start from “proposals”?
I have broached this topic on other occasions and refer you to a Research Hub entry (30 January 2023) called “Starting from scratch”. It contains a section that identifies Task 2 as: Select specific proposals to gain access to the problematizations at work. The section provides a “how to” guide to finding proposals.
Here I would like to offer a brief exposition of the thinking that lies behind this suggested analytic strategy. First, we need to remember that the objective in a WPR analysis is to widen our understanding of how governing takes place (how we are governed). This objective relies upon an expanded view of governing to embrace not just political institutions but the multitudinous factors and groups (e.g. of professionals, experts, etc.) that shape our lives on a day-to-day basis. This expanded “reach” of monitoring and fashioning is captured in the notion of governmentality.
At a simple level you can think of governing as directions affecting how one behaves and thinks. This thinking leads to a focus on what Foucault describes as “the conduct of conduct”. Who is “conducting” whom? To what extent do we “conduct” ourselves? In what ways? This emphasis on conduct easily translates into an examination of directives to do certain things in certain ways – or (in other words) of proposals for action/s.
Foucault takes this insight and shows how guides to conduct make a range of “things” and subject positions come into being. Here, we are dealing with a practice approach, an ontology of becoming rather than an ontology of being. Foucault gives the example of “madness”. He shows that, to understand how “madness” becomes an “object of thought”, it is necessary to examine how those called “mad” are treated – how they are regulated, sequestered, medicalized, etc. In other words, as Foucault explains, we can see how “the mad” are problematised and how “madness” emerges as a problematised object by examining how those called “mad” are treated.
To extend this form of analysis, Foucault turned to what he called “practical texts” or “prescriptive texts”, those texts that provide directives for what to do or for what is described as needing to be done. WPR refers to these “directives” as proposals. It follows that examining proposals provides insights into how governing takes place: what is proposed indicates what is targeted as needing to change and hence what is rendered problematic, or “the problem”. In WPR researchers therefore start their analyses by identifying proposals and then “working backwards” to examine how specific proposals “problematise” certain things or behaviours.
Now, I think it is important to spend a little time on understanding the nature of proposals. In the 30 January 2023 entry (see above), I provide some pointers on how to identify proposals. I stress the need for some nuance in this process. You will not always, or necessarily, be looking for explicit “aims” or “recommendations”. We are talking rather about a particular way of “reading” the material. For example, statements about desired goals are almost invariably proposals and hence problematisations. This point will be illustrated when we look at our two selected articles for this entry.
In addition, I often refer to “proposals” as “proposed solutions”. That is, if some “solution” is offered to “address” some “problem”, it constitutes a proposal to do exactly that. Please note the use of quotation marks around the key terms in the preceding sentence. These quotation marks signal the WPR argument that “problems” do not simply exist waiting to be “addressed” or “solved” in the way assumed in such statements but that they are produced through the proposals put in place to “solve” them.
Hence, in this analytic approach, there are no “solutions” per se (just as there are no “problems” per se). Rather, any suggested “solution” is automatically involved in constituting “the problem” as a particular sort of problem. Let me use the somewhat overworked example of training programs for women. If training programs for women are introduced as a means to increase women’s representation in positions of influence, training programs constitute a “(proposed) solution” and “the problem” is represented to be women’s lack of training. I have described this mutual imbrication of “solutions” and “problems” by saying that “problems” are implicit within the “(proposed) solution”. The point to remember is that “solutions” do not follow from a WPR analysis; rather, “solutions” (proposed “solutions”; proposals) provide the starting place for asking how the “problem” is constituted. A tendency to refer to solutions in respect to a WPR analysis emerges, I suspect, from Question 5 in WPR on effects or implications. I raise this point in later discussion.
A final introductory point – “proposals” do not offer impressions or interpretations of “problems”. Rather, they constitute them as particular forms of problem. That is, proposals shape “problems” and hence alter the existing order to a certain degree. In WPR, therefore, we are not talking about competing interpretations of “a problem”. We are talking about the impact of the shapes imposed on “problems”, where these come from and how they affect lives and worlds. I will return to this point in the discussion to follow.
Article 1:
Celik, F. B. 2025. Unpacking democratic participation in the European Green Deal: the case of Climate Pact, Journal of European Integration, DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2025.2455688
Brief summary:
Allow me to remind readers that the Research Hub entries at the end of February and end of March 2025 comment on three applications of WPR to climate change as a topic area. Celik offers another important contribution to this urgent research subject.
Celik’s analytic target is the European Climate Pact (ECP). This Pact, as he explains, is a key initiative of the European Green Deal (EGD). Applying WPR and “Foucault’s problematization perspective”, he scrutinises “how the ECP frames climate change as a problem and the solutions it proposes”. He makes the case that the ECP primarily “addresses climate change as a problem of insufficient participation”: “This reflects an approach where climate responsibilities are individualised, citizens are framed as consumers, and different hierarchies of participation are created”.
