Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:02:10.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Jack L. Walker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The choice of issues for debate is of central importance in any political system. By deciding what they will decide about, legislators also establish the terms and the most prominent participants in debate and, ultimately, the distribution of power and influence in the society. As Schattschneider has pointed out:

Political conflict is not like an intercollegiate debate in which the opponents agree in advance on a definition of the issues. As a matter of fact, the definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power; the antagonists can rarely agree on what the issues are because power is involved in the definition. He who determines what politics is about runs the country, because the definition of alternatives is the choice of conflicts, and the choice of conflicts allocates power.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1977 , pp. 423 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 68 (italics in the original).Google Scholar

2 See in particular Cobb, Roger W. and Elder, Charles D., Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Crenson, Matthew A., The Un-Politics of Air Pollution (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Schon, Donald A., Beyond the Stable State: Public and Private Learning in a Changing Society (London: Maurice Temple Smith, 1971)Google Scholar; Braybrooke, David, Traffic Congestion Goes Through the Issue-Machine (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974)Google Scholar; Downs, Anthony, ‘Up and Down with Ecology – the “Issue-Attention Cycle”’, The Public Interest, XXXII (1973), 38–50Google Scholar; Davies, J. Clarence III, ‘How Does the Agenda Get Set?’ (Resources for the Future Conference Paper, Washington, D.C., 22 01 1974)Google Scholar; Rakoff, Stuart H. and Schaefer, Guenther F., ‘Politics, Policy and Political Science’, Politics and Society, 1 (1970), 32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bauer, Raymond A. and Gergen, Kenneth J., eds., The Study of Policy Formation (New York: Free Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Polsby, Nelson W., ‘Policy Initiation in the American Political System’, in Horowitz, Irving Louis, ed., The Use and Abuse of Social Science (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1971)Google Scholar; King, Anthony, ‘Ideas, Institutions and the Policies of Governments: A Comparative Analysis: Parts I and II’, British Journal of Political Science, III (1973), 291–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘Part III’, British Journal of Political Science, III (1973), 409–23Google Scholar; and Solesbury, William, ‘Issues and Innovations in Environmental Policy in Britain, West Germany, and California’, Policy Analysis, II (1976), 1–38.Google Scholar

3 Bauer, Raymond A., Pool, Ithiel de Sola and Dexter, Lewis Anthony, American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade (New York: Atherton Press, 1963), p. 405.Google Scholar

4 For a good description of the demanding pressures of life in the Senate see Boyd, James, ‘A Senator's Day’, in Peters, Charles and Adams, Timothy, eds., Inside the System (New York: Praeger, 1970).Google Scholar

5 For descriptions of the interlocking system of sub-governments that guide the formulation of policy in Washington see Freeman, J. Leiper, The Political Process (New York: Random House, 1965)Google Scholar; McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1966)Google Scholar; and Cater, Douglass, Power in Washington (New York: Random House, 1964).Google Scholar

6 Several writers have emphasized the importance of the career choices by members of Congress. My thinking has been most directly influenced by Fenno, Richard F. Jr., Congressmen in Committees (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1973)Google Scholar; and Price, David E., ‘The Sources and Conditions of Legislative Initiative: Notes on the Comparative Study of Policy Formation’, (unpublished paper, Duke University, 1975)Google Scholar; and Mayhew, David R., Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

7 For an excellent discussion of legislative styles in both the Senate and House see Ornstein, Norman J., ‘Legislative Behavior and Legislative Structures: A Comparative Look at House and Senate Resource Utilization’ (paper presented to research seminar on Mathematical Models of Congress, Aspen, Colorado, 06 1974).Google Scholar Also see Asher, Herbert B., ‘The Learning of Legislative Norms’, American Political Science Review, LXVII (1973), 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 This interpretation of recent developments in the Senate comes directly from Rohde, David W., Ornstein, Norman J. and Peabody, Robert L., ‘Political Change and Legislative Norms in the United States Senate’ (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1974).Google Scholar Also see Polsby, Nelson J., ‘Goodbye to the Inner Club’, in Ornstein, Norman J., ed., Congress in Change: Evolution and Reform (New York: Praeger, 1975).Google Scholar

9 An excellent discussion of the considerations involved in constructing an index of legislative activism can be found in Ornstein, Norman J., ‘Information, Resources, and Legislative Decision-Making: Some Comparative Perspectives on the U.S. Congress’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972).Google Scholar

10 These generalizations are based on the inspection of the legislative careers of all U.S. Senators serving between 1946 and 1972. For a more extensive discussion of legislative activism see an earlier version of this paper, ‘Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate’ (Institute of Public Policy Studies, University of Michigan, Discussion Paper No. 94, 1976).Google Scholar

11 Polsby, , ‘Goodbye to the Inner Club’, p. 215.Google Scholar

12 (New York: Random House, 1960). Matthews’ book covers the years 1947–57, the decade prior to the rapid growth of liberal strength in the elections from 1958 through 1968.

