Testing models of agenda building

One of the problems of the policy process literature is that it is descriptive nature. Recent literature on agenda building suggests that there is a new phase of empirical testing of policy process concepts. This article seeks to further that literature by testing two alternative conceptions of agenda building, models developed by Cobb and Elder, and by Kingdon. The article reviews the recent empirical literature and outlines the two models. It then employs frequency distributions of articles in The New York Times and congressional hearings to test the models using three case studies. The case studies are acid deposition, stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate warming. The analysis concludes that the Kindgon model better explains agenda building in these three cases. The article suggest further research is needed to expand the analysis

Health care politics and policy in America

xx, 290 p. ; 24 cm

Natural Scientists, Social Scientists, and the Environment: A Cross Border Analysis

This study uses interviews with 64 Canadian and 65 United States scientists to compare and contrast their perspectives with respect to environmental policy making across borders, both geographic (Canada versus United States) and disciplinary (natural versus social science). The findings indicate that important imbalances remain between Canadian and United States scientists\u27 perceptions about cross-border pollution. There appears to be a great divergence between the responses of natural and social scientists in the United States and a robust similarity between the responses of natural and social scientists in Canada. In the end, the results support the view that issues centered on the Canada-United States environmental borderlands remain firmly linked to national differences and issues centered on the science-policy linkage remain substantially linked to disciplinary differences