Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda‐setting

Inspired by the agenda‐setting literature, this article outlines a model of issue competition focusing on the interaction between government and opposition parties through the party‐system agenda. Unlike previous studies of issue competition, the model makes it possible to answer questions such as why some parties have greater success than others in forcing other parties to address unpleasant issues. One of the central implications of the model is that opposition parties are freer to focus continually on issues that are advantageous to themselves, whereas government parties more often are forced to respond to issues brought up on the party‐system agenda. Using data on issue competition in Denmark covering 25 years and 23 issue categories, the issue competition model is evaluated and finds strong support in a set of cross‐sectional time‐series analyses.     

Thinking strategically about ASEM: The subsidiarity question

Abstract

Aficionados of arcane European Union politics will know the importance of the term ‘subsidiarity’, for it relates to perhaps the most fundamental question facing any federal enterprise. Subsidiarity is supposed to be simple ‐ the notion that issues should be handled at the most effective level of authority ‐ but the devil is in the debate about what is ‘most effective’. The notion of subsidiarity, in all its complexity, is in fact most appropriate for those considering the shape of the agenda for the next Asia‐Europe Meeting (ASEM) in London in 1998. With the proliferation of meetings and organizations devoted to the next ASEM agenda, the time has come to pose and begin to answer the subsidiarity question. That question for ASEM would ask, ‘what is best done at the ASEM level’, as opposed to at a global, other regional, national, or even corporate, local or individual level? If officials and analysts feel that such a question is too tough for the ASEM process, perhaps they would be happier with a subsidiary subsidiarity question: ‘what can also be usefully done at the ASEM level'? If there are good answers to the main question, there is a good basis on which to engage in the ASEM process. If there are only good answers to the subsidiary question, the ASEM agenda will be less ambitious and perhaps even appear contrived.     

Legislative agenda-setting in parliamentary democracies

Various strands of literature in comparative politics regard governments as the only noteworthy initiators and mainsprings of legislative policy making in parliamentary democracies. Opposition activity in policy making is more often associated with the intention to prevent, rather than to shape, policy. Does this perception reflect real‐life politics? To answer this question, this article discusses different arguments that link institutional and policy‐related characteristics to the incentives and constraints of different government and parliamentary actors to initiate or co‐sponsor legislative bills. More specifically, it relates policy‐, office‐ and vote‐related incentives, as well as institutional and resource constraints of legislative actors, to the likelihood that these actors will take the lead in legislative agenda‐setting. These arguments are confronted with original data on the universe of all legislative bills in four parliamentary systems over one and a half decades. The article concludes that opposition and, in particular, bipartisan agenda‐setting is indeed rare. Yet, in contrast to widely held maxims, it is neither absent nor spurious, but related to the allocation of power and the intensity of ideological conflict both within and between the (coalition) government and parliament.     

Liberals, Democrats and the Agenda of Politics

Democrats sometimes wonder why liberalism, as a theory which values choice, should seek to restrict democratic choices by limiting the political agenda. This article tries to answer this question by emphasizing a value which is common to liberal and democratic arguments: that as far as possible states should rest on persuasion rather than compulsion. On this basis, it is argued that personal and political choice situations are not analogous, that not all the arguments for personal freedom are exhausted by the arguments for fair democratic procedure, that it is not irrational to fear that one might be in an unpersuaded minority, and that even democratic political outcomes cannot be substituted for personal conclusions. Some democratic theories do not accept the value assumed here: but they pay too high a price.     

Beijing and the Myanmar problem

Abstract

The re-emergence of China as a major economic and political power has drawn attention to the role it might play in solving regional problems. Prominent among many Asian issues on Beijing's agenda is its southwestern neighbour, Myanmar, and in particular the military machine that has long ruled the country with an iron fist. The junta in place today is both acknowledged as problematic by policymakers in Beijing, and seen by the wider world as a regional challenge on which China should take the lead. However, there is little agreement on ways forward. To determine how Beijing might handle the Myanmar problem, this article first examines the concept of intervention, reviewing the manifold modes found in the contemporary world and drawing up a typology. Then it surveys arguments about intervention, focusing on perspectives that are relevant in this context. Next it presents arguments about intervention in Myanmar, and follows up by looking in some detail at China's current low-level engagement. Finally it considers where Beijing might go from here in dealing with Myanmar. The argument pulled together in the conclusion is that while nobody has a full solution to the Myanmar problem, a case for enhancement of China's role can be grounded not only in its global obligations, but also in precepts found deep in its national tradition. It is here that efforts to boost Beijing's engagement should be directed.     

Transitions in Defense Management Reform: A Review of the Government Accountability Office’s Chief Management Officer Recommendation and Comments for the New Administration

The Government Accountability Office believes the answer to the U.S. Defense Department’s persistent management problems is to be found in the creation of a new position, chief management officer, to oversee defense business transformation. The recommendation for this position is reviewed and used to raise questions and spur inquiry in the areas of evidence‐based reform, the relationship between policy and administration, auditor overreach, and sustaining reforms through transition. The latter portion is expanded in this time of transition, and recommendations are made to the new administration to develop a management agenda, to the defense career executives to facilitate the transition, and to the next comptroller general to consider how the Government Accountability Office’s varied roles produce outputs that align with the desired outcomes in both the policy and administration domains.     

An Argument for Reflexivity in Intelligence Work

In general, so it is argued in this article, the intelligence community would benefit from an agenda of greater and more conscious reflexivity. This increased self-awareness should as a minimum be applied to the areas of collection, analysis and communication, and it should bring members of the intelligence community to habitually reassess both procedures and standards of their work. Such a process promises to improve analysis, reduce misunderstandings in communication and increase public trust in the intelligence community. It will, in short, help the intelligence community prepare for a turbulent future.     

Government alternation and legislative agenda setting

Recent studies of the legislative process have put forward a number of plausible hypotheses regarding the distribution of agenda‐setting power. These hypotheses have guided scholars in identifying those conflicts and actors that are crucial to explaining legislative change and the wording of legislation. However, this has not yet led to a better understanding of the choice of specific agenda‐setting rules. Why does the cabinet in some parliamentary democracies enjoy an undisputed role, while in others the parliament continues to play the role of co‐protagonist? This article attempts to answer this question by looking at some well‐known features of party systems. It is argued that in pivotal party systems, with limited government alternation, it is much more difficult to strengthen the government vis‐à‐vis the parliament. One factor prevents the procedural and institutional predominance of the cabinet under these circumstances: the lack of opportunities for, and expectations of, large and controversial policy change.     

Liberal Democrat Leadership: The Cases of Ashdown and Kennedy

Effective leadership of the Liberal Democrats requires a combination of strengths: communications skills, a clear agenda, the ability to manage the party and personal abilities, including stamina, self-confidence and a love for the party itself. This article assesses Paddy Ashdown's and Charles Kennedy's periods as leader. It concludes that the first two phases of Ashdown's leadership were successful: he first ensured the party's survival and then positioned it so that it was able to benefit from the rise in support for the centre-left without being squeezed out by Labour. In the third phase, however, the attempt to deliver a common agenda with Labour was a failure, and Ashdown increasingly lost touch with his own party. Kennedy's first two years as leader were also relatively successful, but after that his leadership fell apart, suffering from a lack of an agenda, a failure of party management, a weakness in communication skills and a lack of self-confidence. His underlying problem was not alcoholism; it was that he was not capable of being an effective leader.     

New Institutionalism and Minority Protection in the National Legislatures of Finland and Denmark

The individual camps within the new institutionalist paradigm generally argue that every political actor operates within a specific framework of opportunities and that the physical environment in which bargaining takes place is very important to understanding political outcomes. This article uses three of the new institutionalisms to answer two important questions concerning minority‐protecting institutions in the national constitutions of Denmark (Article 42) and Finland (Section 66). First, why were such institutions developed? Second, why were these institutions ultimately removed in Finland, but not in Denmark? For both countries, it is argued in this article that historical and discursive institutionalism are useful for understanding why such protections were originally considered necessary by particular political groups in society: the rise of socialism during the late twentieth and early twenty‐first centuries compelled non‐reformist parties to push strongly for constitutional change that would legalize powerful procedural tools that could delay and potentially reverse policy decisions passed in parliament. However, the article invokes rational choice institutionalism to explain why the outcomes in terms of the use of such institutions differed over time in the two countries: differences concerning the scope and timing of the relevant procedures compelled opposition parties to utilize them differently. As a result, the legislative process was often stalemated in Finland (and the procedures were subsequently removed in 1992), while in Denmark, the procedures contributed to a parliamentary culture based on consensus and pre‐legislative bargaining and hence, still remain.     

Different governments,similar agendas? Analyzing more than seven decades of Norwegian policy agendas presented in executive speeches

Norwegian politics have undergone significant changes since 1945. This paper analyzes over seven decades of policy agendas outlined in Norwegian executive speeches focusing on the composition and development of the agenda using categories from the Comparative Agendas Project. The analysis focuses on (a) the dynamics of agenda changes over time, (b) the diversity and distribution of attention, and (c) in how far external shocks or partisan factors drive major agenda shifts. Our results show that the Norwegian executive agenda has become more encompassing over time, that it is comparatively diverse, and that diversity increases as Norwegian politics becomes more complex. While there is generally a high degree of stability in the agenda, sudden punctuations also occur. Partisan factors only play a limited role in explaining these attention shifts, while external shocks seem to be more relevant.     

On Measuring Legislative Agenda‐Setting Power

We propose a typology for measuring agenda‐setting success and failure in a legislative context. Our typology goes beyond the most commonly used measure (“rolls”) and includes the full range of agenda‐setting outcomes—rolls (opposing a proposal that subsequently passes), as well as “blocks” (opposing a proposal that is subsequently defeated), “successes” (supporting a proposal that subsequently passes), and “disappointments” (supporting a proposal that is subsequently defeated)—and thus takes into account instances of both positive and negative agenda power. We discuss these measures, and the theoretical questions surrounding them, with the hope of providing some guidance to scholars of the U.S. House, as well as those analyzing agenda power in other legislatures. As a first step in this direction, we explore variation in agenda‐setting measures in 85 American state legislative chambers, the Mexican Chamber of Deputies, and the Canadian House of Commons.     

Australian Rural Local Governments and Environmental Sustainability: An Evaluation of Progress

Local government is often characterised as being well-placed to enact a successful agenda for environmental sustainability because of its closeness to both people and the environment. The purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which this assumption is correct in terms of local government environmental policies and programs in rural Australia. Using case studies with eight local government authorities in Queensland and New South Wales, the article documents three different positions on a continuum of environmental engagement. These are 'disengaged', 'moving towards engagement' and 'engaged'. The article concludes by arguing that the resource constraints facing rural local councils limit their capacity to engage with environmental management.     

Covid-19 and the Blunders of our Governments: Long-run System Failings Aggravated by Political Choices

More urgently than ever we need an answer to the question posed by the late Mick Moran in The Political Quarterly nearly two decades ago: ‘if government now invests huge resources in trying to be smart why does it often act so dumb?’. We reflect on this question in the context of governmental responses to Covid-19 in four steps. First, we argue that blunders occur because of systemic weaknesses that stimulate poor policy choices. Second, we review and assess the performance of governments on Covid-19 across a range of advanced democracies. Third, in the light of these comparisons we argue that the UK system of governance has proved itself vulnerable to failure at the time when its citizens most needed it. Finally, we outline an agenda of reform that seeks to rectify structural weaknesses of that governance capacity.     

The paradox of politics and policy in redistributing income

With political ideology with respect to the income distribution measured by proxy as the fraction of conservative coalition victories, it is found that over the period 1961–1984 the degree of conservative coalition strength is positively associated with changes in inequality, holding the effects of unemployment and inflation constant.A natural question is why don't the low income types vote in candidates who will consistently redistribute income in their favor? The result of such a political process would be a downward trend in income inequality. In point of fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of any trend in income equality over the period. The answer to both questions may be that Tullock (1983, 1986) is on to something. If the middle class voters transfer gains back and forth, the poor can't gain and they don't, then the distribution should be stable and is.     

Parties, media, the public and the economy: Patterns of societal agenda-setting

Abstract. The aim of this study is to assess the relative strength of the reciprocal causal relationships between the political agenda (the party agenda), the mass media agenda and the public agenda. Although the research literature is rather confusing and inconclusive, three causal patterns have often been suggested. The economic theory of representative democracy ('public choice' theory) assumes bottom-up agenda-setting. The political agenda is assumed to respond to the public agenda. However, theories on political communication suggest top-down agenda-setting. The political agenda would set the media agenda, which in turn would set the public agenda. The central tenet of mediacracy theory is the proposition that the media agenda sets both the public agenda and the political agenda. This article uses data on economic issues in the Netherlands in the period 1980–1986 and linear structural equations models to test these three causal patterns. The results warrant both bottom-up and top-down agenda-setting, but the mediacracy model is rejected. The conclusion should be that the economic theory of democracy, which prevails in the political science journals, has to incorporate findings from political communication research.     

Too close to home: Dioxin contamination of breast milk and the political agenda

Both the Canadian and U.S. governments have determined that breast-fed infants are among the populations most exposed to dioxins, receiving levels of exposure orders of magnitude above those considered acceptable. In light of the political controversy associated with dioxins and the cultural significance of breast milk as a symbol of purity, one might have expected dioxin contamination of breast milk to achieve prominence on both the popular and governmental agendas. Yet as this article demonstrates, this issue has received less media and governmental attention than other environmental issues believed to present comparable or lower health risks. Consistent with recent literature on agenda denial strategies, there is some evidence that efforts by environmental groups to publicize levels of breast milk contamination have been rebuffed by government officials, physicians, and breastfeeding advocacy groups fearful that women will stop breastfeeding. However, what is more striking is just how seldom environmentalists have attempted to reframe this issue. The article argues that North American environmentalists have consciously chosen not to press the dramatic issue of breast milk contamination out of concern that mothers would discontinue breastfeeding, as well as personal anxiety about an issue that fundamentally challenges conceptions of our own bodies and our relationships with our children. Their self-restraint challenges the depiction by some authors of environmental groups as eager to capitalize on any opportunity to provoke public concern and outrage to advance their agenda. The case study also suggests that the literature on agenda setting must look beyond active strategies of agenda denial by economically and politically powerful interests, to the role of shared cultural values in shaping – and restricting – the political agenda.     

FLYING BLIND? EVIDENCE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM AGENDAS,IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES IN LOW INCOME COUNTRIES

Although considerable resources and attention have been allocated to recent ‘good governance’ public management reform in low income and fragile states, there is little evidence as to what degree this agenda has been implemented nor as to whether it has led to improved services and outcomes for populations. To address this lacuna, we conduct a review of the large but almost entirely qualitative literature on good governance reform in the 49 countries classed as low income by the United Nations. We find only a small number of documents that link good governance public sector reform agendas with implementation. Fewer still assess outcome. We conduct an empirical analysis of the relationship between reform agenda (using data from the literature review), implementation, service delivery and outcomes, as measured by performance on Millennium Development Goals indicators. We report that there is little, if any, empirical evidence that reform enhances service delivery. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy

What makes a well‐functioning governmental crisis management system, and how can this be studied using an organization theory–based approach? A core argument is that such a system needs both governance capacity and governance legitimacy. Organizational arrangements as well as the legitimacy of government authorities will affect crisis management performance. A central argument is that both structural features and cultural context matter, as does the nature of the crisis. Is it a transboundary crisis? How unique is it, and how much uncertainty is associated with it? The arguments are substantiated with empirical examples and supported by a literature synthesis, focusing on public administration research. A main conclusion is that there is no optimal formula for harmonizing competing interests and tensions or for overcoming uncertainty and ambiguous government structures. Flexibility and adaptation are key assets, which are constrained by the political, administrative, and situational context. Furthermore, a future research agenda is indicated.     

‘No politics in the agenda-setting meeting’: plenary agenda setting in the Netherlands

The process of agenda setting is fundamental to politics, yet there is surprisingly little research about this process in parliamentary systems. The reason for this lacuna is that agenda setting tends to occur behind closed doors. The Dutch Tweede Kamer is an exception to this rule: decisions about the parliamentary agenda are made in public. This study examines agenda setting in the Dutch parliament from an issue-competition perspective. It looks at a sample of more than 400 agenda-setting meetings of the Dutch parliament between 1998 and 2017. It finds that opposition parties which stand far from the government make proposals on issues that they ‘own’; these proposals are supported by other opposition parties, parties that stand close to them and focus on the same issue. Coalition parties and parties that stand far away sabotage these proposals.