Unit4DiscSCPP

VitalSource: Public Policy Agenda Setting

Chapter Overview

The agenda-setting process is the first step in understanding public policy. Although we may or may not agree with specific methods, government has a role in meeting our needs. Providing for the common defense is one function of government that is rarely questioned in terms of its legitimacy, but exactly what government does or does not do in this policy area is subject to continual debate.

Philosophical differences illustrate societal divisions about policy choices and priorities. Proponents of classical liberalism argue that many issues on the policy agenda should be left to the private sector. Proponents of modern liberalism, however, argue that many agenda items promote social justice. For example, government-sponsored health care is generally disliked by classical liberals but often supported by modern liberals.

The specific goals for the chapter are:

Discuss how agenda setting works and how issues are framed. Discuss the major policy actors and their roles in setting the policy agenda. Use policy theories to explain agenda setting.

How Does Agenda Setting Work?

In his book, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy, John Kingdon outlines the agenda-setting process. According to Kingdon, the policy agenda can be thought of as a series of streams, circumstances, or activities within public policy institutions and processes. The problem stream contains

potential policy problems, some better known than others, some more likely to be acted upon than others. The policy stream contains a series of potential solutions to policy problems. Finally, there is the politics stream— those policy issues and solutions that emerge as policy outcomes. The politics stream is a function of the status and philosophy of the agenda setter.

These streams can operate separately from one another. Individuals and groups are continually identifying problems to be solved by government. Solutions to “problems” abound, but many are never tried. Politics and political institutions are constantly changing, so the political stream is in flux.

When a focusing event occurs, the circumstances or behaviors of actors within the policy streams often converge: A policy window has opened— the problem stream has become evident to the political stream actors and institutions, and particular solutions within the policy stream may become part of the policy agenda. According to Kingdon, however, the agenda- setting process is often haphazardly chosen from the policy garbage can. (See Figure 5.1.)

Figure 5.1 One way to think about agenda setting

In 2007, a major freeway bridge collapsed in Minnesota, killing several individuals and raising serious concern about the safety of bridges in the United States. This terrible disaster led to a number of efforts to inspect bridges nationwide to prevent similar disasters from producing enormous fatalities. Bridge safety issues are not new, but when catastrophic events occur, our concerns are heightened. (See Box 5.1 Minnesota Bridge Collapses.)

Box 5.1

Minnesota Bridge Collapses

Bridge collapses spotlights Americaʼs deferred maintenance

The tragic rush-hour collapse in Minneapolis of the I-35W Bridge over the Mississippi River is again forcing a reexamination of the nation s̓ approach to maintaining and inspecting critical infrastructure.

According to engineers, the nation is spending only about two-thirds as much as it should be to keep dams, levees, highways, and bridges safe. The situation is more urgent now because many such structures were designed 40 or 50 years ago, before Americans were driving weighty SUVs and truckers were lugging tandem loads.

It all adds up to a poor grade: The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation a D in 2005, the latest report available, after assessing 12 categories of infrastructure ranging from rails and roads to wastewater treatment and dams.

“One of America s̓ great assets is its infrastructure, but if you donʼt invest it deteriorates,” says Patrick Natale, executive director of ASCE.

Among scores of recent examples:

Last month, a 100-year-old steam pipe erupted in midtown Manhattan, killing one man and causing millions of dollars in lost business. The inadequacies of levees in New Orleans became horrifyingly clear in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The city is still recovering. In 2003, the Silver Lake Dam in Michigan failed, causing $100 million in damage.

America s̓ 577,000 bridges are of particular concern because they are subject to corrosion. According to the Web site of Nondestructive Testing (NDT), which advocates not damaging structures during testing, the average lifespan of a bridge is about 70 years. Bridges are inspected

visually every two years. However, NDT notes, “it is not uncommon for a fisherman, canoeist, and other passerby to alert officials to major damage that may have occurred between inspections.”

