for A-plus writer only

G et

ty Im

ag es

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

• Demonstrate knowledge of the key concepts in public policy formulation and adoption.

• Identify the key actors involved in public policy formulation and adoption.

• Identify the different arenas of influence and contexts in which public policy formulation and adoption occur.

Formulating, Designing, and Adopting Policy

5

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 145 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.1 What Is Policy Formulation? CHAPTER 5

Federal public policies do not just appear; they have to be created or designed and then adopted by an authoritative decision-making body. If policies are to solve per-ceived problems or emerging issues, then analysis of the most appropriate action to address the problem must take place. As Chapter 1 discussed, policy makers can then choose which type of policy to formulate and adopt. The choice of policy type will also include decisions about who will benefit and who will bear the burden of the policy, based on how groups are socially constructed. In essence, this amounts to which target popula- tion will be affected by the policy. Groups that society perceives negatively will either be ignored or negatively affected by the policy. Analysis involves policy makers’ choosing among alternative courses of action. Inherent in this process is the fact that policy makers must deal with the question of policy design—selecting the correct set of instruments that can actually be adopted and best match the problem. Simply, for successful policy formu- lation, a policy must be politically adoptable. Ideally, the best policy formulation solves the identified problem. In actuality, policy formulation is a political exercise in which the best policy is often sacrificed in favor of an adoptable policy. In sum, the policy must be acceptable to those who adopt policy as well as to target populations. Just as a football team needs support to help it play well, policy formulation is influenced heavily by policy makers’ need to win support for their proposed policy from policy actors within the for- mal institutions of government and society as a whole.

Once policy alternatives are designed, however, some kind of governmental decision must be made regarding the direction and type of governmental action that will follow. This seemingly simple act of making the decision to adopt a proposed course of policy action represents a defining moment in the policy process. Only by adopting policies can a pro- posed course of action garner legitimacy within the political and public arena. In sum, the policy adoption stage represents the critical stage in which policy makers politically explore alternatives in the law-making arenas, conduct debate and negotiate within the legislative bodies, and take official actions to promote specific legislative positions over others.

5.1 What Is Policy Formulation?

Once a problem or issue is on the public agenda, then remedies or solutions to it must be seriously considered. Policy formulation is the development of remedies that deal with a specific problem or address a particular issue within the insti- tutional agenda. It takes place before legislation is enacted and theoretically ends once the policy is implemented. In reality, however, formulation often becomes reformulation because after policy is implemented and then evaluated, it is often redesigned to address political or essential inadequacies. This, then, typifies the iterative nature of formulation. The policy process itself is also iterative.

Inherent to policy formulation is the notion of bargaining and compromise. Often policy-making actors will make concessions to win the most political support for a par- ticular solution. From start to finish, policy formation is an incredibly political process. The process of formulation involves many competing realities. One essential reality of

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 146 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5

policy formulation is that, multiple actors can design different remedies or mechanisms at the same time for solving the same problem. In Congress, for example, numerous policy proposals compete with each other for adoption. This often results in competing propos- als fighting for political support. Another reality is that formulation can occur over a long period of time, and while it is happening, a continuous process of coalition building is going on behind certain policy proposals. A final reality is that policy formulation does not necessarily result in policy adoption, even though the expected result of policy formu- lation is to solve a problem.

5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments

Once policy makers have decided that government should intervene to deal with a problem and develop policy, they involve themselves in policy design, in which they have at their disposal a number of policy instruments, tools, approaches and techniques with which to craft a policy. Policy instruments are simply the means or tools by which governments reach the solution to the problem they are attempting to address. When discussing what policy solutions may be developed, note that policy makers have the option of using more than one instrument to solve a prob- lem and achieve the objectives of a proposed policy. Often the choice of instrument(s) depends on the nature of the problem, the target population, the goals of the policy, and finally, how the policy will be implemented.

Policy scholars have developed various policy instrument clas- sification schemes (Schneider and Ingram, 2000). All schemes describe mechanisms by which government seeks to alter the behavior of specified target populations. In reality, such change might not occur without the government giving the target populations the ability to do so. Other common dimensions of these classification schemes include, first, a focus on activity, which provides a general sense of what government is attempting to achieve with the policy. The second dimension is a delivery system through which the implementation’s level of complexity can be gauged. The third dimension is the program’s administrative level of centralization. The final dimension is the degree to which the program requires detailed administrative action. Overall, these dimensions help us better appreciate just how similar these schemes are, regardless of the labels used by each author.

Polka Dot/Thinkstock

Elderly people are among the advantaged population and tend to have a good deal of influence and thus a greater likelihood of receiving benefits when targeted by policies.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 147 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5

Actual policy solutions may come in the form of legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions, regulations, and approval of referendum or initiatives. To make sense of these different forms and of the various policy instrument classification schemes found in the literature, one can divide policy instruments into two broad categories: negative instru- ments and affirming instruments (Brigham & Brown, 1980). Negative instruments restrain the behavior of the target population by prohibiting or deterring certain actions; affirma- tive instruments promote certain behavior from the target population by prescribing or encouraging certain actions (Verdung, 2003). Thus, negative instruments will apply pen- alties, punishments, or costs to the target population. Examples of negative instruments include laws that compel citizenry compliance—such as regulating speed limits or alcohol consumption while driving—or the use of financial incentives to compel desired behavior through taxes and spending. Affirmative instruments employ incentives such as grants, tax exemption, information, and education to shape citizen behavior through programs such as the Just Say No drug awareness campaign. Other examples of affirmative instru- ments include intergovernmental loans or the delivery of services either directly or indi- rectly through contracts or subsidies.

Although policy solutions are specific to the problem at hand and may use different means to achieve the desired outcome, each broadly attempts to accomplish one of the following:

• prohibit behaviors that put society in jeopardy; for example, banning smoking in public areas;

• protect certain activities, markets, or groups; for example, minorities or people with disabilities;

• promote activities that are important or of value for the government and for society; and

• provide benefits to citizens directly; for example, Social Security payments.

Whatever policy solution is selected, the following factors must be taken into consideration:

• political feasibility—even if a policy proposal has technical feasibility, it will not work without political support;

• availability of resources to implement the solution—without sufficient resources to carry out the solution, it is not viable;

• administrative feasibility—can the policy be successfully established and managed;

• reaction of the target population—the receptivity of the target population to changing its behavior or complying with the policy. A policy that fails to change a target population’s behavior fails by definition.

Some policy scholars recognize that designing policy is not just a matter of determining the type of policy or the instruments; it is also acknowledging the influence that per- ceived merit and political power have on both the design of policy and its justification. As Chapter 3 discussed, the theoretical framework known as the social construction of target populations argues that within society, groups of individuals (target populations) with

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 148 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5

culturally constructed images inevitably affect the policy process. In sum, social construc- tion is how society perceives a group; it is the image others within the political arena and society hold of a group. Public policy scholars like A. L. Schneider and H. Ingram argue that the justification and substance of any policy can be understood by identifying how groups targeted by a given policy are socially constructed. Schneider and Ingram (2000) contend that policy makers are influenced by these images when they design policy; social construction dictates the benefits and burdens they are willing to distribute to the groups through policy.

The effect of such image construction, some authors argue, is to allow office holders seeking reelection to maximize their electoral advantage through the policy choices they made while in office (Donovan, 1993; Herek & Capitanio, 1998). The ideal objective of such behavior is to give the greatest benefits to groups with the most positive images and the most political power while giving the burdens to groups with negatively constructed images and the least political power. In reality, of course, the ideal is often not achieved. In the real world many groups are positively constructed but powerless; other groups are negatively constructed but historically powerful, due to their economic and political resources. For example, battered women are positively constructed but weak in terms of their power to influence policy makers, while unions are generally negatively constructed but strong in their position to influence elected representatives. Thus, the distribution of benefits and burdens is not as straightforward as the ideal suggests. Often the influ- ence a group wields through its actual or attributed power will dictate the distribution of benefits and burdens of the group in order to maximize the electoral ambitions of policy makers. To justify this behavior, Schneider and Ingram (1993) argue, policy makers offer a number of believable rationalizations. Thus, policy makers rationalize maximizing the benefits and minimizing the burdens for favored groups.

In the social construction model, four types of target populations are identified using a typology that measures the interrelationship between social construction and political power. Figure 5.1 shows four distinct population types: advantaged, contenders, dependents, and deviants. What determines each group’s label is the manner in which they mobilize their members, the public’s perception of how deserving the group is to be helped (based on general assumptions of lifestyle), and the group’s general political fortunes (based on the group’s level of resources). The resources that are available to groups are economic, political, motivational, and organizational. The net effect of this balance between image and power is that advantaged populations tend to have a good deal of influence and thus a greater likelihood of receiving benefits when policies target them. They are also likely to have a high level of control over the way policy is shaped. Contender populations have little influence over the distribution of benefits but a relatively good deal of control over the substance of policy burdens. In comparison, dependent populations are more likely to receive burdens than benefits. However, dependents, because of their image, can exercise some influence over the policy process, so they may also be targeted for benefits. Finally, deviant populations receive burdens rather than benefits and have little or no influence over policies that may affect them. A deviant social construction is significant because policy makers will create policies that are punitive rather than rewarding.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 149 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.1: Social construction and political power—types of target populations

Advantaged populations have more available resources and more influence and are thus more likely to benefit from targeted policies.

Adapted from Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.

Groups and individuals seek policy changes to achieve benefits while minimizing costs or transferring them to other groups or individuals. James Q. Wilson is the author of one of the most prominent typology classifications of policy. Wilson’s (1973b) scheme focuses on policies’ distribution of costs and benefits. Costs and benefits are not necessarily finan- cial and can be perceived as concentrated or diffuse. According to Wilson (1973b), “costs and benefits are widely distributed or narrowly concentrated from the point of view of those who bear the costs or enjoy the benefits” (p. 332). Basically, Wilson’s concern is whether benefits or cost are being distributed and whether the beneficiaries are concen- trated or dispersed. Concentrated costs and benefits are confined to a few individuals or particular segment of society. If costs and benefits are distributed, then society as a whole accrues them. Table 5.1 illustrates the Wilson classification scheme and gives examples of how costs and benefits are distributed. Wilson’s concentrated or dispersed typology helps explain why certain types of policy are implemented, even though they seem to have little support.

