The public, the protester, and the bill: do legislative agendas respond to public opinion signals?

References

• Adler, E. S., & Wilkerson, J. (2012). Congress and the politics of problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Agnone, J. (2007). Amplifying public opinion: The policy impact of the U.S. environmental movement. Social Forces, 85(4), 1593–1620. doi: 10.1353/sof.2007.0059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amenta, E. (2014). How to analyze the influence of movements. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 43(1), 16–29. doi: 10.1177/0094306113514536
   Google Scholar
• Amenta, E., Caren, N., Chiarello, E., & Su, Y. (2010). The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 287–307. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amenta, E., Caren, N., & Olasky, S. J. (2005). Age for leisure? Political mediation and the impact of the pension movement on US old-age policy. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 516–538. doi: 10.1177/000312240507000308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, K. T. (2001). Social movements and policy Implementation: The Mississippi civil rights movement and the war on poverty, 1965 to 1971. American Sociological Review, 66(1), 71–95. doi: 10.2307/2657394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, R. D. (1990). The Logic of Congressional Action. London: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, S., & Jennings, W. (2014). Representation, agendas and institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 53(1), 37–56. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breunig, C., & Schnatterer, T. (2018). German policy agendas – data set and descriptive insights. Working paper – University of Konstanz.
   Google Scholar
• Brunner, M. (2013). Parliaments and legislative activity. Motivations for bill introduction. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Burstein, P. (2014). American public opinion, advocacy, and policy in Congress. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burstein, P., & Linton, A. (2002). The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy: Some recent evidence and theoretical concerns. Social Forces, 81(2), 380–408. doi: 10.1353/sof.2003.0004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaqués Bonafont, L., & Palau, A. M. (2011). Assessing the responsiveness of Spanish policymakers to the priorities of their citizens. West European Politics, 34(4), 706–730. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2011.572388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costain, A. N., & Majstorovic, S. (1994). Congress, social movements and public opinion: Multiple origins of women’s rights legislation. Political Research Quarterly, 47(1), 111–135. doi: 10.1177/106591299404700106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. J. (2017). The participation gap: Social status and political inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Boef, S., & Keele, L. (2008). Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 184–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00307.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Egan, P. J. (2013). Partisan priorities how issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• EPCD Research Group. Codebook for European protest and coercion data, 1980 through 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Fenno, R. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. New York: Brown, Little.
   Google Scholar
• Francisco, R. A. (1995). The relationship between coercion and protest: An empirical evaluation in three coercive states. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(2), 263–282. doi: 10.1177/0022002795039002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francisco, R. A. (1996). Coercion and protest: An empirical test in two democratic states. American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 1179–1204. doi: 10.2307/2111747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francisco, R. A. (2004). After the massacre: Mobilization in the wake of harsh repression. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 9(2), 107–126. doi: 10.17813/maiq.9.2.559246137656n482
   Google Scholar
• Geer, J. (1996). From tea leaves to public opinion polls: A theory of democratic leadership. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gillion, D. Q. (2013). The Political Power of Protest: Minority Activism and Shifts in Public Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giugni, M. G. (2007). Useless protest? A time-series analysis of the policy outcomes of ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in the United States, 1977-1995. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 12(1), 53–77. doi: 10.17813/maiq.12.1.b05j1087v7pxg382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, J., & Jennings, W. (2019). Party reputations and policy priorities: How issue ownership shapes executive and legislative agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 443–466. doi: 10.1017/S0007123416000636
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbst, S. (1998). Reading public opinion: How political actors view the democratic process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hobolt, S. B., & Klemmensen, R. (2005). Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies, 53(2), 379–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00534.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutter, S. (2014). Protesting culture and economics in Western Europe: New cleavages in left and right politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutter, S., & Vliegenthart, R. (2018). Who responds to protest? Protest politics and party responsiveness in Western Europe. Party Politics, 24(4), 358–369. doi: 10.1177/1354068816657375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, W., & John, P. (2009). The dynamics of political attention: Public opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 838–854. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00404.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, W., & Wlezien, C. (2011). Distinguishing between most important problems and issues? Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 545–555. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, P., Bertelli, A., Jennings, W., & Bevan, S. (2013). Policy agendas in british politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• John, P., Bevan, S., & Jennings, W. (2011). The policy-opinion link and institutional change: The legislative agenda of the UK and Scottish Parliaments. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 1052–1068. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2011.599982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. W., Agnone, J., & McCarthy, J. D. (2010). Movement organizations, synergistic tactics and environmental public policy. Social Forces, 88(5), 2267–2292. doi: 10.1353/sof.2010.0038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2004). Representation and agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.0190-292X.2004.00050.x