In the federal government s̓ rating system, any bridge that scores less than 80—on a scale of 1 to 100—is in need of rehabilitation. A bridge scoring below 50 should undergo reconstruction under federal guidelines. In 2004, 26.7 percent of U.S. bridges, urban and rural, were rated deficient, down from 27.5 percent in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

Source: Scherer, Ron, “Bridge Collapse Spotlights America s̓ Deferred Maintenance,” Christian Science Monitor, August 3, 2007, 1.

Issues are more likely to reach the policy agenda if they can be shown to play a role in promoting a pre-existing political agenda. In the aftermath of the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012, President Obama used his post-tragedy speech to promote a gun control message. Media coverage of events (Jenner 2012) and presidential response can shape policy agendas (Eshbaugh-Soha and Peake 2005). Through his speech, President Obama sought to advance a gun control agenda, which had been of interest to him for some time.

Within a month s̓ time, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, along with two-dozen cosponsors, introduced a bill that would ban assault weapons. The legislation was heavily opposed by the Republicans in the Senate as well as by the National Rifle Association, which heavily lobbied Democratic senators who were undecided on the bill or from states where gun rights were heavily supported. The bill ended up failing by a vote of 40 to 60. A related bill, which would have imposed stricter background checks for firearm sales, particularly private or gun show sales, also failed. (See Box 5.2 A Policy Window Opens: An Agenda is Established.)

Box 5.2

A Policy Window Opens: An Agenda Is Established

Framing Event— Policy Window Open

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing “God Bless America.” And you did more than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military. . . .

Appeal to Political Stream

Framing

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber—a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. . . .

Policy Stream

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Problem Stream

Policy Stream

Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me—the Office of Homeland Security.

And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend—

Solution Pennsylvania s̓ Tom Ridge. He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.

Interpretation: Keep the Policy Window Open!

These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it. . . .

Source: President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People. www.whitehouse.gov (accessed August 16, 2007)

The President as Agenda Setter

The presidency has witnessed an ever-expanding role in shaping the policy agenda. In the nineteenth century, presidents tended to be literalists, who generally exercised the powers enumerated in the Constitution and had limited implied powers. Congress and state government leaders were more likely policy leaders than was the president on particular issues (Rutledge and Price 2014), as well as issue specifics (Jones and Baumgartner 2004).

Presidential powers expanded in the twentieth century. A protector of the people, Theodore Roosevelt s̓ “bully pulpit” exemplifies presidential stewardship. President Woodrow Wilson renewed the tradition of presidents delivering a State of the Union Address to Congress. FDR used “fireside chats” to speak directly to the people about his policy agenda. Wisely choosing an agenda is important. President Barack Obama s̓ policy of normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba has been both praised and criticized (Baker 2014).

Congress and the Policy Agenda

Congress is composed of 535 elected legislators, serving different constituencies and possessing different policy priorities. Through political compromise, a network of committees, and legislative gamesmanship, legislators establish some form of policy agenda (Krehbiel 1998). Unlike the presidency, Congress lacks strong leadership providing clear guidance on

policy priorities and agenda items. Congressional committees and party membership impact the agenda-setting process (Cox and McCubbins 2005). Due to the process by which Congress formulates policy, many agenda items never become public policy. As the presidential powers in establishing the policy agenda have grown, Congress s̓ powers in this area have tended to wane a bit. Congress has tried to reassert its power in establishing the policy agenda.

In 1995, for the first time in decades, the Republican Party gained control of both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. The Republicans used this opportunity to promote their Contract with America—an attempt to frame the policy agenda in a way that was significantly different from that of then-President Bill Clinton. In 2007, the Democratic Party regained control of both houses of Congress. The Democrats attempted to use their new power to reframe the domestic and international policy agenda.

A Democratic majority in the House and Senate (2009–2011), and President Obama s̓ election victory in 2008, resulted in the passage of the American Recovery and Rehabilitation Act of 2009 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. While Congress did not set the agenda, economic recovery and health policy were agenda items for both Democratic legislators and the president. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- CA)—the first woman Speaker in the nation s̓ history—was rightly credited with doing yeoman s̓ labor in successfully advancing these landmark legislative efforts. The example fits well with our next topic on agenda setting.

