Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:37:53.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lobbying Beyond the Legislature: Challenges and Biases in Women's Organizations’ Participation in Rulemaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2021

Ashley English Open the ORCID record for Ashley English [Opens in a new window]
Ashley English*
Affiliation:
University of North Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study, which is based on a survey of women's organizations’ staff members, answers two previously unexamined questions about women's groups’ participation in the rulemaking process: (1) How do women's organizations participate? (2) What are the characteristics of the women's organizations that are the most likely to participate? About one-quarter (27%) of women's organizations reported that they lobby rulemakers, often using relatively low-cost methods, such as submitting comments or signing on to comments written by coalitions or like-minded groups. Women's organizations with large staffs that are structured the most like political insiders or influential economic interest groups were the most likely to participate in the process, potentially biasing participation in favor of relatively advantaged subgroups of women. Together, these results suggest that although rulemaking presents unique opportunities to represent women, the most marginalized women may be underrepresented during rulemaking debates.

Keywords

rulemakingadvocacy organizationswomen's organizationsrepresentationlobbying
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 1077 - 1111
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Women, Gender, and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Balla, Steven J., Beck, Alexander R., Cubbison, William, and Prasad, Aryamala. 2019. “Where's the Spam? Interest Groups and Mass Comment Campaigns in Agency Rulemaking.” Policy and Internet 11 (4): 460–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balla, Steven J., Beck, Alexander R., Meehan, Elizabeth, and Prasad, Aryamala. 2020. “Lost in the Flood? Agency Responsiveness to Mass Comment Campaigns in Administrative Rulemaking.” Regulation & Governance. Published online May 20. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12318.Google Scholar
Ban, Pamela, and You, Hye Young. 2019. “Presence and Influence in Lobbying: Evidence from Dodd-Frank.” Business and Politics 21 (2): 267–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaszak, Lee Ann. 2010. The Women's Movement Inside and Outside the State. New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Stuart Minor. 2006. “Evaluating E-Rulemaking: Public Participation and Political Institutions.” Duke Law Journal 55 (5): 894–941.Google Scholar
Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2003. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel, Judge-Lord, Devin, Libgober, Brian, and Rashin, Steven. 2020. “Data and Methods for Analyzing Special Interest Influence in Rulemaking.” Interest Groups & Advocacy 9 (3): 425–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Susan J., Dodson, Debra L., and Mandel, Ruth B.. 1991. The Impact of Women in Public Office: An Overview. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the American Woman and Politics. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/impactoverview.pdf (accessed August 23, 2021).Google Scholar
Celis, Karen, Childs, Sarah, Kantola, Johanna, and Krook, Mona Lee. 2014. “Constituting Women's Interests through Representative Claims.” Politics & Gender 10 (2): 149–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 2018. “History of Women in the U.S. Congress.” http://cawp.rutgers.edu/history-women-us-congress (accessed June 11, 2018).Google Scholar
Center for Responsive Politics. 2021a. “National Women's Law Center.” https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-women-s-law-center/lobbying?id=D000054366 (accessed January 14, 2021).Google Scholar
Center for Responsive Politics. 2021b. “US Chamber of Commerce.” https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/us-chamber-of-commerce/lobbying?id=D000019798 (accessed January 14, 2021).Google Scholar
Coglianese, Cary. 2006. “Citizen Participation in Rulemaking: Past, Present, and Future.” Duke Law Journal 55 (5): 943–68.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul. 2014. “Interest Groups in the Judicial Arena.” In New Directions in Interest Group Politics, ed. Grossman, Matt. New York: Routledge, 221–38.Google Scholar
Dawson, Michael. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Deckman, Melissa. 2016. Tea Party Women: Mama Grizzlies, Grassroots Leaders, and the Changing Face of the American Right. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Dolan, Julie. 2000. “The Senior Executive Service: Gender, Attitudes, and Representative Bureaucracy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (3): 513–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, Ashley. 2016a. “Implementing Intersectionality: Creating Women's Interests in the Rulemaking Process.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
English, Ashley. 2016b. “Rewriting Title IX: The Department of Education's Response to Feminists’ Comments in the Rulemaking Process.” Politics & Gender 12 (3): 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, Ashley. 2019a. “Implementing Intersectionality: Women's Organizations’ Representation of Women of Color and Poor Women during Two Rulemakings.” Politics, Groups, and Identities. Published online October 9. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1674161.Google Scholar
English, Ashley. 2019b. “She Who Shall Not Be Named: The Women That Women's Organizations Do (and Do Not) Represent in the Rulemaking Process.” Politics & Gender 15 (3): 574–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C., and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle M.. 2014. “Dilemmas in the Meaning and Measurement of Representation.” In Representation: The Case of Women, eds. Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C. and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle M.. New York: Oxford University Press, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furlong, Scott R., and Kerwin, Cornelius M.. 2005. “Interest Group Participation in Rulemaking: A Decade of Change.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5 (3): 353–70.Google Scholar
Golden, Marissa Martino. 1998. “Interest Groups in the Rulemaking Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss, Kristin. 2007. “Foundations of Feminism: How Philanthropic Patrons Shaped Gender Politics.” Social Science Quarterly 88 (5): 1174–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss, Kristin. 2013. The Paradox of Gender Equality: How American Women's Groups Gained and Lost Their Public Voice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1996. “A Niche Theory of Interest Representation.” Journal of Politics 58 (1): 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, Matt. 2012. The Not-So-Special Interests: Interest Groups, Public Representation, and American Governance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeder, Simon F., and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2015. “Influence and Administrative Process: Lobbying the U.S. President's Office of Management and Budget.” American Political Science Review 109 (3): 507–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G. 2004. “Information Provision, Organizational Constraints, and the Decision to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaney, Michael T. 2004. “Outside the Issue Niche: The Multidimensionality of Interest Group Identity.” American Politics Research 32 (6): 611–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnacki, Marie. 1997. “Interest Groups’ Decisions to Join Alliances or Work Alone.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnacki, Marie. 1998. “Organized Interests’ Advocacy Behavior in Alliances.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (2): 437–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2017. “Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services.” Federal Register 82 (197): 47,792–47,862.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1998. Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest Inside the Church and Military. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kenney, Sally J. 2003. “Where Is Gender in Agenda Setting?” Women & Politics 25 (1–2): 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerwin, Cornelius M., and Furlong, Scott R.. 2011. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Libgober, Brian, and Carpenter, Daniel. 2018. “Lobbying with Lawyers: Financial Market Evidence for Banks’ Influence on Rulemaking.” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, January 9. https://equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/01162018-WP-lobbying-w-lawyers1.pdf (accessed August 23, 2021).Google Scholar
