Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agenda Setting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Policy Making in Turkey

  • 269 Accesses

Abstract

Agenda setting involves attracting the attention of public officials and the general public to specific public problems in order to determine what to decide on. Who decides what the decision action will be about? The answer to this question shows who determines the agenda. Defining the problems of the society and proposing alternative solutions is one of the most important stages of the policymaking process. Policy agenda, in whatever form, consists of all of the problems dealt with by public authorities and thus is likely to be the object of one or more decisions. In this regard, the agenda consists of a series of priority issues, public policy issues, and public issues addressed by policy actors. They may sound like ciphers of some kind, but models such as punctuated equilibrium, garbage can, multiple streams, and advocacy coalition framework have considerable potential in explaining agenda-setting processes. Policy communities and policy networks are also critical in understanding policymaking processes. After all, agendas consist of public problems that stand out among their likes or are given priority, and policy communities and network strive for keeping their problem in plain sight.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Blumer (1971) and Becker (1966) are among the first and most important advocates of this view.

  2. 2.

    See Jones and Baumgartner (2004), Guo and McCombs (2015).

  3. 3.

    See Willnat (1997), Saldaña and Ardèvol-Abreu (2016), Miller-Stevens (2010).

  4. 4.

    See Haby et al. (2016), Jones (1994), Dellarco et al. (2017) .

  5. 5.

    According to a research by Hacettepe University (2019) which was sponsored by the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Security, 36% of women in Turkey face domestic violence in their lives. In addition, 44% of women suffer from emotional violence and abuse.

  6. 6.

    Education policies in Turkey constitute a good example.

  7. 7.

    There are several studies in the literature explaining budget policies with an incremental approach. See Wildavsky (1964), Danziger (1978), Fenno (1966), Davis and Hinich (1966), Leloup (1978).

  8. 8.

    Among these studies, Wanat (1974), who revealed that the conceptual basis of the incremental model was weak, and Padgett (1980), who showed that it was not theoretically clear enough, have an important place.

  9. 9.

    Veto players are often discussed in the literature as a concept of policy change. Veto players refer to individual or corporate actors whose approvals are needed to make a change in the status quo (Tsebelis 1995: 289).

  10. 10.

    For analysis of the relation between the concept of cognitive resonance and public policy, see Brady et al. (1995), McGregor (2013), Mullainathan and Washington (2009), Donsbach (1991).

  11. 11.

    In this book, these three concepts are used interchangeably.

  12. 12.

    The return to the example of the death penalty removed from all laws in Turkey in 2004 comes up frequently as a solution to serious crime. The discussion of the death penalty after the coup attempt of July 15, 2016 and the abuse and murders of children in June 2018 shows that the penalty is always present as a solution regardless of the nature of the crime (e.g., against the state or against the individuals) and is raised whenever a problem arises.

  13. 13.

    See, for example, Webber (1986), Parsons (1995), Kendall (2000).

  14. 14.

    Constitutional amendments made in 2002 and 2003 within the scope of EU harmonization packages played an essential role in this regard.

  15. 15.

    The statement made by the then prime minister R. Tayyip Erdogan on September 5, 2012, “We will perform eid prayers in Damascus” revealed the Turkish government’s belief that the conflicts in Syria would come to an end shortly as the eid prayer was scheduled for October 25.

  16. 16.

    For example, see the Metropoll survey of July 2016 and the Xsights research survey of September 2017.

  17. 17.

    See European Commission Turkey 2018 Progress Report, p. 47.

  18. 18.

    Numbers are based on network analysis on the website https://140journos.com/terror-attacks-in-turkey-between-2011-and-2017-4b5981c974ca.

  19. 19.

    See Turkish Red Crescent Directorate of Migration and Refugee Services, 2017 Migration Statistics Report and General Directorate of Migration Management website.

  20. 20.

    The decline in the number of Syrians who could come from Syria to Turkey should not be ignored. The Syrian population, which was 21 million in 2010, is estimated to be 17.5 million as of September 2020 (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/syria-population/).

  21. 21.

    Transformed into a public economic organization (GCC) in 1983, TEKEL was renamed the General Directorate of Tobacco, Tobacco Products, Salt and Alcohol Enterprises in 1987. In 2002, it became an economic state enterprise (İDT).

