821
Abstract. The article shows which way the views on the first stage of the policy process, the agenda setting, have been developed in political science. The author discusses different approaches to the political agenda definition including governmental and decision agendas, systemic and institutional agendas, symbolic and substantial agendas. Different ways to indicate this kind of agenda focusing on parliamentary agenda are also highlighted. Examples of indicators used by political scientists include parliamentary questions, parliamentary debates or hearings, parliamentary inquiries and legislative initiatives. Moreover, this paper provides an overview of factors deemed to be the most important for the development of an agenda-setting research and the key direction of academic literature in this field. The article contains a critique of the main agenda-setting conceptual models. The current conceptual trends of this approach are outlined, which includes the break with American-based agenda-setting theory, the spread of comparative analysis, the development of quantitatively oriented policy methods, and the increase in policy dynamics research. The relationship between mass media and political agenda, political parties’ influence on the political agenda are also highlighted in the latest empirical studies. Different viewpoints on the media impact are shown: media as a source of their own agenda, media as a resource for promotion of separate issues, and media as a tool of influence over the agendas of political actors. The results are based on an analysis of few research projects that were represented in Web of Science publications with the highest citation index. Publications were selected by using the topic “Agenda Setting” in the category “Political Science”, without selection of a definite time period. Statistics of co-citation were analysed and a co-citation map was created by dint of the VOSviewer computer program.
Keywords: policy agenda-setting, parliament agenda
REFERENCES
1. Baumgartner F.R., Green-Pedersen C., Jones B.D. Comparative Studies of Policy Agendas. Journal of European Public Policy, 2006, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 959-974. DOI:10.1080/13501760600923805
2. Bachrach P., Baratz M.S. Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, 1962, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 947-952.
3. Bachrach P., Baratz M.S. Decisions and Nondecisions: an Analytical Framework. The American Political Science Review, 1963, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 632-642.
4. Bachrach P., Baratz M. S. Power and Poverty. New York, Oxford University Press, 1970. 220 p.
5. Dahl R. A. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1956. 155 p.
6. Truman D. B. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York, A. Knopf, 1951. 544 p.
7. Dewey J. How We Think. Boston, D. C. Heath & Co, 1910. 250 p.
8. Dewey J. The Public and Its Problems: an Essay in Political Inquiry. New York, H. Holt and Company, 1927. 224 p.
9. Torgerson D. Policy Analysis and Public Life: The Restoration of Phronesis? Farr J., Dryzek J.S., Leonard S.T., eds. Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 225-252.
10. Turnbull N. Harold Lasswell’s “Problem Orientation” for the Policy Sciences. Critical Policy Studies, 2008, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 72-91. DOI:10.1080/19460171.2008.9518532
11. Lasswell H.D. A Pre-view of Policy Sciences. New York, American Elsevier Pub. Co., 1971. 173 ð.
12. Dahl R. A. A Critique of the Ruling-Elite Model. The American Political Science Review, 1958, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 463-469.
13. Schattschneider E.E. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. 147 p.
14. Kingdon J. W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York, HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995. 254 p.
15. Downs A. Up and Down with Ecology – the Issue Attention Cycle. The Public Interest, 1972, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 39-50.
16. Sinclair B. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. 424 p.
17. Cobb R. W., Elder C.D. The Politics of Agenda-Building: an Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory. The Journal of Politics, 1971, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 892-915.
18. Princen S., Rhinard M. Crashing and Creeping: Agenda-Setting Dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 2006, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1119-1132. DOI:10.1080/13501760600924233
19. Van Aelst P.V., Thesen G., Walgrave S., Vliegenthart R. Mediatization and the Media’s Political Agenda-Setting Influence. Esser F., Strömbäck J., eds. Mediatization of Politics: Understanding the Transformation of Western Democracies. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Available at: http://ps.au.dk/fileadmin/Statskundskab/Billeder/Forskning/Forskningsprojekter/POLIS/Documents/Mediatization_chapter.pdf (accessed 12.05.2016).
20. Black R.C., Boyd C.L. Selecting the Select Few: the Discuss List and the U. S. Supreme Court’s Agenda-Setting Process. Social Science Quarterly, 2013, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 1124-1144. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00933.x
21. McGuire K.T., Caldeira G. A. Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court. The American Political Science Review, 1993, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 717-726. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2938746
22. Walgrave S., Van Aelst P. The Contingency of the Mass Media’s Political Agenda-Setting Power. Towards a Preliminary Theory. Journal of Communication, 2006, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 88-109. DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00005.x
23. Vliegenthart R., Walgrave S. Content Matters: the Dynamics of Parliamentary Questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies, 2011, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1031-1059. DOI:10.1177/0010414011405168.
24. Melenhorst L. The Media’s Role in Lawmaking: a Case Study Analysis. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 2015, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 297-316. DOI:10.1177/1940161215581924
25. Jones B.D., Baumgartner F.R. Representation and Agenda Setting. Policy Studies Journal, 2004, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1-24. DOI:10.1111/j.0190-292X.2004.00050.x
26. Quinn K.M., Monroe B.L., Crespin M.H., Radev D.R. How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs. American Journal of Political Science, 2010, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 209-228. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00427.x
27. Helfer L. Media Effects on Politicians: an Individual-Level Political Agenda-Setting Experiment. The International Journal of Press/Politics, no. 21 (2), February 2016, pp. 233-252 Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ pdf/10.1177/1940161215627461 (accessed 22.12.2016). DOI:10.1177/1940161215627461
28. Soroka S. N. Issue Attributes and Agenda-Setting by Media, the Public and Policymaking in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2002, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 264-285. DOI:10.1093/ijpor/14.3.264
29. Soroka S.N. Policy Agenda-Setting Theory Revisited: a Critique of Howlett on Downs, Baumgartner and Jones, and Kingdon. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1999, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 763-772. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000842390001698X
30. Jones B.D., Baumgartner F.R. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2005. 304 p.
31. Green-Pedersen C. The Conflict of Conflicts in Comparative Perspective: Euthanasia as a Political Issue in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Comparative Politics, 2007, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 273-291.
32. McCombs M.E., Shaw D.L. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 176-187.
33. Green-Pedersen C., Stubager R. The Political Conditionality of Mass Media Influence: When Do Parties Follow Mass Media Attention? British Journal of Political Science, 2010, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 663-677. DOI:i:10.1017/S0007123410000037
34. Protess L.D., Cook F.L., Curtin T.R., Gordon M.T., Leff D.R., McCombs M.E., Miller P. The Impact of Investigative Reporting on Public Opinion and Policymaking Targeting Toxic Waste. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1987, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 166-185. DOI:10.1086/269027
35. Van Noije L., Kleinnijenhuis J., Oegema D. Loss of Parliamentary Control due to Mediatization and Europeanization: A Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Analysis of Agenda Building in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. British Journal of Political Science, 2008, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 455-478. DOI:10.1017/S0007123408000239
36. Boydstun A.E., Hardy A., Walgrave S. Two Faces of Media Attention: Media Storm versus Non-Storm Coverage. Political Communication, 2014, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 509-531. DOI:10.1080/10584609.2013.875967
37. Andeweg R., Thomassen J. Pathways to Party Unity: Sanctions, Loyalty, Homogeneity and Division of Labour in the Dutch Parliament. Party Politics: The International Journal for the Study of Political Parties and Political Organizations, 2011, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 655-672. DOI:10.1177/1354068810377188
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX
No comments