Congressional–Executive Relations and Agenda Setting

Congressional–Executive relations play a role in agenda setting, as well as in other elements of the policymaking process. In the agenda-setting process, presidents are particularly interested in advancing agenda items that will

have a reasonable chance of becoming policy (Lovett, Bevan, and Baumgartner 2014). In order to accomplish this goal, presidents often lard their agenda with items that will be appealing to legislators seeking to bring benefits back to their constituents.

The president s̓ task is complicated. First, the president s̓ agenda is often national in scope, whereas legislators are interested in local benefit. Second, different terms of office impact the time horizons of legislators. Third, although the president faces term limits, members of Congress and the Senate do not. Assuming they are reelected, members of Congress may serve for decades. Finally, the president s̓ agenda-setting ability is impacted by divided government. When the president and the majority of Congress represent different political parties, the agenda-setting process becomes complicated.

The Courts and The Policy Agenda

Traditionally, the courts used narrowly defined legal reasoning known as constitutionalism, steering the court away from many policy entanglements. Nowadays, the courts are more inclined to operate on principles of judicial positivism, using legal reasoning to determine the substantive meaning and expected outcomes of policy.

The transition to positivism gained momentum in Lochner v. New York (1905). In Schecter Poultry v. United States (1935), the Court made a critical decision regarding the constitutionality of President Franklin D. Roosevelt s̓ New Deal legislation. In this case, FDR essentially asked the Court to support his policy agenda—creating a national government role in economic management and social welfare provision. Although the Court effectively denied the policy, it de facto created a judicial agenda-setting role. In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court effectively reversed its position on New Deal legislation and supported FDR s̓ policy agenda.

Using their power of judicial review, courts deal with policy areas emergent

in legal cases brought before them (Black and Owens 2009). In this sense, the courts remain reactive rather than proactive in their agenda-setting activities (Yates 2005). Courts move slower in shaping the policy agenda, largely because their decisions are based on legal precedence. Although rare, the courts may reinterpret, nullify, or confirm decisions made in the past in relation to new cases brought before them.

At times, the court establishes the agenda prior to legislative or executive action. Civil rights provide a good example of the courts shaping the policy agenda. Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954) served as a catalyst for policy change by deciding that “separate is inherently unequal.” By reversing court precedent, the Supreme Court put desegregation on the policy agenda. More than that, the Court opened the agenda to a new dialogue on the meaning of equality—a dialogue that continues to this day.

A very current example of the Court engaged in agenda setting and advancing the agenda of equality can be seen in the case of same-sex marriage. In, Obergefell et al. v. Hodges (2015), a 5–4 Court decision found that same-sex couples have a right to marry. The decision overturned a number of state laws regarding same-sex marriage. The courts have increasingly become major actors in establishing and advancing the policy agenda, particularly in areas where the elected branches have proven reticent to become involved.

Pressure Groups and Agenda Setting

Pressure groups use group cohesiveness and structure to influence the policy agenda:

Pressure groups often have well-developed organizations designed to aggressively recruit new members. Members are often attracted to the select benefits of membership, such as information and solidarity. Pressure groups often have a tremendous capacity to raise money from their membership and other interested parties. Monetary

resources are used to maintain the group organization and support political campaigns of candidates sharing their views. The contributions buy access to political elites and the chance to explain group views about the policy agenda. Pressure groups collect and organize information, simplifying the decision-making process for policy leaders. Congress, state legislatures, and local government representatives have staff researchers and personal advisers, but the capacity of these personnel is often insufficient in meeting the growing demands on elected decision-makers. Think tanks—pressure group organizations devoted almost solely to policy research—often tap the intellectual resources of leading scholars, producing highly detailed information and position papers disseminated to elected officials. Elected officials may use the bite-sized information provided by pressure groups to carry forward a policy agenda.

