Policy Studies Review, Winter 1990

VOl. 9, NO. 2, pp. 263 - 272

SYMPOSIUM

AGENDA SETTING, PUBLIC POLICY, AND MlNPRlTY

GROUP INFLUENCE: AN INTRODUCTION

Edited by Paula D. McClain

Introduction

Agenda setting, as suggested by Nelson (1978, p. 19), is a new expression

used by policy scientists for what are essentially old considerations of
political science--issue definition, interest group activity, and t h e conse-
quences for policy formation of an expanding voting public. Agenda setting
is t h e process by which conflicts and concerns gain prominence and ex-
posure so t h a t they come to t h e public arena for debate and governmental
action. Cobb and Elder (1972, p. 14) define agenda a s "a general s e t of
political controversies t h a t will be viewed a t any point in time a s falling
within t h e range of legitimate concerns meriting t h e attention of t h e
polity." In any given governmental structure, t h e number of potential policy
issues far exceeds t h e capabilities of political decision-making institutions
t o process. Consequently, issues or their proponents must compete for a
place on t h e agenda (Cobb e t al., 1976). Despite t h e obvious importance of
t h i s area, t h e r e has been a plaintive lack of research on agenda setting
(Ripley, 1985) or on t h e question, as phrased by Polsby, "where do new
public policies come from?" (Polsby, 1984, p. 1).
T h e question of where policy issues originate and gain attention is a n
important one, particularly when issues of concern t o minority communities
are a t stake. Elder and Cobb (1984, p.115) stress t h a t policy problems are
not a priori givens but rather a r e matters of definition. Whether or not a
certain situation constitutes a policy problem worthy of government atten-
tion depends upon not just facts but upon beliefs and values. There may be
a core s e t of values t h a t undergird t h e United States governmental struc-
t u r e evolving from t h e Constitution, however, t h e importance of one set of
issues in relation to another s e t a r e subject to interpretation by t h e various
segments of t h e American polity. More often than not, problems t h a t are
viewed a s important only to minority citizens a r e not viewed with t h e same
degree of importance by t h e dominant community. The dearth of research
on agenda setting in general seems voluminous when compared to t h e
research on t h e impact of minority groups on t h e agenda setting process
(Wolman & Thomas, 1970). That particular stream of research has been
almost ignored. This symposium on "Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and
Minority Group Influence" is a n attempt to begin to fill t h e void in the
literature.

263
264 Policy Studies Review, Winter 1990, 9:2

Agenda Setting Defined

Cobb and Elder (1972), t h e pioneers of agenda setting research, distin-

guish between two types of agendas--the systemic or public and t h e institu-
tional, governmental or formal agenda. T h e systemic (public) agenda
"consists of all issues t h a t a r e commonly perceived by members of t h e
political community as meriting public attention and a s involving matters
within t h e legitimate jurisdiction of existing governmental authority"
(Cobb & Elder, 1972, p.85). I t consists of all items which (1) receive
widespread attention or a t least awareness; (2) are believed to require some
type of action by a large share of t h e public; and (3) a r e believed by t h e
public to be a n appropriate concern of some governmental unit and fall
within t h e bounds of its authority (Cobb e t al., 1976, p. 127).
T h e institutional, governmental or formal agenda is "that set of items
explicitly up for t h e active and serious consideration of authoritative
decision makers" (Cobb & Elder, 1972, p. 86). Consequently, any list of
issues established for consideration by any governmental body a t any level
of government will constitute a n institutional agenda.
Reaching a n agreement t h a t an item deserves serious attention from
policy-makers does not signify t h a t t h e outcome of t h e conflict will be t h e
desired objective of t h e advocates, or t h a t t h e outcome will be action in any
configuration (Cobb et al., 1976, p. 126). Bachrach and Baratz (1963) argue
t h a t t h e flip side of t h e decision-making coin is nondecision-making. Some
issues a r e blocked from t h e agenda by a combination of factors--dominant
values, accepted rules of t h e game, existing power relations among groups,
and instruments of force. These items, alone or in combination, effectively
prevent some items from developing into full-fledged issues which call for
a policy decision.
A component of this nondecision-making process is Schattschneider's
(1960, p. 69) notion of t h e "mobilization of bias''--some issues are organized
into politics while others a r e organized out. Bachrach and Baratz (1962)
raise t h e possibility t h a t through t h e "mobilization of bias" some individuals
could limit decision-making t o relatively noncontroversial matters by in-
fluencing and controlling t h e political arenas in which t h e issues surface.

