Skip Navigation


Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance Access originally published online on August 8, 2008
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2008 18(4):517-541; doi:10.1093/jopart/mun015
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
18/4/517    most recent
mun015v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by May, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Jones, B. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Organizing Attention: Responses of the Bureaucracy to Agenda Disruption

Peter J. May, Samuel Workman and Bryan D. Jones

University of Washington

Address correspondence to the author at pmay{at}u.washington.edu.

Federal agencies are routinely confronted with requests from policymakers that they must address in some manner. These range from routine directives to cut through red tape to exceptional demands to alter policy priorities. We theorize that how attention is organized by public bureaucracies affects their responses. We draw on a variety of scholarship about public bureaucracies to develop a theory about the bureaucratic organization of attention and its consequences. In illustrating these notions, we trace federal agency attention to the threat of terrorism as it gained prominence on the national policy agenda over the 1980s to 1990s and became a prominent issue after the terrorist attacks of 2001. The consequences of the Department of Homeland Security's centralized attention to the terrorism threat suggest a paradox of issue attention. Though concentration of authority at the top of the organization holds the prospect of control over the substance and speed of policymaking, this control is highly circumscribed by the limits of attention faced by all organizations.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
American Politics ResearchHome page
C. Breunig and C. Koski
Punctuated Budgets and Governors' Institutional Powers
American Politics Research, November 1, 2009; 37(6): 1116 - 1138.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Public Adm Res TheoryHome page
D. P. Moynihan
The Network Governance of Crisis Response: Case Studies of Incident Command Systems
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., October 1, 2009; 19(4): 895 - 915.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.