⇒ You can refer to the political issues which are important at a particular time as an agenda

⇒ These notes focus on how groups raise their issue to the agenda and deny other issues from reaching the agenda

⇒ Agenda setting is the process through which issues attain the status of being seriously debated by politically relevant actors

• Groups compete to set the agenda and direct the debate towards their particular concerns

⇒ Pluralism: the theory, assumption or belief that there are many groups that compete with each other in a reasonably open political system and that policy results from this group competition.

⇒ Elite theory: in studies of groups and politics, the theory or belief that policy making is dominated by the best educated, wealthiest, and most powerful elites.

• This position is most closely associated with sociologist C Wright Mills and can be contrasted with pluralism

⇒ Agendas exist at all levels of government (federal, state, local, etc.) – all the issues on these agendas can be categorised by the extent to which the relevant authority is willing to enact and implement policy to deal with these issues

• Enactment is defined as the act of putting a decision, such as legislation or regulation, into effect
• Statute laws are generally enacted in the United States when the president or a State governor signs a bill presented by the legislature or when a legislature or Congress overrides the governor’s or president’s veto

⇒ The systematic agenda is defined as all public issues that are viewed as requiring governmental attention

• The systematic agenda is therefore further from enactment in the sense that anything on the systematic agenda is policy possibility as long as it is legally and politically sound

⇒ The agenda can be thought of in layers, with the agenda universe at the top

⇒ The agenda universe are all the ideas that could possibly be brought up and discussed in a society or a political system – this can include literally anything

⇒ This can be contrasted with the systematic agenda

• Cobb and Elder: “the systemic agenda consists of all issues that are commonly perceived by members of the political community as meriting public attention and as involving matters within the legitimate jurisdiction of existing governmental authority”

⇒ If something reaches the systematic agenda it may then move on to the institutional agenda

• The institutional agenda are those problems that legislators or public officials feel obliged to take appropriate measures and actually act on – not much will reach the institutional agenda

⇒ Finally there is the decision agenda which are the items about to be acted on by a governmental body

• Groups want to advance their issues closer to the decision agenda, but block other groups getting their issues close to the decision agenda – there is lots of competition to reach this stage
• Even when a problem is on the agenda, there may be considerable controversy and competition over how the problem should be defined, the causes of it, and the policies that should be implemented to resolve it

⇒ The best ideas are not necessarily the ones that get put on the agenda because certain groups have more power than others

• This suggests there is an elite model of policy making, where the ability to affect policy is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people

⇒ Some ideas only arise due to some element of political bias

• For instance, there is no political right to decent housing or employment so these often fail to get much movement to the agenda

⇒ By expanding the scope of the conflict, issues are more likely to be elevated to agenda status if the scope of conflict is broadened. Groups can accomplish this in two ways:

1. Go public with symbols and images to induce greater media and public sympathy for their cause e.g. in 2009 groups that opposed the government bailout of large vehicle manufacturers highlighted the mismanagement of these companies by showing that company executives had used private jets to testify before Congress
2. If a group’s issue is ignored at a lower stage of a political conflict (such as in their state) they can appeal to a higher or different decision-maker (such as on the federal level)

⇒ Some groups are able to exercise what Baumgartner and Jones call policy monopoly

• Groups may enjoy a ‘monopoly of understanding’ when policymakers accept their preferred way to frame an issue for long periods, perhaps even taking it for granted. This monopoly may be ‘institutionalised’ when rules are created and resources devoted to solving the policy problem on those terms.

⇒ When a powerful group loses power and control, the smaller groups can gain more influence and elevate their issues to the agenda

⇒ One way smaller groups can gain power is by utilising a window of opportunity

• A window of opportunity arises at a point in time in which policy change becomes more likely as one of the streams (the political, problem, or policy stream) are joined (this is known as Kingdon’s stream theory)
• For example, a window of opportunity to roll back government regulation of business arose when Reagan became president

⇒ Also, if public perception of a problem changes then a window of opportunity may arise

• For example, the perception in the 1920s and 1930s was the unemployment was a collective problem that needed to be solved using the central government (e.g. the New Deal)

⇒ An indicator is something which demonstrates that there is a problem usually on the basis of statistics

• For example, if unemployment is high that may demonstrate that there are economic issues – however indicators may be ‘evidence’ of different things to different people

⇒ Groups can use indicators to advance their policy position

⇒ A focusing event can be defined as a striking sudden occurrence of a large scale disturbing simultaneously the daily routine of individuals and the policy status quo, and carrying the potential of emotional appeal e.g. natural disasters, government scandals, and terrorist attacks

⇒ Focusing events are important for groups that find it difficult to get their issues on the agenda – they are important mobilisation opportunities

⇒ It is often believed that nobody challenges the elite and that the elite have a single-minded interest in achieving the same things – however, this is simply not the case

• One example of a way in which elite interests conflict is when raw material manufacturers want to increase their prises, but this would conflict with the major vehicle manufacturers who need the raw materials to build cars

⇒ Pro-change groups will often join together to form advocacy coalitions

• An advocacy coalition is a set of actors from a variety of public and private institutions at all levels of government who share a set of basic beliefs (policy goals plus causal and other perceptions) and who seek to manipulate the rules, budgets and personnel of governmental institutions in order to achieve these goals over time

⇒ Changes in indicators or focusing events may initiate coalitions to form

• Such advocacy coalitions can get a lot of media attention (and therefore can influence policy effectively), thus balancing the power of the elites

⇒ Baumgartner and Jones suggest that these coalition can influence policy through venue shopping too

• Venue shopping refers to the activities of groups who seek out a decision setting (such as a court) where they can air their grievances with current policy and present alternative policy proposals
• The venue is the level of government or institution in which the group is likely to gain the most favourable hearing – whether that be through the legislative, judicial, or executive branch at any level of government (local, state, federal, etc.)
• For example, if the legislative route doesn’t work then you could try the executive route e.g. Environmentalists who cannot get a hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee may turn to the Environmental Protection Agency

⇒ Groups may try and challenge problems locally before they try and challenge problems more broadly (i.e. through the federal government)

⇒ This is most common in NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) cases such as where authorities decide to erect telephone or electricity pylons in a certain region

⇒ Alternatively, if groups do not succeed in challenging the decision locally they can ‘expand the scope of conflict’ (Schattschneider) by bringing the matter to a higher authority regardless (e.g. from State to Federal)

• The ‘scope of conflict’ may be expanded by getting media coverage

⇒ Humans and governments always want to solve problems and many social problems exist (e.g. disease, poverty, etc.) exist that many people still want to find a solution to

⇒ Although there is an important role to be played by private actors, there are some public goods that most people think should be provided by government

• A public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others

⇒ The decision as to whether something is an issue or problem is a process known as social construction

• The group that can create and promote the most effective depiction of an issue has an advantage in the battle over what will be done about the problem

⇒ Defining what exactly a problem is can be difficult

• Even with something like drink driving the route problem is not as clear as it may first seem. Although many people think the problem is individual (i.e. the person should not have got drunk), the problem could also quite easily be a lack of public transportation and/or easy availability of alcohol

⇒ A casual story is a narrative depiction of the causes of a public problem; such stories often contain normative statements about both the problem itself and why a particular solution will resolve the things that are said to have caused the problem

• Telling a casual story is important in public policy

⇒ Stone says there are four types of casual stories: mechanical, accidental, intentional, and inadvertent

⇒ Accidental casual story: an accidental casual story is used to explain any accident that is caused by fate e.g. natural disasters, disease, car crash, etc.

⇒ Intentional casual story: an intentional casual story arises where someone or a group of people acted wilfully, knowing the consequences of their actions, to cause harm to a group or individual e.g. oppression, conspiracies, etc.

⇒ Inadvertent casual story: an inadvertent casual story occurs where an action is purposeful but the consequences are unintended

• Policy can be the remedy for inadvertent causes of social problems e.g. obesity is often explained as a problem that is caused by inadvertent actions – it is argued that consumers don’t know how bad cheap processed food is for them and if they knew they would make better choices at restaurants and supermarkets

⇒ Mechanical casual story: these are often system problems and can be hard to address

• In the late 20th and 21st centuries, racial inequality has often been attributed to a mechanical cause – while some individuals and institutions still intentionally discriminate, it is more often the case that systemic factors lead to inequality
• Whites tend to have more connections, more wealth passed down across generations, and more soft-skills that help them succeed in the labour market in comparison to minority groups

⇒ Aggregate data is important in policy

⇒ Aggregate data refers to numerical or non-numerical information that is (1) collected from multiple sources and/or on multiple measures, variables, or individuals and (2) compiled into data summaries or summary reports, typically for the purposes of public reporting or statistical analysis

• For example, the number of people living in poverty and the number of people killed in a natural disaster are both aggregate data

⇒ The use of numbers in policy debates is very attractive because numbers appear to have accuracy that anecdotal evidence lacks