Agenda building describes the ongoing process by which various groups attempt to transfer their interests to be the interests of public policymakers. Conceptualized as a political science theory by Cobb and Elder in 1971, "the agenda-building perspective...alerts us to the importance of the environing social processes in determining what occurs at the decision-making stage and what types of policy outcomes will be produced.” It focuses on the relationship between society and policy maker.
Classic democratic theory focused on the assumption that calls on “public policymakers to advance the interests of civically engaged constituents, by an autonomous press” (i.e. classic theory focuses on the policy makers and media), however, it failed to account for points at which larger society of stakeholders could define the range of alternatives available for policy making.
Key Assumptions
Agenda building rests on two primary assumptions (Cobb & Elder):
"Firstly, the attention capabilities of government are necessarily limited. There are always more matters vying for attention than can be actively considered. Secondly, policy problems are not a priori givens but rather are matters of definition. Whether a particular situation or set of circumstances constitutes a problem and is an appropriate matter of "public" concern depends upon not just facts but upon beliefs and values."
Other assumptions include, but are not limited to: Process, not product: Agenda status is frequently fluid, and the status of an issue is developed through an elaborate competition between groups and how they jockey for control the range of issues acceptable for the agenda, either by attempting to force issues onto the agenda or to repel them, and to define and redefine how the issue is portrayed. Competition for attention. Competing actors/groups actively promote an issue or attributes of the issue that favor their interests to obtain the attention of a decision maker. Policy makers can only address what they know and care about. But “signals” from the media, constituents, special interests, etc. come into play, and attempt to alert and inform the policy maker Mutual influence between actors. The influence between actors (press, general public, issue publics, interest groups, elites, decision makers) does not flow in one direction, rather, it's a web of overlapping mutual influences. Different agendas: There are two kinds of agendas: institutional (policy dockets) and systemic (that which merits the attention of the public). More discrepancy between agendas means more societal conflict, as the space between what is important to the public widens between what is being addressed by policymakers. Bias in the sphere of influence. Some groups and individuals have more power to build the agenda. Bias exists because of differences in skills, access, education, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, etc. Elites, for example, generally have more power to influence the agenda. Issues typically stem from small groups. If the group wants to challenge the status quo, it behooves them to expand the issue to the public, or keep it out of the public to avoid attention from the opposition. Issue characteristics. Different issues have different characteristics that impact its place on the agenda, for example, issues that have previously been established enter the agenda with less resistance.
Key Hypotheses
Scholars applying the agenda-building approach to research questions frequently identify the sources of the agenda building and the compare the resulting discourse to the sender's message, whether it is media coverage or policy. For example, Nisbet, Brossard, & Kroepsch, tracked media coverage; results showed that the George W. Bush administration was successful in driving coverage of the stem cell research controversy.
Major Stages
Cobb, Ross & Ross proposed four primary steps in agenda building: Initiation, the issue or controversy must be articulated in some terms. Specification, a stakeholder group makes specific demands (e.g. policy). Expansion, stakeholder groups seek to gain the attention of decision makers and to define the issue in terms favorable to the group. Entrance, when the issue enters the formal agenda of the decision makers.