PrintGovernments and regulators can have a substantial impact on organizational interests. (fn: For example, corporate leaders rate governments second only to customers in their potential to impact enterprise value, see Managing Government Relations for the Future: McKinsey Global Survey Results, February 2011 (https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Managing_government_relations_for_the_... downloaded June 20, 2011)) Many stakeholders seek to influence issues by establishing formal political institutional constraints. And the tactics they use are mediated through formal institutional settings. Because these institutional settings are established to ensure public access to the political process, they are referred to as ‘public political’ forums.
Three public political forums are defined by the loci of key decisions (political bargains?) determining the constraints that govern non-market issues. The legislative forum comprises the set of stakeholder engagements that can result in new laws. Many legal statutes, however, direct a regulatory agency to promulgate rules specifying how those statutes will be applied in practical situations. The regulatory forum refers to those stakeholder engagements that determine regulation promulgation and administration. Finally, stakeholders may attempt to resolve issues through courts when existing laws and regulations do not adequately resolve associated conflict. The judicial forum refers to those stakeholder engagements intended to influence issues through the court system. Stakeholders can utilize a variety of tactics within these forums to influence issue outcomes.
The legislative forum: (B ch8)
Stakeholders engage in non-market activities to affect issues that are not resolved through cooperative exchange. One way to affect those issues is by establishing laws. Laws delineate property rights by assigning the costs and benefits of an exchange to particular stakeholders. Thus, stakeholders engage in the legislative forum when they attempt to influence issues through new and revised legal constraints.
Legal constraints can be implemented at the national and/or sub-national level. In the United States, a bi-cameral legislature establishes federal law. Thus, stakeholders must employ tactics within both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to have an influence in the legislative forum. Most US States also establish laws through bi-cameral legislatures.[1] Counties and local municipalities (e.g. cities and townships) may also establish ordinances that can affect the incidence of costs and benefits associated with non-market issues.
Some stakeholders are distinctive of issues resolved in the legislative forum. Legislators, obviously, are distinctive of the legislative forum. The elected officials who vote on proposed legislation may be influenced by a variety of stakeholders and interests. At the local level, a Board of Supervisors will typically serve the legislative function. In any case, it is important to understand the particular officials driving legislation at issue. In addition, it is important to consider the key staffers that legislators rely upon for research and advice.
Legislative committees are also distinctive of the legislative forum. Typically, much legislative progress occurs within the committee structure. For example, in the US Senate, a standing Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will coordinate much of the deliberation on laws related to energy and resource issues. The Senate has another 19 standing committees for handling other types of issues.[2] And these committees may solicit input from public panels and forums.
Finally, legislators are also supported by legislative agencies and services. For example, within the US Federal Government, the Congressional Budget Office prepares analyses and reports used by House and Senate Committees within their policy deliberations.
Individual legislators are particularly important stakeholders within legislative forums. And their staffers, legislative committees, and supporting legislative agencies and services are influential agents within this forum. As a result, various stakeholders will attempt to influence an issue by interacting with legislators and other influential legislative groups. Stakeholders influence an issue within the legislative forum through lobbying, providing legislative testimony, affecting electoral support, public advocacy, and judicial action as a legislative tactic.
Lobbying refers to direct, private engagement of elected officials. There are several bases for rapport between stakeholders and legislators. Legislators may value the technical information provided by stakeholders. For particularly technical issues, legislative staff may lack the capabilities necessary for sophisticated analyses. Legislators also value political information that stakeholders can provide. Such information is useful to legislators who want to understand constituents’ interests and/or are seeking reelection. Providing political and technical information forms the basis for interactions to influence legislative decision-making and obtain valuable information.
Stakeholders can directly engage with elected officials through public testimony. The legislative process includes a number of opportunities for public input. Legislative committees typically schedule public hearings to solicit comments on proposed legislation. Legislative committees will also solicit written testimony from interested stakeholders. Finally, legislative committees may even coordinate workgroups to formulate recommendations for pending legislation.
Stakeholders can influence issues by providing electoral support. Stakeholders often provide financial support for legislative campaigns to increase the likelihood that politicians with shared interests are elected. Stakeholders can also provide support in elections by advocating for particular candidates with shared interests.
Stakeholder groups can also influence legislators through public advocacy for issues of interest. In this case, Stakeholders are attempting to influence legislative decision-making through conversation with the electorate. Legislative candidates may be influenced if they believe prospective voters share a particular set of interests.
[1] Nebraska has a unicameral legislature and is the one exception to this rule. (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/about/history_unicameral.php dowloaded June 26, 2011.)
[2] http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teaser...
The regulatory forum: (B ch10)
… define/discuss
- issues addressed (i.e. via regulation promulgation and administration)
- stakeholders (… + regulators). stakeholder roles in decisionmaking
… typical tactics (informational campaign, regulatory advisory group participation, …)
- participating in rulemaking – serving on committees, providing public comments / testimony
- negotiating administration
[introduction] Even in cases where laws are established to resolve non-market issues, they are often insufficiently precise for practical application. Regulators may be required to codify rules clarifying how laws will be applied. And because even the best-written regulations cannot anticipate every possible situation, regulators will retain some degree of discretion in regulatory administration. Stakeholders can engage in the regulatory forum to influence rulemaking and regulatory administration.
