Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Can Analysis of Policy Decisions Spur Participation?

  • Stuart Shapiro (a1)
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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Can Analysis of Policy Decisions Spur Participation?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Can Analysis of Policy Decisions Spur Participation?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Can Analysis of Policy Decisions Spur Participation?
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
Asimow, Michael (1999). Interim-Final Rules: Making Haste Slowly. Administrative Law Review, 51, 703755.
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), 203212.
Clark, E. Ray & Canter, Larry W.(Eds.) (1997). Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, and Future. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Cousins, J. Bradley & Whitmore, Elizabeth (1998). Framing Participatory Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1998(80), 523.
Davis, Kenneth Culp (1969). Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
De Marchi, Bruna (2003). Public Participation and Risk Governance. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 171176.
Eckerd, Adam (2014). Risk Management and Risk Avoidance in Agency Decision Making. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 616629.
Elliott, E. Donald (1992). Re-Inventing Rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, 41, 14901496.
Fischhoff, Baruch (2015). The Realities of Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis. Science, 350(6260), aaa6516.
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.
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, 104111.
Golden, Marissa Martino (1998). Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard? Journal of Public Administration, 8, 245270.
Greenberg, Michael R. (2013). The Environmental Impact Statement After Two Generations: Managing Environmental Power. Routledge.
Karkkainen, Bradley C. (2002). Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government’s Environmental Performance. Columbia Law Review, 903972.
Keohane, Nathaniel O. (2009). The Technocratic and Democratic Functions of the CAIR Regulatory Analysis. Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis, 33, 48.
Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). The Science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 7988.
Majone, Giandomenico (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McCubbins, Mathew D. & Schwartz, Thomas (1984). Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165179.
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.
National Research Council (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2008). Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
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.
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.
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), 163170.
Rubin, Herbert J. & Rubin, Irene S. (2011). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Los Angeles: Sage.
Schwartz, Jason A. (2016). 3. Approaches to Benefit-Cost Analysis. In Dunlop, Claire & Radaelli, Claudio (Eds.), Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment (pp. 3351). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
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, 393418.
Shapiro, Stuart (2016). Analysis and Public Policy: Successes, Failures and Directions for Reform. Edward Elgar Publishing.
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), S65S164.
Sinden, Amy (2014). Benefit-Cost Analysis, Ben Franklin, and the Supreme Court. UC Irvine Law Review, 4(4), 11751213.
Sunstein, Cass, R. (2002). “The Benefit-Cost State: The Future of Regulatory Protection”. American Bar Association.
Wagner, Wendy E. (2010). Administrative Law, Filter Failure, Information Capture. Duke Law Journal, 59, 13211432.
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), 99158.
Walker, Michael J. (2014). Commentary: Worth the Effort? NIMBY Public Comments Offer Little Value Added. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 629629.
Weatherford, Katie (2014). Big Business Gaming the Rules Against Public Protections and Small Business. Center for Effective Government.
Wilson, James Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. Washington, DC: Basic Books.
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, 103124.
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, 128139.
Animals Asia Foundation et al. (2012) NGO Statement Against Proposed Beluga Imports by the Georgia Aquarium.
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (2012) Draft Environmental Assessment For Issuance of Permit No. 17324 for the Importation of Beluga Whales for Public Display Purposes.
Transportation Security Administration (2009) Aircraft Repair Station Security Proposed Rule. Federal Register 74 FR 59874 November 18.
Transportation Security Administration (2014) Aircraft Repair Station Security Final Rule. Federal Register 79 FR 2119 January 13.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
  • ISSN: 2194-5888
  • EISSN: 2152-2812
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Shapiro supplementary material
Shapiro supplementary material 1

 Unknown (11 KB)
11 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed