46 4.8 – WHO SETS THE AGENDA?

Subgovernment

Douglass Cater (1964) coined the term “subgovernment” to describe three sets of actors in the agenda setting process: (1) congress members on key committees,(2) bureaucrats overseeing the issue, and (3) interest groups with a vested interest  in the policy outcome. It is no secret that influential congress members can use the committee process to direct a policy debate and set the agenda by choosing to take on certain issues over others. Congress members are responsible for developing policy solutions and translating those solutions into legislation. Policy ideas often come directly from legislators and represent ideas or issues that are important to them and their constituency. Newly elected policymakers often have their own ideas for bills. They are motivated by experiences and observations, along with expertise in specific fields. For instance, one House member from South Carolina has a degree in ocean engineering. He frequently proposes bills opposing offshore drilling and promotes environmental policies that protect the coastline and natural resources. Not only do elected leaders have expertise in specific fields, but bureaucrats from executive agencies also have the type of in-depth knowledge necessary to identify a problem and get the attention of policymakers who can address that problem. 

Bureaucrats

Bureaucrats, that is, nonelected government officials, occupy varying levels of involvement in the agenda setting process. Many have the power to set the agenda and are deeply involved in this step of the policy process. While bureaucrats do not typically dominate the agenda setting process from beginning to end (Kingdon, 1995), the level of bureaucratic influence depends on the way issues are framed and defined (O’Toole, 1989) and the amount of control that the president, Congress, and the courts exert over the agency (Golden, 2003). Most people assume that important policies originate in Congress or with the president, but Potter (2019) estimates that nearly 90% of law is created by administrative rules issued by federal or even state agencies. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) employs a number of auto safety specialists and engineers who research the causes of injury and death from auto accidents. This research often results in traffic and safety policies when bureaucrats determine that, for instance, a new technology would decrease fatalities (Golden, 2003).

Countless stories attest to bureaucratic intervention in the agenda setting process. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) works with outside interest groups to drive the environmental agenda. Many of the policies they introduce become law or such administrative regulations as those setting fuel standards, regulating air quality and emissions, determining which pesticides are safe, or ensuring clean drinking water. The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently proposed controversial changes to the Fair Housing Act (O’Donnell, 2019); also, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule to revise protections for transgender patients under the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) (Abutaleb, 2019). Most, if not all, of these policy changes originated from unelected bureaucrats working within their specific career fields. 

  Figure 4.4: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets regulatory standards for air quality and emissions.Source: Wikimedia Commons Attribution: Steven Greenwood License:  Public Domain 

Interest groups

Interest groups clearly play an integral role in the agenda setting process by lobbying policymakers to propose bills and presenting research and other evidence that supports their policy goals. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lobbying groups spend upwards of $3 billion a year to influence public policy. Much of their time is spent on seeking support or encouraging opposition for existing bills, essentially taking a reactive approach to the actions of policymakers. A great deal of their effort also goes toward persuading policymakers to embrace issues that the group would like to see on the agenda. Halpin and Fraussen (2019) argue that interest groups are highly strategic in taking a proactive approach to the agenda setting process.

Interest groups commonly set goals based on the group’s values and priorities and develop a plan to progress these goals. Groups start with a list of issues that promote their interests. They then refine that list into a smaller list of priorities. From the list of priorities, interest groups concentrate on the issues they believe have a legitimate shot at success (Halpin 2015).Earlier in the chapter, we discussed Kingdon’s (1984) multiple streams model of agenda setting. In many ways, this model helps explain the actions of interest groups who are highly sensitive to the presence of an “open window.” While interest groups are less likely to spend their time promoting a policy that is unpopular or overlooked, they will invest their “time, political capital, energy  and other resources” when they see that a policy window of opportunity has opened. For example, the highly influential pro-Israel interest group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), lobbied against the Iran Nuclear Treaty throughout President Obama’s time in office. They were unsuccessful until the political stream opened when Donald Trump was elected president. Once AIPAC had a more sympathetic ear in the White House, they were able to push the issue back onto the agenda and successfully lobbied the new president to withdraw from the agreement (Demirjian & Morello, 2015). As this example illustrates, the most effective interest groups are prepared to “seize the moment,” as windows do not remain open indefinitely (Kingdon, 1984). 

Media

The media’s ability to set the agenda is perhaps one of the most controversial processes in politics. Thomas Dye (2013) writes that the media is both a “player and referee in the game of politics” by reporting information to the public and participating in the competition to control the agenda, potentially opening up windows of opportunity for policy change. The media has immense power to set the public agenda by determining which issues are considered newsworthy. Editors, producers, reporters, and columnists have the power to guide what people talk and think about. Media effects on the agenda setting process include the following: (1) the ability to identify issues and set the agenda, (2) the ability to influence viewpoints and opinions on policy issues, and (3) the ability to influence the behavior of citizens and policymakers (Dye, 2013).As an example, chances are you have heard about lead-contaminated water in Flint, Michigan, but did you know that more than 5,000 U.S. water systems— serving 18 million people across the country—violated EPA lead standards in 2016 (Layne, 2018)? Aging infrastructure has caused lead levels to increase in drinking water. The cost to replace old lead pipes has been estimated at several trillion dollars. Why is there no public outcry? Only a handful of news organizations have reported on EPA lead standard violations, and none of these stories was featured prominently enough to capture the public’s attention (Ganim 2016, Layne, 2018). If the media had chosen to feature the lead issue more prominently, they could have interviewed citizens and public officials, run stories more frequently, and/or brought in experts to discuss the dangers of contaminated pipes during a twenty-four-hour broadcast program. The media could urge citizens to call their representatives, creating a sense of urgency and alarm among the public. If they so choose, the media has the necessary power and influence to bolster public awareness, get the attention of policymakers, and place this issue on the agenda.

Finally, the media influences how people see an issue through a process known as framing. With framing, how a topic is presented to the audience affects the choices people make about how to process that information. For example, before the 2016 election, media outlets reported on possible conflicts of interest between  Hillary Clinton’s campaign and her husband’s non-profit organization, the Clinton Foundation. When this story broke, CNN’s headline described the accusations as “ridiculous,” while the Fox News story on that same topic suggested the Democratic Party’s silence about the allegations implied they were true. Both CNN and Fox News were attempting to frame the story and influence public opinion. The previous example is not an isolated event. A quick look at competing news sources illustrates the power of the media to frame how the public, and even policymakers, think about specific issues. Fortunately, the public is not powerless in their ability to influence the agenda. 

Citizens

Earlier in the chapter, we mentioned the power of public opinion and how increases in support for an issue can push that issue onto the public agenda. For instance, an increase in support for the decriminalization of recreational marijuana was the driving force behind change in some states. We also mentioned that the intensity of public outcry over an issue could lead to policy change. For instance, outrage over police shootings led to such policy changes as police officers wearing body cameras. These examples have one thing in common: they were the result of a large group of people changing their opinion or sparking widespread anger. This concept might lead some to believe that issues can only be added to the agenda if large groups band together to force change, but that is simply not the case. Students and everyday citizens often believe that they do not have direct access to their representatives. This could not be further from the truth. Not only can individuals meet with and propose policy ideas to their representatives but citizens can take more strategic steps to get the attention of their representatives and push for policy ideas to be added to the agenda. In fact, many policy ideas originate directly from constituents.

Schattschneider (1960) writes that “the group that successfully describes a problem will also be the one that defines the solutions to it, thereby prevailing in the policy debate.” There are strategies that individuals and groups can use to define a problem and catch the attention of policymakers. Even every-day citizens have the power to move problems onto the agenda. For instance, have you ever been confronted with an issue at your university or in your community and thought, “I should do something about this?” Once you determine that your problem can be addressed through government intervention, use your anger or concern as a catalyst for action. According to Graham and Hand, “Your first step in launching a citizen initiative is to understand and clearly state the problem you want to fix” (Graham and Hand, 2008). A useful problem definition should be both specific and realistic. We would all like for our community, state, country, or world to be a better place, but such a statement simply does not provide enough specificity to incite action from policymakers.

More precise problem definitions might include statements such as the following:  

• Vacant and run-down properties in my neighborhood are bringing down property values and pose a safety hazard.
• Small businesses in my area cannot afford to pay for health insurance for employees.
• Fish from my local river are no longer edible due to pollutants.
• High school graduates should be required to take a course on budgeting and life management skills (aka “Adulting”).

Graham and Hand (2008) argue that the problem should be framed in a broader context. For example, say that your car was broken into and your belongings stolen while you were sleeping one night. If one individual’s car was broken into, others have likely had the same experience. It is also possible that these types of crimes have been happening for a while. Instead of going to local policymakers and complaining about one car break in, you should define the problem as a broader concern about public safety throughout the neighborhood.If the goal is to make a change, the definition of the problem should also identify a desired outcome. Too often, we hear interest groups and concerned citizens declare that they would like to see change, but what might that change look like? If, for example, you are passionate about preventing human trafficking, instead of approaching policymakers asking them to develop a policy to prevent trafficking, consider lobbying state representatives to pass legislation that protects migrant workers with temporary visas from predatory trafficking businesses. Specifying the desired outcome in this way is more likely to lead to positive results.Define the problem in public terms (Graham and Hand, 2008). No matter the target audience, you want your problem to be memorable. People have short attention spans, and policymakers are no different. Define your message in a brief but memorable way. The most effective messages mention the goal of the potential policy, and a “catchy” slogan can help create a memorable impression. In 2018, for example, Florida included an initiative on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to allow felons to vote after they serve their time in prison (Replogal and Licon, 2019). The amendment was nicknamed the “Second Chances” amendment, and supporters of the measure wore t-shirts with the slogan, “Let My People Vote.” This type of creative marketing led to a successful public campaign that resulted in the amendment passing.

Earlier in the chapter, we mentioned the importance of defining the problem when attempting to influence the public agenda. Once citizens have defined the problem in a compelling and planned way, they must focus on gathering research to support their claims and bolster their credibility before confronting policymakers. Citizens should understand every aspect of their chosen issue. This may mean wading through newspapers, public opinion polls, and other sources that give historical context to the topic (Gerston, 1997). Citizens also must identify who in government can fix their problems. If a student is concerned about the nutritional value of lunches served at their school, it would not make sense for  them to appeal to the mayor or the town sheriff who has no control over what is served in schools. Citizens must understand who can solve their problems and focus their attention by going directly to that source. Citizens should also make a plan to build coalitions and solicit the help of the media and other stakeholders when necessary (Graham & Hand, 2010). While this list is brief and does not include the complicated nuances that inevitably arise from citizen action, the goal here is simply to encourage students to use their power as citizens to make necessary changes in their community.

Finally, one of the most direct and effective methods for citizens to influence the agenda is through voting. Casting a vote for the policymaker who most directly aligns with your preferences can result in greater emphasis on those issues (Abbe et al., 2003). Lupia (1992) notes that citizens have even more success at setting the agenda through voting in states that offer direct voter initiatives and referendum. Regardless, voting for policymakers who embrace the same values and policy preferences as their constituents can directly influence the issues that appear on the public agenda.