The Policymaking Process
Decision-Making Activities
THE POLICY PROCESS: HOW POLICIES ARE MADE
Policy studies often focus on how policies are made rather than on their content or their causes and conse~
quences. The study ofhow policies are made generally considers a series of activities, or processes, that occur
within the political system. These processes, together with the activities involved and likely participants,
may be portrayed as in Table 3-1.
Although it may be helpful to think about policymaking as a series of processes, in the real world these
activities seldom occur in a neat, step~by~step sequence. Rather these processes often occur simultaneously,
each one collapsing into the others. Different political actors and institutions-politicians, interest groups,
lobbyists and legislators, executives and bureaucrats, reporters and commentators, think tanks, lawyers and
judges-may be engaged in different processes at the same time, even in the same policy area. Policymaking
is seldom as neat as the process model. Nonetheless, it is often useful for analytical purposes to break policy~
making into component units in order to understand better how policies are made.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND AGENDA SETTING
Who decides what will be decided? The power to decide what will be a policy issue is crucial to the policymaking
process. Deciding what will be the problems is even more important than deciding what will be the solutions.
Many civics textbooks imply that agenda setting just "happens." It is sometimes argued that in an open plural
society such as ours, channels of access and communication to government are always open, so that any problem
can be discussed and placed on the agenda of national decision making. Individuals and groups, it is said, can
organize themselves to assume the tasks of defining problems and suggesting solutions. People can define their
own interests, organize themselves, persuade others to support their cause, gain access to government officials,
influence decision making, and watch over the implementation ofgovernment policies and programs. Indeed, it
is sometimes argued that the absence ofpolitical activity such as this is an indicator ofsatisfaction.
But, in reality, policy issues do not just "happen." Creating an issue, dramatizing it, calling attention
to it, and pressuring government to do something about it are important political tactics. These tactics
are employed by influential individuals, organized interest groups, policy~planning organizations, political
33
34 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
TABLE 3-1 Policymaking as a Process Policymaking can be seen as a process-how policies are made-in a
step-by-step sequence; but in reality these processes overlap and intertwine.
Process
Problem Identification
.ij.
Agenda Setting
.ij.
Policy Formulation
.ij.
Policy Legitimation
.ij.
Policy Implementation
.ij.
Policy Evaluation
Activity
Publicizing societal problems
Expressing demands for
government action
.ij.
Deciding what issues will be
decided, what problems will be
addressed by government
.ij.
Developing policy proposals to
resolve issues and ameliorate
problems
.ij.
Selecting a proposal
Developing political support for it
Enacting it into law
Deciding on its constitutionality
.ij.
Budgeting and appropriations
Organizing departments and agencies
Providing payments or services
Levying taxes
Reporting outputs of government
programs
Evaluating impacts of policies on
target and nontarget groups
Proposing changes and "reforms"
Participants
Mass media
Interest groups
Citizen initiatives
Public opinion
Elites, including president,
Congress
Candidates for elective office
Mass media
Think tanks
President and executive office
Congressional committees
Interest groups
Interest groups
President
Congress
Courts
.ij.
President and White House staff
Executive departments and agencies
Independent agencies and
government corporations
.ij.
Executive departments and
agencies
Congressional oversight
committees
Mass media
Think tanks
candidates and office-holders, and perhaps most important, the mass media. These are the tactics
of "agenda setting."
AGENDA SETTING FROM THE BOTTOM UP
The prevailing model of policymaking in American political science is a popularly driven,
"bottom-up" portrait of decision making. This "democratic-pluralist" model assumes that any
problem can be identified by individuals or groups, by candidates seeking election, by political
Agenda Setting from the Top Down 35
leaders seeking to enhance their reputation and prospects for reelection, by political parties seeking
to define their principles and/or create favorable popular images of themselves, by the mass
media seeking to "create" news, and even by protest groups deliberately seeking to call attention
to their problems. And, of course, various crises and disasters-from natural disasters such as hurricanes
and droughts to man-made tragedies such as school shootings and airplane crashes-attract
public attention and compel public officials to respond.
Public Opinion and Agenda Setting
Events, and the media's reporting of them, can focus public attention on issues, problems, and
"crises." Concern over terrorism dominated the public's mind following the horrific televised
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Later, the war in
Iraq became "the most important problem facing the country" according to opinion polls. Iraq
appeared to be the nation's top policy issue during the congressional elections of 2006 in which
opposition Democrats captured control of both houses of Congress.
But the threat of financial collapse and deep recession soon replaced all other issues on the
public's agenda. The nation's "top priority" for President Barack Obama became jobs and the economy
(see Table 3-2). Defending against future terrorist attacks fell to second place in the policy
priorities of most Americans. Other issues-Social Security, education, healthcare, budget deficits,
the poor, crime, defense, taxes-followed behind. A minority of Americans listed the environment,
immigration, lobbying, and international trade as top priority issues. Global warming was
last on the nation's list.
AGENDA SETTING FROM THE TOP DOWN
When V. 0. Key, Jr., wrestled with the same problem confronting us-namely, the determination
of the impact of popular preferences on public policy-he concluded that "the missing piece of the
puzzle" was "that thin stratum of persons referred to variously as the political elite, the political
activists, the leadership echelons, or the influentials."
The longer one frets with the puzzle of how democratic regimes manage to function, the
more plausible it appears that a substantial part of the explanation is to be found in the
motives that activate the leadership echelon, the values that it holds, the rules of the political
game to which it adheres, in the expectations which it entertains about its own status in
society, and perhaps in some of the objective circumstances, both material and institutional,
in which it functions.1
Popular Perceptions of Policymaking
It is interesting to note that most Americans believe that the government pays very little attention
to their views on public policy and that people in government have little understanding of what
people think (see Table 3-3). An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that their government
is "run by a few big interests looking out for themselves" rather than "for the benefit of all
of the people." And an overwhelming majority believe that the nation would be better off if public
policy followed the views of citizens more closely. While policymakers often publicly express
disdain for opinion polls, most Americans believe that they should pay more attention to them.
36 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
TABLE 3-2 Policy Priorities of the American Public I'd like to ask you
some questions about priorities for President Obama and Congress this year.
As I read from a list, tell me if you think the item should be a top priority,
important but lower priority, not too important, or should it not be done?
Economy
Jobs
Terrorism
Social Security
Education
Medicare
Deficit Reduction
Healthcare
Helping the Poor
Military
Energy
Health Insurance
Crime
Moral Decline
Finance Regulation
Environment
Tax Cuts
Immigration
Lobbyists
Trade Policy
Global Warming
Percent Saying Top Priority
83
81
80
66
65
63
60
57
53
49
49
49
49
45
45
44
42
40
36
32
28
SOURCE: Pew Research Center Survey, January 2011, www.pollingreport.com.
In short, most Americans believe that policy is made from the top down but should be made from
the bottom up.
Elite Agenda Setting
The elitist model of agenda setting focuses on the role of leaders in business, finance, and the
media, as well as in government. These leaders may observe societal developments they perceive
as threatening to their own values or interests; or they may perceive opportunities to advance their
own values and interests or their own careers.
According to sociologist G. William Domhoff, agenda setting "begins informally in corporate
boardrooms, social clubs, and discussion groups, where problems are identified as 'issues' to be solved
by new policies. It ends in government, where policies are enacted and implemented."2 This model
suggests that the initial impetus for policy change and initial resources for research, planning, and
Agenda Setting from the Top Down 37
TABLE 3-3 Popular Attitudes Toward Government Policymaking The American public is highly skeptical
of politicians and people in government, believing that they should pay more attention to the public's views.
How much say do you think people like yourselfhave about what the government does-a good deal, some,
or not much?
A good deal 10%
Some 25
Notmuch 64
Would you say the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run
for the benefit ofall the people?