Theoretical Approaches to Agenda Setting

Nelson (1984, p. 21) divides t h e literature on agenda setting into t h r e e

approaches t o explain t h e causes of expansion and shifts in t h e content of
governmental agendas: (1) organizational behavior, (2) issue careers and
issue cycles, and (3) economic logic. The organizational approach i s con-
cerned with t h e decisions made by officials within t h e context of their
official capacities (Walker, 1977, 1983; Gray, 1973). More specifically, i t
centers on t h e importance of career patterns and t h e influence of profes-
sional associations on agenda setting.
T h e issue careers and cycles approach emphasizes t h e appearance and
definition of a problem and has is grounded in t h e interest group literature
of political science (Bentley, 1949; Truman, 1951; Lowi, 1964, 1969; Schat-
tschneider, 1960; Salisbury, 1969; Dahl, 1957, 1961, 1967). The grounding
in interest group literature stresses t h e conflictual nature of agenda set-
McClain: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Minority... 265

ting. The quest for a position on t h e governmental agenda is one where

contending groups compete with other groups for governmental attention.
T h e economic logic approach, exemplified by public choice theory, is not
concerned with determining which policy issues will be acted upon. Instead
i t applies t h e logic of rational-self interest t o governmental behavior
(majoritarian voting with logrolling) and its negative consequences (uncon-
trollable public spending and economic inefficiency) (Buchannan, 1975;
Buchannan & Wagner, 1977). While these three approaches to agenda
setting stem from different scholarly foundations, they a r e not mutually
exclusive.
I n contrast to Nelson’s t h r e e approaches, Studlar and Layton-Henry, in
a n article in this symposium, divide t h e agenda setting literature into two
major theoretical approaches--the pluralist and elitist schools of thought.
The pluralist approach emphasizes t h e role of t h e public, interest groups,
and t h e media in developing t h e political agenda. The elitist approach t o
agenda setting, on t h e other hand, sees t h e major initiatives coming from
government officials and policy communities.
Nelson and Studlar and Layton-Henry approach t h e development of their
agenda s e t t i n g categories from two different perspectives. Nelson’s
categories focus on t h e normative logic of agenda setting, institutional
issues and structures, and t h e participants. Studlar’s and Layton-Henry’s
categories a r e grounded in questions of t h e distribution of resources, con-
trol of power, and accessibility to decision makers. Recognizing t h e differen-
ces t h a t exist in perspectives, one could, nevertheless, view Nelson’s issues
and careers approach a s being similar to Studlar’s and Layton-Henry’s
pluralist category, while her organizational and economic approaches could
be likened to their elitist category.

Pluralism and Minority Group Access

Regardless of t h e number of categorizations of t h e approaches t o agenda

setting, t h e theoretical approaches narrow to two well-trodden and utilized
theories of political science--pluralism and elite theory. Several questions
may be raised about t h e utility of these models for examining minority
group access t o t h e policy agenda. On t h e surface, it would appear t h a t t h e
pluralist model provides greater access, a s t h e elite model, a s its name
implies, draws its policy initiatives from a body in which few minority group
citizens have membership. But, is the pluralist approach to agenda setting
a n appropriate window through which to view minority group influence on
t h e policy process? This question has been debated extensively in the
literature on black politics and could serve as a foundation from which we
can address t h e question of concern in this symposium.
T h e pluralist paradigm has been used extensively in studying racial and
ethnic politics (Dahl, 1961; Eisinger, 1980; Wilson, 1960). Pinderhughes
(1987), in a n excellent and comprehensive re-examination of pluralist
theory, argues, however, t h a t based on t h e very axioms of t h e Dahlian
notion of pluralist theory, pluralism is not an appropriate paradigm through
which to view t h e political activity of blacks. She states t h a t t h r e e prin-
ciples ”summarize t h e process by which racial and ethnic groups find ready
entrance into t h e American political system according to pluralist theory:
266 Policy Studies Review, Winter 1990, 9:2

i n t e r e s t diversification, i n t e r e s t incorporation, a n d racial a n d ethnic