Libgober, Brian, and Rashin, Steven. 2018. “What Public Comments during Rulemaking Do (and Why).” Presented at the Southern Political Science Association Conference, January 4–6, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1985. “The State in Politics.” In Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences, ed. Noll, Roger. Berkeley: University of California Press, 65–104.Google Scholar
Lubbers, Jeffrey S. 2010. “A Survey of Federal Agency Rulemakers’ Attitudes about E-Rulemaking.” Administrative Law Review 62 (2): 451–86.Google Scholar
Lubbers, Jeffrey S. 2019. A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women?” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchetti, Kathleen. 2014. “Crossing the Intersection: The Representation of Disadvantaged Identities in Advocacy.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 2 (1): 104–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchetti, Kathleen. 2015. “The Use of Surveys in Interest Groups Research.” Interest Groups & Advocacy 4 (3): 272–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Schwartz, Thomas. 1984. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Soraya Nadia. 2014. “John Oliver's Net Neutrality Rant…” Washington Post, June 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/04/john-olivers-net-neutrality-rant-may-have-caused-fcc-site-crash/ (accessed September 7, 2021).Google Scholar
McKay, Amy, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2007. “Interest Group Competition on Federal Agency Rules.” American Politics Research 35 (3): 336–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. 1999. “Drugs, Sex, Rock, and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics.” Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 681–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. “The Public Clash of Private Values.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, Christopher. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 3–20.Google Scholar
Nelson, David, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2012. “Interest Group Coalitions and Government Policy Change.” Journal of Politics 74 (2): 339–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
ProPublica. 2021. “Non-Profit Explorer.” https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ (accessed January 18, 2021).Google Scholar
Rosen, Ruth. 2006. The World Split Open. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.” American Political Science Review 75 (3): 701–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Verba, Sidney, and Brady, Henry E.. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Solberg, Rorie, and Waltenburg, Eric. 2006. “Why Do Interest Groups Engage the Judiciary? Policy Wishes and Structural Needs.” Social Science Quarterly 87 (3): 558–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1988. “The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement.” American Sociological Review 53 (4): 585–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, Farah. 2017. “Women's March on Washington Opens Contentious Dialogues about Race.” New York Times, January 9. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/us/womens-march-on-washington-opens-contentious-dialogues-about-race.html (accessed May 5, 2021).Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Congress. 2017. “Advanced Search: Legislation.” https://www.congress.gov/advanced-search/legislation (accessed March 15, 2017).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2015. “The Affordable Care Act Is Improving Access to Preventive Services for Millions of Americans.” May 14. https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/139221/The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20is%20Improving%20Access%20to%20Preventive%20Services%20for%20Millions%20of%20Americans.pdf (accessed January 12, 2021).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2018. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.” Federal Register 83 (100): 23922–27.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. 2017. “Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act.” Federal Register 82 (232): 57395–413.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2017. “Congressional Review Act.” https://www.gao.gov/legal/other-legal-work/congressional-review-act#:~:text=The%20Congressional%20Review%20Act%20requires,the%20rules%20can%20take%20effect. (accessed March 15, 2017).Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 2018a. “Diversity and Inclusion.” https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion/federal-workforce-at-a-glance/ (accessed June 11, 2018).Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 2018b. “Senior Executive Service.” https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/facts-figures/#url=Demographics (accessed June 11, 2018).Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Population Affairs. 2016. “Compliance with Title X Requirements.” Federal Register 81 (243): 91852–60.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Postsecondary Education. 2018. “Student Assistance General Provisions.” Federal Register 83 (31): 6458–70.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. 2018. “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements.” Federal Register 83 (106): 25502–33.Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. 2010. “Administrative Law, Filter Failure, and Information Capture. Duke Law Journal 59: 1321–1432.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack. 1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” American Political Science Review 77 (2): 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Kenneth. 2004. Administrative Law in the American Political System. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Weldon, Laurel. 2011. When Protest Makes Policy: How Social Movements Represent Disadvantaged Groups. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, William F. 2004. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policymaking.” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, William F. 2009. “Inside the Black Box: The Development of Proposed Rules and the Limits of Procedural Controls.” Administration & Society 41 (5): 576–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woliver, Laura R. 2018. Push Back, Move Forward: The National Council of Women's Organizations and Coalition Advocacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2011. “The Politics of Ex Parte Lobbying: Pre-Proposal Agenda Building and Blocking during Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (2): 373–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “A Bias Towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You, Hye Young. 2017. “Ex Post Lobbying.” Journal of Politics 79 (4): 1162–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

English supplementary material

English supplementary material

Download English supplementary material(File)
File 18.2 KB