But there is another dimension of agenda studies receiving little investigation: agenda denial, the process by which issues are kept from government consideration and deliberation. Many issues are deliberately kept out of consideration by policy formulators, a process that involves the use of different tools and strategies in the interest of agenda denial.
The set of resources used in the agenda denial process may include: co-optation actions, postponements, and formal denial, among other mechanisms.
This paper aims to explore these actions. It will contribute to studies on public policies and for further research on the process of formulating governmental agendas. The text is organised in three sections. Firstly, we present a brief discussion on the debates that came before the emergence of agenda-setting analyses.
In the s we see the development of political science studies on the expansion of conflict, and in the beginning of the s, hitherto unexplored dimensions of power that directly influenced studies on governmental agenda-setting. Then we highlight some ways in which the latest literature developed around setting the governmental agenda. In the s, studies in the field of public policy produced theoretical models capable of explaining a large part of the agenda-construction process.
Less emphasis has been given to the process by which issues are kept systematically away from an agenda. In the third section, we seek to exploit this facet, highlighting key strategies and mechanisms keeping issues from the agenda presented in specialised literature. Finally, some final considerations are presented.
In the field of political science, the first studies to consider agenda-setting as a fundamental part of the political process date back to the s and initially develop as an offshoot of analyses that sought to reveal the limits of a pluralist approach developed in the s and s.
Generally speaking, the pluralistic approach ignored the process by which certain issues arose in political debates, ignoring the emergence of issues in the decision-making process. Dahl takes up this discussion by confirming that one of the requirements for democracy comprised the absence of a dominant group in control of the alternatives under discussion in a democratic political system.
For Schattschneider , however, not all issues have access to the agenda. The author argues that conflict is the basis of political activity. Every conflict, when exploited by political organisations, can expand and become a political issue, while others tend to be suppressed by these same organisations. All conflict is initially established between two groups: the first consists of a few individuals directly engaged in the conflict, and the second by a large number of spectators.
The end result of all conflict, confirms Schattschneider, depends on how involved the audience is. As the conflict expands, its nature, the actors involved, and the definitions of issues change. Since many other conflicts also have the potential to go the same way, the author shows that political actors seek to take forward their conflicts in order to prevent others from mobilising attention and gaining public commitment.
Moreover, the author understands that the conflict fundamentally establishes itself through defining alternative questions, problems and solutions.
For the author, political systems fail to set all possible alternatives to any potential problems that emerge for consideration at any given time. There will always be a selection mechanism by which issues become prominent for the attention of those in authority to make decisions within the government.
These individuals who make decisions are united around a conflict over defining alternatives, considered by Schattschneider p. For the authors:. But power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A.
Criticism of the authors is directed to the concept of power presented by Dahl pp. These actors have different preferences and those whose preferences predominate in a conflict situation would be precisely the actors who exert power in a political system.
Study on political power should therefore focus on the decisions made by actors in search of implementing their preferences. The author argues that scholars, by concentrating their attention on observable actions and decisions, take the same point of view as the community they investigate, with the same blind spots and distortions.
From this perspective, the analyses do not question why some subjects do not transform into issues. The study conducted by the author, focusing on the issue of environmental pollution in US municipalities, sought to show that inaction is a fairly common way of exercising power.
In Gary, the pollution levels were significant and there was no specific legislation on the matter. The pollution issue was not even discussed by public opinion or the government. On the other hand, in East Chicago, although pollution levels were lower, the issue was widely-debated and the government took concrete actions to address the problem. In Gary, a single company dominated steel production and, according to the author, its economic power was so decisive that the city feared the introduction of pollution-control measures could contribute to the company moving to another municipality, adversely affecting the local economy.
However, in East Chicago, different companies worked at the same time, diluting the fear of confrontation and promoting the adoption of pollution-control measures. Through these case analyses, the author concludes that power is more than the ability to influence local policy decisions; it is also the ability to prevent some topics from being converted into major issues and, similarly, the ability to block the expansion of emerging issues.
Moreover, the author shows that power need not be exercised effectively to provoke developments: the simple reputation attributed to an actor by the community may be sufficient enough to narrow the scope of choices made at the local level. Lukes argues that this vision of power is one-dimensional because it highlights only behaviour observable in the decision-making process on debated issues in noticeable conflict situations, when in fact power is not only reflected in concrete decisions.