democracy" (p.14).
Interest diversification implies t h a t there is little need for racial and
ethnic groups t o organize around group-based issues. Groups move rapidly
away from racially based positions to issues t h a t are more diversified in
their appeal-socially, economically, and politically. Race and ethnicity are
obscured a s other issues take precedence (Pinderhughes, 1987, p. 14).
Interest incorporation suggests t h a t once groups realize their subjective
interests, members achieve political incorporation through bargaining.
Once a group recognizes its interest in t h e political process, political or-
ganization of t h a t interest leads naturally to political representation and
incorporation (Pinderhughes, 1987, pp. 14-15). Finally, in t h e absence of
persistent group identity and with political representation dependent upon
t h e realization of interests--racial and ethnic democracy--little political
hierarchy o r inequality based on group status will occur.
Pinderhughes' analysis of racial and ethnic life in Chicago led her to
conclude t h a t "the existence of a pattern of racial interaction .... contradicts
t h e principles of t h e pluralist model ..." Drawing on t h e analysis of Barnett
(1976), Pinderhughes concludes "that racial s t a t u s is characterized not by
diversity, incorporation, and democracy, but by hierarchy and collec-
tivism ....Blacks a r e in all locations within t h e country subordinate to whites
a s a race, regardless of t h e ethnic s t a t u s of whites. Second, blacks are
treated a s a group; no individual achievement ameliorates t h e status of a n
individual or elevates t h e position of t h e group a s a whole" (Pinderhughes,
1987, p. 38).
Other examinations of black politics have drawn similar conclusions
(Holden, 1971; Morris, 1975; Barker & McCorry, 1976) which are sum-
marized by Hamilton's (1981, p. 168) statement, "The political situation of
black Americans always posed a special problem for t h e pluralist system".
Manley (1983, p. 368) recently suggested t h a t "pluralism ...fails to account
for t h e reality of political and economic inequality in t h e United States."
Some scholars have reached similar conclusions about t h e utility of
pluralist theory a s a framework for understanding t h e political behavior
and activities of Latinos in t h e United States (Marquez, 1989; Garcia & de
la Garza, 1977). As Schattschneider (1960, p. 34) imparted, "The flaw in t h e
pluralist heaven is t h a t t h e heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class
accent."

Minority Groups and Agenda Setting

In view of t h e limitations of pluralist theory to explain minority group

political behavior, how well will present theories of agenda setting explain
or account for minority group access to t h e process? One of t h e few studies
on t h e influence of blacks on t h e federal policy process (Wolman & Thomas,
1970) counsels t h a t pluralism is not entirely adequate for explaining black
access to t h e policy making process. They conclude from their study of black
influence on housing and education policy t h a t black groups essentially do
not possess effective access to t h e major centers of decision making (Wol-
man & Thomas, 1970, pp. 890, 886). They suggest, however, t h a t t h e lack
of access is t h e result of a severe lack of resources on t h e part of blacks and
McClain: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Minority... 267

t h e decision to concentrate most of their activity on t h e local level. The

channels of access t o decision makers do appear to be open but t h e assump-
tion of pluralism t h a t individuals will form groups in order to accomplish
their policy outcomes is defective, Blacks and other marginal groups are not
as likely t o organize t o achieve policy outcomes a s are “producers,of goods
and services” (Wolman & Thomas, 1970, p. 895) to protect their preferred
positions relative to t h e “have nots” in society (Lowi, 1964).
T h e articles2 in this symposium approach t h e question of minority group
input into t h e policy process from a variety of perspectives and across
several policy areas. Most of t h e articles, either explicitly or implicitly,
suggest t h a t minority group access to t h e agenda setting process has been
limited, and t h a t successes have been few. The symposium is organized into
four sections, each concerned with minority group access to t h e agenda
setting process in several distinct contexts and a t different governmental
levels-- international (Britain), national (United States), state (North
Carolina and Texas), and local (Cleveland.) Moreover, diverse minority
groups a r e examined--nonwhites in Britain, and blacks, Alaskan Natives,
and Latinos in t h e United States.
Several of t h e articles join t h e continuing debate over t h e utility of
c u r r e n t agenda s e t t i n g paradigms for examining a n d understanding
minority views and perceptions of inputs. Korsmo, in this volume, examines
t h e structure of Congressional hearings held t o resolve t h e Alaska Native
land claims and t h e testimony of Alaskan Natives. She suggests t h a t maybe
t h e current agenda-setting literature does not fully account for policy
formation in multicultural settings. Particularly, she questions whether
people outside t h e government and from other cultural backgrounds think
in t e r m s of conventional problems as defined by those inside government.
Agenda-setting, she suggests, might best be compared to stage setting, a
situation in which t h e actors define t h e context of their participation and
present their collective identity in terms of culturally distinct windows.
Marquez, in his article, suggests that minority groups may be successful
in t h e initiation of a n issue on t h e agenda but this is accomplished without
threatening t h e existing hierarchies of wealth and power. The Industrial
Areas Foundation (IAF), an organization t h a t works in Mexican American
barrios in Texas, and its impact on t h e agenda setting process is t h e focus
of his study. T h e IAF uses an Alinsky style of organizing, which Marquez
reminds us, “has been critized a s a variation of pluralism t h a t does not
prescribe methods by which economic structures that dominate t h e poor
and perpetuate their s t a t u s can be transformed.” In t h e end, Marquez
concludes t h a t ”pluralism’s prescriptions for agenda setting and social
change poorly reflect t h e problematic nature of politics among t h e poor and
dispossessed.”
If t h e literature on agenda-setting in t h e United States is sparse, Studlar
and Layton-Henry, in their contribution, indicate that there are even fewer
agenda-setting studies in British political studies. Therefore, t o study agen-
da-setting within t h e British context necessitates the use of frameworks
developed on a federal system of government (United States) to examine
behavior which occurs within a parliamentary system. Nevertheless, Stud-
lar and Layton-Henry apply t h e extant literature t o t h e problem of non-
white (Asian, African and Caribbean-descended) access to t h e political
agenda in Britain.
268 Policy Studies Review, Winter 1990, 9:2

