AGENDA SETTING v7 wat proposals come here do public policy from? Why do decision makers pay Loe attention to some issues than to others! In this chapter, we begin an analysis of the policymaking process its @ series of development stages. Before we begis this analysis, we need t0 dlefine a couple of terms. Policy formation means the total process of creating or forming @ public policy, whereas policy formulation refers to the more discrete stage of adopting a proposed course of action for dealing with a public problem." Until very recently, most public policy research focused on the policy adoption aspectoof the policy cycle. This phase of the policy cycle was the first to tbe explored by researchers. Many models were developed to explain policy adoption. Now, more ‘emphasis has been placed on how issues get onto the agenda in “he first lace. Why are some issues -nore likely to get onto “e agenda than others? This isa key aspect of the policy cycle and an extremely important one. In answering this question, it mea that several conditions must be met in order for {issues to get onto the agenda. An issue will recei i attention if (1) ithas reached crisis proportions: uve can no longer be ignored, (2) it has achi os particularity, in which the issue exemplif ie Aramatizs a larger iste, such a5 orone dep and and global warming, (3) it hag an emotive aan or attracts media attertion because of a aspect, interest angle,” (4) it has wide impact, (5) it ri questions about Power and legitiinacy i raises and (6) it is fash ionable. All these facto; N society, be necessary conditions for an item tors seem on the agenda. Still, we need to eis neal these “human. pret “we know more aboui how issues are disposed of than shout how they came tO be ivvues on the rernmental agen: in the first place, how the alterr «tives from which decision mc hers choose were. generated, and why some potential issues and some likely alternatives never came to be the focus of serious attention.” Joun W. Kincbon 6AGENDA SELLING conditions (and others) in greater depth, In this initial chapter on the policy process, we will examine how policies get onto the public, or governmental, agenda. Agenda setting is crucial, because if an issue cannot be placed on the agenda, it cannot be considered for action, Problems must be recognized before a policy choice can be made, Cobb and Elder define agenda setting as “a set of political controversies that 1 | willbe viewed as falling within the range of legitimate concern; meriting the ' attentionof the polity; set of items scheduled for active and seriolis attention by adecision inakingbody.” Others, such as John Kingdon, define agenda setting as ) + “the list of subjects or problems to which government officials...are paying 50) serious attention at any given time,"* Still others, such as Baumgartner and Jor \ distinguish between “policy images” (how policies are understood snd discussed) and “policy venues” (the institutions or groups that haye the jurisdictional au- thority over the issue),° The process of agenda setting, according to arbara Nelson, ) is that in which “public officials learn ab blems, decide to give them 3 their personal attention, atid indbilize their organizations to respond to them."* | Essentially, agenda setting involves getting an issue to be recognized, Each tage of the policy process is theoretically distinct, but stages nevertheless merge in prac- tice. For example, the nature of the: problem affects whether it gets onto, the agenda, as well as whether a course of action finally gets enacted into law, Gener- ally speaking, once a proposal is before Congress in the form of a proposed bill, it may be said to be on the agenda. Let us examine agenda setting in a bit more depth. THE NATURE OF POLICY PROBLEMS policy problem may be defined as a “condition or situation that produces Ae fF OF Ahsatisfaction on the part of people for relie or redcess sought.” { 7 SO ought?” {x effet, the tractabllty of public policy problems varies greatly. Some Public policy problems are very easy to define and solve, such as energy conservation; others, such as reducing crime, are more difficu\ to assess and diagnose, Consider, for example, the following list of public ptlicy problems Kirkpatridk: Sale has identified: An imperiled ecology, a deepening suspicion of authority and distrust of established institutigns, the decline of community, a contempt for law, deteridrating cities, ! megaloroolitan sprawls, ghettoes, overcrowding, traffic congestion, untreated wastes, smog and soot, budgetary insolvency, inadequate schooli, . literacy, declining university standards, dehumanizin ! brutality, overcrowded hospitals, clogged court calendars, inhuman prisons, r