RSS
by Deserai A. Crow, Elizabeth A. Albright, and Elizabeth Koebele
Administrative & Society
April 2015
DOI: 10.1177/0095399715581040
Abstract: As legislative venues are increasingly stymied by gridlock, much policymaking responsibility has devolved to the U.S. states. This article analyzes informational inputs and participation by actors within the rulemaking context, focusing on the level of state rulemaking. Specifically, we explore the rulemaking process in Colorado and North Carolina in two environmental sectors. Using data from documents and in-depth interviews, this study finds that goals of deliberative and open regulatory processes are not met in the cases studied here, in part due to informal pre-hearing processes established by agencies which can be navigated most successfully by the regulated community.
Introduction
Individuals working in a coordinated manner and the information that they use and disseminate are important contributors and influences to policy change (Healy & Ascher, 1995; Korfmacher & Koontz, 2003; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Although much of the policy process literature focuses on the U.S. federal-level legislative process, we know that regulatory processes can be similarly important to policy change, but that regulatory processes are more insular, less prone to media coverage, and can be influenced by different process dynamics (Hill, 1991; Potoski, 2004). Less frequently has the influence of informational inputs and stakeholders been studied in state-level rulemaking processes, and yet this realm of policymaking is increasingly important to the everyday business of governing.
Because of the increasing importance of state-level rulemaking processes, this study analyzes regulatory cases in two states to examine the relationship between information, stakeholders, and regulatory processes. Through this work, we hope to understand the following: What stakeholder input is perceived as important to the regulatory process, and at which point in the process are these inputs seen as most influential? The findings presented below are important in the context of U.S. states, but they also include lessons relevant to state and provincial rulemaking in other national contexts. Read more …
