Agenda-setting in nascent policy subsystems: issue and instrument priorities across venues

Author:

Lemke NicoleORCID,Trein PhilippORCID,Varone FrédéricORCID

Abstract

AbstractThe “policy subsystem” has long been a key concept in our understanding of how policies on a given topic are produced. However, we know much less about policymaking in nascent policy subsystems. This article draws on the theories of agenda-setting and venue shopping to argue that the similarity and convergence of policy subsystems’ agendas across different institutional venues and over time are features that distinguish more nascent policy subsystems from their more established, mature counterparts. In simple terms, policy venues’ agendas converge when policy actors begin to discuss the same issues and instruments instead of talking past one another. The article illustrates this argument using textual data on Germany’s emerging Artificial Intelligence (AI) policy: print media debates, parliamentary debates, and a government consultation from the period between November 2017 and November 2019. The insights from our analysis show that actors emphasize somewhat different policy issues and instruments related to AI in different venues. Nevertheless, the longitudinal analysis suggests that the debate does seem to converge across different venues, which indicates the formation of a subsystem-specific policy agenda regarding AI.

Funder

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

University of Lausanne

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,General Social Sciences,Sociology and Political Science,Development

Reference84 articles.

1. Adam, C., Steinebach, Y., & Knill, C. (2018). Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: The problem of policy accumulation. Policy Sciences, 51, 269–290.

2. Agneessens, F., & Everett, M. G. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on advances in two-mode social networks”. Social Networks, 2(35), 145–147.

3. Bandelow, N. C., & Kundolf, S. (2011). Belief systems and the emergence of advocacy coalitions in nascent subsystems: A case study of the European GNSS program Galileo. German Policy Studies, 7(2), 113–139.

4. Baumgartner, F., Breunig, C., & Grossman, E. (2019). Comparative Policy Agendas. Theory, Tools, Data. In F. Baumgartner, C. Breunig, & E. Grossman (Eds.), Theory, Tools, Data. Oxford University Press.

5. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3