Large economic groups, such as General Electric, have tremendous resources for gaining access to elected officials and shaping policy agendas. Multiple points of contact in the policy process—contact with elected officials, public administrators, and policy clientele groups— increases the likelihood of successful issue framing and agenda setting.

Some interest groups have more limited resources, but given the nature of the times, changes in cultural values, and public opinion, they might succeed in shaping the policy agenda. Events that focus public attention can lead to group mobilization and impacts on the policy agenda (Birkland 1998). A notable example is Ralph Nader s̓ Common Cause. Automotive safety was a growing concern in the 1960s due to horrific traffic fatalities. The circumstances contributed to Common Cause s̓ success in shaping the auto safety policy agenda despite the lack of a large resource base and highly sophisticated group organization. Common Cause was one of the first noteworthy public interest groups.

Bureaucracy and Agenda Setting

Bureaucracy plays a major role in shaping the policy agenda. Existing government agencies and policies are rarely completely successful. A policy that might have worked last year may require fine-tuning in succeeding years, prompting public sector bureaucrats to pursue new ways of delivering goods and services desired by elected leaders, pressure groups, and clientele.

Bureaucratic agenda setting is highly dependent of the type of agency and the age of the agency. In Inside Bureaucracy (1967), Anthony Downs observed that older agencies are often populated by bureaucratic conservers, who focus on agency survival rather than agency change or growth. New agencies are more likely to have younger and more enthusiastic public sector bureaucrats, eager to produce a positive change in society and willing to refocus the policy agenda in order to achieve their goals.

A good example of bureaucracy shaping the policy agenda can be seen in the EPA̓s (Environmental Protection Agency) 2015 Clean Power Plan, which will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly one third by 2030. The plan encourages states to work collaboratively to reduce emissions, setting both a national and state policy agenda for emissions reductions through renewable energy. Plans of this type often rely heavily on advisory committees that may include membership from industry, academia, various public interest and trade association groups—in many ways paralleling the advocacy coalitions discussed in the ACF model. Agencies can use advisory groups to build support for an agenda (Moffitt 2010).

Media and Agenda Setting

The media spends significant time focusing on government successes, but

perhaps even greater attention on policy failures. It often also focuses attention on problems for which there is no proposed solution. In each instance, the information presented to the attentive public shapes public opinion, if only for a very short time. The media can shape the policy agenda by heightening awareness of problems that are often later addressed by government policy (Olds 2013). Media images of real-world conditions also evoke emotional responses that shape public opinion (Miller 2007), pressure group responses, and agenda prioritization.

A recent example of media involvement in agenda setting relates to police relations with minority populations. The 2014 deaths of Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri stand out as two prominent examples of media images impacting the policy agenda. Social media shows Garner being repeatedly Tasered by police and asking for assistance. Brown was initially stopped by a Ferguson police officer for walking in the street at night, which led to a struggle between the officer and Brown. Brown was shot and killed in the interchange. Even more recently, video images of the shooting by police of African American motorist Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma illustrates a continued role for media in keeping alive an issue on the policy agenda and influencing political candidatesʼ issue narratives. But perhaps more than the role of media, per se, the unfiltered images and text appearing in social media is a new and growing area of influence in agenda setting (Fortunato and Martin 2016). While public opinion regarding culpability remains divided, the result of the aforementioned high-profile incidents has been heightened public awareness of policing methods, the end of stop-and-frisk policing policies in some cities, greater awareness of the need for diversity in police department ranks and the need to reestablish trust between minority communities and police, and greater awareness of social justice and the status of minority populations in the United States.

Elections and the Policy Agenda

Major electoral shifts related to political, social, or economic turbulence can also play a significant role in shaping the policy agenda. Termed realignment by political scientist V. O. Key, electoral shifts produce overwhelming and long-lasting majorities for a particular political party and have a tremendous impact on agenda setting. In realigning elections, it is more likely that the president and congressional majorities will share similar policy agendas. Political scientists argue that realignment has been replaced by dealignment, characterized by divided government, weaker presidencies, and smaller and less stable congressional majorities. Post- election, a majority party often hails their new electoral mandate, but dealignment indicates that electoral outcomes will probably not result in lasting impacts on the policy agenda.

Cultural Change and Agenda Setting

In Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies (1990), Ronald Inglehart documented the rise of the Baby Boom generation, which brought with it a new set of values and policy preferences. The Baby Boom generation and subsequent age cohorts tend to be less materialistically driven and more concerned about quality of life issues and political and social equality. Many members of the Millennial Generation go a step further than Baby Boomers with their calls for social justice, with the idea that, moving forward, government should actively redistribute wealth through public policies designed to improve the lives of the disadvantaged in society—although some evidence exists that the attitudes of Millennials change once they get a good paying job (Elkins 2016). With a different view of what government ought to do, generational differences have shaped what government does or does not do.

Arguably, agenda setting is related to perceived individual or collective risk. All aspects of life carry some level of risk, but its meaning and acceptability is politically and culturally defined. Political and cultural values play a tremendous role in defining unacceptable risks. Political processes and

participants shape the policy agenda to manage these risks. As politics and culture change, so too do perceptions of risk, frequently altering perspectives of what government ought or ought not to do.

Biases In Political Participation and Agenda Setting

Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram have written extensively about the role of target populations in agenda setting. Political and social values play a tremendous role in the labeling of different groups in society. Drug-addicted individuals and criminals are often labeled “undeserving” members of society. Individuals or groups labeled “undeserving” recipients of public policy benefits often have lower levels of education and income. With limited political and social capital, the “undeserving” are often systematically excluded from equal participation in agenda setting.

Reflect back on group perceptions reported in Chapter 1, it is clear that individuals often view groups differently. The issues represented by certain groups have variable chances of success in becoming part of the policy agenda when compared with others. In large part, the ability of the clientele groups to legitimize their need is shaped by deeply ingrained cultural norms and by socioeconomic biases. There is a strong cultural and economic bias in agenda setting. Systematic bias in public policymaking creates barriers to equal participation and may pose a very serious challenge to the long-term legitimacy of a democracy.

Explaining Agenda Setting

Multiple Streams Theory

In his book, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy, John Kingdon delineates the value of the multiple streams theory in explaining the agenda-setting process. There are any number of good ideas for public policy, continually proposed by pressure groups, think tanks, political staffers, public administrators, and interested citizens. Why is it that some

policy issues are adopted as part of the policy agenda and other ideas remain in the shadows? Kingdon argues that issues and policy solutions arrive on the policy agenda almost by chance. Emergencies, unanticipated events, and the ever-changing tide of politics cause policymakers to react to conditions and needs. When the need arises and when circumstances thrust items onto the policy agenda, there is a frantic search for practical and reasonable-sounding solutions.

The multiple streams theory states that, desirable or not, the agenda- setting process is reactive. When a problem is clearly defined and widely accepted as a pressing issue that requires policy attention, the nature of politics at that time—the party in majority, the policy orientation of particular policy actors operating from within and outside of political institutions—and the relative feasibility and acceptability of particular policy solution options (i.e. problem stream, politics stream, and solution stream) converge. The manner in which this occurs describes and explains why particular policy options become part of a policy agenda and are adopted as policy solutions.

Advocacy Coalition Framework

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) model argues that policy agendas are not a function of policy windows opening simply due to happenstance. The ACF describes agenda setting as a deliberate activity. The ACF is not always built on a sense of urgency surrounding a problem. Rather, a problem is generally understood and stable. Agenda setting under ACF is shaped by the orientation of subsystem actors, resource availability, and constraints. Coalitions of actors representing different beliefs and different solution sets seek to convince political decision-makers that one solution is better than another. The process is cyclical. Changes in socioeconomic conditions and changing governing coalitions impact the policy agenda. Also, other policy subsystems addressing related or different problems may jockey to get their items prioritized on the agenda, thus constraining other

policy agenda items.

In terms of agenda setting, the ACF could be used to describe agenda setting under fairly stable problem definition. The policy agenda is, in large part, a function of policy subsystem actors and well-organized coalitions policy advocates seeking to advance their solution as the approach to be adopted by policymakers. The vast majority of policy problems operate in such a context. The framework implies a logical and methodical process by which policy solutions can be juxtaposed, one that involves actors in the bureaucracy, political leaders, interest groups of various sorts, academics, and other stakeholders. Finally, it helps us understand policy, in this case agenda setting, at macro and micro scale.

Here s̓ an example of how the ACF might help us understand agenda setting. Native American tribes have worked along a bi-partisan path to get the issue of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) on the policy agenda. In this case, the problem is generally understood, has existed for quite some time, and is critical for economic development on Native American reservations. In the past, the federal government has provided a number of social welfare and education plans on Native American reservations. Tribal leaders have been witness to the limited success of federal government efforts. For several decades, the federal government has worked with the tribes to help them pursue self-determination. The development of fossil energy beneath tribal lands is seen by many tribes as a source of wealth to build tribal efficacy, sustainability, and growth. In 2015, the Native American tribes worked with Congressman Don Young (R-AK) who sponsored H.R.538 in the 114th Congress. The “Native American Energy Act” would reduce federal environmental and land use regulations for hydraulic fracking on Native American reservations. The bill received bi-partisan support in the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, other groups are opposed to the development of these fossil resources. With lower regulatory costs, Native American fossil energy development would compete on the open market with oil produced by non-tribal fracking companies. Fracking consumes a

large amount of water and may pose some risks to the environment, which draws opposition from environmental groups. President Obama threatened to veto the legislation (H.R. 538) should it reach his desk. Thus, an agenda item is born and whether or not the legislation passes and is signed in the current Congress, it is likely to be a part of the policy agenda within the energy and natural resources policy subsystem for some time.

Lessons Learned from Chapter 5

Specifics

According to the multiple streams model, issue framing and “open” policy windows contribute to the successful adoption of an issue onto the policy agenda. Public (e.g., Congress) and private institutions (e.g., the media) play important but varying roles in shaping the policy agenda. Value change impacts the policy choices of citizens and impacts agenda setting. Agenda setting is a function of what citizens think government ought or ought not to do, which will impact what government does or does not do. The Advocacy Coalition Framework offers a way of thinking about agenda setting and policymaking in cases where problem definition are stable and accepted.

The Big Picture

Agenda setting is the first step in the policy process. Before an issue can be acted upon, it must become a recognized part of the policy agenda. Additionally, the issue must be prioritized. Although part of the policy agenda, some issues are given relatively low priority, whereas other policy areas are given much greater priority. How an issue becomes part of the policy agenda may play a role in shaping its prioritization. Issues that are related to perceived emergencies or high risks are often given much higher policy priority. Additionally, issues that are placed on the policy agenda by

popular presidents are often seen as important national goals that must be met. Conversely, issues viewed as of parochial or local concern, assuming they become part of the policy agenda, may not be considered extremely high priorities.

A variety of individuals and groups shape the policy agenda. Most notably, the constitutional branches of the national government play extremely important roles in agenda setting. It is important, however, to realize that each branch of government has different powers, different constituencies, and different limitations in terms of tenure of office. Institutional checks and balances complicate matters further.

In addition to the constitutionally established branches of government, there are other important factors to consider when thinking about the agenda-setting process. Political parties establish competing policy agendas that will presumably be enacted upon following the party s̓ victory in elections. Pressure groups lobby Congress, the president, and public administrative agencies with the intent of shaping the policy agendas of elected officials. Additionally, pressure groups may be party to legal suit or may submit amicus curiae briefs with the intent of shaping judicial interpretations and decision-making.

