AGENDA-SETTING THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE CASE Joanne D. Eustis Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Environmental Design and Planning Patricia K. Edwards, Chair James Bohland David Conn Donald Kenney Max Stephenson April 7, 2000 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Agenda-Setting, Universal Service, Telecommunications, Policy-Making Copyright 2000, Joanne D. Eustis AGENDA-SETTING: THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE CASE Joanne D. Eustis ABSTRACT The goal of this dissertation is to test the agenda-setting theories of John Kingdon and Frank Baumgartner/Bryan Jones in terms of applicability. Universal service policy and the 1996 Telecommunications Act serve as the test case. Case study methodology guides the dissertation and employs a variety of methods including the quantitative and qualitative techniques used by John Kingdon and by Frank Baumgartner/Bryan Jones. These methods involve content analysis and the coding of media articles, an analysis of congressional hearings and government reports, and a review of scholarly literature on topics related to the policy-making in general, and telecommunications policy development, in particular. Universal service was selected for legislative action because it was bound up with telecommunications legislation, which required revision. Although some policy-makers preferred a market solution (that is the elimination of subsidized telecommunication services), universal service remained part of the telecommunications policy revision. Reasons include a new issue definition accompanied by a compelling image (information superhighway), the support of rural senators, and presidential leadership. With regard to fundamental differences between the Kingdon and Baumgartner/Jones’ theories Kingdon’s premise regarding the impact of cyclical events and systematic indicators has more applicability than Baumgartner and Jones’ punctuated equilibria model of policy change. In addition, unlike Kingdon’s research results, which indicate the media have a minor role in agenda-setting, Baumgartner and Jones’ media attention indicators of policy change demonstrated a similar pattern to the universal service media indicators. The influence of interest groups is another point of difference. The universal case as with Baumgartner and Jones’ research results that interest groups were major actors in setting the policy agenda. The contribution of this dissertation is to suggest elements of a new integrated model for the study of agenda-setting that incorporates aspects of the work of Kingdon and Baumgartner/Jones. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of people helped bring to fruition this dissertation, which represents the culmination of what seemed at times a Herculean undertaking, my doctoral program. First, I want to express gratitude to the members of my committee: Professors Patricia Edwards, Jim Bohland, David Conn, Don Kenney, and Max Stephenson. Dr Patricia Edwards, the committee chair, must be singled out for her excellent guidance, a perfect blend of encouragement and expert direction. I am also indebted to Professor Max Stephenson for suggesting the topic and for his invaluable comments and generous assistance. Professors Joseph Scarpaci and Richard Zody were instrumental in the initial stages of my graduate work and I thank them. I am appreciative for the collections and staff of two libraries, the Newman Library at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and the University Library at Case Western Reserve University. In particular, I am beholden to my colleagues David Beagle, Mike Yeager and Karen Thornton for their research skill. Likewise, I owe a debt of gratitude to Erv Blythe for encouragement in the initial stages of this doctoral work, and for the opportunity to be a part of his implementation of NET.WORK.VIRGINIA, a visionary network and a consummate example of agenda-setting. I am indebted to Raymond Neff for his unstinting support during the final year of writing. Gina Midlik, Florence Mustric, and Neepa Subramanian offered assistance and camaraderie in countless ways, for which I am exceedingly grateful. Finally, a lifetime of gratitude is due my mother, Joanne Donovan, and brother Tony Donovan. And above all my deepest love and thanks to my husband, Christopher Eustis, and sons John and Tony who throughout lent their understanding, and moral support. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Research Goals 1 Agenda-Setting Theories 2 John Kingdon 3 Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones 3 Kingdon and Baumgartner/Jones’ Theories: Similarities and Differences 4 Old Laws and New Technologies 5 Research Objectives and Analysis 7 Chapter 2 THEORY: AGENDA-SETTING 10 E. E. Schattschneider: Conflict Expansion 10 Anthony Downs: “Issue Attention Cycle” 12 Roger Cobb and Charles Elder: Issue Definition 13 Barbara Nelson: Valence Issues 14 Deborah Stone: Problem Definition 15 Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith: the Advocacy Coalition Framework 17 Timothy E. Cook: News Media as a Political Institution 20 Agenda-Setting Theory: John Kingdon and Frank Baumgartner/Bryan Jones 21 Similarities 25 Differences 27 Summary 29 Chapter 3 THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE CASE 32 Universal Service and the Communications Industry: A Brief History 32 Public Interest: A Changing Definition 36 Economic Characteristics of the Telecommunications Industry 37 Americans without Telephones 39 The National Information Infrastructure (NII) 40 Issue Definition, Solutions, and Presidential Support 43 Issue Context, Interest Groups, and Media Attention 49 Senate Debate and Public Opinion in 1995 51 Telecommunications Policy over Time 58 Conclusion 60 Chapter 4 METHODOLOGY 62 Type of Inquiry 62 Kingdon’s Research Methodology 65 Baumgartner and Jones’ Research Methodology 67 Data Sources 70 Network-Based Policy Discussion 72 Government Documents and Congressional Publications 72 National Media 73 Presidential Attention 75 Telecommunications Policy Literature 75 Universal Service Case Research Objectives, Measurement, and Analysis 76 Data Collection & Analysis 79 Coding, Content Analysis, and Pattern Matching 81 iv Reliability and Validity 85 Summary 87 Chapter 5 ANALYSIS: SIMILARITIES 89 Problem Definition, Policy Images 89 Universal Service: Communications Act of 1934 91 “The Telephone Network as a Universal and Optimized System” (1975) 95 Telecommunications in the Age of Information (1991) 96 Universal Service: An Evolving Level of Telecommunications Service (1996) 100 Issue Definition Indicators 104 Policy Image Indicators 107 Information Highway 109 Conclusion: Issue Definition, Policy Images, and Symbols 113 Solutions: (Policy Alternatives) 116 Solutions: Indicators 119 Solutions: Telecommunications Policy, 1986-1995 121 Conclusion: Solutions (Policy Alternatives) 125 Presidential Influence 126 President Reagan 127 President Bush 129 President Clinton 131 Conclusion: Presidential Influence 133 Conclusion: Similarities 135 Chapter 6 ANALYSIS: DIFFERENCES 138 Policy Cycles or Punctuated Equilibrium 140 Punctuated Equilibrium: Universal Service Indicators 142 Punctuated Equilibrium Model: An Empirical Test 144 Political Cycles 145 Conclusion: Punctuated Equilibria or Cycles 146 Interest Groups 146 Private Interest Groups 149 Private Interest Groups: RBOCs 150 Representing Public Interests: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable/Benton Foundation 154 Government Agencies, Foundations, the Farm Team as Interest Groups 158 Government Agencies: the FCC and the NTIA 160 The Farm Team 161 Conclusion: Interest Group Influence 163 Media Attention 164 Telecommunications Policy and the Media: H.R. 2140 and H.R. 3515 166 H.R. 2140. Consumer Telecommunications Services Act of 1989 167 H.R. 3515. Telecommunications Act of 1991 168 Media Attention Indicators 168 The Wall Street Journal 169 Conclusion: Media Attention 171 Public Opinion: Kingdon and Baumgartner/Jones 173 Public Opinion Indicators 174 Conclusion: Public Opinion 175 Conclusion: Differences 176 Chapter 7 FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS 180 Research Questions 180 v Research Results: Convergence of Multiple Data Sources 181 Kingdon and Baumgartner/Jones: Strengths and Weaknesses 185 Limitations of the Dissertation 187 Directions for Future Research: Towards An Integrated Model of Agenda-Setting 188 Conclusions 191 Bibliography 193 Appendices Appendix A–“The NII: For the Public Good” 217 Appendix B–Telecommunications Policy Issues—Media Attention 220 Appendix C–Legislative News: Source Material 221 Appendix D–Congressional Hearings: Telecommunication Policy 253 Appendix E–Proposed Federal Telecommunications Legislation, 1986-1995 258 Appendix F–The NTIA Infrastructure Report: Telecommunications in the Age of Information 263 Appendix G–Universal Service: Definitions, Images, Solutions 267 Appendix H–Telecommunications Policy: Selected Articles 1986-1995 268 Appendix I–Telecommunications Policy 1986-1995, Universal Service: Issue Definitions and Solutions 273 Appendix J–Universal Service Media Coding Form 277 Appendix K–Roper Center for Public Opinion Research 279 Appendix L–Why We Need Real Competition in Long Distance—Now 283 Appendix M–Policy Entrepreneurs Teach Bell Monopolies a Few Things about Competition 284 Appendix N–A Web of Ideological and Financial Ties 285 Vita 286 vi LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1—Comparison of the Theories of Kingdon and Baumgartner/Jones 23 Table 3.1—Selected Antitrust Litigation and RBOC Chronology 35 Table 3.2—Trend toward Competition in