1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 26, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 26, 2023

Agenda Democracy

Abstract

The study of agenda setting has become curiously disconnected from democratic theory and democratization. Following Schattschneider, Dahl, and recent developments in political theory, I call for its reintegration in theoretical and empirical realms. The concept of agenda democracy allows for better understanding of contests over institutions, significant historical-institutional transformations, the study of inequality and its mechanisms of generation and maintenance, and the building and undermining of democracy. Agenda democracy requires a broad understanding of agendas (beyond a mere menu of final policy choices), recognizes that many democratic regimes have institutions that systematically render agendas nondemocratic, and compels us to look at the interstices of institutions and society (party transformation, petition and grievance mechanisms, advocacy campaigns, initiatives to expand what I call the shortlist of the possible) for moments of significant change. Agenda democracy compels the examination of democratizing agenda restrictions, the study of conservative organizations in politics, and the consideration of decomposing the term “movement.”

Keyword(s): advocacy, agenda setting, agendas, democracy, petitions, social movements
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102533
2023-06-15
2024-06-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/26/1/annurev-polisci-051921-102533.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102533&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson J 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmed S. 2021. Complaint! Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen D. 2004. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen D. 2016. Education and Equality Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Amenta E, Caren N, Chiarello E, Su Y. 2010. The political consequences of social movements. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36:287–307
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ansell CK. 2001. Schism and Solidarity in Social Movements: The Politics of Labor in the French Third Republic New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Arrington C. 2019. Hiding in plain sight: pseudonymity and participation in legal mobilization. Comp. Political Stud. 52:2310–41
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bachrach P, Baratz MS. 1962. The two faces of power. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 56:4947–52
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bailey E. 1979. Popular Influence upon Public Policy: Petitioning in Eighteenth-Century Virginia Greenwood, CT: Greenwood Press
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Banaszak LA. 1996. Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture and the Struggle for Woman Suffrage Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Barber B. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bartels LM. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bateman D, Katznelson I, Lapinski J. 2018. Southern Nation: Congress and White Supremacy after Reconstruction Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. 1993. Agendas and the Instability of American Politics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Blackhawk M, Carpenter D, Resch T, Schneer B. 2021. Congressional representation by petition: assessing the voices of the voteless in a comprehensive new database, 1789–1949. Legis. Stud. Q. 46:817–49
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown C. 2006. Moral Capital: Foundations of British Abolitionism Chapel Hill: Univ. North Carol. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Brown W. 2015. Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Calhoun C, Gaonkar DP, Taylor C 2022. Degenerations of Democracy Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Carpenter D. 2016. Recruitment by petition: American antislavery, French Protestantism, English suppression. Perspect. Politics 14:3700–23
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Carpenter D. 2020. Quand le pétitionnement contribue au façonnage de l'agenda politique: l'abolition de la tenure seigneuriale au Canada français, 1849–1854. Participations 3:28205–19. https://www.cairn.info/revue-participations-2020-3-page-205.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Carpenter D 2021. Democracy by Petition: Popular Politics in Transformation, 1790–1870 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Carpenter D, Brossard D. 2019. L'Éruption patriote: the revolt against Dalhousie and the petitioning explosion in nineteenth-century French Canada. Soc. Sci. Hist. 43:453–85
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Caughey D. 2018. The Unsolid South: Mass Politics and National Representation in a One-Party Enclave Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Chan KN, Zhao S. 2015. Punctuated equilibrium and the information disadvantage of authoritarianism: evidence from the People's Republic of China. Policy Stud. J. 44:2134–55
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Chappell LA. 2002. Gendering Government: Feminist Engagement with the State in Australia and Canada Vancouver: Univ. Br. Columbia Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cicero 1928. (54–51 BC). De Republica and De Legibus transl. C Keyes Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cobb RW, Elder CD. 1971. The politics of agenda-building: an alternative for modern and democratic theory. J. Politics 33:4892–915
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cornfield DB, Fletcher B. 1998. Institutional constraints on social movement ‘frame extension’: shifts in the legislative agenda of the American Federation of Labor, 1881–1955. Soc. Forces 76:41305–21
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dahl R. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dahl R. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dietrich F, List C. 2017. Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: general agendas. Soc. Choice Welfare 48:747–86
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Disch LJ. 2011. Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:1100–14
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Foner E. 1970. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. The Republican Party Before the Civil War New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Forrester K. 2022. Feminist demands and the problem of housework. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 116:41278–92
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Francis MM. 2019. The price of civil rights: black lives, white funding, and movement capture. Law Soc. Rev. 53:1275–309
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Galbraith J. 1952. American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power Boston: Houghton Mifflin
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Gause L. 2022. The Advantage of Disadvantage: Costly Protest and Political Representation for Marginalized Groups New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Gienapp W. 1987. The Rise of the Republican Party, 1852–1856 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Gilens M. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Gillion D. 2020. The Loud Minority: Why Protests Matter in American Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Greenstone JD. 1969. Labor in American Politics New York: Knopf
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Gutmann A, Thompson D. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2011. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class New York: Basic Books
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hall PA. 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comp. Politics 25:3275–96
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hall RL, Deardorff A. 2006. Lobbying as legislative subsidy. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 100:169–84
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hall RL, Wayman FW. 1990. Buying time: moneyed interests and the mobilization of bias in congressional committees. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 84:3797–820
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hansen JM. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hertel-Fernandez A. 2019. State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States—and the Nation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Howarth D, James S 2020. The politics of bank structural reform: business power and agenda setting in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Bus. Politics 22:125–51
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Htun M, Weldon SL. 2012. The civic origins of progressive policy change: combating violence against women in global perspective, 1975–2005. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 106:3548–69
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Jones BD. 1999. Bounded rationality. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2:297–321
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Jones BD, Baumgartner FR. 2011. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems Chicago: Univ Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Jones BD, Epp D, Baumgartner F. 2019a. Democracy, authoritarianism and policy punctuations. Int. Rev. Public Policy 1:17–26
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Jones BD, Larsen-Price H, Wilkerson J. 2009. Representation and American governing institutions. J. Politics 71:1 https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160809018X
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Jones BD, Theriault S, Whyman M. 2019b. The Great Broadening: How the Vast Expansion of the Policymaking Agenda Transformed American Politics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Judge-Lord D. 2021. Public pressure campaigns and bureaucratic policymaking PhD Thesis, Univ. Wisc.–Madison
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Katznelson I. 2013. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time New York: W.W. Norton
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Kingdon J. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies Washington, DC: CQ Press
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Kitschelt H. 1993. Social movements, political parties, and democratic theory. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 528:113–29
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Krawiec KD. 2013. Don't “screw Joe the Plummer”: the sausage-making of financial reform. Ariz. Law Rev. 55:53–103
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Krehbiel K. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Krotoszynski RJ Jr 2012. Reclaiming the Petition Clause: Seditious Libel, “Offensive” Protest, and the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kruks-Wisner G 2018a. Claiming the State: Active Citizenship and Social Welfare in Rural India New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Kruks-Wisner G. 2018b. The pursuit of social welfare: citizen claim-making in rural India. World Politics 70:1122–63
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kruks-Wisner G. 2021. Great expectations, great grievances: the politics of citizens’ complaints in India. Comp. Politics 54:127–64
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Lee T. 2002. Mobilizing Public Opinion: Black Insurgency and Racial Attitudes in the Civil Rights Era Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Levi M. 2003. Organizing power: the prospects for an American labor movement. Persp. Politics 1:145–68
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Libgober BD. 2020. Meetings, comments and the distributive politics of rulemaking. Q. J. Political Sci. 15:449–81
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Lieberman R. 1998. Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Livy 1949. History of Rome Books III–IV, transl. BO Foster Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Lukes S. 1974. Power: A Radical View New York: NYU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Lupia A. 1992. Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 86:390–403
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Macedo S. 2000. Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  75. MacKinnon CK. 1989. Toward a Feminist theory of the State Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Mansbridge J 2018. Recursive representation. Creating Political Presence: The New Politics of Democratic Representation D Castiglione, J Pollak 298–338. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  77. McAdam D, Tarrow S, Tilly C 2001. Dynamics of Contention New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  78. McCombs ME, Shaw DL. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin. Q. 36:176–87
