A Discussion of Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones' The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 500-501
Author(s):  
Kathleen Knight

In a number of important articles and books—most notably Agendas and Instability in American Politics (1993), The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems (2005)—Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones have pioneered a distinctive approach to the study of agenda setting that has shaped research in both the U.S. politics and comparative politics subfields. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America further expands on the theme of the political determinants, and implications, of “the organization and prioritization of information.” And so we have invited a number of political scientists from a range of subfields to comment on the book and on the research agenda more generally.

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 498-499
Author(s):  
Kuhika Gupta

In a number of important articles and books—most notably Agendas and Instability in American Politics (1993), The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems (2005)—Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones have pioneered a distinctive approach to the study of agenda setting that has shaped research in both the U.S. politics and comparative politics subfields. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America further expands on the theme of the political determinants, and implications, of “the organization and prioritization of information.” And so we have invited a number of political scientists from a range of subfields to comment on the book and on the research agenda more generally.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 502-504
Author(s):  
Eric Patashnik

In a number of important articles and books—most notably Agendas and Instability in American Politics (1993), The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems (2005)—Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones have pioneered a distinctive approach to the study of agenda setting that has shaped research in both the U.S. politics and comparative politics subfields. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America further expands on the theme of the political determinants, and implications, of “the organization and prioritization of information.” And so we have invited a number of political scientists from a range of subfields to comment on the book and on the research agenda more generally.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 505-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott E. Robinson

In a number of important articles and books—most notably Agendas and Instability in American Politics (1993), The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems (2005)—Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones have pioneered a distinctive approach to the study of agenda setting that has shaped research in both the U.S. politics and comparative politics subfields. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America further expands on the theme of the political determinants, and implications, of “the organization and prioritization of information.” And so we have invited a number of political scientists from a range of subfields to comment on the book and on the research agenda more generally.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Kate Williamson ◽  
Belinda Luke

AbstractThis paper examines advocacy, agenda-setting and the public policy focus of private philanthropic foundations in Australia. While concerns have been raised regarding advocacy and public policy influence of foundations in countries such as the U.S., less is understood on this issue in other contexts. Interviews were conducted with 11 managers and trustees of 10 Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) in late 2014. Analysis of publicly available data on the participating PAFs was then undertaken comparing PAF information available at the time of the interviews with that available approximately five years later, to consider any changes in the public communication of their agendas. Findings reveal PAFs’ agendas were largely consistent with public policy but may vary in the approaches to address social causes. Further, a preference for privacy indicates the PAF sector may be characterised as ‘quiet philanthropy’ rather than having a visible public presence. As such, PAFs’ advocacy focused on promoting philanthropy, rather than altering or influencing public policy. Our main contention is that the conceptions of advocacy in structured philanthropy are dominated by the obvious, the outliers and the noisy. Our contribution to the philanthropic literature is a more nuanced and broader discussion of how advocacy and agenda-setting occurs and is understood in the mainstream.


1983 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN D. ROBERTSON

As democracies enter an era of economic retrenchment, the political costs associated with economic decline have come under close scrutiny by students of comparative politics and public policy. Of particular concern is the linkage between inflation, unemployment, and the collapse of incumbent governments. The present study provides an initial application of an alternative approach to measuring this linkage across 8 European democracies, and offers significant evidence linking political costs for cabinet governments with rising prices and the growing unemployment. By utilizing the Poisson method of determining probabilities of discrete events, increasing probabilities of government collapse are significantly associated with rising inflation and unemployment in European democracies between January 1958 and December 1979. Subsequent use of the Sanders and Herman's (1977) and Warwick (1979) analyses of cabinet stability provides a useful means to disaggregate the nation sample of the study into four discrete subsets of nations. After applying the model developed in the current study to these separate subsets, it is concluded that the more significant the change in rates of inflation and unemployment, the more likely the pattern of government collapse will be interrupted by the unexpected termination of an incumbent regime.


Author(s):  
Jonathan Klüser ◽  
Marco Radojevic

Research on policy agendas and agenda-setting has developed into an important subdiscipline of comparative politics, which seeks to understand how political actors allocate scarce attention. The theoretical origins of the field describe agenda-setting as a “conflict of conflicts,” that is the political struggle over the question of which issues receive attention. Modern scholars have expanded on these ideas and turned them into important theoretical models of the agenda-setting process. The most influential of these models are Kingdon’s multiple streams approach and Baumgartner and Jones’ punctuated equilibrium theory. The former analyses the emergence of issues in the separate streams of policies, politics, and problems, whose coupling is necessary for any issue in order to be considered for political decision-making. In contrast, the latter stresses the importance of negative and positive feedback mechanisms in order to explain long periods of incremental policy change and sudden radical changes, which characterize the policy process. Inspired by the second approach is the Comparative Agendas Project, which is a comprehensive and comparative data collection effort about policy agendas using a unified taxonomy. These data enable scholars to research the entire political process from media inputs via government throughput to legislative output. Studying governmental agendas, it is paramount to stress that—against common wisdom—political ideology does not play a decisive role in the agenda-setting process. Rather, both leftist and rightist governments seek to portray themselves as potent problem-solvers and respond to problematic societal condition in order to prove their competence. Looking at the media as one potentially powerful political agenda-setter, it turns out that newspapers and television channels’ power to steer the political agenda hinges on a variety of conditions. Generally, media outlets are most successful in setting the agenda if they report on issues that otherwise would not have been brought to the public’s attention. But even then, the media’s role appears to be restricted to narrowing down the issue menu from which politicians can choose when setting their agenda. The study of political agendas is by no means limited to these areas, as shown by the hundreds of articles that have been published in major political science journals over the past decades. While the agenda approach has not yet developed into a theory of politics, it has certainly become a major subdiscipline of comparative politics, which has helped make sense of the political world.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (79) ◽  
pp. 675-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Cláudia Niedhardt Capella

Abstract This paper focuses on an aspect overlooked in literature on policy formulation: agenda denial, the political process by which issues are kept from policymakers’ consideration and deliberation. The theoretical study of agenda-setting has been successful in pointing out the reasons why some issues achieve meaningful consideration by political institutions. However, there are several issues that fail to gain serious consideration for a variety of reasons, including specific tools and strategies that opponents employ in order to deny the access of an issue to the agenda. The power to keep an issue off the agenda is exercised through non- recognition or denial of the problem, discrediting the issue itself or the group directly related to it, the co-optation of leaders or the group’s symbols, postponement and formal denial, among other mechanisms. This study aims to explore these actions, seeking to contribute to research on public policy and further study on setting governmental agendas.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Dawes

Since January 2020, the U.S. has had over 150,000 deaths attributed to the Coronavirus, and morbidity and mortality rates continue to rise. In the United States, minorities are more likely to die from COVID-19 than other populations - a fact that further solidifies the disparate nature of race and ethnicity relative to one’s health and the inequities in care. COVID-19 has not struck all equally because our economic and social policies have not benefited all equally. This paper introduces a new model, the political determinants of health, which focuses on their role in creating, perpetuating, and exacerbating health inequities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document