EPPL 601Interest Groups and Agenda
Setting
Setting the Stage
Social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966)
Weick (1995) Sensemaking—7 step model
Who gets to define reality gets to define issues
Issue Definition
Transforming a Problem into an Issue Who decides the rules, focuses the
conversation Problems can result in numerous “issues”
Thought questions:How do you see the influence of the players on issue definition?
What is it about the players that give them power to define? How?
The Players
Education Policy Planning and Research Community
Foundations Think tanks Universities Education Associations Wealthy State/Federal DOE
Thought Questions
How does the source of funding influence issue definition?
How can you get to the table?
How are biases controlled in the process?
What is the role of ideology in the process?
Role of Research
Basic Theory based “Pure”
Applied Tests theory in practice Evaluation research
Integrative research Meta analysis Overview on subject
Forums for Issue Definition
Ideology Basic beliefs predispose to policy problems Determines type of research/research
questions World view
Environments Think tanks/universities Leadership groups Community groups
Thought Questions
Given ideology influences, how is balance struck?
What can you do to create an enriching/productive thinking environment?
Can graduate school provide this thinking space?
Elements of Issue Definition
Claims
Evidence
Solution
Discourse
Broad Appeal
Policy Agendas
Ultimately, seek official policy through governmental policy agenda
Systemic policy agenda (broad)
Professional agenda (interest group based)
Media agenda (sells papers) Blogs & Internet?
Public agenda (focus of public attention
Thought Questions
Access to policy agendas is competitive. How would you get involved? Influence?
If the powerless have little impact on agenda setting, how are their interests overseen?
Is the role of nondecisions just as important as enacted policy?
Influencing Agenda Setting
Knowledge (social capital)
Allies and relationships (social capital)
Organizational effectiveness for rapid response (organizational capital)
Thought Questions
How might you attract attention to an issue? Examples from your practice? Is this important for a practicing
administrator?
When might you want to reduce attention? How might you accomplish this?
Knowing what you do now about issue definition and agenda settings, what will you do?
Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons (Baumgartner & Leech, 2001)
Top 5% of the issues accounted for more than 45% of the lobbying
The bottom 50% of the issues accounted for less than 3% of total
New data source—19,000 reports filed under Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
137 issues
Lobbying Activities
Business and Trade Associations=63%
Nonprofits/Citizen Groups=14%
Institutions=7%
Governments=2%
Resources & Levels of Activity
Business, Trade, Prof =85% of spending(21,000 issues)
Citizen groups=9% of spending(5,000 issues)
Caveat—business may act on behalf of citizens
Levels of Interest
Top 4 issues 1/3 interest of group activity 500 interest organizations
26 issues with 100 interest groups=81% of total lobbying
Lots of activity around few players, few issues
Thought Questions
Knowing what you know about lobbying, how would you would lead an effort to get an issue on the policy agenda?
What might you need to think about and assume about relationships in lobbying?
How critical is funding?
What role do you see for professional groups?
And so….
Different issues generate different activity
Expected behavior can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy
Resource advantage with business—now what? What does this say about collaborations?
Interests and the States
Activity similar across states
Not specializing within government branches
Large number of issues—some as bystanders
May be tilting locus of power in state to elected and appointed officials
Thought Questions
How do you think Nownes and Freeman selected the three “representative” states?
Why the increase in state level activity?
Group Activity
Monitoring—environmental scans
Political Action Committee (PAC) giving
Grass-roots lobbying
Differences with National Study
Judicial politicking (nil)
Grass-roots lobbying (higher)
Using the media (less)
Schmoozing (less)
Lobbying Techniques
75% of sample groups using 13 or more of 23 techniques
75% of the sample lobbyists using 12 or more of the 20 techniques
Active only on fraction of the bills in which interested
Citizens/Corporations
Citizens Grass-roots lobbying (96%) Letter-writing campaign (94%) Talk with media (92%)
Corporations Grass-roots lobbying (80%) Letter-writing campaigns (78%) Talk with media (63%
Thought Questions
Consider the similarity in techniques—why?
How does this data refute the ideal of an insider—outsider status? Does it matter?
How does technique impact the creation of social reality?
Summary Statistics
Intergovernmental & mixed group lobbyist use fewer techniques relative to others
Citizen groups and labor unions appear to use slightly more than others
Intergovernmental lobbyists monitor and give attention to more bills
Citizen, labor, religious/charitable monitor fewer bills
Summary
No group shut out Similarities to Washington group politics Grass-roots lobbying ubiquitous in
states No divide of insider/outsider Monitoring extensive—to what end? Little specialization Groups and lobbyist for most of time
inactive as participants--expense
Thought Questions
How does lobbying impact issues definition?
How might you use lobbying to advance your policy agenda?
What do you see as the most critical factors in the early policy development phase?
Top Related