Deliberate Participation

Susan L. Moffitt

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107588141.008

7 - Deliberate Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2014

Susan L. Moffitt

Show author details

Susan L. Moffitt: Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island

Book contents

Get access

Summary

One of the great dangers in the unregulated use of advisory committees is that special interest groups may use their membership on such bodies to promote their private concerns.

House of Representatives Report 92–1017, April 25, 1972

It’s incumbent upon the members to listen carefully to the presentations from industry and to the Food and Drug Administration and neither act as advocates nor adversaries to the Agency or to the sponsors.

Statement by Chairman of the Pulmonary Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee, April 26, 1993

In 2010, American federal public committees offered upward of 70,000 people a seat at agency policymaking tables, at least in an advisory capacity. Looking at the estimates of public participation on federal committees over time, depicted in Figure 7.1, represents a remarkable testament to public access to American bureaucracy.

Yet, how public are federal advisory committees in the sense of reflecting the various publics that policy affects? The vision of full group representation as a means of expressing and legitimizing democracy consistently fails to materialize in practice. Participatory processes in government agencies, such as public committees, are vulnerable to similar limitations. Allegations abound that industry dominance on committees is not just an artifact of the past – such as the Business Advisory Council housed in the Department of Commerce in 1933 – but a persistent problem despite Federal Advisory Committee Act provisions. Estimates suggest approximately 38 percent of advisory committee members in 1985 hailed from private industry, for instance. The danger of dominance is real.

Type: Chapter
Information: Making Policy Public
Participatory Bureaucracy in American Democracy
, pp. 170 - 203

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588141.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues (Washington, DC:GAO, 1998), p. 4Google Scholar

Schattsneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (New York: Thompson Learning, 1960)Google Scholar

Smith, Bruce L. R., The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1992), pp. 42, 92–93Google Scholar

Balla, Steven J. and Wright, John R., “Interest Groups, Advisory Committees, and Congressional Control of the Bureaucracy,” American Journal of Political Science, 45 (2001): 799–812CrossRef Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues (Washington, DC:GAO, 1998)Google Scholar

Croley, Steven P. and Funk, William F., “The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Good Government,” Yale Journal on Regulation 14(1997): 451–557Google Scholar

Steinbrook, Robert, “Science, Politics and Federal Advisory Committees,” New England Journal of Medicine 350 (2004): 1454–1460, p. 1457CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Brown, David, Public Advisory Boards in the Federal Government (Syracuse University, Doctoral dissertation, 1956), p. 105

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues (Washington, DC: GAO, 1998), p. 7Google Scholar

Gormley, William T. Jr., The Politics of Public Utility Regulation (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983)Google Scholar

McCarty, Nolan, “Complexity, Capacity and Capture,” in Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It, edited by Carpenter, Daniel and Moss, David (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 99–123Google Scholar

Vinovskis, Maris, Overseeing the Nation’s Report Card: The Creation and Evolution of the National Assessment Governing Board (Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1998), p. 22Google Scholar

Jennings, John F., “An Interview with John F. Jennings,” in The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, edited by Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Press, 2004), pp. 279–280Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 89–91Google Scholar

Institute of Medicine, The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2007), p. 9Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P., “Protection without Capture: Product Approval by a Politically Responsive, Learning Regulator,” American Political Science Review 98 (2004): 613–631CrossRef Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance (Washington, DC: GAO, 2004), p. 40Google Scholar

Pines, Wayne L. and Cotton, Mary Ann N., “Preparing for an FDA Advisory Committee Meeting,” Drug Information Journal 31(1997): 35–41CrossRef Google Scholar

Brown, David S., The Public Advisory Board in the Federal Government (Syracuse University, Doctoral Dissertation, 1954), pp. 65, 192, 415

Friedman, Robert S., “Representation in Regulatory Decision-Making: Scientific, Industrial and Consumer Inputs to the FDA,” Public Administration Review 38 (1978): 205–214CrossRef Google Scholar

Gusmano, Michael K., “FDA Decisions and Public Deliberation: Challenges and Opportunities,” Public Administration Review 73 (2014): S115–S126CrossRef Google Scholar

Lurie, Peter et al., “Financial Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Voting Patterns at Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee Meetings,” Journal of the American Medical Association 295 (2006): 1921–1928CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lo, Bernard and Field, Marilyn J., Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education and Practice (Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2009)Google Scholar

Neustadt, Richard E. and Fineberg, Harvey V., The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1978), p. 94, p.89Google Scholar PubMed

Balogh, Brian, Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945–1975 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRef Google Scholar

Patashnik, Eric, Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), p. 21