Materials used:
Celik (p. 6) describes the two steps by which he identified the “relevant documents”. First, he conducted a search on the EUR-lex database for the official EU documents that mentioned the ECP. Due to the very large number of such documents (“thousands of results”) he “manually looked for a clear pattern of problem framing within each document”:
“The final corpus of documents included the 2020 Commission Communication on the ECP (European Commission 2020d), as well as wider official communications, regulations, and policy briefings issued by various EU institutions such as the European Commission, European Parliament, the European Council, and the Committee of Regions.”
Applying WPR thinking:
When Celik (p. 7) turns to his analysis, he describes how he
“conducted an initial close reading of each text by focusing on recurring themes and phrases that signalled the representation of climate change as a particular type of problem (e.g. ‘competitiveness’, ‘innovation,’ ‘market-based solutions’, ‘education’, ‘public awareness’, or ‘community engagement’), paying special attention to how specific words and phrases were used to structure the EU’s problematisation of climate change.”
This approach, as described, does not start from proposals. Hence, it appears to deviate from the WPR analytic framework. There also appears to be a greater focus on language (“phrases”) than in a WPR analysis. In addition, Celik tends to refer to “solutions” as separate from and the result of problem representations. For example, he (p. 3) refers specifically to “what solutions the ECP proposes as a result of its problem representation”. As noted above, in WPR, “problems” and “solutions” are mutually imbricated.
At the same time as these apparent differences from WPR, the article offers examples of proposals in the WPR sense of the term and proceeds to “read off” “problem representations” from them. I offer this example. Celik (p. 10) notes that the European Council suggested that
“Citizens of all ages should also be involved in the energy transition via the European Climate Pact and the Conference on the Future of Europe. Increased energy efficiency is also highly important for the security of energy supply of the Union through lowering its dependence on import of fuels from third countries’. (Council of the European Union 2022a) (emphasis added)”.
The use of the word “should” in this quotation from the Council indicates that this comment offers a directive and that hence it is a proposal in the WPR sense of the term (see above; see also entry on 30 January 2023). “Working backwards” from this proposal, Celik notes:
These examples represent climate change as a problem of insufficient public participation in the EU’s climate change policies through a responsibility point of view, especially in terms of achieving the Union’s climate-friendly growth targets as well as reducing its resource dependency on third countries.
This “reading off” of the problem representation from the proposal indicates a useful application of WPR thinking.
Theoretical issues
How can we account for the “blending” of a WPR analytic approach (seen in the example just above) with the earlier comments on starting from a close reading of the text for phrases and themes? In part, I attribute this eclecticism to Celik’s characterisation of his analysis as “social constructionist”, reliant on a “complex interplay of social constructions that shape the perceptions, responses, impacts, and even the very definition of the issue itself” (Celik 2025, p. 1-2). He elaborates that this social constructivist perspective offers a conception of the idea of “climate-change-as-problem” that is deeply influenced by “values, beliefs, power dynamics, and political narratives”.
This social constructionist perspective produces an analysis that targets “how climate change is seen as a problem” (p. 1) rather than how problem representations produce climate change as a particular sort of problem. There appears then to be a slide towards an interpretive perspective (“is seen as”) based on competing interpretations and away from a constitutive perspective (“is produced as”). Elsewhere (see Keynote address at Welcome to the WPR Network! | Karlstad University (kau.se).
I have discussed the theoretical shift in my work on WPR from a constructionist to a performative/constitutive perspective. This perspective is encouraged through keeping the focus on proposals as a starting place for your analysis (rather than on assumed values or beliefs- see above).
Article 2:
Skjold, S. M. (22 Jan 2025): From ‘user-oriented’ to ‘holistic’: evolving contours of personalization in Norway’s activation policy between 2000 – 2023, Critical Policy Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2025.2456151
Brief summary:
This article explores how “personalization” has evolved within activation services in Norway, with a particular focus on the “long-term unemployed”. It raises questions about how the changing patterns of personalization “reconfigure state citizen relationships” (p. 2). The author identifies “two dominant problematizations of unemployment”. The first targeted deficiencies of jobseekers and employers. The second addresses unemployment as a systemic problem and promotes “collaborative approaches”. The article contends that, in both problematizations, paid work serves as the basis of active citizenship so that “new changes that preach collaboration and empowerment” may disguise “tighter controls and administrative hierarchies”.
Materials used:
Skjold (p. 3) analyses 5 documents on Norwegian activation policy between 2000 and 2023, including four White papers and one proposition from the 2000-2023 period. She describes in some detail her selection process, given that “the selected policy texts for this analysis are not exhaustive of Norwegian policy papers on activation” (p. 5). In Analysing Policy (Bacchi 2009: 20) I note that “Given the almost endless variety and number of texts that could be selected, it needs to be recognized that choosing policies to examine is itself an interpretive exercise”. Hence, I applaud Skjold’s explanation of her rationale for her choices. Debates about that rationale can be anticipated.
