Despite extensive research, the concept of issue salience remains fragmented across public opinion, party competition, and media studies. This article addresses this gap by proposing a triadic framework that integrates citizens, parties, and media within a single model of interaction. Salience is defined as an attribute of issues – a measure of their relative importance within systems of collective attention – and explained as the outcome of reciprocal processes of supply, demand, and mediation. The framework bridges disciplinary approaches and clarifies how salience circulates through feedback loops connecting the three spheres. By reconceptualizing salience as a dynamic and relational mechanism, the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of how democracies construct, contest, and sustain collective attention in hybrid information environments.

Electoral politics constitute a formative, agenda-setting phase in the development of mixed-economy approaches to social welfare. This study examines issue-salience and policy framing related to the welfare role of the third sector in party manifestos in UK Westminster and regional elections 1945–2011. The findings reveal a pronounced increase in salience over recent decades. Welfare pluralism, whereby voluntary organisations complement state and market-based services, is shown to be the dominant approach at both state-wide and regional levels. Yet election data also reveal inter-party and inter-polity contrasts in policy framing. This is significant to contemporary understanding of mixed-economy approaches to welfare because it shows electoral discourse to be a driver of policy divergence in multi-level systems. The result is differing policy prescriptions for the third sector that (re-)define governance practices and underpin the rise and territorialisation of welfare pluralism. In turn this poses questions about policy co-ordination and differential welfare rights in the unitary state.

This article, as an introduction to the Symposium, discusses the determinants and evolution of attention to defence and foreign policy issues in France. It thereby contributes to existing debates on the relative power of presidents in this area. It then provides a short overview of the different contributions to the symposium. It argues that there is some measure of agreement in the analyses of current relations between France and the US, especially concerning the weight of history. Yet, at the same time, the articles provide a variety of views and approaches to the current state of these relations.

Despite extensive research on issue engagement, much remains to be learned. This article advances our understanding of issue competition in three ways. First, it examines whether political parties focus on the same issues in a setting with high electoral volatility, studying four Quebec elections from 2012 to 2022. Second, it assesses whether this trend is evident in both press releases and tweets. Third, it investigates why parties converge on the same issues. Findings reveal convergence levels in Quebec match other democracies and remain consistent across platforms. Ideologically similar parties are more likely to address the same issues. Two issue types are identified: peripheral, less visible issues and governance issues, consistently highlighted by all parties within a jurisdiction, reflecting a stable electoral agenda. These findings align with growing evidence that engagement dominates issue competition while demonstrating that convergence and divergence can occur around few key issues that remain relatively stable over time.

Parliaments are the intermediate link in the representative chain connecting citizens to the government. The parliamentary agenda is often seen as highly responsive because public priorities are usually mirrored in parliamentary debates. However, the level of responsiveness is affected by formal and informal rules of each activity, which considerably shape the attention–concentration capacity and thus the possibility for policy change. During moments of crisis, institutional frictions can be substantially placated, making the agenda concentrating on the crisis issue even in the presence of high institutional frictions. Building on the literature about parliamentary questioning and agenda-setting studies, this article compares the determinants of issue attention for crisis-related issues (economic, migration, and pandemic) in the Italian case over the past 20 years, assessing their impact on written questions and oral questions with immediate response. This article overcomes a limitation of the agenda-setting literature which treats different forms of parliamentary questions as having a single logic and dynamic. Instead, we demonstrate that frictions are extremely variable among different forms of parliamentary questioning and thus, that written and oral questions exhibit different forms of issue responsiveness. This article explores which type of signal parliamentary questions are most responsive to – public concerns, media attention, or real-world indicators – and finds that the answer is highly conditional both on the specific issue under examination and the type of parliamentary questions.

Rather than leading to the emergence of a problem, some processes contribute to limiting their scope and impeding agenda-setting. These “nonproblems” are situations that could have led to social mobilizations or public intervention but end up neither being publicized nor subject to strong policy. We use occupational health in France to illustrate these mechanisms. The social invisibility of work-related ill-health is linked to the joint contribution of two processes. Firstly, from the perspective of research on ignorance and undone science, scientific knowledge is under-developed compared to other public health issues. And even available knowledge is rarely used by policy-makers. Secondly, policies use underestimated numbers from the occupational diseases compensation system. This specific configuration of knowledge/ignorance and official counting plays a central role in the production of occupational health issues as a nonproblem. Their invisibility contributes to the production of inertia and public inaction that characterize public policy in this field.

This study examines interest groups’ influence on the European Commission’s policy agenda. We argue that organizations can gain agenda-setting influence by strategically emphasizing different types of information. Analyzing a novel dataset on the engagement of 158 interest groups across 65 policy issues, we find that prioritizing information about audience support is more advantageous than emphasizing expert information. However, the effectiveness of highlighting the scope of audience support depends on the level of issue salience and degree of interest mobilization. Specifically, our findings indicate that when dealing with issues characterized by quiet politics, there are no systematic differences among groups employing distinct modes of informational lobbying.

What has caused the marked, cross-national, and unprecedented trends in European electoral results in the 21st century? Scholarly explanations include social structure and challenger party entrepreneurship. We argue that these electoral changes more proximally result from public issue salience, which results from societal trends and mainly affects rather than is caused by party agenda setting. We use aggregate-level panel data across 28 European countries to show that the public issue salience of three issues—unemployment, immigration, and the environment—is associated with later variation in the results of the conservative, social democrat, liberal, radical right, radical left, and green party families in theoretically expected directions, while the party system issue agenda has weaker associations. Public issue salience, in turn, is rooted in societal trends (unemployment rates, immigration rates and temperature anomalies), and, in some cases, party agenda setting. We validate our mechanism at the individual-level across 28 European countries and using UK panel data. Our findings have implications for our understanding of the agency of parties, the permanency of recent electoral changes, and how voters reconcile their social and political worlds.

Japan has experienced many of the factors associated with populism, but has not experienced an upsurge of populism in national-level politics. We posit that the dominant frames in the Japanese print media coverage of populism form a crucial and overlooked part of the explanation for the absence of populism. Our qualitative human-coded analysis of quality and tabloid coverage demonstrates that overall, the Japanese newspapers act as gatekeepers and set an agenda that is unfavorable for right-wing populism. The press engage in ‘media populism’ and frame populism – and alternatives to the status quo more generally – as a threat. Moreover, the print media are not hostile to immigrants in ways that populists could leverage.