injustice, sex discrimination, poverty, crime, alcoholism, divorce vider senate overspendng, nuclear proliferation, the arms race, unemployment viernes , unemployment, inflation, the energy crisis, mounting personal debt, maldistributi , maldist i inflation, international instability, aes and the en Ras aig eerie id of the American imperial mounting ig welfare systems, police | 676 edied Thee ¥ be rem for example Ta many areas of pudic policy mfeowve” the problem with an ily because they often do not he problem and its policy n and widely different | debt problem, ror the poverty Pro 0 e persone crim: problem 0 <5 simply do 10 olution. wt 1 know is is primar This is Pol petweent policy analy’ Jationship be appropriate policy s sPeatand the cause-and-effect TERNON pretation ey ai solution. Cause and effect aF€ OPPT. erp enti and eecnsicet of perceptions. Policy analysts must consi igning € ffective s ‘lutions. Yet, many the problems ifthey are to beh ttle attention is directed toward problems are taken as “given vent debate on welfare policy understanding the problem in he ee a ‘Other America and his more recent illustrates this. Michael Ea rt sevcaased by ext shor ductal book, Poverty in America, argue tal , vel “ oes pate changes clade opportunities. Charles Murray, in Losing Ground, on the other hand, argues that poverty is ‘caused! by the country’s current welfare progrsins, which offer more incentives to remain on welfare than to get off of it. Others, such as Edward Banfield, argue that individual shortcomings predispose soiie to a life of poverty, rather than a hostile external erivironment ‘or structural determinants of poverty? ‘ 'As the understanding of a problem develops over time; the problem is often defined very differently. For example, until very recently, a reactive polizy response to the environmental problem was puisued. Some environmental prcblem, such as toxic waste, would be identified, and a response to it would be f>rmulated. The passage ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compe ion, and Lisblity Act of 1980 (CERCLA), or Superfund, is an example of tis kind of strategy. Morc recently, policymakers are attempting to desi . 1 polices that a preventive, rather than reactive, in nat Ae eae toanticipate the problem and prevent the build > ture, They are attempting uildup of pollutants rather than clean up after the fact. The passage of the Pollut i SNe smteeieeae ollution Prevention Act of 1990 is 1n example Policy problems are continuall information or a new understaridin, concern for wetlandsisa good exams types of agendas exist to deal y being redefined on the basis of new of th example ofthe The recent and emerging with these policy problens ee eaaitom several TYPES OF AGENDAS Cobb and Elder distingyj : BUish s agendas and institutional fact tee de Sof i mi that might bo subject pac Ystemic ae including syst ic mi 7 38 consist of all tnose issues govert ment. These issues og 2 © . eS can in ‘at are placate clientele groups, clu already being acted on by S) Or issues discussed just '° choices. Systemic eee i & Poeudovissy considered for 48 ine] any serio i Governmental act; “© the Univers $s attempt to make polit 5 7 e of ji ight be Teas inet issues ight is MStitutional ies eho setsconsideration by decision-making yurt docket." The institutional 1a, as opposed to the popular which consists of all the issues sional class."' Thus, there are he issues have been formally ly being discussed in the itutional agenda. of issues explicitly up for active and serious bodies, suct as the legislative calendar or the co agenda is,also referred to as the public agend agenda (another name for the systemic agenda), under consideration by the mass public or profe two types of agendas, depending on whether placed on the public agenda or the issues are merel background and are waiting to be placed on the inst TYPES OF ISSUES Many types of issues are placed on the systemic or institutional agendas. For example, subject issues are relatively broad, such as air pollution, water pollution, or health-care issues, Issues surrounding specific legislation, such as the Clean ‘Air Act of 1990 (CAA) or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), are called policy, issues. Project issues relate to a specific project of locality, such as the Denver International Airport issue.” ‘New issues are those that are newly emergent, such as radon and indoor air pollution issues, Cyelical issues, suchas the annual budget, occur regulary Finally, has welfare issues, reemerge because of the failure of previous recurrent issues, st policy choices.” Now tha: we have discussed various types of agendas and va-ious types of issues, it is cseful to discuss the evolution of the