More often than not, government representatives find themselves under the weight of responsibilities. For instance, the minister for internal security may find himself or herself with a list of security problems that he must address: crime, illegal immigrants, staff recruitment and deployment among others. In light of this, he or she may have to pay attention to some problems based on priority. In some cases, dramatic events and public feedback attract the attention of the government representatives. However, not all problems are self reporting and the definition of an occurrence or omission as a problem is highly subjective (Kingdon 90).
Quite often, kingdon observes, problems come to the attention of the government through various indicators. These include academic reports, researches conducted by governmental and nongovernmental agencies, routine monitoring as well as reports from the public. The government considers a change in the indicators as an indicator of a problem. States that have steady indicators are considered to have fewer problems. However, a change in indicators may not be the best way to evaluate the extent of problems. Some changes in indicators may not show proportional degrees of problems. In such cases, a change in indicators may lead to an exaggerated effect on policy agendas.
In conclusion, indicators can reveal the magnitude of a problem in some scenarios. They may indicate a possibility of a crisis or a disaster which might strike if the problem is not addressed. However, in other scenarios, problems may not be self evident by the indicators. For example, movement of people from one region to another is not necessarily an indicator of political unrest or wrangles. They could be migrating in search for greener pastures. In such a scenario, the problem is economy related and not security related. Therefore, government representatives and policy makers should use indicators with caution; they should investigate the indicators to know the real cause as well as the underlying problem.