Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for :
- Author or Editor: Jonathan Lewallen x
- British Politics x
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’.