Social Construction

Power

ADVANTAGED Elderly Business Veterans Health-care workers

Positive Negative

Strong

Weak

CONTENDERS Wealthy Minorities Unions Cultural elite

DEPENDENTS Children Battered women People with disabilities

DEVIANTS Criminals Drug addicts Gangs

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 150 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5

Table 5.1: Wilson’s typology of concentrated or distributed costs and benefits of policies

Benefits Broadly Distributed Concentrated Benefits

Costs broadly distributed Majoritarian politics: Many people benefit and many people pay.

Example: Social Security

Client politics: Few people benefit but many people pay.

Example: Veterans benefits

Concentrated costs Entrepreneurial politics: Many people benefit but few pay.

Example: environmental protection

Interest group politics: Few people benefit and few people pay.

Example: auto industry workers unions vs. auto industry corporations

Adapted from Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. New York: Basic Books.

To recap: When policy is designed, it will either benefit or cost target populations. Next, in policy design it is impossible to ignore the interplay of factors such as economic analysis, societal values, policy makers’ belief systems, the structure of the policy process, and the distribution of power within the structure. With these two considerations in mind, how does one judge one particular policy solution against another policy solution that deals with the same issue?

As the earlier discussion made clear, policy makers are not monolithic or neutral, so bear in mind that the choice of policy solutions is often fought for among a group of policy makers, each pushing their own alternatives within the institutional agendas. This bat- tle is theoretically the process of examining and evaluating alternative policy proposals intended to lessen or resolve a problem and is generally referred to as policy analysis.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 151 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.3 Policy Analysis CHAPTER 5

5.3 Policy Analysis

First used by political economist Charles Lindblom in 1958, the term policy analysis refers to a type of quantitative analysis involving incremental comparisons in which nonquantitative methods are included in the recognition of values and policy (Lind- blom, 1959). Over the years, policy analysis has also come to be defined in other ways that can be categorized as either analysis for policy making or analysis of existing policy (Gor- don, Lewis, & Young, 1977). In terms of policy formulation, analysis for policy making is the most useful approach.

Analysis for policy making involves decision makers using reason and evidence to choose the best policy from a number of alternatives. This type of policy analysis identi- fies and verifies a problem’s existence; it allows alternative ways to address the problem to be compared and then formats that comparison in a way that is useful for decision makers. The objective of this type of policy analysis is to help decision makers make more intelligent, more ethical, more effective, and more efficient choices. Policy analysis, how- ever, is not an exact science, because it cannot ensure that chosen proposals will be in the best interest of the public or will even solve the problem completely.

Most public policy theorists would agree that policy analysis requires a sequence of steps (Patton & Sawicki, 1986). Theorists might disagree about the number of steps in the sequence, but general agreement exists that a sequence of activities that must be carried out for effective analysis. Each step clearly links to the next, and if the sequence is dramati- cally broken, then the likelihood of the analysis being flawed greatly increases. Figure 5.2 illustrates this sequence (MacRae & Wilde, 1985; Patton & Sawicki, 1986; Bardach, 2000). The objective of any piece of analysis for policy making is to develop alternatives (policy proposals) that can be evaluated by how well they address the problem as it is identified and understood.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 152 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.3 Policy Analysis CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.2: Policy analysis steps

The number of steps in the policy process can vary, but theorists do agree the sequence of the steps is significant and greatly impacts policy analyses.

Adapted from Patton, C., & Sawicki, D. (1986). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, pp. 2, 26.

• Policy makers identify alternative policy

solutions specifically to meet problem.

• Policy makers must identify all possible

options so there is choice.

• Policy makers should redefine, modify,

adapt, and omit alternatives until a short

list of viable options remains.

• Policy makers then compare shortlist with

evaluation criteria and problem definition.

• Needed if policy makers are to compare and evaluate generated

alternatives’ effectiveness in dealing with the problem.

• Allows policy makers to judge alternatives as acceptable to

relevant constituencies.

• Common categories of criteria may be applied to all alternatives;

policy makers can develop other criteria as needed according to

the problem definition.

• Common categories are technical feasibility, including

effectiveness and adequacy; economic feasibility, including costs,

benefits, and cost-effectiveness; political viability, including

acceptibility to actors and stakeholders; administrative viability,

including the ability to implement and manage legality and ethics

(is it legal, is it ethical).

• Policy makers evaluate and compare developed

alternatives against established criteria.

• Policy makers must rank criteria to see which

alternatives are preferable.

• Requires policy makers to identify differences

among alternatives.

• Process comes full circle.

• Allows policy makers to

include feedback.

• Allows decision makers to

see if adopted policy is doing

what it’s supposed to, and if

not, why.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

ESTABLISHING EVALUATION

CRITERIA

DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES

COMPARING ALTERNATIVES

SELECTING ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION

• Verifies, defines, and details

problem-including causes.

• Policy makers must identify all

relevant actors from most to least

affected based on their individual

definition of what problem is.

• Policy makers must identify and take

all influencing factors into account.

• Crucial because if policy makers define

incorrectly, solutions can be flawed.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 153 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5

Analysis of existing policy is the second approach to policy analysis. It is concerned with how, why, when, and for whom policy is made, or describes a policy in terms of its content and relationship to other policies. Factors such as effectiveness, feasibility, and equity are crucial to this type of analysis.

Policy analysis—be it analysis of existing policy or analysis for policy making—allows one to understand and examine the problem, its nature, and its dynamics. It is critical to developing appropriate, effective, and efficient policy solutions. Common to both policy analysis approaches is a requirement that they be systematic and organized so that policy makers can assess either the feasibility of policy alternatives or the usefulness of an exist- ing policy. Analysis for policy making represents a critical thread that ties together all of the implications of the previously discussed predecision stage. In essence, policy formula- tion represents the proposed solution to the identified problem. Real-world politics often ensure that because problems are not identified correctly, generated policy solutions are not always as effective as they could be. More important, the most politically feasible solu- tion is often the one that is adopted, resulting in the wrong solution to the problem.

5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation

An earlier discussion of the who of policy making (see Chapter 2) referred to the institutional and noninstitutional actors in policy formulation. The difficulty of formulating policy is that it involves multiple actors in the process with few rules. B. Guy Peters (1999) argues that this absence of rules is responsible in part for the com- plexity of formulation. The fact that many actors are operating in a process with few rules ensures formulation is fraught with political and policy difficulties. What follows is a discussion of the important policy formulation actors at the national level of government. Note that some actors are more important than others and that in many respects the policy domain dictates who may be actively involved with any given issue. However, all actors involved in the different venues of policy design can and may attempt to influence formu- lation at varying points.

The President

The president and the executive offices associated with the White House are often very active in policy formulation. The last 50 years has witnessed a number of president- created commissions and task forces that solidify the president’s participation in formu- lating policy. Such commissions draw attention to a specific problem. Recent examples include President Bill Clinton’s 1993 task force on health-care reform, George W. Bush’s commission on the intelligence capabilities regarding weapons of mass destruction in 2005, and President Barack Obama’s 2010 commissions on fiscal responsibility and reform, the BP oil spill, and offshore drilling.

In the modern era, presidents commonly take an active personal interest in policy formu- lation. (For example, the staffs of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were often involved in the preparation of legislation for congressional review.) More often than not, presidents are part of the process because they were elected to office with a policy agenda. That

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 154 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5

agenda is establishing an administration’s pol- icy goals and priorities. The public often judges presidents on the success of their agenda, which means assessment of which policy solutions are pursued as well as those that are enacted. The advantage of presidential participation in the policy formulation process is that the presi- dent is the only actor with a national constitu- ency and national political recognition. This allows presidents to formulate policies with the national interest as their focus and to redefine the national interest to serve their policy agenda. That can be a drawback, as presidents tend to define national interests in line with the interests of those who elected them and not always the public at large. For example, many critics argue that George W. Bush tended to initiate policy proposals in areas such as the environment that rewarded his electoral backers in the energy and oil industry. However, in this respect Bush was no different than any of his predecessors, who also had to contend with the political and policy implications of their individual policy agendas.

In his first 2 years in office, President Barack Obama initiated an ambitious legislative agenda in response to the policy agenda laid out in his

2008 presidential election campaign. His agenda promised change and reform that would bring smart, effective government to Washington. Such an agenda requires a president to be actively involved in policy formulation. The Obama White House’s first 2 years saw a flurry of policy proposals on issues ranging from health-care reform to corporate execu- tive compensation to energy to stimulating the economy to cybersecurity. By the end of his first year in office, Obama had named 35 policy czars to manage broad areas of policy formulation (Schambra, 2009).

Congress

Members of Congress are a significant source of draft legislation and therefore are most often associated with policy formulation. Members of Congress participate in formulation principally by developing new legislation, legislative oversight, and legislative review. Additionally, the integral role played by members’ personal or committee staffs facilitates their involvement in policy formulation. These staffs not only research possible policy proposals but also design them.

Congressional involvement in developing policy proposals means that partisan or politi- cal influence shapes the kinds of remedies that are formulated. Each member of Congress confronts the political reality that the best politically formulated policy is not necessarily the best solution to a problem. Often the solution is the one that has or will receive the

Visions of America/Superstock

The president plays a large role in policy formation as former president Bill Clinton did in the 1993 task force on health-care reform.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 155 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5

most political support. In addition, legislators tend to formulate detailed policy propos- als that often require programs be micromanaged. An example of this is laws removing discretionary exclusions from the hands of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This policy action was the result of congressional members’ formulating and adopting a policy that returned control of a critical area of immigration back to policy makers and away from the day-to-day policy implementers.

The Bureaucracy

Governmental agencies initially develop many policy proposals. Bureaucrats often have more expertise and involvement in policy issue areas than many elected office holders; bureaucrats may possess the relevant information and data resources necessary to formu- late proposals that can be possible policy solutions. Additionally, bureaucrats understand implementation procedures and what can and cannot be accomplished. Such characteris- tics place the bureaucracy in a strong position in the race to formulate possible remedies to problems. Bureaucrats therefore have significant responsibility in the overall policy formulation process. The implications of such prominence can be serious for the formu- lated solutions. For example, because of their desire to maintain their agency’s survival, bureaucrats might lack the initiative to develop dramatic or innovative policy solutions. Moreover, the political necessity of achieving accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness places even greater constraints on the type of policies designed by bureaucrats. Thus, bureaucrats have a tendency to formulate incremental proposals.

Interest Groups

Interest groups are major actors in policy formulation and often propose or initiate pol- icy solutions. Political scientist Theodore Lowi argues that such a situation reflects inter- est group liberalism, in which government defers to interest groups. Lowi (1967) does not disagree that interest group demands are legitimate and that the government’s job is to advance such demands. Such groups are also key facilitators in the bargaining, negotia- tions, and compromises that occur around various alternative policy proposals. Interest group primacy in policy formulation can best be understood by realizing that the primacy reflects group resources and level of influence. For some, this translates to buying influ- ence, lobbying for influence, and suing for influence (Spiller & Liao, 2006). Authors such as Schattschneider (1975) and Lowi (1979) argue that U.S. interest groups have undue power in the policy process and often structure formulations that reflect their interests rather than the common good. Critics of interest groups’ activities in this stage of the pol- icy process argue that powerful groups have significant impact on the direction of legisla- tion through the resources at their disposal (see Figure 5.3). Those who support significant interest group participation in policy formulation and thus interest group liberalism argue that in spite of disparities among groups in terms of their resources and influence, interest group participation enhances the democratic process because it allows for more grass- roots participation in the policy-making process. Therefore, one could argue that policy formulation reflects how the more influential interest groups in U.S. society mobilize.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 156 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.3: Total funds given to members of Congress by the top 50 interest groups

Powerful groups have more disposable resources and, as a result, often have more of an impact on legislation.

Center for Responsive Politics, http://www.opensecrets.org, Top Interest Groups to Congress.

Policy Entrepreneurs

Policy entrepreneurs can be found in formal institutions of government as well as out- side government. They are distinguished by their motivation to initiate dynamic policy change within society (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Kingdon, 1984). Policy entrepreneurs believe in a cause and want to make that cause part of the political agenda. Their pres- ence and actions can significantly affect the probability that the formulation process will include particular policy proposals. Entrepreneurs identify problems, network in policy circles, shape the terms of policy debates, and build coalitions behind certain proposals. These activities attract the attention of decision makers and can encourage them to initi- ate appropriate policy responses (Kingdon, 1984; Majone, 1988). Through networking, entrepreneurs can determine what arguments will persuade others to support their policy ideas, and this allows them to shape the debate around their preferred policy solution (Kelman, 1987; Kingdon, 1984; Riker, 1986). Simply, entrepreneurs know which issue to push and how to sell it to different audiences. For example, policy entrepreneurs can be members of an interest group who communicate with government on behalf of the group

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,200,000,000

1,400,000,000 Amount contributed to members of Congress

D o

ll a rs

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012*

** September 2011—March 2012 Year

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 157 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5

(Ainsworth & Sened, 1993). They can also be bureaucrats who want to improve or change governmental services (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993). Policy entrepreneurs who successfully engage in such activity will be in a good position to build leverage when it comes to coalition building and in the long run be more effective in getting their ideas approved as viable policy solutions. In many ways policy entrepreneurs are similar to business entre- preneurs acting as “brokers” and making the most of any opportunity that comes their way. Policy entrepreneurs’ activity will not always lead to the adoption of a policy, but whether it does or does not, the significance of such actors in policy innovation and the formulation of policy proposals is great.

Think Tanks

The last 40 years have witnessed an explosion in the number of organizations and individ- uals who attempt to influence the direction of policy solutions through expertise housed in policy think tanks (see Figure 5.4). The Center for American Progress, the Brookings Institution, and the Heritage Foundation are examples of such organizations. These actors often initiate policy proposals and push other actors to support their policy preferences. The implication of such behavior is debatable. The group and individual level of influ- ence with key legislators and other policy formulators will largely determine the degree of influence in policy formulation. Think tanks, either independent or associated with institutions of higher learning, often provide vital research on the feasibility and pos- sible effects of particular policy proposals. Theoretically, they operate without any par- ticular agenda. However, over the last few years it has become more and more evident that many of these organizations are linked to specific ideological platforms. Hence, think tanks are taking a much more active role in influencing policy formulation. Today think tanks develop policy recommendations for specific societal problems and distribute them to members of Congress, the executive branch, and the mass media with the desired goal that the policy recommendation becomes law.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 158 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.4: Growth in the number of policy think tanks in the United States since 1970

There has been a growth in the number of think tanks during the past 40 years. These organizations now have a more active role in the policy process.

Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 15; and The Global Go-To Think Tanks Report 2007, 2010 and 2011, retrieved from Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, http://www.gotothinktank.com.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Number of Think Tanks N

u m

b e r

Year 1970 1986 2000 2007 2011

Policy in Practice: Grassroots Organizations in Policy Formulation and Design As of 2009 research indicated that more than 1,800 college students die each year due to alcohol- related incidents, including car accidents. Universities, legislatures, and other institutional stakehold- ers have developed a range of top-down policies to reduce these rates and have had some success. However, some of the most effective policy initiatives come not from the top, but from the grassroots.

In the late spring of 1980, 13-year-old Cari Lightner was struck and killed by a drunk driver. She was one of an estimated 30,000 alcohol-related fatalities that year. In response, her mother Candy and ultimately thousands of others who have been affected by or were concerned about drinking and driving came together to form one of the most effective grassroots policy advocacy organizations ever: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). (continued)

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 159 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.5 Models of Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5

5.5 Models of Policy Formulation

Many different models of policy formulation exist, and each model depends on the criteria used for classification. B. Guy Peters’s (1999) book on U.S. public policy develops a scheme for classifying particular approaches for preparing policy solutions. For Peters policy formulation depends on two interacting factors: how much factual information is available to the formulators and how well they understand the problem’s causes (Peters, 1999). Peters (1999) demonstrates the interaction between knowledge of causation and the level of factual information. Figure 5.5 shows that Peters’s classification scheme encompasses simple to complex formulation models: routine, condi- tional, creative, and craftsman.

Policy in Practice: Grassroots Organizations in Policy Formulation and Design (continued) Extraordinarily effective from almost the very beginning, by 1983 MADD saw 129 anti-drunk-driving laws passed across the nation, and in the following year, Candice Lightner appeared with President Ronald Regan as he signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act into law. Since then MADD has continued to be active and effective in contributing to the design and content of alcohol-related legislation. In the 1990s MADD was among the leading stakeholders in moving the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) level from 0.10 to 0.08. MADD has continued to work to shape future policy with activities that include hosting national summits of traffic safety experts and providing testimony before Congress. By its 25th anniversary, the efforts of MADD and other alcohol and transportation policy stakeholders had resulted in a reduction of alcohol-related fatalities to around 17,000 that year.

Although many policies are highly technical and significantly influenced by powerful institutional actors, the awareness about and content of some policies is significantly shaped by grassroots orga- nizations like MADD.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Given that grassroots organizations often do not have the expertise, stature, or other resources of larger, more institutional stakeholders, what tools do grassroots organizations have that enable them to successfully influence policy?

2. Of the four policy goals described in this chapter, which are grassroots organizations likely to have the most influence on and why?

3. To what degree do you think MADD has changed over its history from a grassroots organization to a more institutional stakeholder? How does this change what it does or how it functions?

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 160 11/27/12 3:28 PM

Section 5.5 Models of Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.5: Peters’s formulation model

These four types of policy formulation models are based on the interactions between knowledge of causation and level of factual information.

Adapted from Peters, B. G. (1999). American public policy: Promise and performance (5th ed.). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

The simplest type of policy formulation is routine formulation, which requires high lev- els of knowledge about causation and high levels of factual information. It is the routine adjustment of existing policies and thus incremental policy making. Shifts in routine poli- cies can occur if underlying theories of causation change. Changes to Social Security poli- cies are an example of routine formulation.

Conditional formulation occurs when formulators have sufficient information but lack causal knowledge. Policy proposals are triggered by changing indicators of the problem. Thus, policy proposals are based on the likely effects of the policy. Such proposals often allow for possible modification of the policy as it is being implemented and as conditions change. A good example of conditional formulation is fiscal policy.

Creative formulation occurs because formulators lack sufficient information and causal understanding. Policy is innovative in design, but effects of policy proposals are doubt- ful. Policy makers not only need to be creative but also cautious in matching individuals’ needs with the needs of the implementing agency. Often, this requires that policy makers build in reversible policy choices for use if the creatively formulated policy turns out to be unworkable or in need of correction (Peters, 1999). As a consequence, formulators can be influenced by bureaucratic claims of expertise and knowledge of the issue area. An example of creative formulation is personal social services, such as counseling.

Craftsman formulation occurs when formulators clearly understand the causes of the problem but lack supportive information. Formulators base policy design on what deci- sion makers believe to be the right response, but lack knowledge of how the policy will

Routine

High knowledge of causation High information

Conditional

Low knowledge of causation High information

Craftsman

High knowledge of causation Low information

Creative

Low knowledge of causation Low information

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 161 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

be received. Formulators must therefore develop contingencies. Thus, a formulated policy relies heavily on probability of outcome. More often than not, the policy is poorly formu- lated because even if decision makers know causes, they know little of the facts of the situation, and errors are inevitable. A policy that dictates the use of military force is one example of craftsman formulation.