13 For insightful commentary on the importance of this factor in encouraging members of Congress to engage in promotional activity, see Price, David E., ‘Policy-Making in Congressional Committees: The Impact of Environmental Factors’ (discussion paper, Duke University, 1976).Google Scholar

14 For a similar description of the way information is collected in the Senate, see Schick, Allen, ‘The Supply and Demand for Analysis on Capitol Hill’, Policy Analysis, II (1976), 215–34.Google Scholar

15 The description of the debate and passage of traffic safety legislation in this section draws directly from Price, David E., ‘Who Makes the Laws: The Legislative Roles of Three Senate Committees’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1969), pp. 82–107Google Scholar; and Drew, Elizabeth B., ‘The Politics of Auto Safety’, Atlantic Monthly (10 1966).Google Scholar

16 Nader, Ralph, Unsafe At Any Speed (New York: Grossman, 1965).Google Scholar

17 For a description, and a slashing attack, on this community, see Nader, 's chapter on ‘The Traffic Safety Establishment’, in Unsafe At Any Speed.Google Scholar Also see Havelock, Ronald G., Highway Safety Research Communication: Is There a System? (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1973).Google Scholar

18 Data for the death rate per 100,000,000 miles driven were obtained from the publication, Accident Facts, published annually by the National Safety Council. The data for the technical literature – defined as articles, monographs or books intended for experts or professionals in the field rather than the general public – came from The International Bibliography of Highway Safety Research (Ann Arbor: Highway Safety Research Institute, University of Michigan, 1973). The data on the New York Times are the number of column inches on the subject appearing in The New York Times Index.

19 For an excellent description of these aspects of the controversy see Whiteside, Thomas, The Investigation of Ralph Nader (New York: Pocket Books, 1972).Google Scholar

20 The Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1970, 69A.Google Scholar

21 ‘Does America Need the Occupational Safety and Health Act?’, Journal of American Society of Safety Engineers, XV (02 1969), 8.Google Scholar

22 For a description of the many professional associations with an interest in the safety field see Dinman, Bertram D., ‘IMA is not Alone’, Journal of Occupational Medicine, X (1966), 183–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Nadel, Mark V., The Politics of Consumer Protection (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971, pp. 36–41.Google Scholar

24 ‘Analysis of the 1969 Occupational Safety and Health Bill’’, Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, XV (12 1969), 28.Google Scholar

25 For a good review of recent history in the area, see Christenson, C. L. and Andrews, W. H., ‘Coal Mine Injury Rates in Two Eras of Federal Control’, Journal of Economic Issues, VIII (1973), 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Two excellent articles giving details on coal mine safety are Guffey, Rand, ‘Enforcing of New Law Bogs Down Stirring Uproar in Coalfields’, Wall Street Journal (25 06 1970), p. 1Google Scholar; and Harwood, Bob, ‘Bitter Miners Assert the “Black Lung” Law is Filled with Loopholes’, Wall Street Journal (24 09 1971), p. 1.Google Scholar

27 The state of the art is described in Ehrich, Thomas Lindley, ‘Broad Research is Launched Into Removing Some of the Deadly Hazards of Coal Mining’, Wall Street Journal (15 06 1971), p. 30Google Scholar; Conti, John V., ‘Coal Mine Study Shows Record Can Be Improved When Firms Really Try’, Wall street Journal (18 01 1973), p. 1Google Scholar; Andrews, W. H. and Christenson, C. L., ‘Some Economic Factors Affecting Safety in Underground Bituminous Coal Mines’, Southern Economic Journal, XXI (1974), 364–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘Coal: Where Management and Labor Share the Blame’, Business Week (2 11 1974), pp. 76–7.Google Scholar

28 Data on coverage in the New York Times are collected in the same manner as in Fig. 2 – see fn. 18 – but data for the technical literature were collected from Index Medicus and The Engineering Index, and data for death rates were collected from The Yearbook of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor).

29 See Christenson, and Andrews, , ‘Coal Mine Injury Rates in Two Eras of Federal Control’.Google Scholar

30 Data for this figure were collected from the same sources employed for Fig. 3 – see fn. 28.

31 ‘A Message from the President’, Journal of American Society of Safety Engineers, XIV (04 1968), 9.Google Scholar

32 For a follow-up story on the inadequate – in fact, virtually non-existent – enforcement of the bill, see Franklin, Ben A., ‘The Dam Builders, Congressional Pets’, New York Times (4 07 1976), D4.Google Scholar

33 Many examples of this shifting basis for debate can be found in the period from 1974 to the present. A recent one is Singer, James W., ‘New OSHA Task Force – New Political Payoff or False Alarm?’, The National Journal, XXVIII (10 07 1976), 973–5.Google Scholar

34 This literature is concisely summarized and criticized in Mohr, Lawrence B., ‘Determinants of Innovation in Organizations’, American Political Science Review, LXIII (1969), 111–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and more recently in Zaltman, Gerald, Duncan, Robert and Holbek, Jonny, Innovations and Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1973)Google Scholar; and Downs, George W. Jr., and Mohr, Lawrence B., ‘Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, XXI (1976), 700–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G., A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 278–9.Google Scholar

36 Crenson, Matthew A., The Un-Politics of Air Pollution (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), p. 172.Google Scholar

37 For a thoughtful analysis of the importance of different kinds of problems in affecting the political agenda, see Hirschman, Albert O., ‘Policy-Making and Policy Analysis in Latin America – A Return Journey’, VIGoogle Scholar, Policy Sciences, 385–402.Google Scholar

38 Simon, Herbert A., ‘The Changing Theory and Changing Practice of Public Administration’, in de Sola Pool, Ithiel, ed., Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 108.Google Scholar

39 Cohen, Michael D., March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice’, XVII, Administrative Science Quarterly (1972), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar