Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:25:30.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stakeholder Participation and Strategy in Rulemaking: A Comparative Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Deserai A. Crow Open the ORCID record for Deserai A. Crow [Opens in a new window] ,
Elizabeth A. Albright  and
Elizabeth A. Koebele
Deserai A. Crow*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA
Elizabeth A. Albright
Affiliation:
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Elizabeth A. Koebele
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada
*
Deserai A. Crow, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado 80217-3364, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Integrating a diversity of stakeholder voices in policymaking processes can lead to more legitimate and widely supported laws and rules. While most attention to stakeholder participation in public decision processes has focused on legislative policymaking or the role of industry stakeholders in regulatory processes, strategic choices about participation by non-industry stakeholders in rulemaking remains largely overlooked, particularly at the state level. Previous research shows that agency rulemaking processes often provide greater procedural access to industry actors, who may significantly influence final rule content by bringing greater technical knowledge to bear on rulemaking processes. Less is understood about the strategies used by non-industry stakeholders, such as environmental advocacy groups, to influence regulatory decisions. This study, which compares environmental rulemaking processes across three issues in five states, finds that industry actors and environmental advocacy groups both use a variety of participation strategies classically thought to be “insider” and “outsider” strategies, and that these choices are motivated by reasons other than the perceived effectiveness of the strategy within the formal rulemaking process.

Keywords

political participationpolitical behaviorlobbyingparties and interest groupsenvironmental policypublic policypublic administrationinterest groups
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 208 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

