Winnowing in Environmental Policy: Jurisdictional Challenges and Opportunities
First published: 16 April 2008
Abstract
While scholars developed an understanding of the processes moving issues from the systemic to the institutional agenda, we know little about the inner workings of the institutional agenda. Winnowing theory addresses this gap by examining the leadership, bill sponsor, and contextual factors helping bills move through the institutional agenda. By expanding winnowing theory to incorporate a fragmented policy domain, the environment, we find that multiple referral status actually helps a bill's chances of receiving attention and passing through the committee.
References
- Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9781139173513 Google Scholar
-
Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting.
Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.
10.1017/S0143814X98000038 Google Scholar
- Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.
- Cobb, R., Ross, J. K., & Ross, M. H. (1976). Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review, 70(1), 126–38.
- Esty, D. C., & Chertow, M. R. (1997). Thinking ecologically: An introduction. In M. R. Chertow & D. C. Esty (Eds.) Thinking ecologically: The next generation of environmental policy (pp. 1–18). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Gaddie, R. K., & Regens, J. L. (1999). Regulating wetlands protection: Environmental federalism and the american states. Albany: SUNY Press.
- Gilmour, R. (1973). Political barriers to a national policy. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 31(2), 183–94.
- Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520–43.
- Hardin, J. W. (1998). Advocacy versus certainty: The dynamics of committee jurisdiction. Journal of Politics, 60(2), 374–97.
-
King, D. C. (1997). Turf wars: How congressional committees claim jurisdiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226436265.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
- Kraft, M. E. (1989). Congress and environmental policy. In J. P. Lester (Ed.), Environmental politics and policy: Theories and evidence (pp. 168–205). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- Krutz, G. S. (2005). Issues and institutions: “Winnowing” in the U.S. Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 313–26.
- Lasswell, H. D. (1971). From fragmentation to configuration. Policy Sciences, 2, 439–46.
- May, P. J., Sapotichne, J., & Workman, S. (2006). Policy coherence and policy domains. Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), 381–403.
- Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- McCool, D. (1989). Subgovernments and the impact of policy fragmentation and accomodation. Policy Studies Review, 8(4), 264–87.
-
Michaels, S., & Furuseth, O. J. (1997). Innovation in environmental policy: The national environmental policy act of the us and the resource management act of New Zealand.
Environmentalist, 17, 181–90.
10.1023/A:1018520521124 Google Scholar
- Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–70.
- Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–83.
- Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040–67.
- Norton, B. G. (1991). Toward unity among environmentalists. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Portney, K. E. (1992). Controversial issues in environmental policy: Science vs. economics vs. politics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
10.4135/9781483325866 Google Scholar
- Powers, C. W., & Chertow, M. R. (1997). Industrial ecology: Overcoming policy fragmentation. In M. R. Chertow & D. C. Esty (Eds.), Thinking ecologically: The next generation of environmental policy (pp. 19–36). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Rabe, B. G. (1986). Fragmentation and integration in state environmental management. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.
- Rabe, B. G., & Zimmerman, J. B. (1995). Beyond environmental regulatory fragmentation: Signs of integration in the case of the great lakes basin. Governance, 8(1), 58–77.
- Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1993). Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 21(1), 56–71.
- Rosenbaum, W. A. (1998). Environmental politics and policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
-
Rothenberg, L. S. (2002). Environmental choices: Policy responses to green demands. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
10.4135/9781483345208 Google Scholar
- Scheberle, D. (1994). Radon and asbestos: A study of agenda setting and causal stories. Policy Studies Journal, 22(1), 74–86.
- Talbert, J. C., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (1995). Nonlegislative hearings and policy change in congress. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 383–405.
- Torgerson, D. (1997). Policy professionalism and the voice of dissent: The case of environmentalism. Polity, 29(3), 345–74.
- Walker, J. L. (1977). Setting the agenda in the U.S. Senate: A theory of problem selection. British Journal of Political Science, 7(4), 423–45.
- Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences, 22, 97–121.
- Yaffee, S. L. (1997). Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conservation Biology, 11(2), 328–37.