The predecision stages of the policy process lead to the identification of problems, the setting of agendas, and the formulation of policy solutions. During these initial stages, issues of concern emerge, formulators debate ideas, issues enter and leave the agenda, and policy makers design alternatives that best address a policy problem. Once the formulators design policy alternatives, however, government must make some kind of decision regarding the course and form of governmental action. This entails adopting a formulated solution.

5.6 Defining Policy Adoption

For a policy to be adopted, the actors and groups with the power and authority to make decisions must accept it. Policy adoption is the formal approval by institu-tional actors of a policy proposal. The key to adoption is political feasibility, which is the likelihood that the policy has a consensus of support behind it. The policy might not present the best or the most correct way to solve the problem, but it has the most support. The process of the adoption of laws or policies by a legislature, such as Congress, is also referred to as policy legitimation.

Decision Criteria Used in Policy Adoption

The decision to adopt a proposed policy would seem a simple vote: adopt or not. In actuality, policy adoption is the by-product of the decisions made by critical institu- tional actors with the authority to approve a proposed government action. During the decision-making process, a variety of decision criteria influence all institutional actors. These criteria—values, political party affiliation, interests of constituents, and defer- ence to authorities’ interests—reflect the various influences and factors that actors may consider when deciding whether to adopt a specific policy alternative. (For additional insights, see Kugler & Feng, 1997.)

Values One of the criteria for decision making, values are a general set of beliefs and norms that shape the kind of policy action, if any, that a policy actor should take. These values reflect organizational, professional, personal, policy, and ideological perspectives that may influ- ence an individual (Anderson, 2000). In many circumstances some or all of these values will interact and affect the preference of the decision maker for certain policy actions over others (see Figure 5.6).

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 162 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.6: Values affecting policy actors’ decisions to adopt policy

Values influence perspectives that could affect policy actions.

Political Party Affiliation Political parties directly influence the decisions the various policy actors make; each pol- icy maker’s political party affiliation helps to set the institutional agenda, define the pro- cess by which legislation is adopted, and influence and constrain the decisions supported by the legislative actor. Although independents—those not affiliated with a particular political party—have had some success over the last 20 years, U.S. policy making operates within a two-party system dominated by Republicans and Democrats. These two politi- cal parties continue to have an indelible impact on the policy-making process. Congress

Values

Organizational

Agencies and institutions

develop cultures that reflect

their mandates, missions,

goals, and histories.

Organizations place high

premiums on loyalty and on

adherence to goals that

could compete with

other interests.

Professional and Personal

Personal backgrounds,

training, and professional

networks can make

individuals favor particular

courses of action over others.

Individuals bring with them

personal values that reflect

their moral, ethical, career, or

financial interests.

Policy and Ideological

Policy makers must take

credible policy positions

so that they do not seem

to allow a problem to persist.

Perceived negative policy

positions will lead to

electoral vulnerability.

Ideology helps to clarify how

someone views the world and

problems; it determines what

action best meets a problem

and fits that person’s vision

of what the world should be.

An individual’s view of the

world will shape his or her

decision about what position

to take on a policy.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 163 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

reflects the two-party system. Members of political parties introduce legislation, and often political party leadership will attempt to influence party members to support or oppose a particular policy. The Patient and Affordable Care Act of 2010 offers one example of how political parties influence policy adoption. Democrats in Congress worked together to ensure the adoption of this legislation and Republicans worked together to try to block it.

Political parties affect policy decisions because of the obvious role the parties play in the political life of an elected policy maker. Legislatively, because the passage of legislation depends on the support of various majorities, members rely on and foster party loyalty. Political parties provide an immediate and potential source of majority political support for a congressional member’s agenda or policy initiative. However, the strength of the political parties rises and falls depending on the degree of cohesion and party voting that exists. From 1970 on, the party unity and polarization between the two dominant political parties has steadily grown in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives (Stan- ley & Niemi, 2000). Since 1992, for instance, more than 50 percent of all recorded votes reflected a majority of Democrats opposed by a majority of Republicans in both chambers of the legislative branch (Stanley & Niemi, 2000). Moreover, the Republican revolution of 1994 reinvigorated the role of the party whips in attempting to ensure and coerce party discipline. Party whips are senior members of each political party’s congressional delega- tion whose job is to ensure that their party’s members are in their respective chamber of congress and ready to vote. The whip’s responsibility often involves using tactics to per- suade members to vote the position of the party leadership. On average, for every party line vote in Congress over the last decade, 80 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans voted with their parties (Dye, 2012).

Every elected member of Congress confronts the real threat of political retaliation, politi- cal isolation, and the long-term political consequences that may result from failing to sup- port his or her party’s preferred policy positions. From the passage of legislation within committees, to the structure and composition of committees, to placement of legislation on the various calendars, to the votes and debate on the floor, elected members must often rely on the support of their party members if they are to survive and thrive politically.

The advantage of the political party is that loyalty will be rewarded. As a member rises in seniority, more prominent positions on committees become available. With loyalty and seniority come opportunities for senior party positions. Additionally, the parties represent a potentially powerful group to rely on to pass legislation that aids the political agenda of a respective member. In terms of future elections, the political party offers the political resources and organizational structure that greatly aid the next campaign for reelection. In short, the party can significantly influence the decisions various institutional actors make. Still, the nature of a particular issue may be even more significant in explaining how institutional actors decide or whether they side with the preferences of the party and senior political figures.

That is to say certain issues—because of their intrinsic political nature or sensitivity— diminish the party’s influence on decision making. Issues that are of special importance for constituents within the district, state, or nation, may compel an actor to stray from stated positions of his or her political party. The 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation, deal- ing with campaign finance reform, represented a legislative issue that many members of the Republican Party supported—despite widespread opposition within the party (Gleckman, 2002). Similarly, a number of Senate Democrats dissented from the party

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 164 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

Constituency Interests Elected decision makers, whether at the local, state, or federal level, must decide among the sometimes-conflicting motivations of their constituents, their political party, and their own preferences for a particular course of policy action. In sum, should they be trustees or delegates? The political realities of the electoral process, however, suggest that all elected representatives are first and foremost political animals. As such, constitu- ency interests must predominate over all other interests.

The notion of constituency inter- est suggests, however, that the preferences of an elected official’s constituents are clear and readily discerned. In actuality, decision makers seldom encounter such clarity. Certain significant events or issues may indeed develop within a respective political arena and reflect a degree of popular interest that provides clarity for the decision maker. Yet, effectively and consistently determining the constituency interest can prove difficult. Constituency interests are by no means fixed, and the

America’s Polarized Politics Criticisms of the U.S. political system often suggest there is too great of a polarization between the Democratic and Republican Parties. More people have flocked toward the extremes, making it more difficult for politicians to find middle ground. Several experts discuss the current state of U.S. political parties in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyDgd887sUI

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. Why have political parties and Congress become increasingly polarized since 2010? 2. What impacts might such polarization have on the legislative process? 3. Are there credible solutions or conditions that might help minimize party and political

polarization?

Getty Images

Political parties have a large effect on not only the elected policy maker but also on the policy decisions.

majority in supporting President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut plan. Hence, decisions regarding whether or not to formally support a policy proposal reflect a mixture of the dominance and cohesion of the party, coupled with the political realities pertaining to a given issue that surround the institutional actor. At some point, policy makers have to decide between the wishes of their political party and the demands of their respec- tive constituents. How elected officials decide depends, in part, on the interests of their constituencies.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 165 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

preferences of the policy actor’s respective public can and does change over time as new circumstances and issues emerge. Moreover, some policy makers within divided political districts confront the added difficulty of attempting to discern what the majority may pre- fer, even when no clear majority interest may exist among the constituency. Nonetheless, the impact of constituency interests may be exaggerated in light of the day-to-day realities of policy making.

The impact of constituency interests may depend on how the term is defined. A narrow definition may focus on a vast segment of the public. A broader definition would include the constituent role of interest groups, associations, lobbyists, citizen activists, and the general public. In actuality, a broad definition of constituency interests includes actors with an active role in the policy-making process. The public’s interest, attention, and activism in the policy-making process vary greatly depending on the issue. In the absence of an active and consistent role by the public, decision makers must make decisions based on their own preferences, as well as the information, positions, and preferences outlined by those actors who are active in the policy process.

Arguably, the role of constituency interests varies depending on how an issue is perceived within the public and political agenda. Many policy actions, such as those dealing with detailed regulatory changes, budgetary appropriations, or other detailed legislation, may hinder the constituency from playing a wider role. Essentially, the more detailed and obscure the proposed policy action, the more unlikely it is that the broad spectrum of the public will become active participants in the legislative process. Other proposed policy actions, such as those dealing with emotional issues like civil rights, the environment, education, or abortion, can be more sensitive to the direct pressures of constituents. Even though such emotional issues may spark responses in constituents’ overall positions, the detailed minutiae of writing legislation may further obscure the positions a legislator should or should not take because proposed legislation may include a variety of initia- tives and actions designed to deal with a respective policy problem.

Deference to Authorities’ Interests Decisions within the policy-making process are also influenced by the deference decision makers can show to the interests of certain policy, political, and administrative authori- ties. The technical complexity of certain issues may increase the role and influence of vari- ous policy groups both within and out of the government. Governmental policy groups, such as the General Accounting Office (GAO) or the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), may affect policy makers’ analysis, understanding, and positions on specific issues. At a minimum, these governmental policy agencies provide a useful source of information and analysis. Aside from governmental policy research groups, decision makers may also take into consideration the analysis and position favored by think tanks such as Rand, Cato, the Urban Institute, or Brookings. Such think tanks offer policy expertise and analysis of both specific issues and broad policy areas. Deference to such policy actors, however, is a product of the decision maker’s willingness to accept the findings and analysis of such government institutions or think tanks.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 166 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

Aside from these governmental or research think tanks, various political associations and interest groups provide additional policy expertise and analysis. Decision makers may pay attention to the views key political associations and interest groups offer. Inter- est groups such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the Sierra Club provide both analysis and understanding of policy problems. Additionally, associations such as the National Governor’s Associa- tion (NGA), the National League of Cities (NLC), or the National Education Association (NEA) also conduct independent policy research and analysis.