Their article presents a broad overview of how issues of race are handled
by t h e British polity. Oft times, t h e authors opine, t h e r e is a "conscious or
unconscious (cultural) conspiracy t o keep race off t h e political agenda ..."
Another barrier apparently is t h e lack of organization among various non-
white groups and t h e absence of a distinctive nonwhite political agenda.
Whatever initiatives a r e put forth in t h e interest of nonwhites comes from
within t h e political party structure (elite group). They conclude t h a t non-
w h i t e access t o t h e B r i t i s h political a g e n d a r e m a i n s m i n i m a l a n d
problematic.
Solop, in t h i s volume, uses t h e political innovation literature a s t h e
foundation for probing the impact of t h e Anti-apartheid movement on
national policy towards South Africa. Social movements, a s suggested by
Salisbury (1989) and others, can be a vehicle for minority groups t o success-
fully influence t h e definition of social problems, t h e policy alternatives, and
t h e political environment in which t h e formulation and adoption of policies
occur. Unfortunately, t h e policy innovation literature, Solop proffers, "does
not articulate t h e specific processes by which non-institutional actors a r e
able to achieve legitimacy for their issues in t h e national policy process." In
contrast to Korsmo, Solop feels t h a t t h e extant agenda-setting literature
fills t h e gap found in t h e policy innovation literature.
On t h e surface, Korsmo and Solop appear t o be a t odds in their inter-
pretations of t h e usefulness of t h e current agenda-setting literature in
explaining minority group access to t h e process. Solop's finding, however,
t h a t through public protest and social movement activity, t h e Anti-apart-
heid movement was able to mobilize support for a change in United States
policy towards South Africa, may represent t h e principal avenue open to
minority groups outside of government in their quest for access to t h e policy
process.
Arp's article argues t h a t when t h e Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986 was formulated t h e perspectives of t h e targets of t h e legislation--
illegal Latinos--were not taken into account. Given t h e difficulty of impact-
ing t h e governmental agenda, h e does not argue that these individuals
should have had a direct impact. But he does suggest t h a t those "third
parties" (Lipsky, 1970, p. 172) who represent their interests were excluded.
This exclusion, h e proposes, resulted in only a small fraction of those
eligible for legalization t o either apply or complete t h e application process.
T h e question of t h e impact of internal variables on t h e raising of issues
of concern t o a particular minority group is explored in t h e article by Miller.
She explores t h e agenda setting role of state legislative black caucuses by
focusing on t h e proactive agenda-setting activities of t h e North Carolina
Black Caucus. T h e hypothesis is investigated t h a t s t a t e legislative black
caucuses may be likely to advance substantive rather t h a n symbolic policy
initiatives because of t h e enhanced bargaining leverage organization af-
fords them. The important factors of agenda setting success, she concludes,
can be grouped into two broad types--situational attributes and political
skill.
The final contribution to this symposium addresses raising t h e subject
of fair housing legislation t o t h e governmental agenda in t h e City of
Cleveland and t h e State of Ohio. Chandler looks at t h e process, t h e actors
and t h e organizations involved in t h e debate. Her results imply t h a t in
Cleveland t h e r e was an inability of black legislators to overcome obstacles
McCiain: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Minority... 269

t o fair housing legislation in t h e P960s, and t h e black community was unable

to mobilize sufficient support during t h e 1970s and 1980s to achieve agenda
s t a t u s for t h e issue. The result was t h e same for fair housing legislation a t
t h e s t a t e level--the inability of black organizations and legislators to over-
come obstacles.