Power also consists of the ability to limit the decision-making process to non-controversial issues, in a less visible procedure. For Lukes , this approach with respect to power, points to a two dimensional perspective that maintains certain one-dimensional characteristics for analysis, while adding new elements. The two-dimensional perspective is also criticised by the author for focusing its analysis on observable conflicts whether they are open or covert and not effectively distancing itself from the pluralist approach, in addition to taking power as an agenda denial in the decision-making process.
For the author, power would be exercised in preventing the emergence of issues through manipulating perceptions and preferences that would ensure acceptance of the status quo, either because the current situation seems to be the only alternative, because it is seen as natural and immutable, or because it generates benefits. The conflict is latent in the sense that tension is established, based on the preferential difference between those that exercise power and those submitted to power, if they are aware or could express their own interests.
In his analysis, Gaventa seeks to understand the relationship between power and political participation, by analysing the configuration of power exercised by a coal company and other local economic political forces over a group of miners and their families, subjected to a situation of oppression.
The author tries to understand why, in a social situation of extreme inequality, a group that is at a distinct disadvantage remains quiescent, not even trying to exercise influence — albeit limited — to reverse the situation.
The author shows that the conventional explanations for demobilisation consider poverty or lack of education as factors that tend to preserve the status quo and limit political participation.
Such explanations were deemed insufficient by the author, who highlights the three dimensions of power as mechanisms that structure relationships between miners and the company; and lead to alienation and apathy in the long term. This domination is reproduced on account of a combination of factors involving cultural barriers, corruption, intimidation and fear by the group of being identified as disloyal to the company and the surrounding community.
Power serves to create power. Powerless serves to reinforce powerless. Power relationships, once established, are self-sustaining Gaventa, : p. The authors and concepts herein presented are important for our study since they help us to understand the access policy to the governmental agenda and how the systematic denial of some issues takes place. Although they have roots in the studies discussed in this section, the most recent analyses on agenda-setting distance themselves from discussions on the theories of power.
In the next section we will see how these analyses deal with the rise and fall of issues on the governmental agenda. Although the discussion of power has developed around the debate between elitists and pluralists, as we saw briefly in the previous section, this debate has directly contributed to the initial development of studies directed towards understanding the governmental agenda. For these authors, the research on agenda-construction consists of an alternative to discussions on classical democratic theory and the issues of influence, equality, freedom, participation and modern democratic theory and discussions on stability of the democratic system, the decision-making process and characteristics of the elites, etc.
The limitations of the classical perspective and the efforts made by political scientists to reconcile theory and practice resulted in the democratic elitism approach that, for the authors, fails to analyse political participation.
Cobb and Elder argued that the essence of the political conflict lies in the scope for participation: for any issue, there will always be more disinterested people than those willing to be directly involved. Cobb and Elder develop this line of argument, analysing in detail the mechanisms by which groups seek to expand the conflict, extending the sphere of political participation.
According to the authors, by focusing on the notion of the agenda it would be possible to develop a theoretical perspective that could explain how groups articulate their demands and turn them into issues that acquire visibility and require government action, the process fundamental to democracy. Thus, for the authors:. We are concerned with how issues are created and why some controversies or incipient issues come to command the attention and concern of decision-makers, while others fail.
In other words, we are asking what determines the agenda for political controversy within a community. How is an agenda built i. Setting off from this questioning on who participates and how the agenda is built, the authors conducted the first systematic studies on setting the governmental agenda in the field of political science, based on a distinction between a systemic and institutional agenda COBB and ELDER, 5.
The issues manifest themselves on the systemic agenda when they arouse the attention of public opinion or when a considerable part of the public demands some kind of concrete action with respect to a particular concern.
The government agenda comprises the issues considered by decision-makers, whether at local, state or federal level. During the expansion process, the issue can be redefined, as other groups become involved. In this process, many advocates of an issue may no longer support it, because they think the redefinition somehow brings ideas very distant from the original understanding of the problem. Additionally, while groups and individuals opposed to an issue seek to limits its expansion process, proponents seek to involve other groups, attempting to defeat the apathy and inertia of those who were previously demobilised COBB, ROSS and ROSS, The first outside initiative model involves processes in which issues emerge in groups outside of the government and are expanded to first reach the systemic agenda, and then the governmental agenda.
In this case, the demands are articulated in general terms, to later be translated into more specific demands, in the pursuit of establishing alliances between different groups on common questions, placing the debate on the systemic agenda. This expansion is essential for the success of an issue on the governmental agenda but, on the other hand, it is also a crucial moment for the proposing group, as the more groups that enter into the conflict, the greater the chance of the initial group losing control over the issue.