literature on the agenda-setting process. Through this brief review, we may appreciate how our conceptual uuidérstancing of this stage of the policy cycle has developed over time. - EVOLUTION OF THE LITERATURE ON THE AGENDA-SETTING PROCESS In the early’ 1970s, the first important work on agenda setting, defined the agenda-setting process as a link between mass participation and elite decision making." This research sought to explain the movement of an issue from the systemic agenda to the formal or institutional agenda, The fundamental proposition was that the greater the size of the audience to which an issue maj be appealed, the greater the likelihood that the issue will attain status o1 the systemic agenda and later move to the formal or institutional rn di ' esenially, the process i based on the fundamental assumption that if the issue has several characteristics, such as specificity, social signifi Seapets relevance, complexity, or categorical den saree ae 7 precedence, then it will be moi ih expanded to a larger audience and hence have a much b eating the formal or institutional agenda."* Specificit Fee concretely an issue is defined. The more broadh ee oe ot ly an issue is defined, the greater 69Licy PROCESS anatysis IN THE FO n PENDENT, No i “POLITICAL STREAM + Halon tl Pablit opinion: . FIGURE 5-1 The Agenda-Setting Process: A Model A Model Source: Adapted from Jobn W. Kingdon, Agendas, Al Alternatives, Reprinted by persion ofthe publi and abi ps permission of the publisher. 'd Public Policies Boston: Lite Brown, 1984) constraints, and how the problem is co, ler ° . is concey earlier were leaching int See canal vas icaae roundvater and int . : 0 =a ae ich when Preside’ einai NAGENDA St Carter decared Love Canal a national emergency, and when a prelimingy study y the chemicals was leaked to of health problems that might have been caused by the New York Times. ‘The policy stream has to do with the technical feasil problem, the availability of technology to deal with it, and the public degree of acceptance of a solution, among other things. Essentially, the policy stream includes various proposals that are developed to deal with the issue, usually in the form cf legislation. Although the study of the Love Canal situation yielded inadequav: evidence to conclude that the chemicals had led to health problems ‘among ter-dents, a perception of government insensitivity led to President Carter's decision to relocate 710 persons. : «The political stream has to do with the politics affecting the solution to the issue, This includes such considerations as the national mood, public opinion, electoral yclitics, and interest-group activity, When these three streams come together, ‘policy windows” of opportunity are opened. In afldition, policy entrepreneurs “are responsible not only for prompting important people to pay attention; Yut also for coupling solitons to problems and for coupling both problems aiid solutions to politics.”” In the Love Canal case, the ultimate solution - Was new environmental legislation to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites.”* Prior to these three streams are “societal predispositions” (values, political culture, etc,), which set the context for issues getting on the agenda. Finally, such things as “spillovers” affect agenda status as well. Spillovers refer to the fact that sometimes an issue from one area affects another issue’s ability to get onto the agenda. ‘Simply put, there are times when issues are “ripe” for solutions, and there are individuals who can move an issue to agenda status by virtue vf their political clout in the decisional arena, such.as a key congressperson or president. Sometimes, spillovers from other policy areas affect agenda status as well. For example, the issue of dumping wastes at sea. affected the status of burning wastes at sea.’The: former issue affected the latter issue by sensitizing the public to the potential {or harm. (Chapter 9 explores this example in greater depth.) bility of dealing with the SPP SAIS PO "WHO SifT'S AGENDAS? Coheureen with these frameworks for understanding agenda selting, a number of explanations about just who sets agendas have been advanced. These ‘@xplanaticns include the following: (1) the elitist argument, (2) the pluralist argument, and (3) the subgovernment argument. ‘ Saher sts ‘The Elitist Perspective # ‘The elitist argument assumes the existence of a power elite that domi min: decision making. It argues that these clites (including business lates public 85 military, andANALYSIS IN THE POLICY PROCESS . ue one of these ee BOGE political elites) set the agendas. At any 0O% time, War, basiness S002 dominant. For example, in the period following the CO era, politicians