The influence of conflict on agenda setting in the US Congress
Search for other papers by Jonathan Lewallen in
Current site
Google Scholar
Agenda setting involves prioritisation: paying attention to some issues means others go unaddressed. Institutions develop divisions of labour to increase their attention capacity but making a decision requires focusing on one issue at a time, a move called the ‘serial shift’. Issues also represent different conflicts and ways of organising disagreement, so the serial shift involves prioritising and legitimising some disagreements above others. This article examines the relationship between conflict at the decision stage and disagreement in agenda setting. Using data on US congressional committee report views and amendments offered during floor debate, I show that prioritisation ‘certifies’ conflict: the issues that see more disagreement in agenda setting tend to be those that see more disagreement at the decision stage. I also find the statistical relationship is strongest for three issues: Environment in the House of Representatives; and in the Senate, Science and Technology, and International Affairs. While the relationship is short-lived, issues that recur on the decision agenda experience persistent disagreements as the committee system sets the institution’s agenda. Divisions of labour are thought to allow for a broader spectrum of voices to be heard, but the serial shift means that winnowing down the decision agenda can limit which conflicts are expressed when institutions ‘decide what to decide’.
-
Adler, E.S. and Wilkerson, J.D. (2012) Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving, New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Anderson, T.W. and Hsiao, C. (1981) Estimation of dynamic models with error components, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76(375): 598–606. doi: 10.2307/2287517
-
Bauer, R.A., de Sola Pool, I. and Dexter, L.A. (1963) American Business and Foreign Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Bean, E.J. (2018) Financial Exposure: Carl Levin’s Senate Investigations into Finance and Tax Abuse, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Birkland, T.A. (1998) Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting, Journal of Public Policy, 18(1): 53–74. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X98000038
-
Burstein, P. and Bricher, M. (1997) Problem definition and public policy: congressional committees confront work, family, and gender, 1945-1990, Social Forces, 76: 135–68. doi: 10.2307/2580321
-
Cooper, J. (1970) The Origins of the Standing Committees and the Development of the Modern House, Houston, TX: Rice University.
-
Cox, G.W. and McCubbins, M.D. (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives, New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
-
De Boef, S. and Keele, L. (2008) Taking time seriously, American Journal of Political Science, 52: 184–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00307.x
-
Esterling, K.M. (2011) ‘Deliberative disagreement’ in U.S. health policy committee hearings, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36: 169–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00010.x
-
Evans, C.L. (1991) Leadership in Committee, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
-
Fenno, R.F. Jr (1966) The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress, Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
-
Fenno, R.F. Jr (1973) Congressmen in Committees, Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
-
Gardner, L. (2015) ‘The hoax’ is just part of Inhofe’s new road map, CQ Weekly, 26 January.
-
Goldreich, S. (2002) Environmentalists put on defense, CQ Weekly, 9 November.
-
Goldreich, S. (2003) Daschle, McCain tout emissions bills tougher than bush’s clean air plan, but none appear ready for action, CQ Weekly, 11 January.
-
Green-Pedersen, C. and Wolfe, M. (2009) The institutionalization of environmental attention in the United States and Denmark: multiple- versus single-venue systems, Governance, 22(4): 625–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01456.x
-
Haan, S.C. (2014) The CEO and the hydraulics of campaign finance regulation, Northwestern University Law Review, 109: 27–40.
-
Hall, R.L. (1987) Participation and purpose in committee decision making, American Political Science Review, 81(1): 105–27. doi: 10.2307/1960781
-
Hall, R.L. (1996) Participation in Congress, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
-
Hammond, T.H. (1986) Agenda control, organizational structure, and bureaucratic politics, American Journal of Political Science, 30(2): 379–420. doi: 10.2307/2111102
-
Issacharoff, S. and Karlan, P.S. (1999) The hydraulics of campaign finance reform, Texas Law Review, 77: 1705–38.
-
Jalonick, M.C. (2003) Same goal, different deadlines for ethanol on energy bill, CQ Weekly, 12 April.
-
Jalonick, M.C. (2005) ‘Clear Skies’ plan stalls in Senate panel, CQ Weekly, 14 March.
-
Jochim, A. and Jones, B.D. (2013) Issue politics in a polarized Congress, Political Research Quarterly, 66(2): 352–69. doi: 10.1177/1065912912448930
-
Jones, B.D. (1994) Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Jones, B.D., and Baumgartner, F.R. (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Jones, C.O. (2000) Reinventing leeway: the president and agenda certification, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30(1): 6–26. doi: 10.1111/j.0000-0000.2000.00096.x
-
Katzmann, R.A. (1989) The American legislative process as a signal, Journal of Public Policy, 9: 287–306. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X00008473
-
King, D.C. (1997) Turf Wars: How Congressional Committees Claim Jurisdiction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Kingdon, J.W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
-
Krehbiel, K. (1998) Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Krutz, G.S. (2005) Issues and institutions: ‘winnowing’ in the U.S. Congress, American Journal of Political Science, 49(2): 313–26. doi: 10.2307/3647679
-
La Raja, R.J. and Schaffner, B.F. (2015) Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
-
Lee, F.E. (2009) Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988) Organizational learning, Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319–40.
