1. EPPL 601 Interest Groups and Agenda Setting

2. 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

3. 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?

4. The Players Education Policy Planning and Research Community Foundations Think tanks Universities Education Associations Wealthy State/Federal DOE

5. 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?

6. Role of Research Basic Theory based “Pure” Applied Tests theory in practice Evaluation research Integrative research Meta analysis Overview on subject

7. 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

8. 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?

9. Elements of Issue Definition Claims Evidence Solution Discourse Broad Appeal

10. 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

11. 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?

12. Influencing Agenda Setting Knowledge (social capital) Allies and relationships (social capital) Organizational effectiveness for rapid response (organizational capital)

13. 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?

14. 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

15. Lobbying Activities Business and Trade Associations=63% Nonprofits/Citizen Groups=14% Institutions=7% Governments=2%

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. 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

21. Thought Questions How do you think Nownes and Freeman selected the three “representative” states? Why the increase in state level activity?

22. Group Activity Monitoring—environmental scans Political Action Committee (PAC) giving Grass-roots lobbying

23. Differences with National Study Judicial politicking (nil) Grass-roots lobbying (higher) Using the media (less) Schmoozing (less)

24. 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

25. 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%

26. 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?

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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?