Policy research provided by interest groups and associations will inevitably favor certain positions and decisions on key policy issues. When addressing issues of particular impor- tance to them, these organizations may have considerable influence on policy makers’ decisions. In particular, such groups may use financial resources to influence a legislator, for example, through campaign contributions. These groups amass further influence by the sheer political weight that their stated policy positions carry within the broad political arena. For instance, decision makers may defer to such groups out of reluctance to pub- licly oppose the positions of politically powerful interest groups.

Apart from the political influence of interest groups or associations, decision makers can and do accommodate senior legislative authorities on certain issues. Within Congress, for instance, newer representatives may defer to the party leadership or senior members of the committee. To some extent, policy-making reality compels legislative actors to defer to the expertise of members who sit on the committee responsible for the proposed piece of legislation. That is not surprising given the sheer size of some proposed pieces of legis- lation, coupled with the scope of various programs and services under discussion. Aside from policy and political deference, various administrative agencies provide additional guidance.

The administrative agency’s hierarchical nature leads officials within the agency to fol- low the guidance and dictums of both administrative and political superiors. Officials must follow the directives of their administrative authorities for an agency to be effective. Deference is based on the authority accorded certain agency officials and political appoin- tees. Such deference, however, can lead to conflicts between the stated positions preferred by the political appointees and the preferences of career agency officials. Additionally, agency oversight by congressional actors further complicates decision making because agency officials, vulnerable to the regulatory and budgetary role of Congress, may have to defer to the preferences of respective members of Congress. Conversely, during the policy formulation and adoption stages, members of Congress may also decide to defer to the positions preferred by senior administrative officials within various respective agencies.

Overall, deference reflects the interpersonal role that persuasion and influence can have on the policy decisions various institutional actors make. Deference may be based on the hierarchy of authority established within an administrative agency. In other cases, however, deference reflects the political power of senior party officials, senior commit- tee members, policy actors, and interest groups to compel other actors to defer to their positions. Still, the real weight of such deference depends on the extent to which other factors—values, political party affiliation, or constituency interests—affect the decision- making process of the legislative actor.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 167 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.7 The Legislative Process and Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

5.7 The Legislative Process and Policy Adoption

Policy proposals are adopted by winding through an institutional process that helps structure the respective political actors’ course of action. The path of policy adoption varies among and within each institution with degrees of policy-making power. The courts, the executive branch, and Congress all have unique environments and contexts in which various government actions are considered for adoption. Institutionally, the policy process is fragmented and divided among all three branches of the federal government. Formulation and adoption of proposed policy actions occur within the executive and leg- islative branches, and constitutional oversight is afforded to the judicial branch. The focus of the following section, however, is on the prominence of Congress and its central role in decision making throughout the legislative process.

The primary responsibility for formulating and adopting of federal policy proposals rests within the legislative and executive branches. The bicameral—or two-chamber—Congress pairs with the executive branch in guiding policy proposals. These roles are critical to under- standing the origins of policy proposals, as well as the particular kinds of policy action that the government can take. Congress can take four kinds of legislative action: bills, joint reso- lutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions (for more information, see http:// thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php). Table 5.2 summarizes these types of action.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 168 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.7 The Legislative Process and Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

Table 5.2: Kinds of legislative action

Bills Joint Resolutions Concurrent Resolutions

Simple Resolutions

• Form used for most legislation can be either public or private. A public bill is one that affects the wider public, while a private bill affects a specified individual.

• A bill originating in the House of Repre- sentatives is desig- nated by the letters H.R. and is followed by a number it re- tains throughout the legislative process.

• A Senate bill is des- ignated by an S and a number that it re- tains throughout the legislative process.

• The term Companion Bill describes a bill that is identical to a bill introduced in the other house of Congress.

• May originate in either the Senate or House—not jointly in both houses.

• Are similar to bills, requiring approval by both chambers and the president, except when dealing with constitutional amendment issues, when approval by the president is unnecessary if two- thirds congressional support is garnered.

• If originating in the House, it is desig- nated as H.J. Res. followed by a num- ber. A joint resolu- tion in the Senate is designated as S.J. Res. followed by a number. Such joint resolutions become law in the same manner as bills.

• Address matters affecting the opera- tions of both houses and are not equiva- lent to a bill.

• Such resolutions are used to express facts, principles, opinions, and pur- poses of the two houses.

• These actions are not presented to the president for veto or signature.

• Such resolutions in the House are des- ignated H. Con Res. followed by a num- ber. On approval by both houses, they are signed by the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate.

• Concern the rules, operation, or the opinion of either house alone. Simple resolutions are con- sidered only by the body in which they are respectively introduced.

• In the House, simple resolutions are designated as H. Res. together with a number. In the Sen- ate, simple resolu- tions are designated as S. Res. together with a number.

• Upon adoption, simple resolutions are attested to by the Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the House and are published in the Congressional Record.

Constitutionally, the separation of powers ensures a multiple path by which individuals, groups, and institutions can attempt to influence and shape the beginnings of the adop- tion of legislation. In theory, no one institution, individual, or group possesses greater influence than any other, and no one policy actor can be prevented from proposing a piece of legislation and pursuing its adoption. Interestingly, any citizen can draft and propose a piece of legislation for an elected representative to consider submitting. Depending on the issue, various institutions, groups, and individuals can have considerable influence on legislative decisions.

To what extent any one actor influences policy adoption depends to some degree on how well the actors understand the formal legislative process. This process by which a bill becomes law represents the main policy playing field for the formulation and adoption of proposed legislation. In other words, the legislative arena can be recognized as the playing field for an intense political competition in which advocates, both in and out of

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 169 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the Legislative Process CHAPTER 5

government, hold competing positions as to what decisions should be made and what policy should be adopted.

5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the Legislative Process

To become adopted, a bill must survive a fragmented, conflict-prone legislative pro-cess that also involves competing bills, each of which faces institutional and political obstacles. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, outlines the basic legislative process. The legislative process begins when a proposed piece of legislation or bill is intro- duced into the House and the Senate (see Figure 5.7). Once introduced, the bill is referred to a specific committee. At this stage, the real business of policy adoption occurs.

After being introduced and assigned to the relevant full committees, a bill can be further divided among relevant subcommittees. If a bill successfully leaves the committee review in the House and the Senate, it moves to the floor of each chamber for a vote to pass into law. Before it may become law, a bill must emerge from both chambers of Congress with identical wording; the conference committee performs this task. A piece of legislation that is adopted by majorities in both chambers continues its path to either law or extinction when it is transmitted to the president for consideration. A president has the power to approve or veto the bill. A bill becomes law if the president signs it or if the bill remains unsigned for more than 10 days while Congress is in session. A vetoed bill, however, goes back to Congress, where a two-thirds majority in both chambers can override the presi- dential veto. However, if a session of Congress formally ends its session within the 10-day window in which a president is considering a piece of legislation, and if the president has not yet signed the bill, the president effectively vetoes the bill by means of the pocket veto. While the president’s legislative power seems limited in nature—essentially signing or vetoing a bill—the threat of veto represents a powerful force in the formulation and adop- tion of policy throughout the legislative process in Congress.

In reality, the modern-day legislative process extends beyond the framework outlined by Article 1 and includes the significant role of congressional committees, political par- ties, and rules that are not specifically articulated within the Constitution. In particular, within the bicameral Congress, the legislative process is structured and divided between the dominant legislative roles committees and subcommittees within both chambers play and the party structure that establishes key party positions are accorded specific legisla- tive roles. Any member of Congress can introduce legislation.

Although some bills may be symbolic or political in value, only a few can or will become law. Between 1999 and 2010, of the total number of acts, bills, and joint resolutions intro- duced, no more than 4.5 percent became law (for more information, see http://www.gov trackUS.com, August 4, 2011). This statistic makes resoundingly clear the circuitous and obstacle-ridden path that legislation must follow if it is to become law (see Figure 5.7).

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 170 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the Legislative Process CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.7: The federal legislative process

Only 4.5% of acts, bills, and resolutions introduced between 1999 and 2010 became laws.

Bill Introduced

Committee and Subcommittee

Hearings and Markup

Committee Vote

Post Committee Adjustment

Rules Committee

House Floor Action

Vote and Immediate adoption

*Identical to Senate bill

Bill Introduced

HOUSE SENATE

Committee and Subcommittee

Hearings and Markup

Committee Vote

Post Committee Adjustment

UCA Rules Committee

Senate Floor Action

Conference Committee

Final Vote House/Senate Action

Veto Override Law

President

Signature

Veto

Vote and Immediate adoption

*Identical to Senate bill

Adoption by both Houses

• The bill is placed on

the calendar for

discussion on the floor

of the other house.

• If the bill fails to pass on

the floor, is is dead; if it

passes, it must then

repeat this process in

the other chamber of

Congress.

• Legislation originates

in the House, Senate,

White House, or

federal department or

agency.

• Representative or

Senate submits

proposal to the clerk

or the House or Senate.

• If the same version of bill

adopted, sent to President

for consideration.

• Different versions of the bill

can result in a call for joint

Conference committee.

• If Conference report is

favorable, the bill is sent

back to both Chambers for

Final Vote with no possible

changes to the final version

of the bill.

• President must then review

the bill, and if he does

nothing in 10 days, it

becomes law.

• He may veto bill, in which

case it goes back to House

and Senate, where 2/3

majority is needed to

override Presidential veto.

• The bill is referred to proper

committee, which refers it to

subcommittee for research

and hearings; bill can be

amended at this point.

• Subcommittee sends bill back

to committee, and it may

proceed without further

review, or it may be subject

to more hearings.

• Bill may now be amended or

killed; most bills introduced in

Congress die in committee.

• If bill survives, it’s sent to

Rules committee (majority

leader in Senate), which

decides whether bill will be

subject to open or closed rule;

under open rule, a bill sees

more debate and can be

amended to a greater degree.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 171 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the Legislative Process CHAPTER 5

Presidents are far more influential in the policy adoption stage when they work with a Congress controlled by their own political party. Because both houses had large Demo- cratic majorities during his first 2 years of office, Obama was much more successful in getting legislation that he favored adopted than he was during the next 2 years. The years 2011 and 2012 have proved far more challenging to him, and the Obama administration’s record for these years exemplifies how formulation and adoption are complicated by the political environment in which they operate and the presence of multiple actors who all try to influence the process. However, data demonstrate that for many presidents, the number of times a majority of the members of Congress vote with the president’s position on roll call votes is still more than 50 percent and that for many presidents the percentage is much higher (see Figure 5.8).

Figure 5.8: Percentage of members of Congress voting with the president’s position on roll call votes, 1956–2010

Presidents are generally more influential during policy adoption if their own political party controls Congress. Still, the majority of Congress members vote with the president’s position at least 50% of the time.

Stanley, H. W., & Niemi, R. G. (2000). Vital Statistics on American Politics 1999–2000. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 264–265.

Percentage Voting With President Position on Roll Call Voters

P e rc

e n

ta g

e

Ei se

nh ow

er

96

81

58 64

82

57

77

52 62

85

70

Ke nn

ed y

Jo hn

so n

Ni xo

n Fo

rd

Ca rte

r

Re ag

an Bu

sh

Cl in to

n Bu

sh

O ba

m a

09 /1 0

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 172 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the Legislative Process CHAPTER 5

Presidents can be particularly influential in the policy adoption stage by stopping or threatening to stop legislation that Congress has passed. A piece of legislation adopted by majorities in both chambers continues its path to either law or extinction when it goes to the president for consideration. The two-thirds override established by the Constitu- tion also represents a formidable obstacle, and such large majorities are rare within each of the chambers. Thus, the mere threat of veto can reshape the legislative agenda in both chambers to better reflect the legislative interests of the president. Presidents may choose to veto a legislative proposal they consider to be unconstitutional, an encroachment on presidential authority, ill-advised policy, or unacceptable for political or ideological rea- sons (Oleszek, 2010). Historically, the use of the veto has declined significantly from Presi- dent Franklin D. Roosevelt’s record of 635 vetoes over his tenure to Obama’s tally of 2 as of January 2012 (Peters, 2012) (see Table 5.3).

Table 5.3 : Presidential vetoes, 1932–2012

President Total Number of Vetoes During President’s Tenure

Percentage of Vetoes That Congress Did Not Override

Roosevelt 635 97.6%

Truman 250 93.3

Eisenhower 181 97.3

Kennedy 21 100

Johnson 30 100

Nixon 43 73.1

Ford 66 75

Carter 31 84.6

Reagan 78 76.9

G. Bush 44 96.6

Clinton 37 94.4

G. W. Bush 12 63.6

Obama 2 100

The legislative process at the federal level ensures that policy adoption—or passage of laws—will prove difficult. At many points in the legislative process, constitutional and institutional procedures require members of Congress—as well as those who seek to influence them—to decide which actions to take. Figure 5.7 highlights some of the key points in this legislative process, in which institutional actors must decide whether to adopt or reject a policy proposal. Dramatic and immediate attempts at policy adoption, although possible, require the effective cooperation of majorities in both the House and Senate, party leadership, the committee members, senior members of the committee, and the president—as well many noninstitutional actors who seek to influence these institutional actors.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 173 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.9 Arenas of Action: The Playing Field CHAPTER 5

5.9 Arenas of Action: The Playing Field

This circuitous legislative process for policy adoption takes place in more than a single arena such as the Congress; instead, the process occurs in many important arenas that can be likened to playing fields of action in which the proposed policies are debated, formulated, and considered for adoption. Moreover, such arenas often inter- mingle to frame the manner in which policy actors adopt the policy positions. The most significant playing fields of action are the public, executive, congressional, and political.

The Public Arena

U.S. policy making occurs within a public arena in which public opinion can shape directly many legislative positions and strategies, as well as the voting behavior of elected officials. The public theater can directly influence the behavior of legislative actors by constraining or encouraging actions by decision makers. Attempts to hinder or encourage policy adop- tion will inevitably be affected by the extent to which a decision maker is concerned with the reactions of the public. The fickle nature of public opinion makes measured responses particularly difficult for decision makers.

Within the public arena, various advocates for a particular issue will attempt to mobi- lize public opinion to influence the passage or obstruction of legislation. Elected officials, quite obviously, are especially sensitive to the public opinions of their respective constitu- ent bases. Every elected decision maker remains cognizant of the positions favored or opposed by their constituents. The difficulty, however, is that formulation of public opin- ion can be shaped and changed as new information and events develop. For example, as the public and policy makers learned more about HIV and AIDS, the policy positions of policy actors changed and became more supportive of policy attempting to alleviate the situation and help those suffering from the disease.

Executive Arena

The president, the president’s cabinet, and the agencies that fall under the responsibility of the executive branch constitute an additional playing field of action. Legislative pro- posals often develop under the direction or guidance of the president. The preparation of the fiscal year federal budget that covers all proposed federal spending represents the most consistent example of a presidential policy proposal. Within the executive branch, cabinet and agency officials also play an integral role in the development of the budget, offer policy initiatives, and develop their own regulatory proposals to address areas of agency responsibility. As a playing field of action, the president, the cabinet, and agency officials will not only prove essential to the development of policy proposals but also directly affect whether a policy is adopted via their support—or lack of it.

Congressional Arena

Congress’s significance as a playing field of action extends beyond the two chambers to include both the formal and informal sets of actors who influence and affect policy adop- tion. Clearly, within this arena, the voting positions of the 535 members of Congress are

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 174 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.9 Arenas of Action: The Playing Field CHAPTER 5

the most important in ascertaining whether a policy is likely to be adopted. However, a member of Congress’s ability to affect explicitly whether a policy is adopted or not also depends on the member’s party seniority, position on the relevant committee, whether the member is part of the party leadership, and whether the member’s vote is critical to develop a majority for or against the policy.

The Political Arena

Through the policy adoption stage, various political players’ personal agendas inter- mingle within all of the previous playing fields of action. These sets of noninstitutional actors—party organizations, interest groups, political associations, lobbyists, and citizen activists—represent how intrinsically political the business of policy making is in mod- ern U.S. politics. Each of these actors plays a constant role in attempting to influence the positions of elected officials critical to the adoption of a policy. For such political actors, the goal remains a desire to maximize their self-interests, or the interests of their clients or members, at the expense of those with differing interests. The goal for such actors is seldom the adoption of the best policy.

National party organizations, such as the Republican National Committee (RNC) or the Democratic National Committee (DNC), provide fiscal and electoral resources to elected members and would-be representatives. During the election cycle, and especially in what are expected to be close and contentious congressional elections, many members of Con- gress depend on the financial monies and election infrastructure necessary to run a mod- ern, media-driven campaign. For members of Congress, their future in politics can be affected by the extent to which they can garner the necessary party support. Therefore, where a national party organization stands on key policy proposals, as well as the mem- ber’s dependence on the party, can provide insight into the positions a representative may take during policy adoption.

Interest groups and political associations, in comparison, remain engaged in the legislative process from the moment a piece of legislation is even considered for introduction. These actors will readily make initiatives and proposals for policy solutions as they seek to fur- ther their legislative goals. More important, associations and interest groups are extremely active in mobilizing and building coalitions to advance their legislative interests. Interest groups can also be essential in influencing the legislative positions of members of Con- gress. These groups not only offer policy analyses and proposals but also actively recruit members of their association to lobby members of Congress or the executive branch in support of their preferred policy positions.

Lobbying campaigns are the hallmark strategy by which such noninstitutional political actors attempt to influence policy adoption. Lobbying campaigns include media cam- paigns, attempts to mobilize members’ voting behavior, letter and advocacy campaigns, building political coalitions with other policy actors, as well as the use of monies to foster access and influence with members who are essential to policy adoption in Congress and the executive branch. To what extent such actors influence policy adoption depends on the strategies they employ during the policy process.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 175 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption

The previous description of policy adoption and the legislative process suggests that it is so complex and so institutional that only the professional political actors can affect the votes of critical decision makers in government. In actuality, average citi- zens can—if they choose—become citizen activists and successfully influence which policy actions are adopted by decision makers. The way such influence develops involves a pro- cess and strategy that an array of policy actors can adopt (see Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9: A process used to influence the adoption of policy

Average citizens can successfully influence policy adoption.

Vote For Adoption Vote Against Adoption

Influence

Meetings Mobilized Members and Votes

Direct Lobbying

Mail/ Telephone Campaign

Media Campaign

Policy Positions

Elected Officials

Active Cititzens and Groups

Direct Influence

Indirect Influence

Unelected Officials

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 176 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

Some of the available means of influencing policy adoption include: mobilizing members and votes, direct lobbying, focused mail and telephone campaigns, and an aggressive multimedia campaign.

Mobilizing Members and Votes

For the political activist, influencing elected decision makers depends on the ability to mobilize politically like-minded individuals, such as members of one’s interest group, to

display a show of political force. Mobilizing requires seeking out individuals willing to actively participate in the political process. Participation may first come in the form of joining a grassroots move- ment, which is a loosely organized group of interested citizens or a more organized interest group. Vital to effective mobilizing, how- ever, is whether members seek to directly influence elected officials.

The power of mobilizing within a democratic system is that it pro- vides a clear political message that members will vote for elected officials who support their legis- lative positions. Because elected officials are especially cognizant

of the political power of disaffected voters, a well-organized mass of potential voters can affect whether a decision maker will support a specific policy position.

Instrumental to mobilizing the ultimate political power of members of an interest group or movement is the size of the group. In general, more political influence is obtained as the size of the group increases relative to the size of the electorate. Clearly, sheer numbers of supporters can translate into both potential votes and potential political influence. To what extent a decision maker may be influenced roughly depends on the size and cohe- sion of the membership, and whether a group’s support is essential for reelection. Still, a small, well-organized group can acquire influence if it is extremely impassioned, orga- nized, well financed, and focused in its advocacy efforts. For example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) began as an especially small interest group in 1980. Founded in California by Candice Lightner after a drunk driver killed her teenage daughter, MADD has become extremely successful in influencing the adoption of policies designed to reduce drunk driving. Today MADD is recognized as a major interest group, with mem- bers across the nation.

Getty Images

Attempting to mobilize members’ voting behaviors through grassroots techniques can be one portion of a campaign.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 177 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

The Corrupt Side of Lobbying Lobbyist Jack Abramoff was an extremely influential Washington lobbyist, but his influence was not achieved on charisma alone. Abramoff lavished politicians with expensive gifts such as golf trips and Super Bowl tickets. He discusses how these and other techniques helped him gain his widespread influence, and he notes that he is not the only person to employ such methods: http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. What does the video segment say about the role of lobbyists in the legislative process? 2. How did Abramoff influence congressional members and their staff? 3. How do our legislative system and the process of policy adoption permit such abuses to occur?

Direct Lobbying

Direct lobbying attempts in an explicit way to influence the voting or decisions of elected or other political decision makers. Either through hiring a lobbyist or by developing and engaging in a lobbying campaign, direct lobbying promotes specific policy positions. Overall, lobbying is an exercise that uses money, knowledge of the issue, and access to key officials in order to obtain the desired legislative outcome.

Lobbyists, through fundraisers for and contributions to candidates and parties, can use money to develop contacts and access. Although money does not necessarily translate into direct influence on policy positions, it represents a powerful tool for lobbyists to gar- ner access, be able to meet with staff and decision makers, and present positions to policy makers instrumental to policy adoption. Money also helps finance the campaigns—via the fostering of meetings, presentation materials, and other research—that allow lobby- ists to establish knowledge and clear positions for issues during meetings with decision makers (Schneier & Gross, 1993).

Knowledge of an issue and the ability to provide clear and factual information are ingredi- ents of influence in direct lobbying. With greater information and knowledge of an issue, the direct lobbyist can move from being merely a source of influence to a source of infor- mation for the decision maker (Smith, 1988; Sherrill, 2000). Lobbyists prove to be essen- tial sources of information for decision makers and their staffs as they formulate policy, evaluate the consequences of a proposal, and determine whether or not to adopt a specific public policy position.

Direct lobbying may rise and fall depending on the access that the lobbying campaign can gain and exploit. Access provides the basic opportunity to meet directly and to influence the opinions and positions of decision makers. Such direct access and meetings provide lobbyists with the opportunity to build interpersonal relationships with staff and decision makers, establish themselves as knowledgeable experts about the issues for which they lobby, and allow them to communicate the political and policy position they prefer the decision maker take when deciding whether to adopt a policy proposal.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 178 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

Focused Mail and Telephone Campaigns

The notion of a letter, fax, or telephone campaign may seem antiquated in an era of such modern technologies as e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. However, according to former governmental officials and staffers in Congress, a well-designed, focused mail and telephone campaign represents a potent weapon with which to influence the opinions of the decision maker. When conducted appropriately, a personal letter and mail campaign reflects the emotion and passion that can affect how actors in the political process perceive issues and policy proposals.

A letter campaign can be either handwritten, pro forma (prewritten petitions that con- stituents simply sign and mail), or e-mail. According to former officials, representatives, and staffers, a well-designed campaign can influence how they see an issue vis-à-vis their constituency. In particular, a personal, handwritten letter reflects an increasingly rare con- stituent action that a policy actor sees as an authentic emotional expression. An e-mail or pro forma letter has less emotional significance, but can resonate if a large number of citizens participate. Similarly, a telephone campaign garners influence depending on the number of calls constituents make in favor of a given issue position. For the elected official, the relative dearth of letters and calls made by constituents concerning many of the issues Congress debates suggests that a well-organized, mobilized campaign can and does greatly influence the course of policy adoption. (More commonly, many congressio- nal offices will tally the calls, e-mails, and letters, in order to roughly evaluate the issue positions from constituents.)

Aggressive Multimedia Campaigns

Modern advocacy requires not only the exploitation of traditional tools but also a realiza- tion that politics and policy operate within a society where a variety of media sources frame perceptions and issues. Accordingly, successful advocacy requires a strategy with which to build attention and support across a wide swath of the public and political arena. An aggressive media campaign mobilizes the disinterested and uninformed public and political decision maker and further mobilizes the already politically active. Figure 5.10 highlights some of the elements of a successful media campaign.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 179 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.10: Elements of media campaigns to influence the adoption of public policy

Successful media campaigns can bring attention to issues and can increase both public and political support.

Press releases, for example, raise awareness about new policy analyses, special reports on the problem, and public marches or forums that could lead to coverage by local or national news services. Letters to media editors and opinion pieces represent an attempt to influence newspaper, magazine, or broadcast positions or to interject preferences for certain policy positions within the public debate. Further, radio talk-show call-ins are an organized attempt to frame and structure the public debate surrounding an issue. Similarly, TV interviews of advocates or encouraging special reports on an issue of con- cern represent the goal of influencing public opinion through the most commonly used communication medium. Distributing handouts, fliers, and leaflets is a basic grassroots strategy to build public attention by raising awareness person-by-person. Finally, the Internet has revolutionized the ways in which citizens communicate and inform each other; it is a relatively simple way to reach supporters and “educate” those who might not be supporters about issue positions and other types of information about the cam- paign and opponents.

Press Releases

Radio Talk-Show Call-Ins

Letters to Media Editors and

Opinion Pieces

TV News Interviews

Websites, Facebook,

Twitter

Handouts, Fliers, Leaflets

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 180 11/21/12 12:48 PM

Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

Case Study: Net Neutrality and Policy Development Today’s technology operates in an increasingly cloud-based computing environment, an environment where more and more of the digital information used is located at a remote server and streamed or downloaded to your local device. Whether it’s music from Pandora or Spotify, a video from You- Tube or Netflix, or data from a university’s research library, the ability to have fast, unrestricted access to the Internet is increasingly important. But what if Internet service provid- ers (ISPs) decided to restrict access to such videos or music contents because they didn’t like or didn’t value the content or the media sources? This is the central question of net neutrality—do ISPs have the legal ability to regulate the flow of information to users or charge those users different rates based on content or source?

Some commentators suggest the concept of net neutrality, or a communications network that doesn’t discriminate between kinds or qualities of message, dates back to the early days of the telegraph, when all users and all messages were given equal access to the network of copper wires that made up the telegraph system. The formal regulation of the phone and communications system didn’t come until decades later, when Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934, which created the Federal Communications Commission and gave it the authority to regulate communications carriers, the private companies that own the lines through which analog and now digital information flow.

The current debate about net neutrality emerged in the first few years of the 21st century with the collision of three dynamics that represented commercial, entrepreneurial, and regulatory interests. The first dynamic was largely commercial. Carriers, or ISPs, companies that built and maintained the communications infrastructure, realized the number of digital users and the volume of data being transmitted was going up enormously. This growth required considerable expansion and upkeep for the infrastructure. Who would bear the cost of this expansion and upkeep? The solution that many carriers supported was to charge the biggest users the highest cost, but then in turn assure those same users the fastest connections.

The second dynamic was entrepreneurial. New and innovative uses of the Internet were also emerg- ing at an unprecedented pace. Companies like Vonage began offering voice over Internet protocol (VOIP), or phone service via the Internet, in competition with the older and established phone com- panies. In addition, the open source file-sharing service BitTorrent gave users a new, faster, and more robust way to share all sorts of information over the Internet. For innovators and entrepreneurs the possibility that carriers and ISPs would charge them higher rates because they were smaller, newer, or marginal users was seen as a potential threat and constraint to the opportunities afforded by these new and emerging technologies.

The third dynamic was regulatory. Changes in the technology and in the communications industry cast the FCC’s regulatory author into question, requiring several years of administrative, legislative, and judicial clarification. Some of the uncertainty was resolved in 2005 when the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC did in fact have jurisdiction over broadband providers in relation to competition issues. Following the court’s decision, the FCC released its Internet Policy Statement confirming that the FCC retained the jurisdiction to ensure that ISPs and their networks are operated

Baran Ozdemir/Vetta/Getty Images

Much of the digital information streamed today is located on remote servers.

(continued)

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 181 11/21/12 12:49 PM

Summary CHAPTER 5

Summary

Once policy actors have thoroughly examined various solutions to public prob-lems and have formulated a preferred policy, they must formally adopt the pol-icy. However, even after policy adoption, policy formulation is a battle that never ends, because more often than not, the problem is not solved. By evaluating implemented policy, policy makers can change or terminate adopted policy. The relationship between formulation and adoption is clear: The nature of a problem affects how policy makers formulate solutions and which solution they finally adopt. Policy adoption is the stage in the policy process in which policy makers decide what type of policy action, if any, they should take.

Case Study: Net Neutrality and Policy Development (continued) in a neutral manner. The FCC also adopted four Internet connectivity principles, which have come to be seen as the foundation of Network Neutrality:

1. Freedom to access legal content; 2. Freedom to run any application that won’t harm the network; 3. Freedom to attach any device that does not abet crime; and 4. Freedom to obtain meaningful information about service plans.

