Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:13:02.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Analysis of Policy Decisions Spur Participation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2018

Stuart Shapiro
Stuart Shapiro*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, 33 Livingston Ave., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA, e-mail: stuartsh@rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agencies are frequently required to analyze the impact of their decisions, particularly in the context of regulatory policy. Advocates of analysis have championed the transparency benefit of these requirements. But there has been very little attention paid to the effectiveness of analysis in spurring useful participation in practice. This article examines how analysis can hinder and motivate public participation. Interviews were conducted with 48 analysts (including economists, risk assessors, and environmental impact assessors). In addition I conducted a case study on a unique method for using analysis in partnership with participation, the use of panels of small business owners to evaluate a regulatory proposal by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). I find that participation in agency decisions as a result of traditional analytical requirements has been very uneven. Examples of success exist but so do cases where participation may be deterred by the density and complexity of analysis as well as cases of massive letter-writing campaigns ignored by decision-makers. I recommend a move toward simpler and earlier analysis, and the use of panels (such as described in the case study) to better take advantage of the potential synergy between analysis and participation.

Keywords

K23benefit-cost analysisenvironmental impact assessmentlaw and regulationparticipationrisk assessment
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , Fall 2018 , pp. 435 - 461
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Asimow, Michael (1999). Interim-Final Rules: Making Haste Slowly. Administrative Law Review, 51, 703–755.Google Scholar
Carrigan, Christopher & Shapiro, Stuart (2016). What’s Wrong with the Back of the Envelope? A Call for Simple (and Timely) Benefit-Cost Analysis. Regulation and Governance, 11(2), 203–212.Google Scholar
Clark, E. Ray & Canter, Larry W.(Eds.) (1997). Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, and Future. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Cousins, J. Bradley & Whitmore, Elizabeth (1998). Framing Participatory Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1998(80), 5–23.Google Scholar
Davis, Kenneth Culp (1969). Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
De Marchi, Bruna (2003). Public Participation and Risk Governance. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 171–176.Google Scholar
Eckerd, Adam (2014). Risk Management and Risk Avoidance in Agency Decision Making. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 616–629.Google Scholar
Elliott, E. Donald (1992). Re-Inventing Rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, 41, 1490–1496.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, Baruch (2015). The Realities of Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis. Science, 350(6260), aaa6516.Google Scholar
Fisher, Frank (2003). Beyond Empiricism: Policy Analysis as Deliberative Practice. In Hajer, Maarten & Wagenaar, Hendrik (Eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis. Understanding Governance in the Network Society.Google Scholar
Glucker, Anne N., Driessen, Peter P. J., Kolhoff, Arend & Runhaar, Hens A. C. (2013). Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment: Why, Who and How? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 104–111.Google Scholar
Golden, Marissa Martino (1998). Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard? Journal of Public Administration, 8, 245–270.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Michael R. (2013). The Environmental Impact Statement After Two Generations: Managing Environmental Power. Routledge.Google Scholar
Karkkainen, Bradley C. (2002). Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government’s Environmental Performance. Columbia Law Review, 903–972.Google Scholar
Keohane, Nathaniel O. (2009). The Technocratic and Democratic Functions of the CAIR Regulatory Analysis. Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis, 33, 48.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). The Science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 79–88.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. & Schwartz, Thomas (1984). Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179.Google Scholar
National Research Council (US) (1983). Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2008). Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (US) (2009). Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science and Decisions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (US) (2014). Committee to Review the IRIS Process Review of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, Steve (2003). Democracy in the Age of Assessment: Reflections on the Roles of Expertise and Democracy in Public-Sector Decision Making. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 163–170.Google Scholar
Rubin, Herbert J. & Rubin, Irene S. (2011). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Jason A. (2016). 3. Approaches to Benefit-Cost Analysis. In Dunlop, Claire & Radaelli, Claudio (Eds.), Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment (pp. 33–51). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stuart (2007). Presidents and Process: A Comparison of the Regulatory Process under the Clinton and Bush (43) Administrations. Journal of Law and Politics, 23, 393–418.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stuart (2016). Analysis and Public Policy: Successes, Failures and Directions for Reform. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jane D., Rhinehart, Emily, Jackson, Marguerite & Chiarello, Linda (2007). 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Health Care Settings. American Journal of Infection Control, 35(10), S65–S164.Google Scholar
Sinden, Amy (2014). Benefit-Cost Analysis, Ben Franklin, and the Supreme Court. UC Irvine Law Review, 4(4), 1175–1213.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass, R. (2002). “The Benefit-Cost State: The Future of Regulatory Protection”. American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. (2010). Administrative Law, Filter Failure, Information Capture. Duke Law Journal, 59, 1321–1432.Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy, Barnes, Katherine & Peters, Lisa (2011). Rulemaking in the Shade: An Empirical Study of EPA’s Air Toxic Emission Standards. Administrative Law Review, 63(1), 99–158.Google Scholar
Walker, Michael J. (2014). Commentary: Worth the Effort? NIMBY Public Comments Offer Little Value Added. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 629–629.Google Scholar
Weatherford, Katie (2014). Big Business Gaming the Rules Against Public Protections and Small Business. Center for Effective Government.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. Washington, DC: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb (2006). Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 103–124.Google Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb & Yackee, Susan Webb (2006). A Bias Towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy. The Journal of Politics, 68, 128–139.Google Scholar

Government Documents

Animals Asia Foundation et al. (2012) NGO Statement Against Proposed Beluga Imports by the Georgia Aquarium.Google Scholar
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (2012) Draft Environmental Assessment For Issuance of Permit No. 17324 for the Importation of Beluga Whales for Public Display Purposes.Google Scholar
Transportation Security Administration (2009) Aircraft Repair Station Security Proposed Rule. Federal Register 74 FR 59874 November 18.Google Scholar
Transportation Security Administration (2014) Aircraft Repair Station Security Final Rule. Federal Register 79 FR 2119 January 13.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Shapiro supplementary material

Shapiro supplementary material 1

Download Shapiro supplementary material(File)
File 11.2 KB