BULLETIN
of Udmurt University
Sociology. Political Science. International Relations
udsu-logo

Article


Year
2017
Issue
4
Pages
456-465
<<
>>

Section СОЦИОЛОГИЯ. ПОЛИТОЛОГИЯ. МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ
Title CATEGORY “AGENDA” IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS: THE CONCEPT OF “POLITICAL AGENDA” AND THE MODEL OF ITS FORMATION
Author(-s) Lushankin S.S.
Abstract This article is devoted to the analysis of the interrelations between the process of forming a political agenda and the possible level of access for an actor to participate in politics. The author gives a description of the category «agenda» and he determines the forms of existence of the concept of “agenda”. The article contains a brief analysis of the development of this concept: from the theory of “agenda setting” to a modern understanding of the concept of a political agenda. The author made a substantiation of the self-sufficiency of the concept «political agenda», and he illustrated the existence of key differences between various private forms of the agenda. The author describes the process of forming the political agenda and the role of policy participants in it. He believes, that the significant influence on the political process has cultural factors and the ability to communicate. The author follows the philosopher Yu. Habermas and he believes, that political and communicative action to the greatest extent makes it possible to create an ideal model of communication. In this model, policy does not exist outside of public discussion, and access to it is open to the maximum number of participants. At the same time, the author notes the existence of a contradiction between the model of forming a political agenda on the basis of political and communicative action and the existing reality. In the article notes, that realization of such a model is hampered by the existence of significant limitations. The author notes that the process of forming a political agenda faces the existence of restrictions on the participation of actors and determines its forms. The author asserts that the process of forming the political agenda contains a significant contradiction.
Keywords political agenda, political process, public policy, political and communicative action, political power, politicization
UDC 321.02
References
  1. Arendt, H. Vita active, ili O deyatelnoj zhizni. SPb.: Modern, 2000.
  2. Burdie P. Sotsialnoe prostranstvo i simvolicheskaya vlast // Tsentr gumanitarnyh tehnologij. URL: http://gtmarket.ru/laboratory/expertize/2006/883 (data obrascheniya: 20.12.2016).
  3. Verbilovich O. Teoriya kommunikativnogo dejstviya: klyuchevye kategorii i poznavatelnyj potentsial. Publichnaya sfera: teoriya, metodologiya, kejs stadi. M., 2013. S. 35-55.
  4. Govlet M., Ramesh M. Issledovanie gosudarstvennoj politiki: tsikly i podsistemy politiki. M., 2004. 264 pages.
  5. Degtyarev A.A. Protsess prinyatiya i osuschestvleniya reshenij v publichno-gosudarstvennoj politike: dinamichnyj tsikl i ego osnovnye fazy. M.: Polis, 2004. # 4. S. 158-168.
  6. Kazakov A.A. Vzaimodejstvie informatsionnoj i politicheskoj «povestok dnya»: k postanovke problemy // Izv. Saratovskogo un-ta. 2011. T. 11. S. 70-73.
  7. Lipman U. Obschestvennoe mnenie. M., 2004. 384 pages.
  8. Soloviov A.I. Prinyatie i ispolnenie gosudarstvennyh reshenij. M., 2015. 479 pages.
  9. Soloviev A.I. Gosudarstvo kak proizvoditel politiki // Politicheskie issledovaniya. 2016. #2. S. 90-130.
  10. Timofeeva L.N. Ot «infogandy» k alternativizmu i plyuralizmu mnenij v politicheskoj povestke dnya: mif ili realnost? / Politicheskie kommunikatsii i publichnaya politika: kontseptsii, metody, sravnenie opyta: materialy XVII Vseros. nauch. seminara. Krasnodar, 2016. S. 246-250.
  11. Habermas YU. Vovlechenie drugogo. Ocherki politicheskoj teorii. SPb., 2001.
  12. Habermas YU. Teoriya kommunikativnogo dejstviya (fragmenty) // Voprosy sotsialnoj teorii. 2007. S. 229-245.
  13. Shestopal E.B. Politicheskaya povestka dnya rossijskoj vlasti i eyo vospriyatie grazhdanami. M., Polis, 2011. # 2. S. 7-24.
  14. Shmitt K. Ponyatie politicheskogo. M., 2011.
  15. AndersonJ. Public Policymaking: An Introduction. Boston, N.Y.2003. 345 p.
  16. Baumgartner F.R., Jones B.D. Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems / The journal of Politics, 1991. # 53 (4). P. 1044-1074.
  17. Baumgartner F.R., Jones B.D. The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems, University of Chicago Press. 2005. 304 p.
  18. Baumgartner F.R., Jones B.D. Agendas and instability in American politics University of Chicago Press. 2010. 312 p.
  19. Cobb R, Elder Ch. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building.Baltimore, 1983. 359 p.
  20. Downs A. Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. Public Interest, 1972.Vol. 28. #1. P. 38-50.
  21. Dunn W. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River. 2004. 348 p.
  22. Hogwood B., Gunn L. Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford.1984. 289 p.
  23. Kelly R., Palumbo D. Theories of Policy Making. Encyclopedia of Government and Politics. L., N.Y. Vol. 2. 1992.
  24. Lasswell H. The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park.1956. 382 p.
  25. Lazarsfeld P.F., Berelson B., Gaudet, H. The peoples choice. How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. N.Y. 1948. 187 p.
  26. Manheim G., Rich R. Empirical Political Analysis: Research Methods in Political Science. N.Y. 1991. 428 p.
  27. McCombs M., Show D. The Agenda-Setting Role of Mass-Media // Public Opinion Quarterly. 1972. Vol. 36. P. 67-90.
Full text