   Web of Science ®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., Larsen-Price, H., & Wilkerson, J. (2009). Representation and American governing institutions. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 277–290. doi: 10.1017/S002238160809018X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, B. G., Bentele, K. G., & Soule, S. A. (2007). Protest and policymaking: Explaining fluctuation in congressional attention to rights issues, 1960-1986. Social Forces, 86(1), 1960–1986. doi: 10.1353/sof.2007.0101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Dyvendak, J. W., & Giugni, M. (1995). New social movements in Western Europe: A comparative analysis. London: UCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2009). Gay Rights in the States: Public opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 103(03), 367. doi: 10.1017/S0003055409990050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00537.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindeboom, G.-J. (2012). Public priorities in government’s hands: Corresponding policy agendas in the Netherlands? Acta Politica, 47(4), 443–467. doi: 10.1057/ap.2012.14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (1968). Protest as a political resource. American Political Science Review, 62(4), 1144–1158. doi: 10.2307/1953909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann, S. (1993). A signaling model of Informative and manipulative political action. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 319–333. doi: 10.2307/2939043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manza, J., & Cook, F. L. (2002). The impact of public opinion on public policy: The state of the debate. In J. Manza, F. L. Cook, & B. I. Page (Eds.), Navigating public opinion: Polls, policy and the future of American democracy, Pages (pp. 17–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency 1930-1970. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• McAdam, D., & Su, Y. (2002). The war at home: Antiwar protests and congressional voting, 1965 to 1973. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 696–721. doi: 10.2307/3088914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–56. doi: 10.2307/1952717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen, P. B., Green-Pedersen, C., Breeman, G., Chaques-Bonafont, L., Jennings, W., John, P., … Timmermans, A. (2011). Comparing government agendas: Executive speeches in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies, 44(8), 973–1000. doi: 10.1177/0010414011405162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, P., Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2005). Who demonstrates? Antistate rebels, conventional participants, or everyone? Comparative Politics, 37(2), 189–205. doi: 10.2307/20072882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175–190. doi: 10.2307/1956018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soroka, S. N., & Wlezien, C. (2010). Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soule, S. A., McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., & Su, Y. (1999). Protest events: Cause or consequence of state action? The US women’s movement and federal congressional activities, 1956-1979. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 4(2), 239–256. doi: 10.17813/maiq.4.2.v01017723m8p2w04
   Google Scholar
• Soule, S. A., & Olzak, S. (2004). When do movements matter? The politics of contingency and the equal rights amendment. American Sociological Review, 69(4), 473–497. doi: 10.1177/000312240406900401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 543–565. doi: 10.2307/2082973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, K. (1990). A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 565–598. doi: 10.2307/2111461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uba, K. (2009). The contextual dependence of movement outcomes: A simplified meta-analysis. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 14(4), 433–448. doi: 10.17813/maiq.14.4.m8477j873p47p546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visconti, F. (2018). The legislative representation of public opinion policy priorities in Italy. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 48(3), 307–326. doi: 10.1017/ipo.2018.4
   Google Scholar
• Vliegenthart, R., Walgrave, S., Jennings, W., Hutter, S., Grossman, E., Guigni, M., … Breunig, C. (2016). The media as a dual mediator of the political agenda setting effect of protest: A longitudinal study in six west- European countries. Social Forces, 95(2), 837–859. doi: 10.1093/sf/sow075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, S., & Vliegenthart, R. (2012). The complex agenda-setting power of protest: Demonstrations, media, parliament, government, and legislation in Belgium, 1993-2000. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 17(2), 129–156. doi: 10.17813/maiq.17.2.pw053m281356572h
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlezien, C. (1995). The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 981–1000. doi: 10.2307/2111666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlezien, C. (2005). On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’. Electoral Studies, 24(4), 555–579. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2005.01.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wouters, R., & Walgrave, S. (2017). Demonstrating power: How protest persuades political representatives. American Sociological Review, 82(2), 361–383. doi: 10.1177/0003122417690325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar