Power or Luck? The Limitations of the European Commission's Agenda Setting Power and Autonomous Policy Influence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Buket Oztas ◽  
Amie Kreppel
Keyword(s):  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Policy Influence

scholarly journals Agenda-setting and Public Policy in Private Foundations

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Kate Williamson ◽  
Belinda Luke
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Philanthropic Foundations ◽  
Policy Influence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Foundations ◽  
Social Causes ◽  
The U.S

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.

scholarly journals Opposition Policy Influence through Agenda-setting: The Environment in Denmark, 1993-2009

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Bech Seeberg
Keyword(s):  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Policy Influence

Leading the Band or Just Playing the Tune? Reassessing the Agenda-Setting Powers of the European Commission

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (8) ◽  
pp. 1118-1150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amie Kreppel ◽  
Buket Oztas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Influence ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Agenda Setter ◽  
The Difference

Setting the political agenda is a critical and usually powerful aspect of policy making. However, the ability to set the agenda, without any significant decision-making powers, can undermine this influence, leaving a technical agenda setter without substantive political influence. This research examines the difference between technical and political agenda setting through an analysis of the policy impact of the Commission of the European Union (EU). Using two newly developed databases on Commission policy priorities and all adopted EU legislation, as well as the Decision Making in the European Union (DEU II) dataset, we investigate the ability of the Commission to shape EU legislative outcomes to reflect its policy preferences between 2000 and 2011. Our analyses highlight the comparative weakness of the Commission’s policy influence, despite its formal monopoly of legislative initiation. In this way, we argue for a need to carefully differentiate between technical and political agenda setters when evaluating the policy influence of different political actors.

Win Some, Lose None? Support Parties at the Polls and in Political Agenda-Setting

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Thesen
Keyword(s):  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Party Competition ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Policy Influence ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Issue Competition ◽  
Opposition Parties

Support parties play a crucial, but under-exposed, role under minority rule. They secure the government’s place in office and exercise policy influence through legislative coalitions. This article examines whether support parties are unfettered by the liabilities of policy responsibility. Incumbents struggle with the cost of ruling in elections and in day-to-day party and issue competition. Support parties, lacking the formal responsibility of office, could arguably escape the negative consequences of policy influence. Two studies illustrate this mechanism. First, I find that Scandinavian support parties that exercise policy influence through participation in budget coalitions avoid electoral losses. However, unlike opposition parties from the government bloc that do not participate in budget coalitions, support parties are unable to increase their vote share. Second, by looking more closely at one support party and analysing its agenda-setting behaviour in response to media attention, I find that support parties, unlike incumbents and like opposition parties, are able to politicise ‘winning issues’ from the news. Despite occasional trade-offs due to their proximity to power, support parties are favourably positioned in party competition.

News Media Agenda Setting and Framing of Local and National Threats

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Valentino
Keyword(s):  
News Media ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Media Agenda

The agenda setting hypothesis in the new media environment

2017 ◽  
Vol 0 (28) ◽  
pp. 35-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Aruguete ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New Media ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Media Environment

Almanya’da aşırı sağ hareketler ve medyanın suçlu göçmen söyleminin resmi belgeler ışığında incelenmesi

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-226
Author(s):  
Soner Tauscher
Keyword(s):  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
German Society ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
Media Discourse ◽  
Open Door ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Open Door Policy ◽  
Far Right

