BA Discussion

Textbook: Whitman Cobb, W. N. (2020). Political science today (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Sage, CQ Press.

Agenda Setting

Agenda setting, as stage one in the process, is often the hardest; how do you get a policy problem on the agenda of the most powerful people in the world? One of the classic treatises on agenda setting in public policy is Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies by Kingdon.1 Kingdon argues that three “streams” must combine together in order for a policy problem to make it onto the political agenda: the problem, the existence of a solution, and the political will to deal with it. When these three things coincide, a policy window opens when it is the easiest for political institutions to consider an issue. Oftentimes, it takes willing and able policy entrepreneurs to prepare the groundwork, to work to make sure the three streams coincide.

While it might appear strange at first to think that problems and solutions can be so easily separated by Kingdon, this distinction is actually very important. Some members of Congress may seek changes to particular policy areas absent a crisis or problem simply because of an ideological belief about what the policy should be doing. For example, some Republicans have sought for years to reduce the amount of money being spent on entitlement programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (commonly known as welfare), Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. However, if there is no major problem with any of these areas and the policies are operating relatively well, why would anyone see a need to change them, other than ideologically based reasons, of course? On the other hand, it is easy to see where policy problems may arise suddenly that have no existing solutions; if there is no agreed-upon way of solving a crisis, there may be stopgap policies but no longer term way of fixing the problem in the first place. Therefore, Kingdon’s policy streams theory highlights how circumstances must come together just right in order for policy changes to be successfully made.

Others have examined the role that political actors play in agenda setting. Perhaps one of the most powerful agenda setters is the president. Presidents, by focusing time and energy on a topic, can influence the media and Congress to pick up on problems as well.2 Given all of the things that a president may choose to focus on in a given term, let alone week or month, a president’s choice in focusing the nation’s attention on certain issues sends a strong signal that an issue is important. When making these decisions, presidents are likely to take into consideration the makeup of Congress and the status of the federal budget when deciding what issues to take up.3 Presidents then can use the resources of their office, such as the bully pulpit and even the State of the Union address, to highlight policy issues they wish to focus on. Especially in the run-up to election periods, presidents must be seen to be responding to public concerns and therefore may use this agenda setting power to help their own reelection efforts.4

If any institution, however, would be predicted to be concerned with election and reelection the most, it would be Congress. Walker describes the importance of choosing issues as such: “By deciding what they will decide about, legislators also establish the terms and the most prominent participants in the debate, and ultimately, the distribution of power and influence in the society.”5 Research on agenda setting in Congress has mostly focused on the role of parties and partisanship. For example, Cox tests the role of party in agenda setting in the House of Representatives and finds it to be a significant predictor of support.6 In other words, the majority party so strongly controls the agenda that majority party members rarely dissent in committee or on the floor. While the House lends itself to being a majoritarian institution, the Senate, on the other hand, requires minority participation in setting the agenda. This would suggest that the minority party can more easily set the agenda in the Senate; however, Gailmard and Jenkins find evidence of just the opposite.7 Thus, when setting the agenda in Congress overall, majority parties appear to have the most power to influence what issues will be taken up.

Despite the best efforts of agenda setters throughout politics, the contingent nature of crises and focusing effects are also important in helping legislators and citizens decide what is important or not. For an example of this, we can look no further than 9/11, which brought home the issue of terrorism. Although terrorism is an ancient tactic, and many terrorist acts had been carried out against the United States prior to 9/11, it took the drastic events of that day to focus the attention of the American public and its lawmakers on the problem that was al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and their brand of Islamic terrorism. Policy failures like those of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in treating the health problems of the nation’s veterans similarly brought the attention of politicians and the public to systemic problems at the VA. Outside events and policy failures, then, also have inordinate agenda setting power and the power to override many other issues that might have previously been on the political radar.