The DOI matches its Crossref record.
After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events
Abstract
Disasters like earthquakes are known as focusing events - sudden calamities that cause both citizens and policymakers to pay more attention to a public problem and often to press for solutions. This book, the first comprehensive analysis of these dramatic events, explains how and why some public disasters change political agendas and, ultimately, public policies. Thomas A. Birkland explores important successes and failures in the policy process by analyzing the political outcomes of four types of events: earthquakes, hurricanes, oil spills, and nuclear accidents. Using this empirical data to go beyond an intuitive understanding of focusing events, he presents a theory of where and when these events will gain attention and how they trigger political reactions. Birkland concludes that different types of disasters result in different kinds of agenda politics. Public outrage over the highly visible damage caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, for example, ended a fourteen-year logjam holding back Congressional legislation to regulate oil spill cleanups. On the other hand, the intangible effects of Three Mile Island had less concrete results in a political arena that was already highly polarized. Integrating a variety of theories on the policy process, including agenda setting, policy communities, advocacy coalitions, the political aspects of the news media, and the use of symbols in political debate, Birkland illuminates the dynamics of event-driven policy activity. As the first extensive study of its kind, this book offers new insights into the policy process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x · Cited by 1,868
The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure
Boin, A., 't Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511490880 · Cited by 932
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Mortensen, P. B. (2018) · Theories of the Policy Process · doi:10.4324/9780429494284-3 · Cited by 623
Birkmann, J., Buckle, P., Jaeger, J., Pelling, M., Setiadi, N., Garschagen, M., Fernando, N., & Kropp, J. (2010) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-008-9319-2 · Cited by 455
Dean, D. H. (2004) · Journal of Business Communication · doi:10.1177/0021943603261748 · Cited by 409
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1998-04-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 08
- Pages
- 35-4778-35-4778
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W654360903
- Cited by
- 917
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.35-4778
- The paper
- After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. (1998). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.35-4778
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.