The second form of connection between the systemic and governmental agendas analysed by the authors mobilisation model locates the origin of an issue within government bureaucracy. An example of this would be launching a new programme for a public policy on health care or education, for example, and does not originate from incorporating a demand publicly acknowledged by the government.
The third relationship between systemic and governmental agendas identified by Cobb, Ross and Ross the inside initiation model also originates within the government but, unlike the previous model, does not follow on to the systemic agenda. In this case, issues emerge in government agencies or influential groups, with access to decision-makers, without any effort by the proponents to expand the issue with the public. Whether for technical or political issues e. To the authors, each of these agenda-setting models is related to the specific characteristics of the political system in which agenda construction is developed.
In liberal democracies, the first form of articulation from the systemic to governmental agenda would be more likely, whereas the second from the government to systemic agenda would be typical of hierarchical societies where leaders have large amounts of power.
Authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes with a high concentration of wealth and status tend to build their agendas following this third explanation. John Kingdon advances the agenda concept, to propose a differentiation between the concept of the governmental agenda, as defined originally by Cobb and Elder and the notion of a decision agenda. However, given the complexity and the volume of issues presented to decision-makers, only some will be seriously considered within the governmental agenda at any given moment.
These issues make up the decision agenda: a subset of the governmental agenda, which considers issues ready for decision-making by policy formulators, or are about to become public policy. According to the author, this differentiation is necessary because both agendas are affected by different processes. The author argues that changes to the decision agenda are the result of a combination of three factors: the way a problem is perceived problem stream , the set of available alternatives policy stream and changes in political dynamics and public opinion political stream.
Changes to the governmental agenda require only two of the three aforementioned factors: one clearly perceived problem and a favourable political situation problem and political streams. Thus, a public policy only begins if an issue reaches the decision-making agenda, having passed through the governmental agenda. The agenda-setting model developed by Kingdon breaks with the logic of policy production stages, proposing a more fluid explanatory model, organised around flows.
For Kingdon, each of the three streams is developed relatively independent of the others. Interest groups place issues where they will have the most control over the decision-makers. Corporations and institutions are more likely to survive and get their issues on the agenda over the long term. Also, within a capitalist system, a high degree of business success must be supported by public policy.
A problem must be accepted on the agenda for the policy-making system to take action. Once on the agenda, it is hard to displace an issue e.
Issues get onto the agenda through:. Agendas are to some degree an abstraction, represented by legislative calendars, speeches by politicians, government regulations, etc. There are two conceptual agendas:. Items specifically, actively, and seriously up for consideration by authoritative decision-makers.
Pluralist theory--policy-making is divided into many arenas, those without power in one arena may find it in another arena; there is a marketplace for competing policies, groups, and interests; any group may win in some arena; actors accept the rules of the game elections determine who gets to decide on public policy. Elitists--a power elite dominates the process to serve their own interests; the same interests have power in all arenas and always win; few people actually organize into interests groups with time, money and skills; the elite must keep key issues off the agenda to retain control and power; elite suppression of issues threatens democracy.
Institutional--legislative committees and bureaucratic institutions vie for control of the agenda; individuals benefit little from these agenda decisions; social interests have little impact on what is actually considered; this leads to somewhat more conservative policy alternatives than under the group scenario but less conservative than under the elite scenario.
How extreme are the effects? How dispersed or concentrated? What is the number of people affected? How visible are the effects? Can individual persons be distinguished from one another in terms of effects? If it can be made to seem like an existing public concern, it is more likely to get onto the agenda than if it is perceived as a brand new issue. Existing government programs and policies produce new problems to be solved; for example, highways created suburbs, which led to central city declines.
Freedom, justice, defense, children, elderly, private enterprise, etc. Government is generally laissez faire, except for areas such as public social goods such as national defense and flood control, where it is difficult to break a good or service down into individual consumption units and charge for them; and negative externalities, when the economic gain of one party causes economic loss to another party, such as air pollution; and risk, for example, student loans guarantees, corporate bailouts, flood insurance, etc.
The government may support research on solutions for problems, but there is a reluctance to consider problems without proven solutions. It's when they realize their own link to the issue that they'll begin to see it as something that's not only serious, but that needs to be addressed locally. Even once they perceived it as an important issue, most people still weren't ready to put adult literacy at the top of their lists of problems to attend to.