Conclusions

As these articles demonstrate, t h e results a r e mixed on t h e question of

t h e impact of minority groups on t h e agenda setting process. Recognizing
t h a t these articles represent a very small slice of t h e agenda setting ac-
tivities of various minority groups, t h e weight of t h e evidence in this
symposium seems to fall on t h e side of minimal influence of minority groups
on t h e policy agenda setting process. The reasons for t h e failures can be
broken down into two broad categories --cultural differences in problem
definition (Korsmo & Arp) and lack of strong minority group organization
(Studlar & Layton-Henry & Chandler). But there clearly have been succes-
ses.
Two successes resulted from social movement and protest activity. One
was aimed a t changing t h e United States policy toward South Africa (Solop),
while t h e o t h e r was designed t o push policies of concern to Mexican
Americans (Marquez). The activities of these two groups fit what Cobb,
Ross and Ross (1976, p. 128) refer to as t h e "outside initiative model," t h a t
is, a process through which issues arise and grievances a r e articulated by
individuals outside t h e formal governmental structure. By generating at-
tention and continuously exposing critical issues to t h e general population,
t h e grievances first reach t h e public and then later become part of the
formal governmental agenda. Lipsky (1970) viewed such protest efforts on
t h e part of powerless black groups a s a sophisticated and conscious way of
influencing public policy. One central aim of political protest is to trigger
t h e involvement of powerful groups who, in turn, seek t o influence govern-
ment officials in ways favorable to t h e goals of protest leaders.
The situational attributes and political skills of a minority group within
government (North Carolina Black Caucus) proved successful in getting all
but one of its policy priorities serious consideration on t h e legislative
agenda. This third example represents the process of agenda setting by an
elite group within government. While not fitting all t h e tenets of t h e model,
t h e impact of t h e black caucus resembles t h e Cobb, Ross and Ross (1976, p.
135) "inside initiation model". Within this model, policy proposals arise
within governmental units or in groups close to government. The public is
not a n active participant in t h e process and t h e issue is expanded only to
groups or individuals who are able t o pressure decision makers into placing
t h e issue on t h e governmental agenda.
While major social movements within minority communities are not a t
t h e levels witnessed twenty-five years ago, t h e outside initiative model may
not prove a s effective for issue recognition and expansion today a s in t h e
past. Although Solop found t h e Anti-apartheid Movement to have been
effective in t h e change of United States policy toward South Africa, t h e
question of t h e role of t h e Congressional Black Caucus (inside government)
in moving t h e issue along to a positive conclusion was not addressed.
2 70 Policy Studies Review, Winter 7990, 9 2

Given t h e lack of major social movement activity within minority com-

munities, t h e inside access model may hold promise for successful agenda
setting. Lipsky (1970, p. 172) hypothesizes that minority groups must find
"third parties" within government to take up their issues and move them
forward to a satisfactory policy conclusion. If one looks a t t h e changing
political landscape in urban and s t a t e and local politics, t h e "third parties"
within government are increasingly minority group members. Minorities
a r e gaining elective office in greater numbers, but more importantly a r e
increasingly holding public administrative positions.
Some would contend t h a t various public administrators actually have
more influence than elected officials over t h e policy arenas t h a t directly
affect t h e lives of minority groups. For example, if one is concerned about
t h e relationship between t h e police department and minority communities,
t h e appointment of a minority policy chief may yield faster and more
permanent structural changes t h a n t h e election of a minority city council
person or even mayor. Moreover, increases in minority employment may
come more quickly if a minority person is hired a s director of personnel,
city manager, or agency head (McClain & Karnig, 1988, p. 5).
Whether holding elective or administrative office, minorities within
government may be extremely important a s agenda setting agents. Miller
clearly indicates t h a t t h e North Carolina Black Caucus played this impor-
t a n t role. This conjecture of course needs further exploration because
elective and appointed officials clearly operate within a s e t of constraints
t h a t may limit their ability to influence t h e agenda setting process. Never-
theless, it is a line of argument t h a t deserves further research, a s does t h e
whole question of minority group influence on t h e agenda setting process.