-
Lewallen, J. (2018) Congressional attention and opportunity structures: the Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee, Review of Policy Research, 35(1): 153–69. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12252
-
Lewallen, J., Park, J.Y. and Theriault, S.M. (2024) The politics of problems versus solutions: policymaking and grandstanding in congressional hearings, Policy Studies Journal, ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/psj.12526
-
Lindblom, C.E. (1959) The science of ‘muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 19(2): 79–88. doi: 10.2307/973677
-
Manley, J.F. (1965) The House Committee on Ways and Means: conflict management in a congressional committee, American Political Science Review, 59(4): 927–39. doi: 10.2307/1953214
-
May, P.J., Workman, S. and Jones, B.D. (2008) Organizing attention: responses of the bureaucracy to agenda disruption, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4): 517–41. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mun015
-
Minta, M.D. (2009) Legislative oversight and the substantive representation of Black and Latino interests in Congress, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(2): 193–218. doi: 10.3162/036298009788314336
-
Nowlin, M.C. (2019) Environmental Policymaking in an Era of Climate Change, New York: Routledge.
-
Parker, G.R., Parker, S.L., Copa, J.C. and Lawhorn, M.D. (2004) The question of committee bias revisited, Political Research Quarterly, 57(3): 431–40. doi: 10.1177/106591290405700308
-
Perkins, L.P. (1980) Influences of members’ goals on their committee behavior: the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 5(3): 373–92. doi: 10.2307/439551
-
Potoski, M. and Talbert, J. (2000) The dimensional structure of policy outputs: distributive policy and roll call voting, Political Research Quarterly, 53(4): 695–710. doi: 10.2307/449256
-
Pralle, S.B. (2006) Timing and sequence in agenda-setting and policy change: a comparative study of lawn care pesticide politics in Canada and the U.S, Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7): 987–1005. doi: 10.1080/13501760600923904
-
Raju, M. (2006) ‘Good Samaritan’ Mine Cleanup Bill prompts concerns of exemptions, CQ Weekly, 18 September.
-
Reeves, A.E. (1993) Congressional Committee Chairmen: Three Who Made an Evolution, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
-
Rocca, M.S. and Gordon, S.B. (2010) The position-taking value of bill sponsorship in Congress, Political Research Quarterly, 63(2): 387–97. doi: 10.1177/1065912908330347
-
Schattschneider, E.E. (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
-
Scheberle, D. (1994) Radon and asbestos: a study of agenda setting and causal stories, Policy Studies Journal, 22(1): 74–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1994.tb02181.x
-
Shafran, J.S. (2022) More than agents: federal bureaucrats as information suppliers in policymaking, Policy Studies Journal, 50(4): 921–43. doi: 10.1111/psj.12455
-
Talbert, J.C. and Potoski, M. (2002) Setting the legislative agenda: the dimensional structure of bill cosponsoring and floor voting, Journal of Politics, 64(3): 864–91. doi: 10.1111/0022-3816.00150
-
Tech Law Journal (1999) Excerpt from the FCC’s Opinion Regarding Religious Broadcasting, http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/rel_bcast/19991215.htm (accessed: 30 Jan 2024).
-
Tech Law Journal (2000) FCC Order on Reconsideration of its December 29, 1999 Order on Religious Broadcasting. RE: Applications for Transfer of Licenses of WQED Pittsburgh and Cornerstone, http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/rel_bcast/20000128.htm.
-
Walker, J.L. (1977) Agenda setting in the U.S. Senate: a theory of problem selection, British Journal of Political Science, 7: 423–45. doi: 10.1017/S0007123400001101
-
Wildavsky, A. (1979) Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis, Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
-
Workman, S., Shafran, J. and Bark, T. (2017) Problem definition and information provision by federal bureaucrats, Cognitive Systems Research, 43: 140–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.11.002
Supplementary Materials
- Supplementary_AppendixS1.docx (DOC 327 KB)
Search for other papers by Jonathan Lewallen in
Current site
Google Scholar
| May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 233 | 233 | 102 |
| Full Text Views | 59 | 59 | 38 |
| PDF Downloads | 54 | 54 | 35 |
Institutional librarians can find more information about free trials here
We are a leading social science publisher
committed to making a difference.
Bristol University Press and
Policy Press
bristoluniversitypress.co.uk