MA
Howlett, Ramesh and Perl define agenda-setting as the process through which a list of topics is narrowed, or where private or social concerns become public problems. Positivist theories focus on the role of institutions and structures in setting the agenda. Post-positivist models consider a broader range of factors and emphasize the role of ideas and social norms in agenda-setting. Using examples from the U.S. political system, this essay will argue that institutions continue to play a central role in agenda-setting.
Post-positivist models were an effort to systematically combine some of the factors that drove the political agenda, towards developing a more comprehensive theory of agenda-setting. The Funnel of Causality model is a post-positivist concept that says that the government’s agenda is shaped by interactions between the social and economic environment, the distribution of power in society, prevailing ideologies, institutional frameworks and the decision-making process. According to this theory, the agenda results from the interaction of material and ideational factors. (Howlett, Ramesh and Perl, 2009). The Funnel of Causality’s primary weakness is that it doesn’t explain how the factors relate to each other. It does not clearly explain why one issue is placed on the legislative agenda while another is not.
The Issue-Attention Cycle model also rests on the premise that interactions between institutions, actors and public opinion can drive the political agenda. According to Anthony Downs, who developed the theory, public attention rarely stays focused on a single domestic issue for a long time. Problems may come into consciousness suddenly, stay at the forefront for a while, and gradually fade. This cycle may be repeated, allowing issues to get a higher level of attention in future cycles. Further analysis of this phenomenon showed that interest groups’ success or failure at moving issues to the agenda was linked to institutional structures and access to government officials. In short, public attention alone is not enough. The agenda is determined by policymakers’ willingness to place an issue on the agenda.
The Perhaps the best example of the power of institutions is the power of the majority party in the U.S. Congress to set or thwart legislation. Social problems that attract substantial public attention may receive little or no attention from Congress. The majority party in congress can simply refuse to consider popular policy initiatives. For example, following the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012, public outcry did not move Congress to bring gun control legislation up for debate. As articulated by Howlett, Ramesh and Perl, leaving an issue off the agenda is functionally the same as making a decision to maintain the status quo.
In this week’s lead precis, Makhene argues that the existing policy frameworks do not entirely account for new public engagement strategies, such as social media, which have the potential to influence the policy agenda. Social media is perhaps most effective at amplifying issue attention cycles. As Makhene noted, Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign force other candidates to address economic inequality, the imbalance of power between rich and poor Americans, tax policy and student debt. While Sanders forced Secretary Clinton and other candidates to address these concerns as part of the campaign, it remains to be seen whether these issues will reach the Congressional agenda.
There is a tension between the rapid pace of social media and the speed at which policy change happens. Social media can draw broad audiences to events and social conditions. A policymaker can make public statements showing interest or support. But statements do not have the same effect as actions within the institutions where policies are made. Once public attention shifts to a different issue so does the policymaker’s attention.
Historically, populist movements achieved change through coordinated, sustained effort that applied pressure to policy institutions. Consider the bus boycott which led to desegregation of public buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat and her subsequent arrest was a catalyst for the boycott of the bus system. Growing national attention alone did not drive change. The City Council was compelled to act when the transit system suffered serious economic losses. (Wright, 1991) The boycott persisted for 13 months before a city ordinance was passed authorizing black riders to sit anywhere on city buses.
In conclusion, these examples show that public attention can be an important factor in agenda-setting. But there is a difference between the public sphere and the institutions where policies are made. Without fundamental change to institutional practices or until policymakers feel greater accountability to the public, policymakers will continue to have the final say in which issues make it to the legislative agenda.
Additional Works Cited
Roberta Hughes Wright, The Birth of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Charro Press (1991)
Howlett, Ramesh and Perl define agenda-setting as the process through which a list of topics is narrowed, or where private or social concerns become public problems. Positivist theories focus on the role of institutions and structures in setting the agenda. Post-positivist models consider a broader range of factors and emphasize the role of ideas and social norms in agenda-setting. Using examples from the U.S. political system, this essay will argue that institutions continue to play a central role in agenda-setting.
Post-positivist models were an effort to systematically combine some of the factors that drove the political agenda, towards developing a more comprehensive theory of agenda-setting. The Funnel of Causality model is a post-positivist concept that says that the government’s agenda is shaped by interactions between the social and economic environment, the distribution of power in society, prevailing ideologies, institutional frameworks and the decision-making process. According to this theory, the agenda results from the interaction of material and ideational factors. (Howlett, Ramesh and Perl, 2009). The Funnel of Causality’s primary weakness is that it doesn’t explain how the factors relate to each other. It does not clearly explain why one issue is placed on the legislative agenda while another is not.
The Issue-Attention Cycle model also rests on the premise that interactions between institutions, actors and public opinion can drive the political agenda. According to Anthony Downs, who developed the theory, public attention rarely stays focused on a single domestic issue for a long time. Problems may come into consciousness suddenly, stay at the forefront for a while, and gradually fade. This cycle may be repeated, allowing issues to get a higher level of attention in future cycles. Further analysis of this phenomenon showed that interest groups’ success or failure at moving issues to the agenda was linked to institutional structures and access to government officials. In short, public attention alone is not enough. The agenda is determined by policymakers’ willingness to place an issue on the agenda.
The Perhaps the best example of the power of institutions is the power of the majority party in the U.S. Congress to set or thwart legislation. Social problems that attract substantial public attention may receive little or no attention from Congress. The majority party in congress can simply refuse to consider popular policy initiatives. For example, following the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012, public outcry did not move Congress to bring gun control legislation up for debate. As articulated by Howlett, Ramesh and Perl, leaving an issue off the agenda is functionally the same as making a decision to maintain the status quo.
In this week’s lead precis, Makhene argues that the existing policy frameworks do not entirely account for new public engagement strategies, such as social media, which have the potential to influence the policy agenda. Social media is perhaps most effective at amplifying issue attention cycles. As Makhene noted, Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign force other candidates to address economic inequality, the imbalance of power between rich and poor Americans, tax policy and student debt. While Sanders forced Secretary Clinton and other candidates to address these concerns as part of the campaign, it remains to be seen whether these issues will reach the Congressional agenda.
There is a tension between the rapid pace of social media and the speed at which policy change happens. Social media can draw broad audiences to events and social conditions. A policymaker can make public statements showing interest or support. But statements do not have the same effect as actions within the institutions where policies are made. Once public attention shifts to a different issue so does the policymaker’s attention.
Historically, populist movements achieved change through coordinated, sustained effort that applied pressure to policy institutions. Consider the bus boycott which led to desegregation of public buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat and her subsequent arrest was a catalyst for the boycott of the bus system. Growing national attention alone did not drive change. The City Council was compelled to act when the transit system suffered serious economic losses. (Wright, 1991) The boycott persisted for 13 months before a city ordinance was passed authorizing black riders to sit anywhere on city buses.
In conclusion, these examples show that public attention can be an important factor in agenda-setting. But there is a difference between the public sphere and the institutions where policies are made. Without fundamental change to institutional practices or until policymakers feel greater accountability to the public, policymakers will continue to have the final say in which issues make it to the legislative agenda.
Additional Works Cited
Roberta Hughes Wright, The Birth of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Charro Press (1991)