Transcript The Water Dispute Between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia

Democracy & public policy – a Russian case study

Low participation in groups (WVS/U. of Michigan studies).

0.65 group memberships/person v. 3.59 in U.S., 2.39 for mature democracies.

NGOs closely controlled by state – must be registered; foreign
contributions restricted.

Political accountability low/rule of law deficient.

In Soviet times, NGOs/mass media party controlled – so-called
“transmission belt” pattern.

Surveyed 100+ NGO leaders to determine: can groups influence
environmental decisions, participate as a civil society?
Russia, democracy & public policy – some findings
•
Reluctance to join NGOs remains high – in part due to perceived corruption and poor
economic performance; Soviet legacy of “mandatory group membership” (institutional,
economic).
•
Major impediments to reform = unwillingness of authorities to listen, public’s lack of
confidence in courts/regulatory agencies to permit access to information and ensure
administrative responsiveness (institutional, cultural).
•
Personal influence seen as most powerful decision-making factor. NGOs view themselves as
lacking power (cultural, institutional).
•
Journalists view public influence on environmental policies as good; scientists/corporate
officials do not (cultural).
•
Public is concerned with matters directly affecting welfare (e.g., local control of land, public
health, local environmental quality, food safety) – LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY MAY BE GROWING.
2.5
2
1.5
National
Regional
1
Municipal
0.5
0
NGO
national
NGO
regional
NGO
total
On a 1-5 scale, rank your influence on environmental protection
decisions at the national, regional (oblast), municipal level.
Interest articulation and agendas in policy-making
 Agenda-setting – how problems get the attention of policy-makers. Usually
depends on “windows of opportunity” that are afforded by two sets of factors:
 External factors (sometimes called “focusing events”): because of a crisis, or gradual
change in some condition, an affected group perceives that an issue merits attention
and falls within the public realm – often depends on available information.
 Internal factors (sometimes called “institutional drivers”): Policy makers become
convinced an issue falls within public realm due to legislative or bureaucratic initiative –
initiative is often pre-emptory; officials assume powerful groups will push for change.
 In both cases, support for particular policies – and impediments to them – are
affected by factors distinct to the decision-making process (the political stream)
and factors unique to the issue itself (the policy stream).
Political streams in agenda-setting

Constraints and opportunities afforded by decisional process:

Election cycles/relative power of organized interests, & how these cycles converge
with the “national mood.” This creates a window of opportunity.

Perceived costs of policy intervention – quest for “optimal” solutions; both “the cost
of the policy,” (a constraint) and “the benefits of promoting it” (which makes it
political – rather than policy influenced!) – historically, the anticipated costs of a
policy rarely constrain its development.

Jurisdictionality – is responsibility for a problem shared with other governments; is
it necessary to develop the policy within a federal framework (e.g., land use, waste
management, law enforcement, K-12 education?)

Nature of governmental interactions – what we call “sub-governments.” In most
cases, the real decisions by government are made in small decisional settings
insulated from public view.
Policy stream in agenda-setting

Constraints and opportunities afforded by the nature of the issue; e.g.,

Efficacy of state action: Can the issue be regulated by state, or does it require
partnering with non-governmental entities? (e.g., nonpoint water pollution, urban
sprawl?)

Knowledge: Do we have adequate information to design a workable solution that
will be effective (e.g., climate change, high-speed rail, missile defense?)

Consensus: Do experts and the public agree on the severity, and prescribed solutions
for, the problem (e.g., health care, cleanup of oil spills, seismic risk, hazardous
waste?)
Internal and external factors – key participants

According to Kingdon, elected officials shape “policy formulation” portion of the agenda;
bureaucrats and technical analysts shape the “specification of alternatives” portion.
 The former takes place during the input process – i.e., lodging of demands.
 The latter occurs once actual legislative design takes place (so-called “sub-
governments”)
 Elected executives influence agenda through: political appointments, re-organizing
agencies, micro-managing decisions, commanding public attention/public opinion through
major speeches (best seen in so-called electoral transitions).
 Legislators influence agenda through: responding to constituents’ demands & demands
and supports from key groups; “blending “ political and technical information from groups
and bureaucracies (i.e., sub-governments).
 Bureaucrats influence the agenda via: their longevity, expertise, and personal relationships
– their power is both technical and political (classic examples – J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI;
Allan Dulles and the CIA; fewer examples today).
Role of interest groups as agenda-setters
 Key strategies:
 Campaign contributions – Influence not merely financial, but through endorsement!
 Lobbying/sub-system participation – direct participation in crafting of laws and
program design – current examples: telecommunications, banking and credit.
 Litigation – alternative efforts to influence courts of law/seek re-interpretation of
existing policy (generally pursued by powerful as well as weaker groups).
 Protest/direct action – organizing members or general public (pursued mostly by
weaker groups & when previous agenda-setting efforts failed).
 Public opinion – advertising/public relations (increasingly sophisticated and heavily
reliant on symbolic power; e.g., Responsible Citizens of California – a non-profit group
that uses direct marketing to promote the right to carry concealed handguns.
Interest articulation interest group power
 Sources and amounts of influence and power affect choice of strategy:
 Groups with more resources employ more formal means of influence; those with fewer
employ less formal means:
 More expertise, money, political savvy = higher ability to persuade; more reliance on
campaign contributions, lobbying litigation.
 Less resources = greater reliance upon grassroots strategies (letter writing, protest,
direct action, media attention); seek to draw attention to policy failure (Duffy, 2003).
Agendas, interest groups, & the state – inside the “black box”
POLICY FORMULATION
SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
– what we call policy-making
National Level
Presidents, governors, legislators
run for office promising to
“formulate” certain policies –
election is reward for the promises
Interaction between
legislators; executive
branch and interest
groups is key
KEY INTERACTIONS
OCCUR WITHIN LAWMAKING PROCESS –
POLITICAL AND POLICY
STREAMS INTER-ACT
THROUGH SUBSYSTEMS
Regional/state/local levels
Interaction between
legislators; executive
branch and interest
groups ALSO key
At state and local levels,
policy reformers
propose DIRECT
LEGISLATION – e.g.,
INITIATIVE AND
REFERENDUM
Where the action is – the sub-government*
Subject matter
legislative
committees
- Provide expertise/advice
- Implement programs benefitting
legislators’ states & districts
Specialized
bureaus within
larger
departments
-Donate campaign funds/electoral support
-Perform legislative research
-Provide strategic political information
-Provide post-political employment/other benefits
-Appoint officials who are “interest friendly”
-Set budgets/appropriate funds
-Conduct investigations
- Seek friendly relations with groups
- Cultivate exchanges of information/data
- Lobby bureaus for favorable rules/benefits
- Provide unofficial endorsement of
programs & budgets before legislature
-Invite legislative testimony
-Make laws providing group benefits
-Accommodate group demands in policy design
Interest groups &
their lobbying
staffs
*Ogul, 1978; Lowi, 1965; Freeman, 1955
Significance of sub-governments for agendas
 Organized interests play a pivotal role through “strategic position” – some groups
have greater access to legislators/bureaucrats than others due to:
 Resonance between geography and policy – e.g., natural resources, agriculture,
economic regulation.
 Networking opportunities – e.g., people who are interested in health care “travel in
similar circles.”
 Sub-government negotiations tend to ensure that policy change is slow,
incremental – advantage lies with those who resist change rather than with those
who advocate it.
 In practice, change is more likely to occur when multiple interests, with numerous
points of access, disagree and clash.