Daniel Carpenter

Agenda-setting shapes the problems that occupy the sustained attention of those who craft laws and policy, and the heuristics and solutions used to address those problems. An extensive political science literature has elucidated agenda formation, concluding that (1) policy change happens under the conjuncture of solution streams and policy streams (given a structure or moment of political opportunity), and (2) “there is an impressive congruence between the priorities of the public and the priorities of Congress across time” (Jones and Baumgartner 2004), conditioned upon wider legislative agendas than those for the public. I contend here that the rise of administrative government qualifies these conclusions. That delegation trades off expertise for agency preferences is well known, but it also embeds a second trade-off: between a forum with more open agendas (the legislature) and one that restricts them (administration). Indeed, delegation to administrative agencies presumes, if it does not favor, agenda closure – a tightly constrained focus on a limited set of issues to which the legislature has entrusted the agency’s authority and resources, and a narrow set of methods and consiliaria (experts, lawyers, adversaries, commenters) from which the agency seeks and gets its information. Agenda limitation may be desirable but may also worsen the quality of public problem solving, and agenda democracy itself may be normatively desirable. This tension is ineluctable. Hypothetically, it might be ameliorated by (a) the development and embedment of greater expertise in law-making assemblies and/or (b) the restriction or deliberative aperture (or both) of administrative policymaking.

Building trust in public health agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become a key government priority. Understanding the roots of FDA mistrust is important if the agency is to develop targeted messaging and reforms aimed at building confidence in the agency. We conducted a survey of 2,021 respondents in the US probing attitudes toward the FDA. The primary outcome was FDA trust, defined as the mean score that each respondent assigned to the FDA across four prespecified axes: (1) competence and effectiveness; (2) commitment to acting in the best interests of the American public; (3) abiding by the rules and regulations set forth by policy or law; and (4) expertise in health, science, and medicine. On multivariable ordinal logistic regression, FDA mistrust was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.88), rural community (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.96), conservative political views (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.74–0.81), worse self-reported health (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80–0.98), lower satisfaction with health care received (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56–0.71), less attention to health and science news (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64–0.80), and not having children under the age of 18 (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86). These findings underscore the challenges faced by US political leaders in convincing a heterogeneous American public to trust the FDA. The FDA should develop and deploy targeted outreach strategies to populations with lower levels of trust and strengthen internal processes that minimize biases and ensure sound decision-making.

 My late colleague Samuel Huntington wrote of an impending clash of civilizations, but it might be more apt to consider the specter that confronts us as a clash of empires. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the threats that Putin has broadcast across the European theater; China’s massive military build-up and its projection of designs upon democratic Taiwan and much of the western Pacific; India’s rapid emergence onto the global stage as a nuclear power and its authoritarian turn at home, combined with its ever more invasive rule over its Indigenous peoples and even its expatriates; Venezuela’s authoritarian consolidation and its threat to invade Guyana; the jeopardy that Donald Trump, possibly re-elected President of the United States later this year, would deploy the American military in ways that regulate, police and attempt to “pacify” Mexico and, possibly after that, much of North America if not the western hemisphere – all of these developments and others remind us, not merely of the conflict of “major powers” but also the aspirations of these major powers to swallow up or ally with the other ones. To become even larger powers. To become empires.