| The political dynamics of U.S. trade policy have changed in significant ways since the 1990s. By limiting the agenda to trade barriers, thereby excluding most divisive broader questions of social policy, the policy process remained relatively closed and bipartisan. Since the late 1980s, however, U.S. trade policy-making process has been transformed from a relatively closed policy subsystem into a more open and contentious system, with many interest groups using multiple channels to try to influence trade policy alternatives. In particular, labor and environmental groups---who were hardly central to U.S. trade policy in an earlier era---have succeeded in bringing their issues onto the agenda.; How have those interest groups been able to achieve increased influence? To answer this question, this research utilizes studies of problem definition and agenda setting. In particular, adopting Schattschneider's notion about conflict expansion and issue definition, this study examines how the use of arguments and evidence shape, and are shaped by, the scope of participation in the debates over trade liberalization issues, the institutional venues, and the development and outcomes of the policy debate.; The results show us the fact that, although interest group influence is constrained by other factors such as the president and leaders of Congress, they are active in promoting certain arguments and in providing evidence that supports these arguments. The creation of issue-definitions as interest groups' lobbying strategy is critical, in that it influences agenda setting as well as policy adoption. The study also shows that interest groups' lobbying activity is a conflictual and dynamic process by which groups compete for political influence through evidence and issue definitions in order to shape the policymaking process. |