Applying WPR thinking:
In the “Results of the analysis section” Skjold (p. 7; emphasis added) states clearly the intent to start from proposals (proposed solutions) and to “work backwards” to identify problem representations. I quote her in full:
In the following section, I present the findings regarding what problem representations form the basis of policy direction toward personalized activation. In line with Bacchi and Goodwin (2016), I start with the proposed solution and work backward by asking the following question: if personalization is the answer, then what is the problem?
Skjord does a stellar job at identifying “proposed solutions” (“proposals”) and at applying WPR thinking to them. I wish to highlight her use of direct quotations from the selected documents. These quotations help us to understand just what a proposal looks like, including the nuance required to read the material (see above). I offer a couple of examples. The quotes are taken directly from the Skjold article.
- ‘The government is in favor of an approach that adapts welfare services to the needs of the users, contributing to more people being directed toward work and away from benefits’ (white paper 14:2002–2003:1).
I hope you can see how this statement is a proposal (in the WPR sense of the term). It may not tell you directly what it wants you to do but it proclaims the benefits of a particular welfare approach. Skjold picks up this point and notes that it shows “Within the Norwegian activation policy, employment holds a vantage position as the basis of societal well-being”. This insight could be read as an underlying presupposition (Question 2 in WPR; Bacchi and Goodwin 2016, p. 20).
- Paper 33: NAV needs to have a more active connection with “health and education sectors and establish a common understanding that work is positive for health”.
Skjold offers a genealogical analysis of Norwegian unemployment services, including developments that predated a major organizational reform of the Norwegian employment and welfare services (NAV), and documents from the post-reform period. In the latter period, three areas for improvement are identified: “strengthened cooperation with employers, effective and tailored services that also improve user experiences, and increased local autonomy at NAV offices” (p. 11). As the extract from paper 33 (above) indicates, the “proposal” is to “establish a common understanding that work is positive for health”.
Skjold’s paper is replete with examples of proposals, and I recommend reading the paper to assist in understanding what this process looks like. She also proceeds to offer useful comments on the kind of critique such a process allows. Specifically, she notes how the “current bias toward collaborative forms of personalization” has the potential to undermine other options of inclusion, e.g. proposals for a basic minimum income for the unemployed (see Question 4 in WPR on identifying silences; see Clark 2025 on competing problematisations of UBI – universal basic income). As she proceeds to explain, the point of her critique is not to negate the potential of “personalization” as a reform approach, but “to rescue the concept from its apoliticized, technicized and instrumentized form, presenting simply remedies to seemingly rational ‘problems’” (p. 14).
Theoretical issues:
On occasion, Skjold’s analysis adopts an interpretive perspective. For example, she quotes Hajer, the well-known interpretive theorist, to the effect that a goal of the analysis is “uncovering ‘how problems come to be conceived as such within the policy process, what solutions are ultimately adopted for these problems, and the effects that arise from these problematizations’” (p. 4; emphasis added) (Hajer, M. 1995).
In this perspective, we are looking at competing conceptions of “problems-that-exist” rather than at how “problems” are produced as particular sorts of problem. Note also how solutions in this view exist separately from problems whereas in WPR “solutions” and “problems” are mutually imbricated (above).
I make a similar point about the Celik analysis (above) where I point to his comment regarding “how climate change is seen as a problem” (p. 1). Again, here we are encouraged to think about competing conceptions of “problems” rather than how “problems” are produced in practices (think of how “madness” emerges from practices in a Foucauldian approach; above). Rather than “different ways of conceiving unemployment” (Skjold 2025, p. 13; emphasis added) the analytic target is how unemployment is enacted as a specific form of social organisation.
Conclusions
The highly useful articles that form the basis of this entry assist us in understanding the need to firm up our theoretical positioning.
I’d like to suggest that starting from proposals assists in this task.
They take us back to Foucault on “the mad” – they show that what we are after in this analysis is not what goes on in people’s heads but in what is done – the practices through which “problems” are produced as particular sorts of problem with significant implications for how lives are lived. “Proposals” provide an entry-point for examining the “conduct of conduct”, producing “problems”, “subjects”, “objects” and “places” (Bacchi and Goodwin 2016).
References
Bacchi, C. 2009. Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to be?Frenchs Forest: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bacchi, C. and Goodwin, S. 2016. Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clark, E. (04 Feb 2025): Is the universal basic income a neoliberal trojan horse? Analyzing representations of ‘the poor’ and ‘poverty’ in UK UBI policy discourses, Critical Policy Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2025.2456695
Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. New York: Oxford University Press
Carol Bacchi 