Avrupa ülkelerinin alışık olduğu düzenli işçi göçü ve kontrollü sığınmacı alımı Suriye iç savaşının üst düzeye ulaştığı 2013/2014 yılından itibaren önemli bir değişim göstermektedir. Avrupa Birliği, kuruluşundan bu yana en yoğun mülteci göçüyle karşılaşmaktadır. Yaşanan bu kontrolsüz ve zorunlu göçe Avrupa toplumları ve devletleri hazırlıksız yakalanmıştır. Mülteci krizini ekonomik olarak fırsata çevirmek isteyen Almanya ise göçmenler için 2015 yazından itibaren açık kapı politikası uygulamaya başlamıştır. Ancak uygulanan açık kapı politikası Alman toplumunun azımsanmayacak bir kesiminde mültecilere ve Müslümanlara yönelik ağır ve şiddetli bir karşı kampanya ortaya çıkardı. Mülteciler ve Müslümanlar aşırı sağ toplumsal hareketlerin gösterilerinde “tecavüzcü”, “işgalci”, “kriminal dolandırıcılar” vb. sıfatlar ile birlikte anılmakta, medya da bu söylemlerin taşıyıcılığını yaparak kamusallaşmasını sağlamaktadır. Böylece aşırı sağı desteklemeyen, apolitik, ya da sığınmacılara karşı hoşgörülü davranan toplum kesimlerinde kamuoyu oluşturularak sığınmacı ve göçmenlere karşı olumsuz algı gündemde tutulmakta, politik olanın merkezine yerleştirilmektedir. Bu çalışmada öncelikle göçmenlere karşı aşırı sağ toplumsal hareketlerin oluşturduğu olumsuz söylemin McCombs ve Shaw’un Gündem Belirleme Kuramı (Agenda Setting Function) bağlamında medya tarafından siyasetin merkezine nasıl oturtulduğu tartışılacaktır. Ayrıca gündemde tutulan mültecilere yönelik olumsuz söylemin gerçeği yansıtıp yansıtmadığı, göçmenlerin ve sığınmacıların biyolojik Almanlardan daha çok suça meyilli olup olmadığı oluşturulan soyut söylemlerden ziyade Almanya İçişleri Bakanlığı’nın yıllık olarak yayınladığı Emniyet Suç İstatistikleri temel alınarak incelenecektir.ABSTRACT IN ENGLISHFar right movements in Germany and evaluation of media discourse of criminal immigrant in the light of official documentsFlows of regular worker migration and regular asylum seekers, of whom European countries are familiar, have significantly changed since 2013/2014 when the civil war of Syria reached its peak. The European Union face probably the most intensive refugee migration since its establishment. European societies and states have not been prepared for this uncontrolled and compulsory immigration. Germany seem to want to turn the refugee crisis into an economic opportunity as evident in their open door policy since the summer of 2015. However, implementation of open-door policy has led a substantial part of German society to a strong campaign against the refugees and Muslims. Refugees and Muslims are referred to as “rapists”, “invaders”, “criminal fraudsters”, and so on in demonstrations of far right movements and media has helped disseminating these discourses. Hence, this manipulated and hateful discourse tries to gain support from the segment of society wh normally does not support far right and often apolitical, or tolerant towards asylum seekers. In this study, the ways in which the negative discourse of far right social movements against immigrants is brought to the centre of the political agenda by media is analysed using the agenda setting framework by McCombs and Shaw. Then, the claims that immigrants are involved in crime, or they are prone to be criminals are analysed and contrasted with the data obtained from the annual Crime and Safety Reports of the German Ministry of the Interior.

The media's agenda-setting role in Liberia's 2005 presidential runoff election

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 56-80
Author(s):  
I. S. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Agenda Setting

Applying Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Bastian Widyatama
Keyword(s):  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Dominant Factor ◽  
Policy Entrepreneur ◽  
Multiple Streams ◽  
Political Movement ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Data Collection Process ◽  
Multiple Streams Framework ◽  
Political Approach ◽  
Special Region

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams, a framework to analyze agenda-setting process is widely considered as a ‘universal’ theoretical framework because of its flexibility to be applied. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the validity of this ‘universal’ term. By using the case of the establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region, this research aims to apply and examine the Kingdon’s framework. The research has been done by using the qualitative method. Interviewing key persons and interpreting written documents are main techniques in data collection process. As the result, this framework remains applicable in the Yogyakarta case. There are 3 factors that brought Yogyakarta issues into the central government’s agenda encompass problem, policy, and politics. Politics is the most dominant factor indicated by Yogyakartans strong political movement and Sultanate of Yogyakarta’s political approach. In addition, Sultanate of Yogyakarta can also be discussed as a policy entrepreneur. As the conclusion, this research has a significant contribution to Kingdon’s multiple streams framework which is still able to explain social phenomena in policy making studies although there are some concerns that need to be explored further, particularly regarding the role of media and policy entrepreneur. Keywords: Agenda setting, policy, Law No.13 of 2012, Sultanate of Yogyakarta

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document