  22. 22.

    See, for example, Biddle and Milor (1997), McGann and Whelan (2020), Doğan and Akgüngör (2013).

  23. 23.

    There is a vast literature on the impact of democratic “opening” of Turkish government between 2010 and 2015 on civil society. See, for example, Ulusoy (2010), Köker (2010), Keyman (2010, 2016)Gürbüz and Akyol (2017), Christofis (2019).

  24. 24.

    For example, an academic who proposes a solution that draws the government’s attention to a policy problem in a television program may immediately become a member of the policy community. Later he/she may even become an MP candidate, or be appointed as deputy minister or a political advisor.

  25. 25.

    The concept of policy communities was also used before Kingdon, but it was Kingdon who thoroughly analyzed the concept and made it known by taking it with a policy windows approach. For example, trying to understand the dynamics of creating an agenda in public policy by conducting a number of case studies, Walker introduced the concept of “policy communities” to define a “network of policy professionals who shape policy agendas by reaching professional consensus” (1974: 113). In his other works, he used concepts such as “specialized communication networks” (1969: 894), “communities of policy professionals” (1981: 79), “professional forums” (1991: 79), or “semi-bureaucratic communities of policy experts” (1991: 2). According to Walker, policy communities are made up of people interested in a particular set of policy problems.

  26. 26.

    See examples of studies that define decision-making processes as closed systems in Nutt (1976), George (1969), Heller (1971).

References

  • Ataay, F. (2006). Türkiye’de yönetişim ve “sivil toplum” tartışmaları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Memleket Siyaset ve Yönetim, 1(1), 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, M. M., & Coleman, W. D. (1989). Strong states and weak states: sectoral policy networks in advanced capitalist economies. British journal of political science, 47–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aygül, C. (2006). Şebeke Kuramlarına Eleştirel Bir Bakış. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 2006/1, 141–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babaoğlu, C. (2013). Kamu Politikası Sürecinde Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının Rolü. In M. Yıldız & M. Z. Sobacı (Eds.), Kamu Politikası—Kuram ve Uygulama (pp. 166–187). Ankara: Adres Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57(3), 632–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1979). Power and poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Wilkerson, J. (2002). Studying policy dynamics. In F. R. Baumgartner & B. D. Jones (Eds.), Policy dynamics (pp. 3–28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., Green-Pedersen, C., & Jones, B. D. (2006). Comparative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7), 959–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (1966). Social problems: A modern approach. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, J., & Milor, V. (1997). Economic governance in Turkey: Bureaucratic capacity, policy networks, and business associations. In S. Maxfield & B. R. Schneider (Eds.), Business and the state in developing countries (pp. 277–315). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (2007). Agenda setting in public policy. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 63–78). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18(3), 298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, G. L., Clark, J. R., & Davis, W. L. (1995). The political economy of dissonance. Public Choice, 82(1–2), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. (2015). The advocacy coalition framework. In S. J. Balla, M. Lodge, & E. C. Page (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the classics of public policy and administration (pp. 484–497). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christofis, N. (2019). The state of the Kurds in Erdoğan’s ‘new’ Turkey. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 21(3), 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danziger, J. N. (1978). Making budgets. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, O. A., & Hinich, M. J. (1966). Some results related to a mathematical model of policy formation in a democratic society. Carnegie Institute of Technology, Graduate School of Industrial Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellarco, M., Zaleski, R., Gaborek, B. J., Qian, H., Bellin, C. A., Egeghy, P., Heard, N., Jolliet, O., Lander, D. R., Sunger, N., & Stylianou, K. S. (2017). Using exposure bands for rapid decision making in the RISK21 tiered exposure assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 47(4), 317–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doğan, E., & Akgüngör, A. P. (2013). Forecasting highway casualties under the effect of railway development policy in Turkey using artificial neural networks. Neural Computing and Applications, 22(5), 869–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donsbach, W. (1991). Exposure to political content in newspapers: The impact of cognitive dissonance on readers' selectivity. European Journal of Communication, 6(2), 155–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbek, O., Kılınç, O., Aytemur, Z. A., Akyıldız, L., Küçük, Ç. U., Özge, C., Sağlam, L., Bostabn, P., & Dağlı, E. (2015). Tobacco control in Turkey. Turkish Thoracic Journal, 16(3), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eraydın, A., Armatlı, B., Öztürk, H., & Yaşar, S. (2008). Politika ağlarının rekabet gücüne katkısı: İzmir bölgesindeki yerleşmelerin gelişmesinde politika ağlarının rolü. İzmir 2. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Sempozyumu, TEPAV Yayınları, N. 37, Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdoğan, M., & Gönülaçan, A. (2018). Kadin ve Göç Ekseninde Trabzon’daki Suriyeli-Afgan Kadinlarin Sosyo-Demografik Analizi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(18), 547–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdöl, C., Ergüder, T., Morton, J., Palipudi, K., Gupta, P., & Asma, S. (2015). Waterpipe tobacco smoking in Turkey: Policy implications and trends from the global adult tobacco survey (GATS). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(12), 15559–15566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergüder, T., Çakır, B., Aslan, D., Warren, C. W., Jones, N. R., & Asma, S. (2008). Evaluation of the use of Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) data for developing evidence-based tobacco control policies in Turkey. BMC Public Health, 8(S1), S4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergüder, T., Polat, H., Arpad, C., Khoury, R. N., Warren, C. W., Lee, J., & Lea, V. (2012). Linking Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) data to tobacco control policy in Turkey-2003 and 2009. Central European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Favre, P. (1981). La science politique en France depuis 1945. International Political Science Review, 2(1), 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, R. F. (1966). The power of the purse: Appropriations politics in Congress. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fioramonti, L., & Heinrich, V. F. (2007). How civil society influences policy: A comparative analysis of the CIVICUS civil society index in post-communist Europe. Overseas Development Institute and CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Report March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garraud, P. (1990). Politiques nationales: élaboration de l’agenda. L’Année sociologique (1940/1948-), 40, 17–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L. (1969). The operational code: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 190–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Givel, M. (2006). Punctuated equilibrium in limbo: The tobacco lobby and US state policymaking from 1990 to 2003. Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), 405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gölcüklü, F., & Gözübüyük, Ş. (2002). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Uygulaması-Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi İnceleme ve Yargılama Yöntemi. Ankara: Turhan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, L., & McCombs, M. (Eds.). (2015). The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürbüz, M., & Akyol, Ş. (2017). Ethnic reforms and the puzzle of public framing: The case of Kurds in Turkey. Contemporary Islam, 11(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J., Reveiz, L., & Lavis, J. N. (2016). What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: A rapid review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14(1), 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (2002). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–77). London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–124). Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, F. A. (1971). Managerial decision-making: A study of leadership styles and power-sharing among senior managers. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/syria-population (last accessed: 19 Sept 2020).

  • https://140journos.com/terror-attacks-in-turkey-between-2011-and-2017-4b5981c974ca (last accessed: 19 Sept 2020).