Finally, it is important to consider the potential for inherent inequalities in the agenda-setting process. In theory, all citizens and their policy concerns should receive equal hearing and consideration. In fact, political, social, and economic limitations result in inequality within the agenda-setting process. Some individuals and groups have greater influence in shaping the policy agenda than do others. This is due, in part, to deeply ingrained cultural perspectives about various types of individuals and groups within society. In essence, some individuals and groups may be consciously or subconsciously viewed as less deserving of the benefits of public policy than are others. The result is that some policy agenda items are ignored because they are not seen as fully worthy of government attention. It is a

serious concern for democratic theorists pondering the possibility of a fully fair and equal agenda-setting process.

Key terms

conservers

constitutionalism

dealignment

divided government

focusing event

hyperpluralism

judicial positivism

legal precedence

policy stream

policy window

problem stream

public interest groups

realignment

stewardship

target populations

think tanks

two presidencies thesis

Questions for Study

1. What is issue framing? How does framing impact agenda setting? Provide an example.

2. Identify and discuss three institutional or individual actors who, according to the text, often play prominent roles in agenda setting.

3. Using three policy models, explain the agenda-setting process using a policy example.

Bibliography

Abbe, O., J. Goodliffe, P. Herrnson, and K. Patterson. 2003. Agenda setting in congressional elections: The impact of issues and campaigns on voting behavior. Political Research Quarterly 56(4): 419–30.

Aristotle. 1985. Nichomachean ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Baker, P. 2014. U.S. to restore full relations with Cuba, erasing a last trace of Cold War hostility. New York Times, December 18. www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/americas/us-cuba-relations.html?_r=0 (accessed September 20, 2016).

Behr, R., and S. Iyengar. 1985. Television news, real-world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly 49(1): 38–57.

Birkland, T. 1998. Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy. 18(1): 53–74.

Black, R., and R. Owens. 2009. Agenda setting in the Supreme Court: The collision of policy and jurisprudence. Journal of Politics 71(3): 1062–75.

Bratton, K. and K. Haynie. 1999. Agenda setting and legislative success in

state legislatures: The effects of gender and race. Journal of Politics 61(3): 658–79.

Cox, G. W., and M. D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dearing, J. Agenda setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downs, A. 1967. Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.

Drier, P., and C. Martin. 2010. How acorn was framed: Political controversy and media agenda setting. Perspectives on Politics 8(3): 761–92.

Dunaway, J., R. Branton, and M. Abrajano. 2010. Agenda setting, public opinion, and the issue of immigration reform. Social Science Quarterly 91(2): 359–78.

Eissler, R., A. Russell, and B. Jones. 2014. New avenues for the study of agenda-setting. Policy Studies Journal 41(S1): S71–S86.

Ekins, E. 2016. Millennials like socialism—until they get jobs. Washington Post, March 24. www.washingtonpost.com/news/in- theory/wp/2016/03/24/millennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/? utm_term=.80392107f5aa (accessed November 1, 2016).

Eshbaugh-Soha, M., and J. Peake. 2005. Presidents and the economic agenda. Political Research Quarterly 58(1): 127–38.

Fortunato, J., and S. Martin. 2016. The intersection of agenda-setting, the media environment, and election campaign laws. Journal of Information Policy 6: 129-153.

Hill, D. 1985. Viewer characteristics and agenda-setting by television news. Public Opinion Quarterly. 49(3): 340–50.

Howlett, M. 1997. Issue-attention and punctuated equilibria models

reconsidered: An empirical examination of the dynamics of agenda-setting in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science. 30(1): 3–29.

Howlett, M. 1998. Predictable and unpredictable policy windows: Institutional and exogenous correlates of Canadian federal agenda-setting. Canadian Journal of Political Science 31(3): 495–524.

Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jenner, E. 2012. News photographs and environmental agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal 40(2): 274–301.

Jones, B. and F. Baumgartner. 2004. Representation and agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal 32(1): 1–24.

