IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The evolution of elite framing following enactment of legislation

  • Michael Gruszczynski

    ()

  • Sarah Michaels
Registered author(s):

    The study of policy framing enables the investigation of how elites conceptualize policy issues. While the dominant investigative work on elite framing has been within the mass media, we demonstrate the utility of an elite framing approach in a political institution, the U.S. Congress. We argue for moving to a “life-cycle” approach to policy framing that recognizes the evolution of elite framing attempts as implementation of a law deviates from its legislative intent, basing our approach out of the issue-attention cycle theory put forth by Downs (Public Interest 28:38–50, 1972 ). Framing efforts by policy advocates do not end after legislation has been enacted or policy changed. Elites who have been unsuccessful in achieving their policy aims continue to advocate for their preferred outcomes by altering their framing strategies. We demonstrate this by applying evolutionary factor analysis to investigate 10 Congressional committee hearings held between 1957 and 2006 pertaining to federal funding for the Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota. From the perspective of proponents of diverting water from the Missouri River, how the Congressional debate over the Unit progressed constituted policy regression. This is reflected in the evolution of elite framing over the period studied. Our analysis uncovers the emergence of four evolutionary frames. Initial frames emphasized the benefits to be derived from water diversion, while subsequent frames reflected a more defensive posture emphasizing the limited harm that water diversion would cause. This research demonstrates the consequences of legislative implementation delay for elite framing attempts. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-012-9153-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Policy Sciences.

    Volume (Year): 45 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 4 (December)
    Pages: 359-384

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:45:y:2012:i:4:p:359-384
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102982

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Ryane Straus, 2011. "Citizens’ use of policy symbols and frames," Policy Sciences, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 13-34, March.
    2. Andrea K. Gerlak, 2006. "Federalism and U.S. Water Policy: Lessons for the Twenty-First Century," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 231-257.
    3. Mark Mcbeth & Elizabeth Shanahan, 2004. "Public opinion for sale: The role of policy marketers in Greater Yellowstone policy conflict," Policy Sciences, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 319-338, December.
    4. Dave Howland & Mimi Becker & Lawrence Prelli, 2006. "Merging content analysis and the policy sciences: A system to discern policy-specific trends from news media reports," Policy Sciences, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 205-231, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:45:y:2012:i:4:p:359-384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)

    or (Christopher F. Baum)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.