     [Google Scholar]
  79. McConnaughy C. 2013. The Woman Suffrage Movement in America: A Reassessment New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  80. McKinley M. 2018. Petitioning and the making of the administrative state. Yale Law J 127:1538–1637
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Mettler S. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Mickey R. 2015. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America's Deep South, 1944–1972 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Millar F 2002. Rome, the Greek World and the East. Volume I: The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution HM Cotton, GM Rogers Chapel Hill: Univ. North Carol. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Minow M. 2010. In Brown's Wake: Legacies of America's Educational Landmark New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Montesquieu 1951 (1734. Considérations sur Les Causes de la Grandeur des Romain et de Leur Décadence. In Œuvres Complètes, Vol. II69–209. Paris: La Pléiade
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Montesquieu 1951 (1748. De l'Esprit des Lois. In Œuvres Complètes, Vol. II225–995. Paris: La Pléiade
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Pateman C. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Pettit P. 2012. On the People's Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Pralle SB. 2003. Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: the internationalization of Canadian forest advocacy. J. Public Policy 23:3233–60
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Putterman E. 2005. Rousseau on the people as legislative gatekeepers, not framers. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 99:1145–51
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Riker W. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Rodgers D. 1998. Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Romer T, Rosenthal H. 1978. Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public Choice 1978:27–43
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Rosenvallon P. 2006. La Contre-Démocratie: La Politique à l'Âge de la Défiance Paris: Seuil
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Sanders E. 1999. Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers and the American State Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Schattschneider EE. 1975 (1960). The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Schickler E. 2016. Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932–1965 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Schneer B, Resch T, Blackhawk M, Carpenter D. 2022. The popular origins of legislative jurisdictions: petitions and standing committee formation in late colonial Virginia and the early U.S. House. J. Politics 84:31727–45
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Schlozman D. 2015. When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Shapiro I. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Shields J. 2009. The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Simon HA. 1976. Administrative Behavior New York: Free Press. , 3rd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Sinha M. 2016. The Slave's Cause: A New History of Abolition New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Skocpol T. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Skocpol T. 2006. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civil Life Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Skocpol T, Williamson V. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Sulkin T. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Szymanski AME. 2003. Pathways to Prohibition Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Tarrow S. 2022. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 4th ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Thelen K. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Thurston C. 2018. At the Boundaries of Homeownership New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Urbinati N. 2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Vauchez A, France P 2021. The Neoliberal Republic: Corporate Lawyers, Statecraft, and the Making of Public-Private France Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Vizenor G. 2008. Survivance: Narratives of Native Presence Lincoln: Univ. Nebr. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Weingast B 1998. Political stability and civil war: institutions, commitment, and American democracy. Analytic Narratives R Bates, A Greif, M Levi, J-L Rosenthal, BR Weingast 148–93. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Wilentz S. 2003. The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln New York: Norton
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Witko C, Morgan J, Kelly NJ, Enns PK. 2021. Hijacking the Agenda: Economic Power and Political Influence New York: Russell Sage Found.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Woodly D. 2015. The Politics of Common Sense: How Social Movements Use Public Discourse to Change Politics and Win Acceptance New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Woodly D. 2021. Reckoning: Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Necessity of Social Movements Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Zaeske S. 2003. Signatures of Citizenship Chapel Hill: Univ. North Carol. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Zahariadis N. 2016. Setting the agenda on agenda-setting: definitions, concepts and controversies. Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting N Zahariadis 1–22. London: Elgar.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Zaret D. 2000. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Ziblatt Z 2017. Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102533
Loading
Agenda Democracy
Annual Review of Political Science 26, 193 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102533
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102533
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102533
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error