Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:41:26.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynamics of Foreign Policy Agenda Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

B. Dan Wood  and
Jeffrey S. Peake
B. Dan Wood
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Jeffrey S. Peake
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theoretical and empirical work on public policy agenda setting has ignored foreign policy. We develop a theory of foreign policy agenda setting and test the implications using time-series vector autoregression and Box-Tiao (1975) impact assessment methods. We theorize an economy of attention to foreign policy issues driven by issue inertia, events external to U.S. domestic institutions, as well as systemic attention to particular issues. We also theorize that the economy of attention is affected by a law of scarcity and the rise and fall of events in competing issue areas. Using measures of presidential and media attention to the Soviet Union, Arab-Israeli conflict, and Bosnian conflict, we show that presidential and media attentions respond to issue inertia and exogenous events in both primary and competing issue areas. Media attention also affects presidential attention, but the president does not affect issue attention by the media.

Type
Research Note
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 92 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 173 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1998 

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, James E. 1978. Public Policymaking: An Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. “Politicians and the Press: Who Leads, Who Follows?” Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bond, Doug, and Bond, Joe. 1995. “Protocol for the Assessment of Nonviolent Direct Action (PANDA) Codebook for the P24 data set.” Harvard University working paper.Google Scholar
Bosso, Christopher J. 1987. Pesticides and Politics: The Life Cycle of a Public Issue. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Bosso, Christopher J. 1989. “Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and the Discovery of the Famine in Ethiopia.” In Manipulating Public Opinion, ed. Margoles, M. and Mauser, G.. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
Box, George E. P., and Tiao, George C.. 1975. “Intervention Analysis with Applications to Economic and Environmental Problems.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 70(03):70–9.Google Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hinckley, Barbara. 1992. Follow the Leader. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, Roger W., and Elder, Charles D.. 1972. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Bernard. 1963. The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1995. “Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda.” American Journal of Political Science 39(02):87–107.Google Scholar
Doherty, Caroll J. 1993. The Reluctant Warriors. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 13(02):323.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1972. “Up and Down with Ecology—The Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public Interest 28(Winter):38–50.Google Scholar
Edwards, George C. III, Mitchell, William, and Welch, Reed. 1995. “Explaining Presidential Approval: The Significance of Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 39(02):108–34.Google Scholar
Edwards, George C. III, and Wood, B. Dan. 1997. “Who Influences Whom? The President, the Media, and the Public Agenda.” Presented at the 1997 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., Wood, B. Dan, and Bohte, John. 1995. “Policy Attention in a System of Separated Powers: The Dynamics of American Agenda Setting.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago.Google Scholar
Freeman, John R., Williams, John T., and Lin, Tse-min. 1989. “Vector Autoregression and the Study of Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 33(11):842–77.Google Scholar
Glick, Henry. 1992. The Right to Die. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, Clive W. J. 1969. “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Models.” Econometrica 37(07):424–38.Google Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara. 1994. Less than Meets the Eye: Foreign Policy Making and the Myth of the Assertive Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. 1977. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 1994. Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Judge, George G., Griffiths, W. E., Hill, R. Carter, Lutkepohl, Helmut, and Lee, Tsoung-Chao. 1988. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Lindsay, James M. 1994. Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Light, Paul. 1991. The President's Agenda. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard. 1960. Presidential Power. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy, and Hogwood, Brian W.. 1985. “In Search of the Issue-Attention Cycle.” Journal of Politics 47(02):239–53.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall B., and Franklin, Grace A.. 1991. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy. 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall B., and Lindsay, James M.. 1993. “How Congress Influences Foreign and Defense Policy.” In Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill, ed. Ripley, Randall B. and Lindsay, James M.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. 1989. The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Philip A., and Gerner, Deborah J.. 1994. “Validity Assessment of a Machine Coded Data Set for the Middle East, 1982–1992.” American Journal of Political Science 38(08):825–54.Google Scholar
Simms, Christopher A. 1980. “Macroeconomics and Reality.” Econometrica 48(01):1–48.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1947. Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1993. “Congressional Party Leaders in the Foreign and Defense Policy Arena.” In Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill, ed. Ripley, Randall B. and Lindsay, James M.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tyndall, Andrew. 1995. “The Tyndall Report.” Transmission on September 25, 1995, dealing with coverage of the O. J. Simpson trial.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1977. “Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate.” British Journal of Political Science 7(10):423–45.Google Scholar
Wittkopf, Eugene R. 1990. Faces of Internationalism, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.