The case can be described and situated in one or more of those phases in the natural history of a public problem, according to which each problem has a “trajectory”, a “career” made up of several phases.

So the case under consideration can be situated within these phases, on the understanding that they are indicative and that certain cases can encompass one or more of the phases below.

Phase 1. Emergence of the problem: moment of realisation, when a situation is defined as unsatisfactory. This realisation can be triggered by various factors in different places: by strong social demand (most common case in analysis but not in reality); by a political opportunity (when decision-makers find it advantageous to describe a situation as a “problem”); when an operational project is supported by a small group and causes the problem; by assessments from civil servants or experts, etc.

The social actors, the “problem contractors”, provide the foundations of the problem: a) definitions intended to circumscribe and explain it, b) examples to identify the protagonists (victims, the people responsible, etc.), c) estimates, whether numerical or otherwise, which quantify the issues at stake.

These initial formulations and claims are made by certain social actors who have to be identified, and within a certain context of dissemination that needs to be analysed .

Phase 2. Identification of the problem and the struggle to get it recognised. This is the moment when the causes are defined and responsibilities attributed. Here, we find the arguments used to demand measures to be taken about the problem. There are controversies, debates in various public arenas to designate the problem as “public”, amongst all the other problems claiming that status, to frame and reframe the problem by reference to general principles of law and justice. For example, in the local government arena, between experts, technical departments, district representative; in the media arena, between different exponents; in the national political arena, between parties, unions, etc.

Phase 3. Proposal of action needed to mitigate or eradicate the problem. The problem and the demands are acknowledged by the authorities, and a consensus forms around the definition of the problem and around a programme of concrete measures. 

Phase 4. There are two possible outcomes: Either the negotiations around a programme of public action more or less satisfy all the actors and give them what they want; or the response is considered inadequate and can give rise to a new generation of definitional activities.Alternative responses can then be proposed and introduced, without the support of the authorities.