NOTES

'1 would like t o t h a n k N. Joseph Cayer, Kathy J. Boyd, and Louis

Weschler for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.
2All articles were refereed through Policy Studies Review's normal
review process.

REFERENCES

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M.S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Politi-
cal Science Review, 56(December), 947-642.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M.S. (1963). Decisions and non-decisions: An
analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 6 2 6 e p t e m -
ber), 632-642.
Barker, L.J., & McCorry, J.J. J r . (1976). Black Americans and the political
process. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.
Barnett, M.R. (1976). A theoretical perspective on racial public policy. I n
M.R. Barnett and J.A. Hefner (eds.), Public Policy for the Black Com-
munity: Strategies and Perspectives, New York: Alfred Publishing.
Bentley, A.F. (1949). The process of government. Evanston, IL: Principia
Press of Illinois.
Buchanan, J.M. (1975). The li mit s of liberty: Between anarchy and
leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McClain: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Minority... 271

Buchanan, J.M., & Wagner, R.E. (1977). Democracy i n deficit: The political
legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press.
Cobb, R.W., & Elder, C.D. (1972). Participation in American politics: The
dynamics of agenda-building. Boston, M A : Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Cobb, R.W., Ross, J.K., & Ross, M.H. (1976). Agenda building a s a compara-
tive process. American Political Science Review, 70(March), 126-38.
Dahl, R.A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dahl, R.A. (1961). Who governs? democracy andpower i n the American city.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R.A. (1967). Pluralist democracy i n the United States: Conflict and
consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eisinger, P.K. (1980). The politics of displacement: Racial and ethnic
transition in three American cities. New York: Academic Press.
Elder, C.D., & Cobb, R.W. (1984). Agenda building and t h e politics of aging.
Policy Studies Journal, 13, 115-129.
Garcia, F.C., & de la Garza, R.O. (1977). The Chicano political experience.
North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.
Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in t h e States: A diffusion study. American
Political Science Review, 67(December), 1174-1185.
Hamilton, C.V. (1981). New elites and pluralism. In R.M. Pious (ed.), The
Power to Govern. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 34,
167-73.
Holden, M., J r . (1973). The politics of the black nation. San Francisco:
Chandler Publishing Co.
Lowi, T.J. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies and politi-
cal theory. World Politics, 16, 677-715.
Lowi, T.J. (1969). The end of liberalism. New York Norton.
Marquez, B. (1989). T h e politics of race and assimilation: The league of
united latin American citizens 1929-40. Western Political Quarterly,
42(June), 355-373.
McClain, P.D., & Karnig, A.K. (1988). Introduction: Minority ad-
ministrators--another frontier. I n A.K. Karnig and P.D. McClain (eds.),
Urban minority administrators: Politics, policy and style. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Morris, M.D. (1975). The politics of black America. New York: Harper and
Row.
Nelsop, B.J. (1978). Setting t h e public agenda: The case of child abuse. In
J.V. May and A.B. Wildavsky (eds.), The policy cycle. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Nelson, B.J. (1984). Making and issue of child abuse. Chicago: University
o f Chicago Press.
Pinderhughes, D.M. (1987). Race and ethnicity in Chicago politics. Ur-
bana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Polsby, N.W. (1984). Political innovation i n America. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Ripley, R.B. (1985). Policy analysis in political science. Chicago: Nelson-
Hall.
Salisbury, R.H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest
Journal of Political Science, 8 , 1-32.
2 72 Policy Studies Review, Winter 1990, 9:2

Salisbury, R.H. (1989). Political movements in American politics: An essay

on concept a n d analysis. National Political Science Review, 1 , 15-30.
Truman, D.B. (1961). The governmental process. New York: Knopf.
Walker, J.L. (1977). Setting t h e agenda in t h e U. S. Senate: A theory of
problem selection. British Journal of Political Science, 7(0ctober), 423-
445.
Walker, J.L. (1983). T h e origins and maintenance of interest groups in
America. American Political Science Review, 77(June), 390-406.
Wilson, J.Q. (1960). Negro politics: The search for leadership. New York:
Free Press.
Wolman, H.L., & Thomas, N.C. (1970). Black interests, black groups, and
black influence in t h e federal policy process: T h e cases of housing and
education. Journal of PoEitics, 32, 875-897.