|
INTEREST GROUPS IN THE POLICY PROCESS
SPRING, 2005
Professor Joe White 216-368-2426 (office)
113 Mather
House
POSC 306/406
216-514-8337 (home)
M/W: 1:00 -2:30
Mondays, 5:30 – 8:00
jxw87@po.cwru.edu and by
appointment
Mather Memorial 225
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
This course covers the field of interest groups with
particular reference to how groups attempt to influence,
and are influenced by, the public policy process. It
differs from traditional policy process courses in
putting more emphasis on the process as an opportunity
and constraint upon particular interests. It differs
from traditional interest group courses in putting less
emphasis on evaluation of interest groups as a “good” or
“bad” part of politics, and more on the variety of ways
that groups can try to influence events. What can groups
do to influence policy choices? Different groups with
different kinds of resources may follow different
strategies and tactics. These different group resources
then may be a basis for the students’ own evaluations.
This course is mostly taught with, but not formally
co-listed with, MAND 406, “Nonprofit Social Policy and
Advocacy,” a course for students in the Mandel Center
for Nonprofit Organizations’ Masters degree program.
Therefore its material will include some special
emphasis, but hardly sole emphasis, on the concerns and
resources of nonprofit organizations, to the extent
those can be distinguished from the concerns of other
organizations. Worries about tax deductibility, in
particular, cause some managers of nonprofit
organizations to worry that they cannot advocate as
explicitly as can corporations, unions, and other
well-known interests. Yet in the United States there are
so many forms of nonprofit organizations, with so many
different interests, that much of the standard
literature applies equally well to them.
The course schedule is also affected by the
participation of the Mandel Center students. Operating
under Weatherhead School of Management rules, their
normal class period is two hours. Therefore this class
will meet in two segments. The first segment, from 5:30
until 6:00, will be a separate discussion section for
Arts and Sciences students, both graduate and
undergraduate. Then, at 6:00 p.m., we will be joined by
the Mandel Center students. POSC 306/406 students are
encouraged to participate fully throughout the full
class session. Judging from when this class was taught
in Spring 2003, the inconveniences of this arrangement
are fairly easy to manage.
COURSE MATERIAL:
All students will need to read most or all of four
required texts. They include a short, web-available text
on lobbying for the nonprofit sector; an overview text
about lobbying state governments; a collection of
articles about interest groups and the national
government; and a case study of policymaking in one
area, improving treatments for breast cancer. The three
printed texts should be available for purchase from the
university bookstore, and if you can find them more
cheaply in other ways, that’s fine too:
Alan Rosenthal, The Third House: Lobbyists and Lobbying
in the States 2nd edition. 2001 CQ Press
Paul S. Herrnson, Ronald G. Shaiko, and Clyde Wilcox
eds., The Interest Group Connection: Electioneering,
Lobbying, and Policymaking in Washington 2nd edition.
2004. CQ Press
Maureen H. Casamayou, The Politics of Breast Cancer.
2001 University of Pittsburgh Press
The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide, 2nd ed., by Bob Smucker
(Independent Sector, 1999) can be found by going to the
following website:
http://www.clpi.org/BOOK/nonprofitlobbyingguide.pdf
A few further required readings will be available on
hardcopy reserve at the university library. They will be
reserved under the MAND 406 course number. I will also
submit them for the electronic reserves. In addition, I
have drafted some summaries of perspectives on both
interest groups and policymaking, and those summaries
will be posted on the course website.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS:
In accord with university regulations, requirements for
undergraduate (POSC 306) and graduate (POSC 406)
students will be somewhat different. Requirements for
POSC 406 students are essentially the same as for MAND
406 students, save that the former must attend the
longer class sessions.
1) Supplementary Reading Reports: Each student will
report on a supplementary reading that addresses the
role of interest groups in policy-making. Written
reports will be due in class on April 11.
1a) Graduate students’ reports should be between 2,500
and 3,000 words long. Each student will write a report
that explains the basic issues raised and conclusions of
the reading, and comment on how this material fits (e.g.
confirms or seems to rebut) arguments made in the shared
class material. They will join the Mandel Center
students in choosing from the following list of books:
Jeffrey M. Berry, The New Liberalism: The Rising Power
of Citizen Groups. Washington, DC: Brookings, 2000. ISBN
0815709072
Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the
Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1996. ISBN 0520214455
Allen D. Hertzke, Representing God in Washington: The
Role of Religious Lobbies in the American Polity.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988. ISBN
0870495704
Douglas R. Imig, Poverty and Power: The Political
Representation of Poor Americans. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1996. ISBN 0803225008
Ronald T. Libby, Eco-Wars: Political Campaigns and
Social Movements. New York: Columbia University Press.
1998. ISBN 0231113110
Michael D. Pertschuk, Smoke in Their Eyes: Lessons in
Movement Leadership from the Tobacco Wars. 2001.
University of Tennessee Press.
Robert J. Spitzer, The Politics of Gun Control 3rd ed.
2004. CQ Press
No more than seven students will be allowed to read the
same book. All graduate students should make their
selections by the third class session (January 31).
Students’ selections will be accepted on a first-come,
first-serve basis. Students who select a book that has
already been chosen by the maximum number of classmates
will be required to choose some other reading, unless
they can convince me that special circumstances apply.
The reports will be due in class on April 11. Class
sessions on April 18 and April 25 will include
discussions of each book, in which the people who read
the book will be expected to participate.
1b) Undergraduates will choose a case study from the
John F. Kennedy School of Government Case Study Program.
Instructions on how to find those cases are in the
appendix to this syllabus. They will write 5-page
reports, a minimum of 1250 words. Each report will
explain the basic issue and interests involved; explain
why, according to the reading, the case had the
particular result that it did; and comment on how this
case fits with the required reading for the course.
2) Strategy and Tactics Memoranda: In lieu of a final
examination, each student will also prepare a memorandum
to the leader of an organization. In this memorandum,
the student should summarize the organization’s public
policy environment and concerns, the resources the
organization has with which to affect policies, and, on
that basis, suggest strategies and tactics for the
organization.
2a) By February 14, undergraduates should submit a
one-page prospects identifying the organization for
which they will write the memo and some sources they
expect to consult. The final reports, due on May 2,
should be no less than 2,500 words long.
2b) By February 14, graduate students will be required
to prepare a preliminary report about the organization
they have chosen. They should consult with the
instructor about their choice of organization before
beginning their research. This report should be six
pages (1,500 words) long. The final reports, due by 5:00
p.m. on May 2, should be no less than 3,500 words long.
3) All students will also have four in-class quizzes on
the readings. These quizzes will be given during the POSC discussion period, from 5:30 to 6:00, so be
distributed at exactly 5:30 p.m..
Grading for Graduate Students
Supplemental Reading Report 20%
Preliminary Memorandum 10%
Final Memorandum 35%
Quizzes 25%
Class Participation 10%
Grading for Undergraduates
Supplemental Reading Report 20%
Memorandum Project 40%
Quizzes 30%
Class Participation 10%
Reports will be penalized a grade for each day they are
late. An extremely strong excuse for a missed quiz will
allow a student to do a substantial make-up assignment.
Otherwise, the grade for a missed quiz will be entered
as an “F” in calculation of the overall grade for the
quizzes as a whole.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
You must document all sources you use in writing your
papers according to an accepted style guide. A good
standard approach is in the Chicago Manual of Style
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), but any
standard format will be fine for this class. Plagiarism
of any form will be punished by referral to the
appropriate university judicial proceedings, as well as
by a failing grade in the assignment on which the
plagiarism occurs. Plagiarism includes, according to the
MLA Handbook (New York: MLA, 1988), two related
activities: repeating “as your own someone else’s
sentences, more or less verbatim,” and “paraphrasing
another person’s argument as your own, and presenting
another’s line of thinking as though it were your own.”
Proper citation of sources will allow you to incorporate
others’ analyses without committing plagiarism.
SCHEDULE OF READINGS AND CLASS ACTIVITIES:
January 10: Introduction to class and each other.
Students will be asked to speak about
organizations for which they’ve worked or with which
they’ve been involved, and the
relevance of public policy to those organizations as
they see it. I will lecture about
interest groups in general.
Reading: A longer version of my lecture will be made
available on the course website, and should be read by
all students by the following class session. It would of
course be useful to have read it before this class.
January 17: NO CLASS, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HOLIDAY
January 24: Perspectives on Lobbying and Interest
Groups. On the one hand, some people see groups as evil
and others as necessary. On the other, some perspectives
emphasize how groups try to influence government, while
others emphasize groups’ need to know how government
might affect them.
Reading: Smucker Chapters 1 & 2 and Part Three.
Herrnson et al. Chapter 1.
Rosenthal, Preface and Chapters 1-4.
January 31: The Structures of Policy-Making. We will
consider the variety of arenas
in which government decisions are made, and so the
various situations in which
advocates might try to influence decisions. Each of
these (for example, legislatures,
bureaucracies, and courts) may call for different
tactics and benefit groups with different
resources.
Reading: Second essay by instructor, on course website
as “Mand406Models of Policy”;
Selections on Reserve from Paul A. Sabatier ed.,
Theories of the Policy Process: Chapter 2, “The Stages
Approach to the Policy Process”; Chapter 4, “Ambiguity,
Time, and Multiple Streams”; Chapter 6, “The Advocacy
Coalition Framework.”
Assignment: Students Should Have Selected Their
Supplementary Readings By This Date
Assignment: FIRST READING QUIZ
February 7: Lobbying Methods. Or, advocacy from the
lobbyist’s perspective. This includes resources,
tactics, and norms.
Reading: Smucker Chapters 3-8, pp. 16-48; Rosenthal
Chapters 5-9
February 14: Information in the policy process. One
whole type of nonprofit
organization, sometimes known as a “think tank,” seeks
to provide information that will
influence the policy process. Examples include the
Brookings Institution in Washington
and the Federation for Community Planning in Cleveland.
All organizations seek to
influence policy choices by presenting information that
supports their preferences.
Reading: R. Kent Weaver, Chapter 6, “The Role of Policy
Research,” and Chapter 8, “Interest Groups and Welfare
Reform,” from Weaver, Ending
Welfare as We Know It (Brookings, 2000). These readings
can be found online at
http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815792476/html/index.html
Assignment: Prosepctuses (for undergraduates) and
preliminary project memoranda (for graduate students)
due at the beginning of class.
February 21: The Nitty Gritty. We will break the policy
process into parts later in the
course. Here we look at one particularly important part
that combines executive and
legislative processes: budgeting. As a saying goes,
“nothing happens without the
money.” So budgeting can be central to all aspects of
the policymaking process,
especially implementation and modification.
Readings: Herrnson et al. Chapter 9; Jerry McCaffery,
“Features of the Budgetary Process,” and Roy T. Meyers,
“Strategies for Spending Advocates,” from Roy T. Meyers
ed., Handbook of Government Budgeting (Jossey-Bass,
1999); Richard G. Sheridan, “Chapter 8: The Politics of
Budgeting,” from Sheridan, Follow the Money: Ohio State
Budgeting (Cleveland: Federation for Community Planning,
2000)
Assignment: Second Reading Quiz
February 28: A first case study. We will look at the
subjects of processes of influence and group
organization by looking at one case in depth. Please
remember that this case may be a bit “biased” in the
sense that most of the class will be disposed to see
this particular set of interests as on the side of the
angels.
Reading: Casamayou, The Politics of Breast Cancer
March 7: NO CLASS, SPRING BREAK
March 14: Influencing Elections (or, Don’t You Wish…).
Most nonprofit
organizations have little ability to influence
elections. But that ability – or
politicians’ perception of that ability – remains one of
the fundamental forms of power in American politics. Optimists of a sort may think the
size of a group’s membership
matters most; pessimists of a sort may think financial
resources matter far more. What,
in fact, can groups do to influence elections?
Readings: Herrnson et al., Chapters 2-6.
Assignment: Third Reading Quiz
March 21: Influencing Legislation. Interest groups do
make their case, but there are lots of other ways that
they try to cause legislators to support them.
Readings: Herrnson et al., Chapters 7-8, 10-12
March 28: Influencing the Executive. In many cases, what
matters is not what the
law says but what the agencies of government do. So
groups will lobby the executive
branch both to get it as an ally in legislative battles,
and to attempt to shape the
executive’s use of its own discretion.
Readings: Herrnson et al., Chapters 13-16
April 4: Influencing the Courts. Someone (I think it was
Alexis de Tocqueville) once wrote that in America, all
political questions ultimately become judicial ones.
Certainly lots of policies end up in the courts, and a
whole branch of advocacy, called public interest
litigation, had evolved as a result.
Readings: Herrnson et al. Chapters 17-19.
Assignment: Fourth Reading Quiz
April 11: A Second Case Study: Child Policy. Guest
speaker to be determined.
Readings: Material to be placed on reserve, to be
announced.
Assignment: Reading reports due at the beginning of
class.
***Instructor will announce which books will be
discussed during
which of the final two class sessions.
Undergraduates should be prepared to discuss their case
readings.
April 18: Graduate student presentations about outside
readings
April 25: Continued presentations about outside readings
and conclusion of class
Reading: Rosenthal, Chapter 10; Herrnson et al., Chapter
20.
May 2: Memorandum Project due to Professor White by 5
p.m. today.
ADDENDUM: Materials for Undergraduate Supplemental
Reading Reports
Undergraduates will report on cases from the John F.
Kennedy School of Government’s Case Studies in Public
Policy and Management. The case program’s website is
http://www.ksgcase.harvard.edu/
You should select a case that has particular reference
to interest groups. Some events have been written up in
multiple reports; in those cases, you will need to read
all of the parts of the case. You will need to clear
your selection with me, for two reasons: so that I can
determine it is indeed appropriate, and so that I can
buy a copy for myself to read. Examples of cases used
when the class was taught before include:
Case # Title
1660.0 Fast Track Derailed: The 1997 Attempt to Renew
Fast Track Trade Legislation
1541.0 and 1541.1 “No Prison in East L.A.!” Birth of a
Grassroots Movement.
1429.0 Going Against the Grain: A ‘Conservative’ Think
Tank in Massachusetts
1238.0 Emily’s List and Campaign Finance Reform
757.0 Restricting Traffic on Washington Street
557.0 and 558.0 Freezing the Arms Race: The Genesis of a Mass
Movement and Freezing the Arms Race: The Campaign in Washington
1272.0 Wetlands Protection vs. Commercial Development: Sweeden’s Swamp.
429.0 Prohibition (A): Enactment
121.0 and 121.10 Central Utah Project (B) and Central Utah
Project (Sequel)
141.0 and 142.0 and 142.1 Auto Safety (A), (B), and (Part B:
Sequel) |