Were elites were dominant in agenda setting; 1” the New Deal 6 ee pe a Glominant;and in the 1950s, te military elites dominant 3 ae ee perspective—the neo-Marxist view—assumes that the donne eved to be items on the agenda are the capitalists. These capitalists ia eae "Ales collusion with big labor against the interests of “the people” and are DET control policymaking by government. ‘We have discussed the elitist modi a previous chapter, and Figure 4 ilustates this perspective The Phuralist Perspective ‘Asecond argument is that interest groups dominate the agenda seule B process It sees the agenda-setting process as reacting to the activity expressed by domes interest groups. These interest groups identify problems and then apply Pressure to have them pleced on the public agenda or to OPPOSE their being pla-ed on Be \dgenda. The pluralist perspective was described in Chapter 4 and is filustreted “Bigure 4-2. The Subgovernment Perspective Bina thi pepeciveonho se the publicagenda assumes thatit is shaped ree : i ; by i re frthe polcyin ques: i ne issu; (2) agency rats responsible for the policy in question: and (3) clientele groups with a stake inthe isue. The term subgoversment was briginally coined by Douglas Cater. Other terms for this phi eee subsystem, iron triangle, and cozy little tri phenomenon inches sy ile, and cozy litle triangle, Cater used this t as networks of key actors that determined Americ’spol re oe He discovered that a clos interlocking network Benita teem committees, middle-level executive branch bureaus, ae aed ong coreat groupe together hammered out US. plicy in thi Persia cao argument, a subgovernment wil likely evolve under the fol ee nae this following conditions: (1) a relatively narrow policy field; (2) special responsible for shat field and deferred Se Congressional committees equipped interest groups in the field, ph rest of Congress; (3) unequally the public; and (4) relati Bivs general apathy < publics and (4) relatively autonomous athy on the subjsct amor ties of th i eas ; ne jes of their own outside the executive branch of atic agencies able to cultivate i ine ae tpoups most capable of aie louse committees and their heen mtumate relat . 7 ti possessing at least the fllowingatibutes bureau counterpar ss ionstips of interests (2) lepine in the eyes of an adearly defined Stabe el money enough to al ford offices in Washingtonand committee met a 3) Staffs able to omnes conduct research LaonADMINISTRATIVE APEX FIGURE 5-2 The Subgovernment Model the committee's work; (4) additional funds with which to support # aie committee members’ election (and reelection) campaigns; and (5) fepntatioal ‘bases at the local level and elsewhere from which :he cominittee a ers come (¢.g., clubs, business firms). Essentially, the svbgovernment eae ment works by a series of “exchange relationships,” whereby favorable cry the clientele groups are traded for campaign contributions for , congresspersons, information from agency officials to congresspersons is traded for favorable appropriations to the agency from Congress, and personnel exchanges occur between the clientele groups and the agency (i,¢., many agency representatives later go to work for the very clientele groups they previously regulated). Figure 5-2 illustrates this perspective. A good example of a subgovernment is the relationships among the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), western cattlemen’'s associations, and congressional committees made ‘up of western representatives who are beholden to the cattle industry. It is arguedANALYSIS IN VHE POLICY PROCESS i lic lands and kept that these three groups have protected cattle grazing on pub Pp the grazing fees quite low.” SUMMARY Who sets agendas can best be explained by examining individual issue areas at specific points in time. For example, energy policy in the 1960s inay best be explained by an elitist model; educational policy in the 1970s bya pluralistic model; and environmental policy in the 1980s by a subgovernmental model, In addition, as issues evolve over time and expand to include more public awareness and greater public attention, the scope and level of participation in agenda setting may evolve from elite-dominated, to subgovernment, to interest-group models. The key point is that issues evolve, and the participants involved with an issue change over time. : ania heeettiarin geese John Kingdon contains all three perspectives. g is represented in the concepts of policy stream and policy entrepreneurs, The pluralist perspective { 1 ‘ Ha P ct tears politiéal stiedih, and the Subgevennien ql pective is reflected in, Kingdon’s y erspectiy , i +48 stream and policy entrepreneurs,’ Perspective covers both; the political