Influence upon the societal agenda is an important power resource in modern democracies. Consequently, inequalities in such influence across different segments of the public have important democratic implications. Using time-series methods on a unique Danish dataset, this article investigates the existence of inequalities in agenda power across groups with different levels of political sophistication and finds that the most sophisticated members of the public possess more such power vis-à-vis the media and politicians than the less sophisticated. The existence of inequalities in agenda power across different segments of the public, even in the homogenous Danish society, implies that countries characterised by higher levels of inequality should experience even larger disparities, thereby jeopardising the democratic principle that all citizens have equal access to placing issues on the agenda.
AdamsJ.EzrowL. (2009) ‘Who Do European Parties Represent? How Western European Parties Represent the Policy Preferences of Opinion Leaders’, Journal of Politics, 71 (1), 206–23.
2.
American Political Science Association (APSA) (2004) ‘American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality’, Perspectives on Politics, 2 (4), 651–66.
3.
BachrachP.BaratzM. S. (1962) ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, 56 (4), 947–52.
4.
BartelsL. M. (1996) ‘Politicians and the Press: Who Leads, Who Follows?’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, September. Princeton, NJ: Department of Politics, Princeton University.
5.
BartelsL. M. (2008) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BaumM. A.PotterP. B. K. (2008) ‘The Relationship between Mass Media, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Towards a Theoretical Synthesis’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 39–65.
7.
BehrR. L.IyengarS. (1985) ‘Television News, Real-world Cues and Changes in the Public Agenda’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 49 (1), 38–57.
8.
BennetW. L.IyengarS. (2008) ‘A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication’, Journal of Communication, 58 (4), 707–31.
9.
BrandenburgH. (2002) ‘Who Follows Whom? The Impact of Parties on Media Agenda Formation in the 1997 British General Election Campaign’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7 (3), 34–54.
10.
BrandtP. T.WilliamsJ. T. (2007) Multiple Time Series Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CurranJ.IyengarS.LundA. B.Salovaara-MoringI. (2009) ‘Media System, Public Knowledge and Democracy: A Comparative Study’, European Journal of Communication, 24 (1), 5–26.
12.
DahlR. A. (1956) A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
DearingJ. W.RogersE. M. (1996) Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
14.
DruckmanJ. N.JacobsL. R. (2011) ‘Segmented Representation: The Reagan White House and Disproportionate Responsiveness’, in EnnsP. K.WlezienC. (eds), Who Gets Represented?New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 166–88.
15.
EdwardsG. C.WoodB. D. (1999) ‘Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress and the Media’, American Political Science Review, 93 (2), 327–44.
16.
ElklitJ.MøllerB.SvenssonP.TogebyL. (2005) Gensyn med sofavœlgerne. Valgdeltagelse i Danmark. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
17.
EnnsP. K.KellstedtP. M. (2008) ‘Policy Mood and Political Sophistication: Why Everybody Moves Mood’, British Journal of Political Science, 38 (3), 433–54.
18.
FranklinM. N. (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GrangerC. W. J. (1969) ‘Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods’, Econometrica, 37 (3), 424–38.
20.
Green-PedersenC. (2010) ‘Bringing Parties into Parliament: The Development of Parliamentary Activities in Western Europe’, Party Politics, 16 (3), 347–69.
21.
Green-PedersenC.KrogstrupJ. (2008) ‘Immigration as a Political Issue in Denmark and Sweden’, European Journal of Political Research, 47 (5), 610–34.
22.
Green-PedersenC.StubagerR. (2007) Coding of Danish Radio News 1984–2003. Aarhus: Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus.
23.
Green-PedersenC.StubagerR. (2010) ‘The Political Conditionality of Mass Media Influence: When Do Parties Follow Mass Media Attention?’, British Journal of Political Science, 40 (3), 663–77.
24.
GrossmannM. (2013) ‘The Variable Politics of the Policy Process: Issue-area Differences and Comparative Networks’, Journal of Politics, 75 (1), 65–79.
25.
HillD.B. (1985) ‘Characteristics of Agenda Setting by Television News’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 49 (3), 340–50.
26.
IyengarS.KinderD. R. (1987) News That Matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2004) ‘Representation and Agenda Setting’, Policy Studies Journal, 32 (1), 1–24.
28.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005) The Politics of Attention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
KepplingerH. M. (2007) ‘Reciprocal Effects: Toward a Theory of Mass Media Effects on Decision Makers’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12 (2), 3–23.
30.