Despite the court’s ruling and the administrative statements by the FCC, the question of net neutral- ity has not been resolved into stable policy. The years since 2005 have seen efforts to change and refine Internet policy administratively, legislatively and judicially. The FCC has issued administrative rulings giving greater clarification to what ISPs can and cannot do. Several pieces of legislation that would codify net neutrality have been introduced in Congress, but none have yet passed. Several new court cases have been filed and are making their way through the district and appellate system en route to the Supreme Court. It is possible that through the various policy processes described throughout this text, a relatively clear and stable policy on Internet access and use will emerge. In the meantime, net neutrality will continue to be a work in progress of policy formulation, legitimation, and adoption.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Who are the major governmental and unofficial policy makers affiliated with net neutrality? What tools do they have at their disposal to influence any potential policy and its adoption?

2. How might the technical nature of net neutrality affect the processes of formulation and adop- tion? How might policy makers cope with the increasing technical complexity of science and technology policy like net neutrality?

3. What are the pros and cons of giving administrative agencies, which likely have greater techni- cal capacity than Congress, the courts, and the executive office, the lead in the policy-making process?

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 182 11/27/12 3:28 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 5

advantaged populations Groups that are positively socially constructed and highly powerful.

analysis of existing policy How, why, when, and for whom policy is made, or a description of a policy in terms of its con- tent and relationship to other policies.

analysis for policy making Using reason and evidence to allow decision makers to choose the best policy from a number of alternatives.

conditional formulation Policy that allows for possible modification of the policy as it is being implemented and as conditions change.

Key Points to Remember

• Policy formulation takes place before legislation is enacted and theoretically ends once the policy is implemented, although through evaluation of implemented policy, policy makers can revisit policy that has been adopted and change or terminate it.

• Bargaining and compromise are inherent to policy formulation. Often policy actors make concessions to win the most political support among the relevant policy-making actors.

• Policy formulation is a political process from start to finish. • The essential reality of policy formulation is that at the same time, multiple actors

are designing different remedies for solving the same problem. • During policy design, policy actors may select from a number of instruments.

These policy instruments are the means by which governments achieve a solu- tion to a problem.

• Policy analysis provides evidence to allow decision makers to choose the best policy from a number of alternatives that have been developed.

• Different models of policy formulation exist, and one of the most useful is the Peters classification scheme, which outlines four formulation models: routine, creative, conditional, and craftsman.

• It is a constant battle to see a specific policy adopted. • Crucial to policy adoption is whether a majority coalition can be put together to

support one particular proposal. • A more efficient legislative process is generally unlikely, given differences among

critical institutional actors. • Policy adoption is not limited to a single institution or policy actor but involves

multiple fields of action where policy adoption is influenced and affected. • The diverse and pluralistic nature of the U.S. government provides the oppor-

tunity for a variety of noninstitutional actors to directly influence and affect the decisions that determine what policy action is adopted.

• Because of this political and institutional context, the adopted policy may not represent the best solution for the problem, but simply the most practical and feasible policy that can escape this stage of the policy process.

• Political feasibility is defined as the likelihood that a particular policy will achieve the greatest consensus.

Key Terms

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 183 11/21/12 12:49 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 5

constituency interests What the major- ity in an elected representative’s district policy prefers.

contender populations Groups who are negatively socially constructed but are very powerful.

craftsman formulation Policy that is based on what decision makers believe to be the right response but, because they lack knowledge of how it will be received, determine they must develop contingen- cies for.

creative formulation Policy that is inno- vative in design but doubtful in terms of its effects.

decision criteria The various influences and factors—such as values, political party affiliation, constituency interests, and deference—that actors may consider when deciding whether to adopt a specific policy alternative.

deference The consideration decision makers pay to various institutional and noninstitutional actors because of the posi- tion or knowledge such actors possess.

dependent populations Groups who are positively socially constructed and have little power.

deviant populations Groups who are negatively socially constructed and are powerless.

party whips Senior members of each political party’s congressional delegation whose job is to ensure that their party’s members are in their respective chamber of Congress and ready to vote.

policy adoption The formal approval by institutional actors of a policy proposal.

policy analysis The development of alternatives (policy proposals) that can be judged on how well they meet the problem as it is identified and understood.

policy design The policy instruments, tools, approaches, and techniques with which to craft a policy.

policy formulation Development of solu- tions that deal with a specific problem or address a particular issue within the insti- tutional agenda; takes place before legisla- tion is enacted and theoretically ends once the policy is implemented.

policy instruments The means or tools by which governments achieve solutions to the problems they attempt to address; may come in the form of legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions, regulations, and approval of referendum or initiatives.

policy legitimization The process of the adoption of laws or policies by a legisla- ture, such as Congress.

political feasibility Consensus of sup- port for a policy action that is achievable in terms of costs and available resources.

routine formulation The routine adjust- ment of existing policies in order to make incremental changes.

values A general set of beliefs and norms that shape the kind of policy action, if any, that a policy actor should take.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 184 11/21/12 12:49 PM

Applied Internet Exercises CHAPTER 5

Applied Internet Exercises: Policy Formulation and Design

1. A common opinion in Washington and among many in the nation is that members of Congress serve their reelection interests by ensuring that only their constituents are pleased. Your objec- tive is to find out whether members of Congress, both Senate and House, will respond to you if you are NOT from their district. Your tasks are as follows: a. First, select 10 prominent national Senators and Representatives who are not from your

state. Prepare the same e-mail on any issue that you are interested in or concerned about that is occurring at the national level.

i. Use these two links to find members and Senators. http://www.senate.gov/and http:// www.house.gov/representatives/

ii. Emphasize that, as quickly as possible, you would like a written response and informa- tion to a series of questions (at least two) or concerns you have about this issue.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Many believe the problem of secondhand smoke to be not only serious but also an attack on the common good. Develop four well-articulated problem state- ments that identify the problem from the perspective of a parent, a bar owner, a smoker, and the CEO of a large tobacco manufacturing corporation.

2. Develop 10 one-sentence alternatives for solving the following problem. Do not worry about real-world constraints. Propose alternatives that are as different from each other as possible, and all of which address the stated problem: The state of California is short of energy every summer, and every summer the short- age gets worse.

3. The president and his senior advisors are in the process of determining what policy actions should be taken to address the risk Iran poses by developing a nuclear bomb. Your tasks are as follows:

a. Define the problem and determine the nature and scope of the threat. You should also make clear the consequences or risks posed by doing nothing.

b. Determine and describe various policy instruments you recommend and how to use them to address the specific nature of the threat.

c. Make two basic recommendations for formulating policy:

• A policy recommendation without any consideration of domestic political/ international constraints.

• A policy recommendation with consideration of domestic political/interna- tional constraints.

Your brief should be no more than three pages. It should be single spaced and presented in a manner that enhances its clarity for the president and his staff.

4. If you had to choose just one of the fields of action identified in this chap- ter, which do you think plays the most important role in the stage of policy adoption?

5. Which of the values discussed, in your opinion, are the most and least important when various policy-making actors have to make decisions? Discuss why.

(continued)

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 185 11/27/12 3:28 PM

Applied Internet Exercises CHAPTER 5

Applied Internet Exercises: Policy Formulation and Design (continued) b. Second, if one business week passes between your e-mail and a response, send the e-mail

again. Repeat no more than twice. c. Third, prepare one to two pages of analysis of whether they responded and how quickly, the

amount of information provided, and the quality of information. d. Conclude with a summary of whether, based on your analysis, the elected officials are more

interested in serving their constituent interests or the national interest.

2. It is often said lobbying is both an art and science. Because of your knowledge of the legislative process, you have decided to become more active in attempting to influence the legislative process. Your tasks are as follows: a. Identify a current legislative issue being considered for policy adoption (go to http://Thomas.

loc.gov) b. Specify what your legislative goals are with respect to this proposed legislation:

i. Stop or kill it ii. Change it iii. Ensure its adoption as is

c. Identify the five senior members in the House and Senate who will be the targets of your campaign. Remember you will first want to target the chairs of key committees and leading members of these specific committees.

d. Define your lobbying strategy for achieving your goal. Your lobbying strategy should include the following:

i. Telephone campaign: Prepare a two- to three-paragraph statement of what will you say ii. Letter-writing campaign: Prepare a one-page draft letter that outlines your position on

the issue iii. Personal meetings

• You can meet with no more than four Members of Congress or other officials. Iden- tify who and why.

• Prepare a one-page set of talking points on what you want to communicate to the decision makers and/or their staff

iv. Mass mobilization. To mobilize others who may be interested in this issue, prepare the following: • A sample letter to the editor • A sample flier to hand out at public arenas

v. Online campaign. Utilizing an online campaign is critical to any effective lobbying cam- paign. Prepare the following: • A sample e-mail that will be sent to your friends/contacts in order to encourage

them to contact a specific member. Remember, offices get a flood of form e-mails, so the challenge is to make the letter unique without minimizing the seriousness of your issue.

• A tweet for your Twitter account to encourage your friends to get involved. • A Facebook post to encourage your friends to get involved.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 186 11/21/12 12:49 PM

Suggested Readings CHAPTER 5

Suggested Readings

Bardach, E. A. (2005). Practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Ingram, H. M., & Schneider, A. L. (2006). Policy analysis for democracy. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 169–189). New York: Oxford University Press.

James, T. E., & Jorgensen, P. D. (2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: Revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 14–162.

Majone, G. (2006). Agenda setting. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 228–250). New York: Oxford University Press.

Munger, M. (2000). Analyzing policy: Choices, conflicts, and practices. New York: Norton.

Radin, B. (2000). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis comes of age. Washington, DC: George- town University Press.

Weimer, D., & Vining, A. (2005). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wilson, R. (2006). Policy analysis as policy advice. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 152–168). New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Wood, B. D., & Doan, A. (2003, October). The politics of problem definition: Applying and testing threshold models. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 640–653.

Wood, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2007, July). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 552–568.

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 187 11/21/12 12:49 PM

the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 188 11/21/12 12:49 PM