Agenda Setting in the Policy Process: September 11 Case Study
This paper examines agenda setting as the first stage of the democratic policy-making process. Drawing on foundational scholars such as Cobb and Elder, Kingdon, Bachrach and Baratz, and Weiss, the paper defines the two types of agendas — the systematic (public) agenda and the institutional (governmental) agenda — and explores how issues compete for governmental attention. It then applies these concepts to the September 11 terrorist attacks, analyzing the extent to which those events influenced policy change. The paper argues that while the attacks opened a "window of opportunity," Congress had already incorporated terrorism into the policy stream, and the apparent surge in policy interest was driven largely by media attention rather than a genuine governmental discovery of a new problem.
- Introduction: The Policy Process and Agenda Setting: Overview of policy process complexity and agenda setting
- Defining Agenda Setting: Cobb and Elder's two agenda types defined
- Evaluating Agenda Setting in the Policy Process: Issue competition, nondecision-making, and Kingdon's window of opportunity
- September 11 and the Window of Opportunity: How 9/11 influenced — and revealed limits of — policy change
- Conclusion and Synthesis: Theory and case study findings synthesized
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds abstract policy theory in a concrete, high-profile historical event — the September 11 attacks — making theoretical concepts immediately accessible and relevant.
- It correctly distinguishes between the two types of agendas identified by Cobb and Elder, demonstrating precision in applying foundational terminology.
- The counterintuitive conclusion — that Congress was already addressing terrorism before 9/11 and that media attention inflated the perception of policy change — shows genuine analytical depth rather than surface-level description.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a case-study application technique: it first establishes theoretical definitions and frameworks, then tests those frameworks against a real-world event. This deductive structure allows the student to demonstrate comprehension of policy theory while also exercising critical judgment about how well the theory explains actual events.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a theoretical introduction referencing Kingdon's streams model, moves into a definitional section on agenda setting using Cobb and Elder, then critically evaluates agenda-setting dynamics including nondecision-making (Bachrach and Baratz) and the "window of opportunity" concept (Kingdon). The September 11 section applies these ideas to a specific case, and the paper closes with a synthesis that ties together theory and case. A separate references list and detailed footnote-style citation list follow the body.
Introduction: The Policy Process and Agenda Setting
The crafting of a new policy is not an easy task. This is especially true in the democratic policy-making process, wherein more than one participant has a say in the formulation of a particular policy. Due to seemingly endless negotiations, the result of one stage does not define the results of the stages that follow.
The main reason for this is that the policy process is largely defined by events, and events do not unfold in neat and sequential stages. As Kingdon (1984) argues, "independent streams flow through the system at once… participants do not first identify problems and then seek solutions for them… advocacy of solutions often precedes the highlighting of problems to which they become attached."
Thus, many of the traditional theories of policy making have been accused of being "too catholic in their disciplinary sources, yet overly narrow in their focus as they address real problems of the world rather than intellectual puzzles of political science." Furthermore, of the many problems or issues that garner enough public support, only a few of them fall into the government's hands or reach the stage of agenda setting.
As Polsby (1984) asked, "Where do new public policies come from?" Accordingly, this paper describes the first stage of the policy process — initiation or agenda setting — and discusses the events of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the extent of their influence on policy change.
Defining Agenda Setting
How does one define "agenda setting"? In general terms, agenda setting is seen as "issue definition, interest group activity, and the consequences for policy formulation of a growing voting public."
Cobb and Elder (1972) view agenda as "a general set of political controversies that will be viewed at any point in time as falling within the range of legitimate concerns meriting the attention of the polity." As pioneers of research on agenda setting, Cobb and Elder have also identified two different types of agendas: the systematic or public agenda and the institutional, governmental, or formal agenda.
The first type — the systematic or public agenda — includes all the issues that are considered important and worthy of attention by members of the political community. It concerns itself with matters that fall within the rightful jurisdiction of existing governmental authority. Cobb and Elder state that this type of agenda consists of items that:
(1) Receive widespread attention or at least awareness;
(2) Are believed to require some type of action by a large share of the public; and,
(3) Are believed by the public to be an appropriate concern of some governmental unit and fall within the bounds of its authority.
The second type is the governmental or institutional agenda. This agenda includes all items that are openly up for the active and serious consideration of policy makers. Clearly, even if a certain policy makes it to the systematic or public agenda, it does not mean that it will make it to the governmental or institutional agenda. In other words, issues or policy problems are matters of definition and not simply a priori givens.
Evaluating Agenda Setting in the Policy Process
At any given time, the same issue may have different meanings for different people. The same problem may be viewed differently and hold more or less significance to one person than another. More than mere facts, values and beliefs play a major role in the government's decision about which issues deserve its attention.
In an arena where the number of issues far exceeds the capacity of governmental institutions to process them all, issues tend to compete against each other for a spot on the government's agenda. An agreement is usually reached through compromise. However, the final word comes from the government, and the result of the conflict is often not what was initially envisioned by advocates — or, worse, the problem may not be acted upon by decision-making authorities at all.
Why is this so? Bachrach and Baratz (1963) assert that the other side of decision-making is "nondecision-making." There are certain issues that are not taken into consideration by the government because of a number of factors: "dominant values, accepted rules of the game, existing power relations among groups, and instruments of force." One or a combination of these factors exerts great influence in the decision-making process.
Weiss (1989) pointed out that policy problems grab the attention of the public at given times and places. Nevertheless, no matter how large or pressing the issue may be, it will eventually lose its urgency over time and will be replaced by a new issue that government institutions must then address. The public, the news media, and even policymakers eventually lose interest in problems that were once at the top of the agenda.
John Kingdon (1995) notes that the "window of opportunity" is fleeting when it comes to policy change. Issues must be seized upon quickly, or the moment passes and the problem recedes from the active agenda.
Conclusion and Synthesis
As seen throughout this paper, the same issue may have different meanings to different people at different times. Such issues may be more important to some, at a certain time, than to others. The variation in interpretation contributes largely to agenda setting and policy change. In the case of the September 11 terrorist attacks and Americans' hopes for greater policy change, Congress was already aware of the problem and was already taking steps to address it. This was overshadowed by the increased interest of the media due to the public's alarmed discovery of a preexisting problem, which was already included in the policy stream.
Agenda setting can be summarized as problem definition, interest group activity, and the decision or non-decision making by the government. Agenda setting has two types: the systematic or public agenda and the institutional or governmental agenda. In the end, one or a combination of factors leads to policy change, as the same issue may mean different things to the public and to those in government at any given time. Many issues compete with each other for the government's attention, and the definition of a problem does not automatically make it a governmental priority.
In the case of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the American public was hoping for greater policy change. The threat of terrorism was suddenly revealed to many citizens. However, Congress was already aware of the problem and was already taking steps to address it. This fact was overshadowed by the increased media interest driven by the public's alarmed discovery of a preexisting problem that was already included in the policy stream.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.