A key component of any political strategy is finding a decision setting that offers the best prospects for reaching one's policy goals, an activity referred to as venue shopping. This article supports the theory of venue shopping as laid out in Baumgartner and Jones (1993), but presents a more complicated analysis of its practice than most empirical studies to date. First, venue shopping can be more experimental, and less deliberate or calculated, than is commonly perceived. Second, advocacy groups choose venues not only to advance substantive policy goals but also to serve organizational needs and identities. Finally, venue choice is shaped by policy learning. Advocacy groups choose venues not only for short-term strategic reasons, but also because they have embraced a new understanding of the nature of a policy problem. These factors shape the frequency of venue shopping and thus the pace of policy reform.

An agenda-setting perspective can help us understand current climate policy politics by identifying factors that will help the climate change issue rise and stay high on public and governmental agendas. Keeping climate change at the forefront of government decision agendas will be critical in the coming years because climate change is a long-term problem and governments are unlikely to 'solve' the climate crisis with one policy enacted at one point in time. Kingdon's multiple streams model of agenda-setting is used here to explore strategies for keeping the issue of climate change on agendas and moving it up the list of policy priorities.

Issue redefinition and venue shopping have been identified as key strategies for enacting agenda and policy change, but much work remains to be done in elaborating these processes. I argue that an important aspect of issue redefinition involves shifting not only the image of an issue but also the bases for considering those issues—what I call policy principles. Policy principles are the core values, beliefs, or guidelines attached to policies that help direct decision making. The emergence and acceptance of new principles by the public and policymakers can be a vital source of policy change, at times having far greater consequences for policy than redefining an issue. Venue shopping is also a multifaceted undertaking involving efforts by policy entrepreneurs and advocacy groups to keep issues out of venues they would rather not participate in as well as move decision making to new arenas. Moreover, while the literature suggests that shifting venues is usually a sensible strategy, sometimes venue shopping can backfire. A case study of the municipal movement to restrict the nonessential use of lawn and garden pesticides in Canada illustrates these theoretical points and shows the applicability of agenda setting models to contexts outside the United States.

No abstract

This article outlines recent debates over nuclear energy and wind farms in an age of growing concern about climate change. Proponents of these technologies have used “trade‐off” frames to promote these technologies in the face of current and potential opposition to them. This article examines the nature and limits of the trade‐off frames being used and their probability of success. We argue that using the language of trade‐offs is generally a suboptimal framing strategy: trade‐off frames remind the public of the costs associated with particular policies, and therefore play into the hands of policy opponents. However, policy advocates may turn to them when the costs of a technology are well known and are perceived as high. In such cases, trade‐off frames may help to justify controversial policy solutions. Like any frames, the trade‐off frames used in the debate over climate change solutions both illuminate and obscure the deeper issues involved in energy policy reform.