CEEN 590 Actor Dynamics

1

Today’s agenda Policy Cycle Government actors

- incentives Interest Groups

Interests Resources Strategies

2

Policy Cycle Model

3

Agenda-Setting

Policy Formulation

Decisionmaking

Policy Implementation

Monitoring and Evaluation

4

Agenda-Setting – Definitions

Social Agenda (general, systemic): issues that the public thinks deserve attention from government measures: polls, media

Formal Agenda (government): issues explicitly up for active and serious consideration by policy makers measures: announced proposals,

throne speech

5

Agenda-Setting - Process

Kingdon’s “streams” model: a confluence of Problem stream Politics stream Policy (solution)

streamOpens a “policy

window”Opportunity for

“policy entrepreneurs”

6

Agenda-Setting - Process

Changes in “Problem” indicators knowledge, technology focusing event

Changes in “Politics” changing public mood elections interest group strategies

Policy Cycle Model

7

Agenda-Setting

Policy Formulation

Decisionmaking

Policy Implementation

Monitoring and Evaluation

Policy Formulation

THINKING Policy analysis of

alternatives

TALKING Consultation with

stakeholders

8

Implementation – conditions for successClear, consistent objectivesSound causal theoryAdequate administrative authorityCommitted, skillful implementersSupport from stakeholdersFacilitative socio-economic

conditions

9

Interest groups in contextStrategic actors

Government▪ Elected officials▪ Bureaucrats

Non-government interest groups

10

Government Actors -Interests, Resources: Politicians

resource: authorityObjectives: reelection, policy

objectives, power reelection comes first -- fundamental

constraint effect: public opinion matters

11

The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: BURSTEIN impact of public opinion is

substantialsalience enhances the impact of

public opinion impact of opinion remains strong

even when the activities of political organizations and elites are taken into account

responsiveness appears not to have changed significantly over time 12

resources authority expertise

objectives policy objectives power (budgets, jurisdiction) autonomy

13

Government Actors –Interests, Resources: Bureaucrats

Stakeholders Some not formally

organized as groups Stakeholder attributes

Power Legitimacy Urgency

Position value (favor, oppose, neutral)

Vested interest impact level Level of impact Probability of impact

14

Power/Interest Grid

Interest Groupsenergy firms trade associationsenvironmental NGOsaboriginal groupsconsumer groups (?)List of actors

What are the interests of your group?

16

17

Value orientations

5 - Strong environmental values

On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being extremely supportive of energy development and 5 being extremely supportive of environmental conservation, how would you rate your simulation group's values?

4- Moderate environmental values

2 - moderate pro development values

3 - neutral1 - Strong pro development values

Group Resources

moneyexpertise (substance, process)skilled leadership (effective,

charismatic)appealing causepublic opinioncontactscontrol over investment, jobs

18

Group Resources – The Privileged Position of Business control over investment, jobs

government seeks reelection reelection depends on jobs, healthy economy jobs, growth created by investment investment a function of business climate government constrained from undermining

business climate

19

What resources does your group have to influence public policy?

20

Actors Strategies – First orderadopt those most likely to advance their interests

lobby influence public opinion

through media influence market

behaviour finance elections litigation form coalitions direct action

(demonstrations, civil disobedience)

21

Actors Strategies II – Second Order change the rules

of the game within an arena Expanding

participation shift the venue to

another arena Legislature to

cabinet Provincial to federal Domestic to

international Government to

market

idea-based strategies to reframe problem in framing

arguments, actors appeal to widely shared values and expert authority▪ “green jobs”▪ Dirty oil vs ethical oil▪ NextGen Climate ad

22

Group Strategies - Pralle

23

Political Risk Analysis

CAPP 2012

The Five Major Projects

Pipeline capacity vs oil sands growth

Analytical Framework Veto points

Any institution with authority to block project

Problem structure – distribution of costs and benefits Are impacts concentrated or

diffuse▪ Concentrated: oil spills, industry

profits▪ Diffuse: climate impacts, tax

revenues Are environmental risks and

economic benefits separated across veto points

Political Risk Factors the probability of success of any particular

proposal depends on the relative balance of power of the pro- and anti-pipeline coalitions within the relevant jurisdictions.  

Political risk is a function of:1. number of institutional veto points2. whether opposition groups have access to veto

points3. whether the project can take advantage of existing

infrastructure4. the salience of place-based, concentrated

environmental risks5. the jurisdictional separation of risks and benefits

Strategic Actors

Pipeline companies

Oil sands companies

Refineries Environmentalists

Spill risks climate

Aboriginal groups Landowners Governments

Institutions

UNITED STATES

Divided government Presidential

government Adversarial legalism State control of

pipeline siting

CANADA

Conservative Majority Leader-centred

parliamentary system Enabling legislation Provincial control of

land and resources Federal paramountcy First Nations with

strong rights

Table 2 – The Political Risks of Five Oil Sands Pipeline Proposals

  Keystone XL Northern Gateway

Kinder Morgan Expansion Line 9 Energy East

Veto points  High High High Medium Medium

Opposition access to veto points

Medium High High Medium Medium

Need for new infrastructure High High Medium Low Medium

Concentrated risks 

Medium High High Medium Medium

Risk-benefit separation 

High High High Low Low

Wrap up

Policy cycleActors

Interests Resources Strategies

Political Risk AnalysisNext up: policy analysis

Case study on NGP divide work over impacts

33