Agenda Setting in Political Decision-Making
K. Jonathan Klüser
Marco Radojevic
Abstract
Research on policy agendas and agenda-setting has developed into an important subdiscipline of
comparative politics, which seeks to understand how political actors allocate scarce attention. The
theoretical origins of the field describe agenda-setting as a “conflict of conflicts,” that is the
political struggle over the question of which issues receive attention. Modern scholars have
expanded on these ideas and turned them into important theoretical models of the agenda-setting
process. The most influential of these models are Kingdon’s multiple streams approach and
Baumgartner and Jones’ punctuated equilibrium theory. The former analyses the emergence of issues in
the separate streams of policies, politics, and problems, whose coupling is necessary for any issue
in order to be considered for political decision-making. In contrast, the latter stresses the
importance of negative and positive feedback mechanisms in order to explain long periods of
incremental policy change and sudden radical changes, which characterize the policy process.
Inspired by the second approach is the Comparative Agendas Project, which is a comprehensive and
comparative data collection effort about policy agendas using a unified taxonomy. These data enable
scholars to research the entire political process from media inputs via government throughput to
legislative output. Studying governmental agendas, it is paramount to stress that—against common
wisdom—political ideology does not play a decisive role in the agenda-setting process. Rather, both
leftist and rightist governments seek to portray themselves as potent problem-solvers and respond to
problematic societal condition in order to prove their competence. Looking at the media as one
potentially powerful political agenda-setter, it turns out that newspapers and television channels'
power to steer the political agenda hinges on a variety of conditions. Generally, media outlets are
most successful in setting the agenda if they report on issues that otherwise would not have been
brought to the public’s attention. But even then, the media’s role appears to be restricted to
narrowing down the issue menu from which politicians can choose when setting their agenda. The study
of political agendas is by no means limited to these areas, as shown by the hundreds of articles
that have been published in major political science journals over the past decades. While the agenda
approach has not yet developed into a theory of politics, it has certainly become a major
subdiscipline of comparative politics, which has helped make sense of the political world.
Type
Publication
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
Status
Peer-reviewed

Authors
K. Jonathan Klüser
(he/him)
Political Scientist
I study how political institutions, media, and digital platforms allocate attention —
which problems get taken up, who has the power to force an issue onto the agenda, and
what happens to democratic representation when that power shifts outside elected
institutions. My research spans three connected strands: executive institutions and
bureaucratic capacity, representation and economic inequality in party systems, and the
digital reallocation of attention through influencers, platform governance, and
deepfakes. I hold a PhD in Political Science from Aarhus University and currently lead
an SNSF Ambizione project at the University of Zurich.