Kenney, S. 2008. Gender on the agenda: How the paucity of women judges became an issue. Journal of Politics 70(2): 717–35.

Key, V. O. 1966. The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting (1936–1960). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kingdon, J. 2001. A model of agenda setting with applications. Michigan State University Law Review. 2001(2): 331–37.

Kingdon, J.. 2002. Agendas, alternatives, and public policy. New York: Longman.

Krehbiel, K. 1998. Pivotal politics: A theory of U.S. lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larocca, R. 2006. The presidential agenda: Sources of executive influence in Congress. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Liu, X., E. Lindquist, and A. Vedlitz. 2010. Understanding local policymaking: Policy elitesʼ perceptions of local agenda setting and alternative policy

selection. Policy Studies Journal 38(1): 69–91.

Liu, X., E. Lindquist, and A. Vedlitz.. 2011. Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969–2005: An empirical test of agenda-setting theory. Political Research Quarterly 64(2): 405–19.

Lovett, J., S. Bevan, and F. R. Baumgartner. 2014. Popular presidents can affect congressional attention, for a little while. Policy Studies Journal 43(1): 22–43.

Lowi, T. 1969. The end of liberalism: Ideology, policy, and the crisis of public authority. New York: Norton.

Miller, J. 2007. Examining the mediators of agenda setting: A new experimental paradigm reveals the role of emotions. Political Psychology 28(6): 689–717.

Moffitt, S. 2010. Promoting agenda reputation through public advice: Advisory committee use in the FDA. Journal of Politics 72(3): 880–93.

Nash, R. 1960. Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Olds, C. 2013. Assessing presidential agenda-setting capacity: Dynamic comparisons of presidential, mass media, and public attention to economic issues. Congress & the Presidency 40: 255–84.

Owens, R. 2010. The separation of powers and Supreme Court agenda setting. American Journal of Political Science. 54(2): 412–427.

Renaud, J. P. 2004. “Governor says Bay Area residents should pay overruns of bridge project.” NewBayBridge.org (reported from Los Angeles Times. www.newbaybridge.org/medianews/2004_08_17%201atimes_bridge_overru ns.html (accessed September 15, 2005).

Riker, W., ed. 1993. Agenda formation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Rivers, D., and N. Rose. 1985. Passing the president s̓ program: Public opinion and presidential influence in congress. American Journal of Political Science 29(2): 183–96.

Rutledge, P., and H. Price. 2014. The president as agenda setter-in-chief: The dynamics of congressional and presidential agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal 42(3): 443–64.

Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. 1993. Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review. 87(2): 334–47.

Schneider, A., and H. Ingram.. 1997. Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Shilts, R., and S. Sward. 1989. “Hundreds dead in huge quake Oakland freeway collapses—Bay bridge fails,” The San Francisco Chronicle, October 18, 1989, 1.

Sigelman, L. 1979. A reassessment of the two presidencies thesis. Journal of Politics 41: 1195–205.

Sinclair, B. 1986. The role of committees in agenda setting in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 11(1): 35–45.

Soroka, S. 1999. Policy agenda-setting theory revisited: A critique of Howlett on Downs, Baumgartner, and Jones, and Kingdon. Canadian Journal of Political Science 32(4): 763–772.

Taylor, A. 1998. Domestic agenda setting, 1947–94. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23(3): 373–397.

Uscinski, J. 2009. When does the public s̓ issue agenda affect the media s̓ issue agenda (and vice-versa)? Social Science Quarterly 90(4): 796–815.

White House. 2016. Fact sheet: New executive actions to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer. January 4. www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new- executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our (accessed September 20, 2016).

Wildavsky, A. 1966. The two presidencies. Trans-Action 4: 7–14.

Yates, J. 2005. Agenda setting, issue priorities, and organizational maintenance: The U.S. Supreme Court, 1955 to 1994. British Journal of Political Science 35(2): 369–81.

Court Cases

Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905)

Obergefell et al. v. Hodges 576 U.S. _____(2015)

Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)

West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)