Waste management agenda setting: a case of incorrect problem definition?

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean H. Peretz
Author(s):  
Stephanie L. Smith ◽  
Jeremy Shiffman

This chapter examines the politics of global health agenda setting, the process by which global health issues come to receive attention from actors that control or influence the allocation of financial, technical, human, and other kinds of resources. It suggests that the global health agenda is shaped by the capabilities of actors, including policy entrepreneurs, high-level champions, and networks; ideas, especially those surrounding problem definition, solutions, and causal stories; powerful interests, such as the economic and security concerns of wealthy countries and industries; and institutions, such as international law and trade regimes. Most studies of global health agenda setting are of a single case, and many are descriptive. To build the field, future research should supplement these studies with comparative, theoretically grounded inquiry.


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.


Author(s):  
Sarah Marschlich

The variable “attribute salience” is described as the characteristics of a given issue that is portrayed in media coverage or other communication channels. It is generally measured in addition to issue salience and issue valence in order to analyze media portrayals of events, actors, or public discourses. Attribute salience is often measured in order to explore how particular issues are presented (instead of which in general), thereby contributing to second-level agenda-setting effects (McCombs et al., 1997).   Field of application/theoretical foundation: Attribute salience is analyzed across different subfields of communication and media research, including the field of public diplomacy. In public diplomacy research, scholars measure attribute salience in the context of political communication or the representation of countries in the news media as well as on social media. Researchers embed the concept of attribute salience or issue attributes mainly in agenda-setting theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), analyzing it as an independent variable to derive with implications of news media coverage on audiences’ evaluations of certain issues.   References/combination with other methods of data collection: When it comes to analyses on attribute salience in the context of issues and its link to public perceptions, a mixed-method study design incorporating content analysis in combination with surveys is used to validate attribute salience.   Example study: Zhang et al. (2018)   Information on Zhang et al., 2018 Authors: Zhang et al. Research question/reseach interest: Effects of agenda-building of Chinese state-sponsored media on news media coverage in Taiwan and Singapore during Hong Kong Protest Object of analysis: Newspaper (several English newspapers and newswires published in China, Singapore, and Taiwan; not explicated) Time frame of analysis: 1 May 2014 to 30 April 2015   Information about Variable Level of analysis: Articel Values: (1) Substantive issue attributes (frame): (a) Conflict (b) Cooperation (c) Problem definition (d) Proposed solution to the problem (e) Responsibility attribution (f) Human interest (g) Consequences and outcomes (h) Morality and motivation to take actions   (2) Affective issue attributes (tone): (a) Negative (b) Neutral or mixed (c) Positive (d) N/A. Scales: Nominal Reliability: Cohen‘s kapp = 0.76   References McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. McCombs, M. E., Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Rey, F. (1997). Candidate Images in Spanish Elections: Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 703–717. Zhang, T., Khalitova, L., Myslik, B., Mohr, T. L., Kim, J. Y., & Kiousis, S. (2018). Comparing Chinese state-sponsored media’s agenda-building influence on Taiwan and Singapore media during the 2014 Hong Kong Protest. Chinese Journal of Communication, 11(1), 66–87.


Author(s):  
Rob A. DeLeo

Agenda setting describes the process through which issues are selected for consideration by a decision-making body. Among the myriad of issues policymakers can consider, few are more vexing than natural hazards. By aggregating (or threatening to aggregate) death, destruction, and economic loss, natural hazards represent a serious and persistent threat to public safety. While citizens rightfully expect policymakers to protect them, many of the policy challenges associated natural hazards fail to reach the crowded government agenda. This article reviews the literature on agenda setting and natural hazards, including the strain between preparing for emerging hazards, on the one hand, and responding to existing disasters, on the other hand. It considers the extent to which natural hazards pose distinctive difficulties during the agenda-setting process, focusing specifically on the dynamics of issue identification, problem definition, venue shopping, and interest group mobilization in natural hazard domains. It closes by suggesting a number of future avenues of agenda-setting research.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document