KleinnijenhuisJ.RietbergE. M. (1995) ‘Parties, Media, the Public and the Economy: Patterns of Societal Agenda-setting’, European Journal of Political Research, 28 (1), 95–118.
31.
LundA. B. (2002) Den Redigerende Magt. Nyhedsinstitutionens Politiske Indflydelse. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
32.
McCombsM. (1997) ‘Building Consensus: The News Media's Agenda-setting Role’, Political Communication, 14 (4), 433–43.
33.
McCombsM. (2004) Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.
34.
McKuenM. (1984) ‘Exposure to Information, Belief Integration and Individual Responsiveness to Agenda Change’, American Political Science Review, 78 (2), 372–91.
35.
MillerJ. M.KrosnickJ. A. (1996) ‘News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: A Program of Research on the Priming Hypothesis’, in MutzD. C.SnidermanP. M.BrodyR. A. (eds), Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 79–99.
36.
MillerJ. M.KrosnickJ. A. (2000) ‘News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens are Guided by a Trusted Story’, American Journal of Political Science, 44 (2), 301–15.
OliverM. B.ArmstrongG. B. (1995) ‘Predictors of Viewing and Enjoyment of Reality-based and Fictional Crime Shows’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72 (3), 557–70.
39.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960) The Semi-sovereign People: A Realist's Guide to Democracy in America. New York: Holt.
40.
ShawD. L.MartinS. E. (1992) ‘The Functioning of Mass Media Agenda Setting’, Journalism Quarterly, 69 (4), 902–20.
41.
ShehataA. (2010) ‘Unemployment on the Agenda: A Panel Study of Agenda-setting Effects during the 2006 Swedish National Election Campaign’, Journal of Communication, 60 (1), 182–203.
42.
SnidermanP. M.BrodyR. A.TetlockP. E. (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
SorokaS. N. (2002a) Agenda-setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
44.
SorokaS. N. (2002b) ‘Issue Attributes and Agenda-setting by Media, the Public and Policymakers in Canada’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14 (3), 264–85.
45.
SorokaS. N.WlezienC. (2008) ‘On the Limits to Inequality in Representation’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 41 (2), 319–27.
46.
SorokaS. N.WlezienC. (2010) Degrees of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
StimsonJ. A. (2004) Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
TakeshitaT. (2005) ‘Current Critical Problems in Agenda-setting Research’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18 (3), 275–96.
49.
TrumboC. (1995) ‘Longitudinal Modelling of Public Issues: An Application of the Agenda-setting Process to the Issue of Global Warming’, Journalism and Mass Communication Monographs, 152, 1–57.
50.
UscinskiJ. E. (2009) ‘When Does the Public's Issue Agenda Affect the Media's Issue Agenda (and Vice Versa)? Developing a Framework for Media-Public Influence’, Social Science Quarterly, 90 (4), 796–815.
51.
Van der BruggeJ.VossH. (2007) ‘Årsager til de socialistiske partiers tilbagegang i perioden 1990–2005’, in Goul AndersenJ.AndersenJ.BorreO.HansenK. M. (eds), Det nye politiske landskab. Folketingsvalget 2005 i perspektiv. Århus: Academica, pp. 127–51.
52.
Van NoijeL.KleinnijenhuisJ.OegemaD. (2008) ‘Loss of Parliamentary Control Due to Mediatization and Europeanization: A Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Analysis of Agenda Building in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands’, British Journal of Political Science, 38 (3), 455–78.
53.
WalgraveS. (2008) ‘Again, the Almighty Mass Media? The Media's Political Agenda-setting Power According to Politicians and Journalists in Belgium’, Political Communication, 25 (4), 445–59.
54.
WalgraveS.Van AelstP. (2006) ‘The Contingency of the Mass Media's Political Agenda Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory’, Journal of Communication, 56 (1), 88–109.
55.
WalgraveS.SorokaS.NuytemansM. (2008) ‘The Mass Media's Agenda-setting Power: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media, Parliament and Government in Belgium (1993–2000)’, Comparative Political Studies, 41 (6), 814–36.
56.
WlezienC. (1995) ‘The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending’, American Journal of Political Science, 39 (4), 981–1000.
57.
WlezienC. (2005) ‘On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with “Most Important Problem”*’, Electoral Studies, 24 (4), 555–79.
58.
ZallerJ. (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
ZhuJ.-H.BorosonW. (1997) ‘Susceptibility to Agenda Setting: A Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of Individual Differences’, in McCombsM.ShawD. L.WeaverD. (eds), Communication and Democracy. Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-setting Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 69–83.
