A Review of “Agenda Setting in the U.S. Senate: Costly Consideration and Majority Party Advantage”

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.

Download Full-text

Exploring Agenda-Setting for Healthy Border 2010

Californian Journal of Health Promotion ◽

10.32398/cjhp.v4i1.742 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 141-161 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Charles T. Kozel ◽

Anne P. Hubbell ◽

James Dearing ◽

William M. Kane ◽

Sharon Thompson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Health Promotion ◽

Agenda Setting ◽

Border Health ◽

Policy Makers ◽

The Public ◽

Mexico Border ◽

Paso Del Norte ◽

Policy Agendas ◽

The U.S

Policy makers take action largely on issues that attain the pinnacle of the policy agenda (Pertschuck, 2001). As a result, how decision makers choose which issues are important has been the subject of much research. Agenda-setting conceptualizes the process of how issues move from relative unimportance to the forefront of policymakers’ thoughts (Dearing & Rogers, 1996). An area within agenda-setting research, Health Promotion Agenda-Setting, provides Health Promotion practitioners with an innovative framework and strategy to set agendas for sustained courses of action (Kozel, Kane, Rogers, & Hammes, 1995). In this interdisciplinary and bi-national exploratory study, funded by the Center for Border Health Research of the Paso del Norte Health Foundation, we examine agenda-setting processes in the Paso del Norte Region and evaluates how the public health agenda is determined within the U.S.-Mexico border population. Integrating both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, the current research is focused on identifying deficiencies in the public health infrastructure in the U.S.-Mexico border area, and identifying channels that exist for working toward the bi-national goals presented in Healthy Border 2010 (U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, 2003). Research directions, design, and methodologies for exploring health promotion agenda-setting in applied settings, such as Healthy Border 2010, provide health practitioners and policy makers the potential to improve public health leadership by influencing the public health and policy agendas.

Download Full-text

The Role of Law Clerks in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process

American Politics Research ◽

10.1177/1532673x11401814 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 40 (1) ◽

pp. 147-173 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Ryan C. Black ◽

Christina L. Boyd

Keyword(s):

Agenda Setting ◽

Setting Process ◽

The U.S ◽

Law Clerks

Download Full-text

Partisan agenda control in the US house: A theoretical exploration

Journal of Theoretical Politics ◽

10.1177/0951629812446243 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 24 (4) ◽

pp. 555-570 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Jeffery A Jenkins ◽

Nathan W Monroe

Keyword(s):

Agenda Setting ◽

Median Voter ◽

Voter Model ◽

Policy Outcomes ◽

Agenda Control ◽

Majority Party ◽

Party Government ◽

The Us ◽

Median Voter Model ◽

Party Members

While a number of scholars have focused on the importance of partisan agenda control in the US House, few have examined its uneven consequences within the majority party. In this paper, we explore ‘counterfactual’ utility distributions within the majority party, by comparing policy outcomes under a party-less median voter model to policy outcomes under party-based positive and negative agenda control models. We show that the distribution of policy losses and benefits resulting from agenda control are quite similar for both the positive and negative varieties. In both cases, moderate majority-party members are made worse off by the exercise of partisan agenda control, while those to the extreme side of the majority-party median benefit disproportionately. We also consider the benefit of agenda control for the party as a whole, by looking at the way changes in majority-party homogeneity affect the summed utility across members. Interestingly, we find that when the distance between the floor and majority-party medians decreases, the overall value of positive and negative agenda control diminishes. However, we also find support for the ‘conditional party government’ notion that, as majority-party members’ preferences become more similar, they have an increased incentive to grant agenda-setting power to their leaders.

Download Full-text

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

Perspectives on Politics ◽

10.1017/s1537592716000281 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 498-499

Author(s):

Kuhika Gupta

Keyword(s):

Public Policy ◽

Comparative Politics ◽

Agenda Setting ◽

American Politics ◽

Research Agenda ◽

Problem Definition ◽

The Political ◽

Political Determinants ◽

Information Problem ◽

The U.S

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.

Download Full-text

Agenda-Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579891.013.13 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Ryan J. Owens ◽

James Sieja

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Agenda Setting ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The U.S

Understanding the conditions under which the Supreme Court sets its agenda is crucial to understanding Supreme Court behavior. After all, before the justices make any decision on the merits of a case, they must first decide whether to hear it at all. This chapter analyzes Supreme Court agenda-setting. It begins by describing the process justices employ to select cases to review. It examines how parties file certiorari petitions, the certiorari pool used to provide guidance to the justices, and the conferences in which justices vote to grant or deny review to cert petitions. The chapter then discusses four explanations political scientists have provided to explain the conditions under which justices set the agenda. The article concludes by examining limitations of existing scholarship and providing suggestions for future scholarship.

Download Full-text

Agenda Setting in the U.S. Senate

10.1017/cbo9780511851957 ◽

2009 ◽

Cited By ~ 37

Author(s):

Chris Den Hartog ◽

Nathan W. Monroe

Keyword(s):

Agenda Setting ◽

The U.S

Download Full-text