Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T15:02:40.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The policy agenda effects of problem indicators: a comparative study in seven countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2022

Thomas Artmann Kristensen Open the ORCID record for Thomas Artmann Kristensen [Opens in a new window] ,
Peter Bjerre Mortensen Open the ORCID record for Peter Bjerre Mortensen [Opens in a new window] ,
Christoffer Green-Pedersen  and
Henrik Bech Seeberg
Thomas Artmann Kristensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
Peter Bjerre Mortensen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
Christoffer Green-Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
Henrik Bech Seeberg
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author. Email: thak@aarhus.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Indicators are important sources of information about problems across many policy areas. However, despite a growing number of indicators across most policy areas, such as health care, business promotion, or environmental protection, we still know little about if, how, and when such indicators affect the policy agenda. This article develops a theoretical answer to these questions and examines the implications using a new large-n dataset with 220,000 parliamentary questions asked by government and opposition MPs in Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. The data contain information on political attention to 17 problems, such as unemployment, C02 emission, and crime from 1960 to 2015. Across this wealth of data, the article demonstrates that politicians respond to the severity and development of problem indicators over time and in comparison to other countries. Results also show that politicians respond much more when problem indicators develop negatively than when they develop positively.

Keywords

benchmarkingindicatorspolicy agendasproblemssocial comparison
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 240 - 260
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Abramowitz, AI (1988) An Improved Model for Predicting Presidential Election Outcomes. PS: Political Science and Politics, 21(4): 843–847.Google Scholar
Alexandrova, P, Rasmussen, A and Toshkov, D (2016) Agenda Responsiveness in the European Council: Public Priorities, Policy Problems and Political Attention. West European Politics, 39(4): 605–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, JR and Raelin, JD (2015) Organizations Don’t Resist Change, People Do: Modeling Individual Reactions to Organizational Change Through Loss and Terror Management. Organization Management Journal, 12(3): 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L and Zaller, J (2001) Presidential Vote Models: A Recount. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34(1): 9–20.Google Scholar
Beck, N and Katz, JN (1995) What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series-Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review, 89(3): 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, N and Katz, JN (2011) Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series-Cross-Section Political Economy Data. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, S (2019) Gone Fishing: The Creation of the Comparative Agendas Project Master Codebook. In Baumgartner, FR, Breunig, C and Grossman, E (eds.), Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, S, Jennings, W and Pickup, M (2018) Problem Detection in Legislative Oversight: An Analysis of Legislative Committee Agendas in the UK and US. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(10): 1560–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghetto, E and Chaqués-Bonafont, L (2019) Parliamentary Questions. In Baumgartner, FR, Breunig, C and Grossman, E (eds.), Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 282–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breakspear, S (2012) The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance. OECD Education Working Papers, 71.Google Scholar
Cobb, R and Elder, C (1983) Participation in American Politics, the Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, RJ, Darrell, DM and McAllister, I (2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, K, Fisher, A, Kingsbury, B and Merry, SE (2012) Governance by Indicators. Global Power through Classification and Rankings. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boef, S and Keele, L (2008) Taking Time Seriously. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1): 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delshad, AB (2012) Revisiting “Who Influences Whom?” Agenda Setting on Biofuels. Congress & the Presidency, 39(2): 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshbaugh-Soha, M and Peake, JS (2005) Presidents and the Economic Agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 38(1): 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L (1954) A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2): 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geer, J (2006) In Defense of Negativity. Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C and Jensen, C (2019) Electoral Competition and the Welfare State. West European Politics, 42(4): 802–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C and Mortensen, PB (2010) Who Sets the Agenda and Who Responds to It in the Danish Parliament? European Journal of Political Research, 49(2): 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C and Stubager, R (2010) The Political Conditionality of Mass Media Influence: When Do Parties Follow Mass Media Attention? British Journal of Political Science, 40(3): 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, KM, Olsen, AL and Bech, M (2015) Cross-National Yardstick Comparisons: A Choice Experiment on a Forgotten Voter Heuristic. Political Behavior, 37(4): 767–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, BW (2008) Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Public Policy, 3(2): 101–108.Google Scholar
