Civic group participation in the public policy process

Introduction

As governments and governance make the shift toward network models, civic groups are going to have an increasingly important role in accomplishing the public interest. As government transitions toward becoming the "steering" part, nonprofits, for-profits, and other civic organizations will become the "towers" that make policies work. Civic groups, in these conditions, will have an increased role in the policy formulation process.

Public policy is determined over a process with multiple stages. Viana (1996) identifies four stages in her model:

1. Agenda setting
2. Formulation
3. Implementation
4. Evaluation

The best stages for civic groups to provide input and influence public policy are in the agenda setting, formulation and implementation stages. In this paper I will attempt to demonstrate how civic groups can influence public managers and elected officials in the agenda setting, formulation and implementations stages of public policy.

Agenda setting

Agenda setting is the process of bringing an issue to the public eye and placed before decision-makers for them to address. Interest groups seek to get their interests on the "formal agenda" of public managers and elected officials so that pooches may be made in their favor and that public problems will be addressed. Cobb and Elder (1983) describe the formal agenda as "that set of items explicitly up for the active and serious consideration of authoritative decision-makers."

There are two specific ways a civic group can physically get an issue on the public and formal agendas: opportunism and public theater. Opportunism refers to using a focusing event to bring an issue to the forefront of public attention. This is occurring now with an increase in the debate over the pros and cons of nuclear power following the events at Fukushima Power Plant following the Japan's violent earthquake and tsunami. Birkland (1988) discusses this method:

Using natural disasters and industrial accidents as examples, most focusing events change the dominant issues on the agenda in a policy domain, they can lead to interest group mobilization, and groups actively seek to expand or contain issues after a focusing event.

(pg. 53)

In opportunism, a civic group would use an event like Fukushima to raise awareness of the problem and build support around their solution.

Another way would be to create your own focusing event with the use of public theater. Civic groups can create add campaigns or perform public stunts to increase awareness or simply shock the public into action. This method is often used by groups like PETA who is famous for their public demonstrations in the buff decrying the poor treatment of earth's animal populations. Because public theater is more planned, it would be easier for an organization to secure resources and support for it. Relying on a focusing event to come along that possibly never will could be problematic in accomplishing goals on any reasonable time table.

Formulation

Once an issue is on the agenda the debate can start on how to address it. This is the stage where the policy is formed in legislation and the plan of action is decided. This responsibility is left up to the elected officials in government – and they are ultimately accountable – but civic groups can influence the decisions the decision-makers make. Civic groups can lobby elected officials and public managers in support of heir stance, and provide information and insight supporting their views to those in power. The public managers and officials, on the other hand, should be delving into the stages of formulation. The first step is to analyze the problem and define it. It should be easier to develop a solution when the problem is fully understood. Patton and Sawicki (1993) discuss five parts in the analysis step of policy formulation:

1. Verifying, defining and detailing the problem
2. Establishing evaluation criteria
3. Identifying alternatives
4. Evaluating alternative policies
5. Displaying alternatives and distinguishing among them

After all the possible solutions have been proposed and analyzed formulation boils down to selecting from among them. This is often where things become politicized and the use of common sense may become problematic. This is often where most lobbying takes place and civic groups write letters, deliver petitions and call elected officials to urge them to sway their direction. This is also where the differences of opinions on what is in the public interest are most prominent. Public officials and civic groups from both sides of the aisle often clash over ideological struggles in debates – and in the emotional context that ensues, rational thought and reliance on data is less than what one would expect.

Accountability for formulation lies solely in the hands of legislatures, elected officials and appointed public managers. Civic groups can and do play a role – though a more intangible one. They can produce studies and supply data to those making decisions. They can offer possible solutions for consideration. They can have members call a legislator's office and urge they vote a certain way. They can increase public support through ad campaigns and other means to sway public opinion and support. There are a myriad of ways one can indirectly influence the formulation stage of public policy.

Implementation

The last, and possibly most important stage to be discussed, is the implementation stage of the public policy process. Even the most well designed plans can falter if they are not executed properly. As governments move more toward steering and pass rowing duties on to nonprofits, for-profits and civic groups, these parties will be the key players in the execution of public policies. According to Brewer and deLeon (1983):

Implementation is an important but frequently overlooked step in the general policy process model. Lacking proper implementation can invalidate the earlier, carefully considered steps in the policy process and thereby intensify the original problem. The process, then, warrants our careful attention.

(pg. 249)

Any policy, no matter how well designed, will fail with flawed implementation. Candler (2011) identifies four requirements for successful implementation is his March 12, 2011 lecture.

1. Translation ability
2. Resources
3. Limited number of players
4. Accountability

The policy drafted by the decision-makers in the formulation stage has to be applicable in the real world. The legislation has to be able to be translated into real actions that can take place and work toward solving the problem. Any successful policy must also have enough resources. Without the funds, materials and manpower to make a policy work – it will not. One does want too many drivers in a car either. Having a limited number of players keeps things from getting too complicated and hectic. It also keeps things more accountable by preventing one group from passing blame onto another. It also helps to have stakeholder buy-in. People work harder for something they feel they have a part in and are more dedicated to ensuring successful execution. Ensuring that these requirements are met in the drafting of policies can increase the chances for successful implementation of that policy.

Conclusion

Civic groups play a big role in the public policy cycle. That role can only increase at governments and governance move toward networked models of governance. Nonprofits, for-profits and civic groups are becoming the rowers, executioners and doers. Government is steering the way, and ensuring that the public interest is upheld (in an ideal situation). The bureaucratic model is becoming increasingly outdated and the New Public Service and New Public Management models can only increase the influence civic groups have on the policy cycle. As more responsibilities shift away from government, accountability should not. Government should still be ultimately responsible as the agent of the people, to ensure that their agents are working toward a public good and for the public interest. Government should maintain oversight, and keep a close eye on what contracted parties are doing on their behalf for the people of that nation.

References

Birkland, T. (1988). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting [abstract]. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), pp. 53-74.

Brewer, G. & deLeon, P. (1983). The foundations of policy analysis. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Candler, G. (2011). Implementation [website]. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Website:

HTTP://www.unf.edu/~g.candler/cgpp/10.html

Cobb, R. & Elder, C. (1983). Participation in American politics: the Dynamics of agenda building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press

Patton, C. & Sawicki, P. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Viana, A. L. (1996). Abordagens metodológicas em políticas públicas. Revista da Administração Pública, 30(2): 5-43