Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems

Rapid change in public policy outcomes often occurs, but most theories of pluralism emphasize only incrementalism. Yet from a historical view, it can easily be seen that many policies go through long periods of stability and short periods of dramatic reversals. Often the grand lines of policy may be settled for decades during such critical periods of mobilization. In this paper, we argue a single process can explain both periods of extreme stability and short bursts of rapid change. This process is the interaction of beliefs and values concerning a particular policy, which we term the policy image, with the existing set of political institutions--the venues of policy action. In a pluralist political system, subsystems can be created that are highly favorable to a given industry. But at the same time, there remain other institutional venues that can serve as avenues of appeal for the disaffected. Here we use the case of civilian nuclear policy to examine the process by which policy images find a favorable reception in some institutional venues but not others, and how the interaction between image and venue can lead to the rapid creation, destruction, or alteration of policy subsystems. We rely on data from a variety of sources to trace agenda access of the nuclear power issue in each of the policy venues available.

[1]  William A. Hatt,et al.  Nuclear fear: A history of images , 1989 .

[2]  F. Baumgartner.  Parliament's Capacity to Expand Political Controversy in France , 1987 .

[3]  Dorothy L. Robyn.  Braking the special interests: Trucking deregulation and the politics of policy reform , 1987 .

[4]  William P. Browne,et al.  Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy Domain , 1990, The Journal of Politics.

[5]  Dorothy Nelkin,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF THE NUCLEAR DEBATE: THE ROLE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION* , 1978 .

[6]  John L. Campbell,et al.  Collapse of an Industry: Nuclear Power and the Contradictions of U.S. Policy. , 1988 .

[7]  R. Mitchell,et al.  From elite quarrel to mass movement , 1981 .

[8]  David C. Kozak.  Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy , 1980 .

[9]  Keith E. Hamm.  Patterns of Influence among Committees, Agencies, and Interest Groups , 1983 .

[10]  Charles Komanoff.  Power Plant Cost Escalation , 1982 .

[11]  John W. Kingdon.  Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[12]  A. Lee Fritschler,et al.  Smoking and politics , 1969 .

[13]  Barry G. Rabe,et al.  Pesticides and Politics: The Life Cycle of a Public Issue , 1990 .

[14]  Stanley Rothman,et al.  Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[15]  The political process. , 1987, Virginia dental journal.

[16]  James A. Stimson,et al.  On the Structure and Sequence of Issue Evolution , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[17]  P. Abelson.  Power in washington. , 1979, Science.

[18]  P. Bachrach,et al.  Two Faces of Power , 1962, American Political Science Review.

[19]  P. Odegard.  Pressure politics : the story of the Anti-Saloon League , 2022 .

[20]  John L. Campbell,et al.  Collapse of an Industry: Nuclear Power and the Contradictions of U.S. Policy@@@The Demise of Nuclear Energy? Lessons for Democratic Control of Technology , 1990 .

[21]  W. Riker.  The art of political manipulation , 1987 .

[22]  W. Gormley.  The Politics of Public Utility Regulation , 1983 .

[23]  F. Baumgartner.  Conflict and rhetoric in French policymaking , 1989 .

[24]  William R. Schriver,et al.  The Effect of Increased Regulation on Capital Costs and Manual Labor Requirements of Nuclear Power Plants , 1980 .

[25]  Murray Edelman,et al.  Constructing the political spectacle , 1989 .

[26]  Charles D. Elder,et al.  The Political Uses of Symbols , 1984 .

[27]  B. Wood,et al.  Principals, Bureaucrats, and Responsiveness in Clean Air Enforcements , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[28]  Allan Mazur,et al.  Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific Controversies , 1981 .

[29]  William R. Freudenburg,et al.  Public Reactions to Nuclear Power: Are There Critical Masses? , 1986 .

[30]  S. Rippon.  The nuclear energy debate , 1976 .

[31]  A. Bentley,et al.  The Process Of Government , 1908 .

[32]  D E Gray,et al.  The image. , 1984, The Journal of the Kansas Medical Society.

[33]  D. Stone,et al.  Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas , 1989, Anthologie Kulturpolitik.

[34]  P. Sabatier.  An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein , 1988 .

[35]  Paul J. Quirk,et al.  The Politics Of Deregulation , 1985 .

[36]  James H. Kuklinski,et al.  Citizen Knowledge and Choices on the Complex Issue of Nuclear Energy , 1982 .

[37]  Charles D. Elder,et al.  Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building , 1975 .

[38]  Herbert Kitschelt,et al.  Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies , 1986, British Journal of Political Science.

[39]  The Demise of Nuclear Energy , 1990 .

[40]  Benjamin I. Page,et al.  Effects of Public Opinion on Policy , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[41]  W. Arthur.  Positive feedbacks in the economy , 1990 .