Jenner, E (2012) News Photographs and Environmental Agenda Setting. Policy Studies Journal, 40(2): 274–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, W and John, P (2009) The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4): 838–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, BD and Baumgartner, FR (2005) The Politics of Attention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, BD, Larsen-Price, H and Wilkerson, J (2009) Representation and American Governing Institutions. Journal of Politics, 71(1): 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayser, MA and Peress, M (2012) Benchmarking across Borders: Electoral Accountability and the Necessity of Comparison. American Political Science Review, 106(3): 661–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, JD and Simmons, BA (2015) Politics by Numbers: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, JW (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M and Paldam, M (2000) Economic Voting: An Introduction. Electoral Studies, 19(2–3): 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M and Stegmaier, M (2007) Economic models of voting. In Dalton, R and Klingemann, HD (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, X, Lindquist, E and Vedlitz, A (2009) Explaining Media and Congressional Attention to Global Climate Change, 1969–2005: An Empirical Test of Agenda-Setting Theory. Political Research Quarterly, 64(2): 405–419.Google Scholar
Manin, B, Przeworski, A and Stokes, SC (1999) Elections and Representation. In Przeworski, A, Stokes, SC and Manin, B (eds.), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J (2003). Rethinking Representation. The American Political Science Review, 97(4): 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, M and Tilley, J (2009) The Attribution of Credit and Blame to Governments and Its Impact on Vote Choice. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1): 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, PB, Loftis, M and Seeberg, HB (2022) Explaining Local Policy Agendas. Institutions, Problems, Elections, and Actors. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mügge, D (2016) Studying Macroeconomic Indicators as Powerful Ideas. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3): 410–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nannestad, P and Paldam, M (1997) The Grievance Asymmetry Revisited: A Micro Study of Economic Voting in Denmark, 1986–1992. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(1): 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, E, Plümper, T and Epifanio, M (2014) The “Peer-Effect” in Counterterrorist Policies. International Organization, 68(1): 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardos-Prado, S (2012) Valence beyond Consensus: Party Competence and Policy Dispersion from a Comparative Perspective. Electoral Studies, 31(2): 342–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardos-Prado, S and Sagarzazu, I (2019) Economic Responsiveness and the Political Conditioning of the Electoral Cycle. Journal of Politics, 81(2): 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, GB (2005) The Problem of Policy Problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 7(4): 349–370.Google Scholar
Rochefort, DA and Cobb, RW (1994) The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Rozin, P and Royzman, EB (2001) Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4): 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeberg, HB (2016) How Stable Is Political Parties’ Issue Ownership? A Cross-Time, Cross-National Analysis. Political Studies, 65(2): 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeberg, HB (2017) What can a Government do? Government Issue Ownership and Real-World Problems. European Journal of Political Research, 56(2): 346–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeberg, HB (2018) The Impact of Opposition Criticism on the Public’s Evaluation of Government Competence. Party Politics, 26(4): 484–495.Google Scholar
Soroka, SN (2002) Issue Attributes and Agenda-Setting by Media, the Public, and Policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3): 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, SN (2006) Good News and Bad News: Asymmetric Responses to Economic Information. Journal of Politics, 68(2): 372–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, SN, Stecula, D and Wlezien, C (2015) It’s (Change in) the (Future) Economy, Stupid: Economic Indicators, the Media, and Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2): 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, DE (1963) Spatial Models of Party Competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2): 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D (1998) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Traber, D, Schoonvelde, M and Schumacher, G (2019) Errors Have Been Made, Others Will be Blamed: Issue Engagement and Blame Shifting in Prime Minister Speeches during the Economic Crisis in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 59(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, S and Arriagada, A (2011) Politics without Citizens? Public Opinion, Television News, the President, and Real-World Factors in Chile, 2000–2005. International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(3): 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Noije, L, Kleinnijenhuis, J and Oegema, D (2008) Loss of Parliamentary Control Due to Mediatization and Europeanization: A Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Analysis of Agenda Building in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. British Journal of Political Science, 38(3): 455–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vliegenthart, R and Mena Montes, N (2014) How Political and Media System Characteristics Moderate Interactions between Newspapers and Parliaments: Economic Crisis Attention in Spain and the Netherlands. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3): 318–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vliegenthart, R and Walgrave, S (2011) Content Matters: The Dynamics of Parliamentary Questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies, 44(8): 1031–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vliegenthart, R, Walgrave, S and Zicha, B (2013) How Preferences, Information and Institutions Interactively Drive Agenda-Setting: Questions in the Belgian Parliament, 1993–2000. European Journal of Political Research, 52(3): 390–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vliegenthart, R, Walgrave, S, Baumgartner, FR, Bevan, S, Breunig, C, Brouard, S, Bonafont, LC, Grossman, E, Jennings, W, Mortensen, PB, Palau, AM, Sciarini, P and Tresch, A (2016) Do the Media Set the Parliamentary Agenda? A Comparative Study in Seven Countries. European Journal of Political Research, 55(2): 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walgrave, S and Dejaeghere, Y (2017) Surviving Information Overload: How Elite Politicians Select Information. Governance, 30(2): 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kristensen et al. supplementary material

Kristensen et al. supplementary material

Download Kristensen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 68.4 KB