They needed the sense that it actually affected them in some way. The adult literacy program director handled this in two ways. First, he had fact sheets prepared , which he distributed not only at presentations, but at every opportunity - through personal contact, community bulletin boards, businesses, etc.
These informed citizens of the extent of the problem both in the state and in the local area, an extent far beyond what most would have estimated. His other strategy was to arrange talks by current and former learners in the program.
In a particularly effective presentation to the Chamber of Commerce, a local man told how he had graduated from high school - in the same class as many of those in the room - unable to read or write, and how he had hidden his problem from everyone, even his wife, for years.
He at last, at her urging, sought help, and learned to read. When he described how stupid and worthless he had felt for so many years, and what it meant for him to be able to do something as simple as go to a restaurant and order what he wanted from the menu, much of the room was in tears. This learner's talk brought the issue home to the Chamber members. It was no longer "out there," but rather a concern for their community, and a personal concern for many of them, who had known this man most of their lives.
Now it was on their agenda. What does this mean? It can mean many things, including literally placing the issue on the local agenda, in the form of a bylaw potential or actual , regulation, referendum, or policy statement, which is the ultimate goal. Thus, getting a health or community development issue on the local agenda means helping the community see the issue as important enough to take action , and making sure that a sense of responsibility for the issue is assumed by the public at large, elected and appointed officials, and each individual citizen.
Any time is a good time to promote community health and development, but certain conditions make the job easier. When an important issue surfaces that needs to be addressed immediately. The discovery that the town water supply is tainted by leakage from long-buried gasoline tanks is the perfect time to get a discussion of water pollution and water supply on the local agenda. The advantages are that the issue must be dealt with now, and that it won't go away without some permanent way of addressing it.
There's no better time to raise an issue. When an already-troublesome issue reaches critical proportions. A small child becomes a casualty in a drive-by shooting; a homeless person freezes to death in a doorway on a bitter winter night; a factory closes and the local unemployment rate skyrockets. In circumstances like these, it often becomes easier to get a particular issue into the public consciousness. Everyone hopes not to have to reach this point before people pay attention, but changing people's perceptions is difficult.
Sometimes it takes a crisis to make getting your issue on the local agenda possible. When an external source calls attention to your issue. A new government commission report, a New York Times article about a particular problem or community, a presidential remark, a book by a respected author, a mention on Oprah - any of these can make your issue hot, and make it a good time for you to bring it to the attention of people in your community.
When new information reveals or underlines a serious issue. A university study or government report may alert the community to the fact that it harbors a very high number of cases of an unusual cancer.
This information may open the way for an investigation of its possible environmental causes and a plan for action. When political conditions make it easy or appropriate. In an election year, for instance, there are two reasons why it may be possible to call attention to issues and get them discussed. Even in non-election years, a well-publicized political event or situation may help put your issue in the spotlight. In many places, a question about an issue can be brought directly to the voters in a referendum.
This is a direct vote of the people, which may be binding - i. The mechanism for placing a referendum on a local or state ballot is usually an initiative petition. This is a petition that needs either the signatures of a set number of registered voters, or the signatures of a set percentage of registered voters.
In a small town, this may mean gathering as few as a hundred signatures; in a large city, it may mean tens of thousands. A referendum is usually phrased as a question on the ballot. It may ask voters whether they favor a course of action, whether they approve a particular proposed law, or whether they support a policy position. Planning is the first step toward action; you'll want to recruit help and support for what you'll do. Choosing a planning group carefully can contribute greatly to the eventual success of your effort.
A planning group should involve everyone who might be affected by the issue, or who might have a hand in addressing it:. Those indirectly affected. This category includes such people as merchants whose business has suffered because people are afraid to shop in the evening or to come to their neighborhoods; innocent youth who find themselves painted with the same brush as those engaged in violence because of their age, appearance, or racial or ethnic background; and property owners unable to sell or rent their houses because of the reputation of the neighborhood.
There are really three groups here: those who make formal policy, those who make informal policy, and funders. Influential people and other interested citizens. If you include people whose opinions are respected in the community, you are more likely to get community support for your effort.
This may include business leaders, leaders of the groups most affected by the issue, clergy and other leaders of the faith community, community activists and advocates, and other individuals with widespread community respect and credibility. More important is that all of these groups feel ownership of the plan and the effort that your initiative makes to alert the community to your issue, bring it to the forefront, and deal with it.
0コメント