  • İçduygu, A. (2015). Syrian refugees in Turkey: The long road ahead. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of the public policy process. In P. A. Sabatier & H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 1–9). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2004). Representation and agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayıkçı, S. (2005). Bir kamu politikası süreci analizi: 1980 sonrası Türkiye’de tütün politikası. Mülkiye Dergisi, 29, 247–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keklik, S., & Gültekin-Karakaş, D. (2018). Anti-tobacco control industry strategies in Turkey. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J. (2000). The mainstreaming of the third sector into public policy in England in the late 1990s: Whys and wherefores. Policy and Politics, 28(4), 541–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyman, E. F. (2010). The CHP and the “democratic opening”: Reactions to AK Party’s electoral hegemony. Insight Turkey, 7(2), 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyman, E. F. (2016). Rethinking the ‘Kurdish question’ in Turkey: Modernity, citizenship and democracy. In Toward new democratic imaginaries-İstanbul seminars on Islam, culture and politics (pp. 75–85). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köker, L. (2010). A key to the “democratic opening”: Rethinking citizenship, ethnicity and Turkish nation-state. Insight Turkey, 7(2), 49–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Galès, P. (2001). Urban governance and policy networks: On the urban political boundedness of policy networks. A French case study. Public Administration, 79(1), 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leloup, L. T. (1978). The myth of Incrementalism: Analytic choices in budgetary theory. Polity, 4, 488–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D. (1998). The development of the policy network approach. In D. Marsh (Ed.), Comparing policy networks (pp. 3–20). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGann, J. G., & Whelan, L. C. (2020). Global think tanks: Policy networks and governance. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, R. M. (2013). Cognitive dissonance and political attitudes: The case of Canada. The Social Science Journal, 50(2), 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller-Stevens, K. L. (2010). State nonprofit associations and agenda setting: An exploratory study of lobbying strategies. University of Colorado at Denver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mucciaroni, G. (1992). The garbage can model and the study of policy making: A critique. Polity, 24(3), 459–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullainathan, S., & Washington, E. (2009). Sticking with your vote: Cognitive dissonance and political attitudes. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 86–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C. (1976). Models for decision making in organizations and some contextual variables which stipulate optimal use. Academy of Management Review, 1(2), 84–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özgüzel, S. (2019). Syrian immigrants in Turkey: Services, satisfaction and suggestions for policy-making. Revista San Gregorio, 36, 402–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. F. (1980). Bounded rationality in budgetary research. American Political Science Review, 74, 354–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy. An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research. A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework. Knowledge, 8(4), 649–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The need for better theories. Theories of the Policy Process, 2, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, M., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2016). From compelling arguments to compelling associations at the third level of agenda setting. In L. Guo & M. McCombs (Eds.), The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting (pp. 104–118). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semiz, Ö. (2009). Bir kamu politikası analizi: Türkiye’de korsanla mücadele odaklı fikri haklar politikası. Ankara Barosu Fikri Mülkiyet ve Rekabet Hukuku Dergisi, 9(4), 9–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sertesen, S. (2009). Determinants of economıc performance and networkıng patterns of settlements in Antalya Region. Unpublished master’s thesis, ODTU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, O. (1990). Policy communities and discourse coalitions: The role of policy analysis in economic policy making. Knowledge, 11(4), 428–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tecimer, C., Ardıç, S., Pehlivan, E., Yoloğlu, S., Özdemir, R., Aladağ, M., & Üstün, B. M. (2010). Malatya Tekel tütün fabrikası işçilerinde solunum fonksiyonlarının araştırılması. Turgut Özal Tıp Merkezi Dergisi, 1(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Toshkov, D. (2016). Research design in political science. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 289–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulusoy, K. (2010). The “democratic opening” in Turkey: A historical/comparative perspective. Insight Turkey, 3(10), 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, S., Liefferink, D., & Arts, B. (2009). A short history of Dutch forest policy: The ‘de-institutionalisation’ of a policy arrangement. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(3), 202–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. L. (1974). The diffusion of knowledge and policy change: Toward a theory of agenda setting. Ann Arbor: Institute of Public Policy Studies. University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. L. (1981). The diffusion of knowledge, policy communities, and agenda setting: The relationship of knowledge and power. In J. E. Tropman, M. J. Dluhy, & R. M. Lind (Eds.), New strategic perspectives on social policy (pp. 75–96). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wanat, J. (1974). Bases of budgetary incrementalism. American Political Science Review, 68, 1221–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, D. J. (1986). Analyzing political feasibility: Political scientists’ unique contribution to policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 14(4), 545–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willnat, L. (1997). Agenda setting and priming: Conceptual links and differences. In M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. H. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 51–66). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalman, G. L., & Topal, A. (2019). Labour containment strategies and working class struggles in the neoliberal era: The case of TEKEL workers in Turkey. Critical Sociology, 45(3), 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yıldız, B. Y., Şahin, M., Şenkal, O., Pestemalci, V., & Emrahoğlu, N. (2013). A comparison of two solar radiation models using artificial neural networks and remote sensing in Turkey. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 35(3), 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manisa, Turkey

    Fatih Demir

Authors
  1. Fatih Demir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Demir, F. (2021). Agenda Setting. In: Public Policy Making in Turkey. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation