Can We Measure Issue Complexity?

• In Event: The Dynamics of Agenda Setting in Policymaking

Abstract

Policy scholars and practitioners often argue that issues become more complex over time, and complexity is used as an independent variable to explain cross-sectional differences and longitudinal changes to processes and outputs. Yet issue complexity has not been consistently defined and our measures of issue complexity are necessarily endogenous to the policy process. In this paper I attempt to clarify the concept of issue complexity and discuss strengths and weaknesses of existing measures. Issue complexity carries multiple attributes—dimensional, technical, jurisdictional, and legal or doctrinal—and is best measured as a series of continuous variables rather than a single dichotomous variable. Moreover, measuring issue complexity relies on what we observe, and emphasizing or de-emphasizing an issue’s complexity is an important political strategy for defining problems and setting the agenda. What we can measure thus is not an issue’s underlying complexity itself but the relative expression of complexity within a particular policy venue; the denominator, or potential complexity, remains unobserved. In referring to issue complexity, researchers should be clear about which attribute they are measuring, understand that issue complexity is not fixed, and be clear about any other assumptions being made about the connection between an issue’s complexity and the specific institutional setting under study. The paper further develops measures of issue complexity and compares complexity across issues in the United States. Asking generalist policymakers to understand and make decisions about complex issues shapes participation, information processing, and power in the policy process.

Author

• Jonathan Lewallen, University of Tampa