[what is rulemaking?] Rulemaking refers to the quasi-legislative activities of various government agencies. Legislatures often promulgate relatively vague legal requirements, proscriptions, or operability standards. (??? Insert example of ambiguously-stated law? E.g.Clean Air Act ???) Regulators must devise rules to clarify how those laws will be applied in practice.
Governmental organizations employ various procedures for rulemaking. And even within the same country, different regions, states and municipalities may establish unique institutional constraints to govern rulemaking. Generally, regulations are promulgated and administered through a political process exhibiting some degree of stakeholder input.
Within the US, for example, the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 (APA) governs federal rulemaking.[1] The Act requires publication in the Federal Register the legal authority and terms for substantive rules proposals. Stakeholders are given “an opportunity to participate in … rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation.” The rule-promulgating agency is required to consider relevant stakeholder input and “incorporate into the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.” The agency must publish the final rule at least 30 days prior to its effective date.
The APA provides for several exceptions to this rulemaking procedure. Agencies are not required to follow this rulemaking procedure for interpretive statements of existing rules. They are not required to follow this procedure for rules specifying the agency’s organization and operation. And they are not required to follow these procedures when “the agency for good cause finds … that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In addition, the requirement for 30 day advance publication of new rules is not necessary when the rule change “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” It is important to understand the rulemaking procedures determining opportunities for stakeholder influence in the regulatory forum.
[what is regulatory administration?] Regulatory administration refers to monitoring and enforcement of promulgated regulations. Regulators execute these obligations through routine regulatory administration and the quasi-judicial processes established for formal adjudication.
Regulatory administration refers to the routine activities necessary to ensure regulatory compliance. In cases where stakeholder activities are regulated through a public registry, for example, regulators will need to process applications and award permits to engage in the regulated activity. Regulators may also need to monitor regulated activities by conducting inspections and maintaining updated records. And they may assess and collect penalties for regulatory violations. Finally, regulators will also gather and share information through various informal communications and engagements with the regulated community and other public stakeholders.
Regulatory administration also includes formal adjudication processes established to award permits, determine violations, and assess penalties. In many cases, regulations specify a quasi-judicial framework for administration. For example, many oil and gas producing states establish a commission to encourage responsible stewardship of state energy resources. A paid civil servant who manages routine regulatory administration typically leads these commissions. For more substantive and less routine commission decisions, a group of elected or appointed commissioners will meet on a routine basis. (??? Could also illustrate w/ any public utility commission. Need to dig into a particular one to get the terminology correct. ???)
[how can stakeholders influence key decisionmakers in the regulatory forum?] Several attributes distinguish regulators from key decisionmakers in other public political forums. Whereas legislators have a direct relationship with the electorate, regulators’ relationship is indirect. The heads of regulatory agencies are seldom elected; they are more likely to be political appointees or career civil servants. This indirect relationship with the electorate means regulators will be less responsive to electoral pressure.
Instead, regulators may be more responsive to research and stakeholder participation in rulemaking. Whereas legislators have greater latitude to pursue their own and various stakeholders’ interests in policymaking, regulators are more constrained by statutory and procedural obligations. Incorporating stakeholder research and comments into the rulemaking process is often used to demonstrate that regulators have fulfilled those obligations. And in times of budgetary pressure, regulators may substitute stakeholder input for research that they do not have resources to undertake. Consequently, regulators may be more responsive to substantive research and stakeholder input to policymaking, as compared lobbying based on political pressure.
In addition to formal procedural opportunities for stakeholder input, regulators may also coordinate informal and ad hoc advisory groups. Participation in these work groups can help to establish ongoing relationships for information discovery and information sharing. Of particular importance, these groups may be given the task of establish a framework for evaluating stakeholder input. As a result, regulator-sponsored work group participants may exert significant influence in the regulatory forum.
Finally, stakeholder-sponsored coalitions may organize independently in order to influence key decisionmakers in the regulatory forum. Stakeholder-led coordination is useful when regulators do not organize stakeholders. Smaller, less-influential stakeholders may benefit by participating in groups to pool authority. And perhaps more importantly, stakeholder-led coordination reduces the cost to regulators of aggregating preferences and opinions of seemingly diffuse stakeholder groups. In practice, however, influence efforts of stakeholder-led groups are at greater risk of being ignored if regulator buy-in is not secured a priori.
[1] see Public Law 79-404, Administrative Procedures Act (or US Code Title 5, Part I, Ch. 5, Sub.Ch. II, para. 553.)
The judicial forum: (B ch9)
… define/discuss
- issues addressed (i.e. via court decisions), role of precedence; note different from judicial action as tactic in legislative forum, insofar as judicial forum is about having the courts resolve issue uncertainty via court decision
- stakeholders (… + judiciary). stakeholder roles in decisionmaking
… typical tactics (legal representation, negotiated settlements)
- filing a case
- negotiating a settlement