Democracy & public policy – a Russian case study

Low participation in groups (WVS/U. of Michigan studies). 0.65 group memberships/person v. 3.59 in U.S., 2.39 for mature democracies.

NGOs closely controlled by state – must be registered; foreign contributions restricted.

Political accountability low/rule of law deficient.

In Soviet times, NGOs/mass media party controlled – so-called “transmission belt” pattern.

Surveyed 100+ NGO leaders to determine: can groups influence environmental decisions, participate as a civil society?

Russia, democracy & public policy – some findings

• Reluctance to join NGOs remains high – in part due to perceived corruption and poor economic performance; Soviet legacy of “mandatory group membership” (institutional, economic).

• Major impediments to reform = unwillingness of authorities to listen, public’s lack of confidence in courts/regulatory agencies to permit access to information and ensure administrative responsiveness (institutional, cultural).

• Personal influence seen as most powerful decision-making factor. NGOs view themselves as lacking power (cultural, institutional).

• Journalists view public influence on environmental policies as good; scientists/corporate officials do not (cultural).

• Public is concerned with matters directly affecting welfare (e.g., local control of land, public health, local environmental quality, food safety) – LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY MAY BE GROWING.

On a 1-5 scale, rank your influence on environmental protection decisions at the national, regional (oblast), municipal level.

Interest articulation and agendas in policy-making

Agenda-setting – how problems get the attention of policy-makers. Usually depends on “windows of opportunity” that are afforded by two sets of factors:

External factors (sometimes called “focusing events”): because of a crisis, or gradual change in some condition, an affected group perceives that an issue merits attention and falls within the public realm – often depends on available information.

Internal factors (sometimes called “institutional drivers”): Policy makers become convinced an issue falls within public realm due to legislative or bureaucratic initiative – initiative is often pre-emptory; officials assume powerful groups will push for change.

In both cases, support for particular policies – and impediments to them – are affected by factors distinct to the decision-making process (the political stream) and factors unique to the issue itself (the policy stream).

Political streams in agenda-setting

 Constraints and opportunities afforded by decisional process:

Election cycles/relative power of organized interests, & how these cycles converge with the “national mood.” This creates a window of opportunity.

Perceived costs of policy intervention – quest for “optimal” solutions; both “the cost of the policy,” (a constraint) and “the benefits of promoting it” (which makes it political – rather than policy influenced!) – historically, the anticipated costs of a policy rarely constrain its development.

Jurisdictionality – is responsibility for a problem shared with other governments; is it necessary to develop the policy within a federal framework (e.g., land use, waste management, law enforcement, K-12 education?)

Nature of governmental interactions – what we call “sub-governments.” In most cases, the real decisions by government are made in small decisional settings insulated from public view.

Policy stream in agenda-setting

 Constraints and opportunities afforded by the nature of the issue; e.g.,

Efficacy of state action: Can the issue be regulated by state, or does it require partnering with non-governmental entities? (e.g., nonpoint water pollution, urban sprawl?)

Knowledge: Do we have adequate information to design a workable solution that will be effective (e.g., climate change, high-speed rail, missile defense?)

Consensus: Do experts and the public agree on the severity, and prescribed solutions for, the problem (e.g., health care, cleanup of oil spills, seismic risk, hazardous waste?)

Internal and external factors – key participants

 According to Kingdon, elected officials shape “policy formulation” portion of the agenda; bureaucrats and technical analysts shape the “specification of alternatives” portion.

The former takes place during the input process – i.e., lodging of demands. The latter occurs once actual legislative design takes place (so-called “sub-

governments”)

Elected executives influence agenda through: political appointments, re-organizing agencies, micro-managing decisions, commanding public attention/public opinion through major speeches (best seen in so-called electoral transitions).

Legislators influence agenda through: responding to constituents’ demands & demands and supports from key groups; “blending “ political and technical information from groups and bureaucracies (i.e., sub-governments).

Bureaucrats influence the agenda via: their longevity, expertise, and personal relationships – their power is both technical and political (classic examples – J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI; Allan Dulles and the CIA; fewer examples today).

Role of interest groups as agenda-setters

Key strategies:

Campaign contributions – Influence not merely financial, but through endorsement!

Lobbying/sub-system participation – direct participation in crafting of laws and program design – current examples: telecommunications, banking and credit.

Litigation – alternative efforts to influence courts of law/seek re-interpretation of existing policy (generally pursued by powerful as well as weaker groups).

Protest/direct action – organizing members or general public (pursued mostly by weaker groups & when previous agenda-setting efforts failed).

Public opinion – advertising/public relations (increasingly sophisticated and heavily reliant on symbolic power; e.g., Responsible Citizens of California – a non-profit group that uses direct marketing to promote the right to carry concealed handguns.

Interest articulation interest group power

Sources and amounts of influence and power affect choice of strategy:

Groups with more resources employ more formal means of influence; those with fewer employ less formal means:

More expertise, money, political savvy = higher ability to persuade; more reliance on campaign contributions, lobbying litigation.

Less resources = greater reliance upon grassroots strategies (letter writing, protest, direct action, media attention); seek to draw attention to policy failure (Duffy, 2003).

Agendas, interest groups, & the state – inside the “black box”

SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES – what we call policy-making

National Level

Regional/state/local levels

Interaction between legislators; executive branch and interest

groups is key

Interaction between legislators; executive branch and interest

groups ALSO key

KEY INTERACTIONS OCCUR WITHIN LAW-MAKING PROCESS –

POLITICAL AND POLICY STREAMS INTER-ACT

THROUGH SUB-SYSTEMS

At state and local levels, policy reformers propose DIRECT

LEGISLATION – e.g., INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

Presidents, governors, legislators run for office promising to

“formulate” certain policies – election is reward for the promises

POLICY FORMULATION

Where the action is – the sub-government*

Subject matter legislative

committees

Specialized bureaus within

larger departments

Interest groups & their lobbying

staffs

-Donate campaign funds/electoral support-Perform legislative research-Provide strategic political information-Provide post-political employment/other benefits

-Invite legislative testimony -Make laws providing group benefits-Accommodate group demands in policy design

-Appoint officials who are “interest friendly”-Set budgets/appropriate funds-Conduct investigations

- Provide expertise/advice- Implement programs benefitting legislators’ states & districts

- Seek friendly relations with groups- Cultivate exchanges of information/data

- Lobby bureaus for favorable rules/benefits- Provide unofficial endorsement of programs & budgets before legislature

*Ogul, 1978; Lowi, 1965; Freeman, 1955

Significance of sub-governments for agendas Organized interests play a pivotal role through “strategic position” – some groups

have greater access to legislators/bureaucrats than others due to:

Resonance between geography and policy – e.g., natural resources, agriculture, economic regulation.

Networking opportunities – e.g., people who are interested in health care “travel in similar circles.”

Sub-government negotiations tend to ensure that policy change is slow, incremental – advantage lies with those who resist change rather than with those who advocate it.

In practice, change is more likely to occur when multiple interests, with numerous points of access, disagree and clash.