EPPL 601Interest Groups and Agenda

Setting

Setting the Stage

Social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966)

Weick (1995) Sensemaking—7 step model

Who gets to define reality gets to define issues

Issue Definition

Transforming a Problem into an Issue Who decides the rules, focuses the

conversation Problems can result in numerous “issues”

Thought questions:How do you see the influence of the players on issue definition?

What is it about the players that give them power to define? How?

The Players

Education Policy Planning and Research Community

Foundations Think tanks Universities Education Associations Wealthy State/Federal DOE

Thought Questions

How does the source of funding influence issue definition?

How can you get to the table?

How are biases controlled in the process?

What is the role of ideology in the process?

Role of Research

Basic Theory based “Pure”

Applied Tests theory in practice Evaluation research

Integrative research Meta analysis Overview on subject

Forums for Issue Definition

Ideology Basic beliefs predispose to policy problems Determines type of research/research

questions World view

Environments Think tanks/universities Leadership groups Community groups

Thought Questions

Given ideology influences, how is balance struck?

What can you do to create an enriching/productive thinking environment?

Can graduate school provide this thinking space?

Elements of Issue Definition

Claims

Evidence

Solution

Discourse

Broad Appeal

Policy Agendas

Ultimately, seek official policy through governmental policy agenda

Systemic policy agenda (broad)

Professional agenda (interest group based)

Media agenda (sells papers) Blogs & Internet?

Public agenda (focus of public attention

Thought Questions

Access to policy agendas is competitive. How would you get involved? Influence?

If the powerless have little impact on agenda setting, how are their interests overseen?

Is the role of nondecisions just as important as enacted policy?

Influencing Agenda Setting

Knowledge (social capital)

Allies and relationships (social capital)

Organizational effectiveness for rapid response (organizational capital)

Thought Questions

How might you attract attention to an issue? Examples from your practice? Is this important for a practicing

administrator?

When might you want to reduce attention? How might you accomplish this?

Knowing what you do now about issue definition and agenda settings, what will you do?

Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons (Baumgartner & Leech, 2001)

Top 5% of the issues accounted for more than 45% of the lobbying

The bottom 50% of the issues accounted for less than 3% of total

New data source—19,000 reports filed under Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

137 issues

Lobbying Activities

Business and Trade Associations=63%

Nonprofits/Citizen Groups=14%

Institutions=7%

Governments=2%

Resources & Levels of Activity

Business, Trade, Prof =85% of spending(21,000 issues)

Citizen groups=9% of spending(5,000 issues)

Caveat—business may act on behalf of citizens

Levels of Interest

Top 4 issues 1/3 interest of group activity 500 interest organizations

26 issues with 100 interest groups=81% of total lobbying

Lots of activity around few players, few issues

Thought Questions

Knowing what you know about lobbying, how would you would lead an effort to get an issue on the policy agenda?

What might you need to think about and assume about relationships in lobbying?

How critical is funding?

What role do you see for professional groups?

And so….

Different issues generate different activity

Expected behavior can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy

Resource advantage with business—now what? What does this say about collaborations?

Interests and the States

Activity similar across states

Not specializing within government branches

Large number of issues—some as bystanders

May be tilting locus of power in state to elected and appointed officials

Thought Questions

How do you think Nownes and Freeman selected the three “representative” states?

Why the increase in state level activity?

Group Activity

Monitoring—environmental scans

Political Action Committee (PAC) giving

Grass-roots lobbying

Differences with National Study

Judicial politicking (nil)

Grass-roots lobbying (higher)

Using the media (less)

Schmoozing (less)

Lobbying Techniques

75% of sample groups using 13 or more of 23 techniques

75% of the sample lobbyists using 12 or more of the 20 techniques

Active only on fraction of the bills in which interested

Citizens/Corporations

Citizens Grass-roots lobbying (96%) Letter-writing campaign (94%) Talk with media (92%)

Corporations Grass-roots lobbying (80%) Letter-writing campaigns (78%) Talk with media (63%

Thought Questions

Consider the similarity in techniques—why?

How does this data refute the ideal of an insider—outsider status? Does it matter?

How does technique impact the creation of social reality?

Summary Statistics

Intergovernmental & mixed group lobbyist use fewer techniques relative to others

Citizen groups and labor unions appear to use slightly more than others

Intergovernmental lobbyists monitor and give attention to more bills

Citizen, labor, religious/charitable monitor fewer bills

Summary

No group shut out Similarities to Washington group politics Grass-roots lobbying ubiquitous in

states No divide of insider/outsider Monitoring extensive—to what end? Little specialization Groups and lobbyist for most of time

inactive as participants--expense

Thought Questions

How does lobbying impact issues definition?

How might you use lobbying to advance your policy agenda?

What do you see as the most critical factors in the early policy development phase?