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

Abney, Glenn. 1988. “Lobbying by the Insiders: Parallels of State Agencies and Interest Groups.” Public Administration Review 48 (5): 911–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Kenneth T., and Caren, Neal. 2010. “Making the News Movement Organizations, Media Attention, and the Public Agenda.” American Sociological Review 75 (6): 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Kenneth T., and Edwards, Bob. 2004. “Advocacy Organizations in the U.S. Political Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:479–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach, Carl F., and Silverstein, Louise B.. 2003. Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 1993. “Information and Influence: Lobbying for Agendas and Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 799–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barakso, Maryann. 2010. “Brand Identity and the Tactical Repertoires of Advocacy Organizations.” Pp. 155–176 in Advocacy Organizations and Collective Action, eds. Prakash, Aseem, and K, Mary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, Rosaline S. 2001. “Checklists for Improving Rigour in Qualitative Research: A Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog?” British Medical Journal 322:1115–1117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 2009. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Binderkrantz, Anne. 2005. “Interest Group Strategies: Navigating between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure.” Political Studies 53 (4): 694–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binderkrantz, Anne. 2008. “Different Groups, Different Strategies: How Interest Groups Pursue Their Political Ambitions.” Scandinavian Political Studies 31 (2): 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binderkrantz, Anne Skorkjær, Christiansen, Peter Munk, and Pedersen, Helene Helboe. 2015. “Interest Group Access to the Bureaucracy, Parliament, and the Media.” Governance 28 (1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., and Witmer, Richard. 2004. “Disentangling Diffusion: The Effects of Social Learning and Economic Competition on State Policy Innovation and Expansion.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. (2014). “State of California Environmental Protection Agency.”.Google Scholar
Crawford, Sue E. S., and Ostrom, Elinor. 1995. “A Grammar of Institutions.” The American Political Science Review 89 (3): 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, Deserai A., Albright, Elizabeth A., and Koebele, Elizabeth. 2015a. “Environmental Rulemaking across States: Process, Procedural Access, and Regulatory Influence.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34 (7): 1222–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, Deserai A., Albright, Elizabeth A., and Koebele, Elizabeth. 2015b. “Evaluating Informational Inputs in Rulemaking Processes: A Cross-Case Analysis.” Administration & Society 49 (9): 1318–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, Deserai A., Albright, Elizabeth A., and Koebele, Elizabeth. 2016. “Public Information and Regulatory Processes: What the Public Knows and Regulators Decide.” Review of Policy Research 33 (1): 30–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, Pepper D. 2010. Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Charles. 2012. “The Politics of ‘Fracking’: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas.” Review of Policy Research 29 (2): 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E., and Mertig, Angela G.. 1992. American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970–1990. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Dür, Andreas, and Mateo, Gemma. 2013. “Gaining access or Going Public? Interest Group Strategies in Five European Countries.” European Journal of Political Research 52 (5): 660–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckerd, Adam. 2017. “Citizen Language and Administrative Response: Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment.” Administration & Society 49:348–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorino, Daniel J. 2001. “Environmental Policy as Learning: A New View of an Old Landscape.” Public Administration Review 61 (3): 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gais, Thomas L., and Walker, Jack L. Jr., eds. 1991. “Pathways to Influence in American Politics.” Vol. 103. Pp. 103–121 in Mobilizing Interest Groups in America, eds. Walker, Jack L. Jr. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gluck, Abbe R., O'Connell, Anne Joseph, and Po, Rosa. 2015. “Unorthodox Lawmaking, Unorthodox Rulemaking.” Columbia Law Review 115:1789–1865.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Robert. 1993. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Grady, Dennis O., and Simon, Kathleen M.. 2002. “Political Restraints and Bureaucratic Discretion: The Case of State Government Rule Making.” Politics & Policy 30 (4): 646–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Robin. 2000. “Using Stakeholder Values to Make Smarter Environmental Decisions.” Environment 42 (5): 34–44.Google Scholar
Gregory, Robin, and Keeney, Ralph. 1994. “Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values.” Management Science 40 (8): 1035–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Wayman, Frank W.. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” The American Political Science Review 84 (3): 797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanegraaff, Marcel, Beyers, Jan, and Bruycker, Iskander De. 2016. “Balancing Inside and Outside Lobbying: The Political Strategies of Lobbyists at Global Diplomatic Conferences.” European Journal of Political Research 55 (3): 568–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnacki, Marie, and Kimball, David C.. 1998. “Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress.” The American Political Science Review 92 (4): 775–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Craig J. 1983. “Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 9:527–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A. Grant, and Maloney, William A.. 1997. The Protest Business? Mobilizing Campaign Groups. New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Jourdain, Charlotte, Hug, Simon, and Varone, Frédéric. 2017. “Lobbying Across Venues: An Issue-Tracing Approach.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 17 (2): 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, Michael. 2015. Environmental Policy and Politics. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1968. “Protest as a Political Resource.” The American Political Science Review 62 (4): 1144–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, Lynn A., and Lind, Allan E.. 2003. “Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: Stakeholders, Authorities, and Procedural Justice.” International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 3 (2): 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloney, William A., Jordan, Grant, and McLaughlin, Andrew M.. 1994. “Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited.” Journal of Public Policy 14 (1): 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, Daniel C. 2008. “The Adoption of State Climate Change Policies and Renewable Portfolio Standards: Regional Diffusion or Internal Determinants?” Review of Policy Research 25 (6): 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelson, Nina A. 2007. “Regulatory Beneficiaries and Informal Agency Policymaking.” Cornell Law Review 92 (3): 397–452.Google ScholarPubMed
Miles, Matthew B., and Huberman, A. Michael. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2012. “Fracking Update: What States Are Doing to Ensure Safe Natural Gas Extraction.”.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, and Carley, Sanya. 2016. “Effectiveness, Implementation, and Policy Diffusion: Or ‘Can We Make that Work for Us?‘” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 16 (1): 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, Anthony J., and Freeman, Patricia. 1998. “Interest Group Activity in the States.” The Journal of Politics 60 (1): 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1999. “Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework.” Pp. 35–72 in Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, Paul A.. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Pralle, Sarah B. 2003. “Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy.” Journal of Public Policy 23 (3): 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pralle, Sarah B. 2006. Branching Out, Digging in: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting. Edited by Boychik, G. W., Mossberger, K., and Rom, M. C.. American Governance and Public Policy Series. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
ProPublica. 2012. “Fracking Chemical Disclosure Rules.”.Google Scholar
Renn, Ortwin, Webler, Thomas, Rakel, Horst, Dienel, Peter, and Johnson, Branden. 1993. “Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-Step Procedure.” Policy Sciences 26 (3): 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinfret, Sara, and Cook, Jeffrey J.. 2014. “Environmental Policy Can Happen: Shuttle Diplomacy and the Reality of Reg Neg Lite.” Environmental Policy and Governance 24 (2): 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinfret, Sara, Cook, Jeffrey J., and Pautz, Michelle C.. 2014. “Understanding State Rulemaking Processes: Developing Fracking Rules in Colorado, New York, and Ohio.” Review of Policy Research 31 (2): 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Herbert J., and Rubin, Irene S.. 2005. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. 1988. “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.” Policy Sciences 21 (2–3): 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A., and Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.. 1993. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Assessments, Revisions, and Implications for Scholars and Practitioners.” Pp. 211–236 in Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, eds. Sabatier, Paul A., and Jenkins-Smith, H.. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A., and Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.. 1999. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.” Pp. 117–166 in Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, Paul A.. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A., and Weible, Christopher M.. 2007. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications.” Pp. 189–220 in Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, Paul A.. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stuart, and Borie-Holtz, Debra. 2013. The Politics of Regulatory Reform. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steelman, Toddi A. 2001. “Elite and Participatory Policymaking: Finding a Balance in the Case of National Forest Planning.” Policy Studies Journal 29 (1): 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steeves, Michael. 2002. “The EPA's Proposed CAFO Regulations Fall Short of Ensuring the Integrity of Our Nation's Waters.” Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law 22:367–397.Google Scholar
Teske, Paul. 2004. Regulation in the States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Energy. 2018. “Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency: Rules, Regulations & Policies for Renewable Energy.”.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. “Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the Waterkeeper Decision; Final Rule.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Vig, Norman J., and Kraft, Michael E.. 2003. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. 5th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Weible, Christopher M. 2007. “An Advocacy Coalition Framework to Stakeholder Analysis: Understanding the Political Context of California Marine Protected Area Policies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, William F. 2004. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis.” Public Administration Review 64:66–80.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): 576–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, William F., and Raso, Connor. 2013. “Who Shapes the Rulemaking Agenda? Implications for Bureaucratic Responsiveness and Bureaucratic Control.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (3): 495–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “A Bias towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy.” The Journal of Politics 68:128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2012. “The Politics of Ex Parte Lobbying: Pre-proposal Agenda Building and Blocking during Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (2): 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar