Setting the Public Agenda

Susan L. Moffitt

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107588141.007

6 - Setting the Public Agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2014

Susan L. Moffitt

Show author details

Susan L. Moffitt: Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island

Book contents

Get access

Summary

FDA has come to realize that safe and effective use of drugs does not mean safe and effective theoretically as in the label, but safe and effective in the real world. FDA is concerned about how drugs are actually used; how physicians use the drugs; how the public uses them; if the medical community understands risks and benefits of the drug, and how to improve this understanding and actual safe and appropriate use of the drugs. This problem is a complex problem that is not solved by government, not solved by FDA alone, and not solved for just one drug

Former FDA Office Director, Florence Houn, before the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee

The development of public committees for national educational assessments and pharmaceutical regulation suggests potential portals for public engagement in agency policymaking. When does that engagement reflect the criteria of participatory bureaucracy consistent with bureaucratic reputation for cultivating unique expertise and diverse support? When does engagement reflect participatory oversight or group dominance? Looking closely at committee agendas allows us to assess task-specific conditions for public advice along the continuum of task uncertainty and interdependent implementations.

Agenda setting embodies a source of political power by determining which issues are open for participation and which are not. Agendas affect who is included in the discussion and who is excluded, and they can confer privilege through the sequence of topics under consideration. Examining agendas on public committees offers opportunities to discern potential sources of privilege and power in agency policymaking. When they succeed at liquefying knowledge, public committees’ agendas may contribute to a broader public agenda as well.

Type: Chapter
Information: Making Policy Public
Participatory Bureaucracy in American Democracy
, pp. 128 - 169

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588141.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S., “Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review (1962): 947–951CrossRef Google Scholar

Walker, Jack L., “Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection,” British Journal of Political Science 7 (1977): 423–445CrossRef Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Advisory Committee Act: Overview of Advisory Committees Since 1993, Statement of L. Nye Stevens (Washington, DC: GAO, 1997), p. 1Google Scholar

Nissen, Steven E., “ADHD Drugs and Cardiovascular Risk,” New England Journal of Medicine 354 (2006): 1445–1448CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kaitin, Kenneth I., Ann Melville, and Betsy Morris, “FDA Advisory Committees and the New Drug Approval Process,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 29 (1989): 886–890CrossRef Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P., “Groups, the Media, Agency Waiting Costs and FDA Drug Approval,” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2002): 490–505CrossRef Google Scholar

Moffitt, Susan L., “Promoting Agency Reputation through Public Advice: Advisory Committee Use in the FDA,”Journal of Politics 72 (2010): 880–893CrossRef Google Scholar

Lavertu, Stéphane and Weimer, David L., “Federal Advisory Committees, Policy Expertise, and the Approval of Drugs and Medical Devices at the FDA,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2011): 211–237CrossRef Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P., “Protection without Capture: Product Approval by a Politically Responsive, Learning Regulator,” American Political Science Review 98 (2004): 613–631CrossRef Google Scholar

Krause, George A., “Coping with Uncertainty: Analyzing Risk Propensities of SEC Budgetary Decisions, 1949–1997,” American Political Science Review 97 (2003): 171–188CrossRef Google Scholar

Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.), The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Press, 2004), pp. 14–17

U.S. General Accounting Office, Educational Achievement Standards: NAGB’s Approach Yields Misleading Interpretations (Washington, DC: GAO, 1993), p. 62Google Scholar

Greenbaum, William, Garet, Michael S., and Solomon, Ellen R., Measuring Educational Progress: A Study of the National Assessment (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977), p. 109Google Scholar

Lehmann, Irvin J., “The Genesis of NAEP,” in The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, edited by Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 2004), p. 27Google Scholar

Gilford, Dorothy, “NAEP and the US Office of Education, 1971–1974,” in The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, edited by Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 2004), p. 170Google Scholar

Bourque, Mary Lyn, “A History of the National Assessment Governing Board,” in The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, edited by Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 2004), p. 219Google Scholar

Kluempke, Gerald, A Descriptive Analysis of the Attitudes, Make-Up, Function, and Utilization of Advisory Councils of the U.S. Department of Education (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 1976), p. 1Google Scholar

Levine, Daniel B., Creating a Center for Education Statistics: A Time for Action (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986), pp. 32–33Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office, The Condition of Information on Education (Washington, DC: GAO, 1986)Google Scholar

Finn, Chester E. Jr., “An Interview with Chester E. Finn, Jr.” in The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, edited by Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 2004), p. 252Google Scholar

Vinovskis, Maris, Overseeing the Nation’s Report Card: The Creation and Evolution of the National Assessment Governing Board (Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1998)Google Scholar

Eldridge, Marie D., “The Status of Advisory Committees to the Federal Statistical Agencies,” The American Statistician 44 (1990): 154–162Google Scholar

Brown, David S., The Public Advisory Board in the Federal Government (Syracuse University, Doctoral Dissertation, 1954), pp. 321–322