A few big interests
All of the people
64%
28
Do you think that quite a few of the people running the government are crooked, not very many are, or do you
think hardly any of the them are crooked?
Quite a few 52%
Not very many 28
Hardly any 10
All (volunteered) 5
If the leaders of the nation followed the views of the public more closely, do you think that the nation would be
better offor worse off than it is today?
Better
Worse
81%
10%
Please tell me which statement you agree with most: (A) When members ofCongress are thinking about how to
vote on an issue, they should read up on the polls, as this can help them get a sense of the public's view on the issue.
(B) When members ofCongress are thinking about how to vote on an issue, they should not read the polls, because
this will distract them from thinking about what is right.
Should read the polls 67%
Should not read the polls 26%
SOURCE: The Polling Report (2010), www.pollingreport.com.
formulation ofnational policy are derived from corporate and personal wealth. This wealth is channeled
into foundations, universities, and policy-oriented think tanks in the form of endowments,
grants, and contracts. Moreover, corporate presidents, directors, and top wealth-holders also sit on
the governing boards of these institutions and oversee the general direction of their work.
Political Entrepreneurship
Candidates for public office at all levels must keep their names and faces before the voters-in
public appearances, interviews, speeches, and press releases. In order to do so, they must say something;
that is, deliver a message or theme that creates a favorable image of themselves. Most of
these campaign messages, themes, and images are largely devoid of any specific policy content,
except in very general terms, for example, "stands up against the special interests," "fights for the
taxpayer," or "change you can believe in." But occasionally candidates focus their campaigns on
38 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
what they perceive to be issues that will motivate voters. Political challengers as well as officials
seeking reelection may seize upon particular problems, publicize them, and even propose solutions.
If they win the election, they may even claim a "mandate" from the people to pursue the policy
direction emphasized in their campaign. Whether or not their success was in fact a product of their
policy position, they may believe that they have a responsibility to put forth policy proposals con~
sistent with their campaign messages and themes.
Opinion-Policy Linkage
The problem in assessing the independent effect of mass opinion on the actions of decision makers
is that their actions help to mold mass opinion. Even when public policy is in accord with mass
opinion, we can never be sure whether mass opinion shaped public policy or public policy shaped
mass opinion. The distinguished American political scientist V. 0. Key, Jr., wrote, "Government,
as we have seen, attempts to mold public opinion toward support of the programs and policies
it espouses. Given that endeavor, perfect congruence between public policy and public opinion
could be government of public opinion rather than government by public opinion."3
Policy Effects
Public policy shapes public opinion more often than opinion shapes policy, for several reasons.
First, few people have opinions on the great bulk of policy questions confronting the nation's deci~
sian makers. Second, public opinion is very unstable. It can change in a matter of days in response
to news events precipitated by leaders. Third, leaders do not have a clear perception of mass
opinion. Most communications received by decision makers are from other elites-newspersons,
interest group leaders, and other influential persons-and not from ordinary citizens.
Media Effects
We must not assume that the opinions expressed in the news media are public opinion. Frequently,
this is a source of confusion. Newspersons believe they are the public, often confusing their own
opinions with public opinion. They even tell the mass public what its opinion is, thus actually
helping to mold it to conform to their own beliefs. Decision makers, then, may act in response to
news stories or the opinions of influential newspersons in the belief that they are responding to
public opinion.
Communicating with Policymakers
Decision makers can easily misinterpret public opinion because the communications they receive
have an elite bias. Members of the mass public seldom call or write their senators or representa~
tives, much less converse with them at dinners, cocktail parties, or other social occasions. Most of
the communications received by decision makers are intraelite, from newspersons, organized group
leaders, influential constituents, wealthy political contributors, and personal friends-people who,
for the most part, share the same views. It is not surprising, therefore, that members of Congress
say that most of their mail is in agreement with their own position; their world of public opinion is
self~reinforcing. Moreover, persons who initiate communication with decision makers, by writing
or calling or visiting their representatives, are decidedly more educated and affluent than the
average citizen.
Agenda Setting from the Top Down 39
The President and White House Staff
The president and the executive branch are generally expected to be the "initiators" of policy
proposals, with members of Congress in the role of "arbiters" of policy alternatives. (The same
division of labor is usually found at the state and local levels, with governors, mayors, and even
city managers expected to formulate policy proposals and state legislators and city councils to
approve, amend, or reject them.) The Constitution of the United States appears to endorse this
arrangement in Article II, Section 3: "[The president] shall from time to time give to Congress
information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he
shall judge necessary and expedient." Each year the principal policy statements of the president
come in the State of the Union message, and more importantly, in the Budget of the United States
Government, prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (see Chapter 10). Many other pol~
icy proposals are developed by executive departments in their specialized areas; these proposals are
usually transmitted to the White House for the president's approval before being sent to Congress.
Presidents have many motivations to seize the initiative in policymaking. First~term presidents
must build a record of success that later can be used in their reelection campaign. They must show
that they can "get things done in Washington." They must build and maintain their electoral coali~
tion. They must show that they are capable offollowing through on at least some of their campaign
promises. Second~term presidents are often motivated by a concern for their "place in history." They
seek policy achievements that will contribute to their presidential "greatness" in history.
Congress and Legislative Staff
While Congress is generally portrayed as the "arbiter" of policy proposals initiated by others,
occasionally leaders in the Congress will try to set forth their own agendas. Perhaps the most
well~publicized effort in the Congress to seize the initiative in policymaking was the 1994
"Contract with America" led by then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Republican House
candidates across the country united behind a comprehensive set ofproposals, including a balanced
budget constitutional amendment, term limits for Congress, welfare reform, and so on. But despite
a stunning GOP victory in the 1994 congressional elections, enthusiasm for the Contract with
America quickly dissipated, and President Bill Clinton soon regained policy leadership.
Nonetheless, members of Congress sometimes serve as agenda setters. They may do so to chal~
lenge a president of the opposing party, to gain a reputation as a power broker themselves, or indeed
to place on the national agenda an issue they feel requires attention. Committee chairs enjoy a spe~
cial advantage in congressional agenda setting; they control the agenda of their committees' hear~
ings. And these hearings offer the best opportunity for congressional involvement in agenda setting.
Congressional staffs--committee staffs, staffs of the legislative leadership, and aides to individual
legislators-often play an important role in bringing issues to the attention of their bosses.
Interest Groups
Interest groups may initiate their own policy proposals, perhaps in association with members of
Congress or their staffs who share the same interest. Interest group staffs often bring valuable techni~
cal knowledge to policy formation, as well as political information about their group's position on the
issues. Because Congress members and their staffs value both kinds of information, interest groups
can often provide the precise language they desire in proposed bills and amendments. Thus, interest
group staffs often augment the work of congressional staffs. Interest groups also provide testimony at
congressional hearings as well as technical reports and analyses used by congressional staffs.
40 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
AGENDA SETTING: THE MASS MEDIA
Television is the major source of information for the vast majority of Americans. More than
two-thirds report that they receive all or most oftheir news from television. Television is really the
first form of mass communication, that is, communication that reaches nearly everyone, includ,
ing children. More important, television presents a visual image, not merely a printed word. The
visual quality of television-the emotional impact that is conveyed by pictures-enables the TV
networks to convey emotions as well as information.
Media Power
The media are both players and referees in the game ofpolitics. They not only report to the people
on the struggles for power in society, but they also participate in those struggles themselves. They
are an elite group, competing for power alongside the more traditional leadership groups from
business, labor, government, and other sectors ofsociety. As political journalist Theodore White
once observed, "The powerofthe press in America is a primordial one. Itsets the agenda ofpublic
discussion; and this sweeping power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk
about and think. about-an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties,
and mandarins.''+
The Medfa Focus on the President President Barack Obama confronts the media on Air Force One. The president is
in near constant contact with the press and teLevision; more media space and time are devoted to the president than any
other figure in America. Presidents and politicians are said to have a ..love/hate"' relationship with the media, as they try
to use the media for their own purposes, even as the media pursues its own agenda. (® Brooks Kraft/Corbis)
Agenda Setting: The Mass Media 41
Media power is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of people: the editors,
producers, anchors, reporters, and columnists of the leading television networks (ABC, CBS,
NBC, FOX, and CNN) and the prestigious press (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street
Journal). Producers and editors generally work behind the scenes, and many influential print journalists
are known only by their bylines. But most Americans have come to recognize the faces of
the television network anchors and leading reporters. These media people are courted by politicians,
treated as celebrities, studied by scholars, and known to millions of Americans by their
television images.
Newsmaking
Newsmaking involves all-important decisions about what is "news" and who is "newsworthy."
Television executives and producers and newspaper and magazine editors must decide what people,
organizations, and events will be given attention-attention that makes these topics matters
of general public concern and political action. Without media coverage the general public would
not know about these personalities, organizations, or events. They would not become objects of
political discussion, nor would they be likely to be considered important by government officials.
Media attention can create issues and personalities. Media inattention can doom issues and
personalities to obscurity. The TV camera cannot be "a picture of the world" because the whole
world cannot squeeze into the picture. News executives must sort through a tremendous surplus of
information and decide what is to be "news."
In addition to deciding what is and what is not news, news executives provide cues to mass
audiences about the importance of an issue, personality, or event. Some matters are covered prominently
by the media, with early placement on a newscast and several minutes of time, or with
front-page newspaper coverage, including big headlines and pictures. The amount of coverage tells
us what is important and what is not.
Of course, politicians, professional public relations people, interest group spokespersons, and
various aspiring celebrities all know that the decisions of the media are vital to the success of their
issue, their organization, and themselves. So they try to attract media attention by deliberately
engaging in behavior or manufacturing situations that are likely to win coverage. The result is the
"media event"-an activity arranged primarily to stimulate coverage and thereby attract public
attention to an issue or individual. Generally, the more bizarre, dramatic, and sensational it is, the
more likely it is to attract coverage. A media event may be a press conference to which reporters
from the television stations and newspapers are invited by public figures--even when there is
really no news to announce. Or it may be a staged debate, confrontation, or illustration of injustice.
Political candidates may visit coal mines, ghetto neighborhoods, and sites of fires or other
disasters. Sometimes protests, demonstrations, and even violence have been staged primarily as
media events to dramatize and communicate grievances.
Media Bias
In exercising their judgment regarding which stories should be given television time or newspaper
space, media executives must rely on their own political values and economic interests as
guidelines. In general, these executives are more liberal in their views than other segments of the
nation's leadership. Topics selected weeks in advance for coverage reflect, or often create, current
liberal issues: concern for problems affecting the poor and minorities, women's issues, opposition
42 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
to defense spending, environmental concerns, and so forth. But liberalism is not the major source
of bias in the news.
The principal source of distortion in the news is caused by the need for drama, action, and
confrontation to hold audience attention. Television must entertain. To capture the attention of
jaded audiences, news must be selected on the basis of emotional rhetoric, shocking incidents,
dramatic conflict, overdrawn stereotypes. Race, sex, violence, and corruption in government
are favorite topics because of popular interest. More complex problems such as inflation, gov~
ernment spending, and foreign policy must either be simplified and dramatized or ignored. To
dramatize an issue, news executives must find or create a dramatic incident; tape it; transport,
process, and edit the tape; and write a script for the introduction, the "voice~over," and the
"recapitulation." All this means that most "news" must be created well in advance of scheduled
broadcasting.
Media Effects
Media effects can be categorized as (1) identifying issues and setting the agenda for policymakers,
(2) influencing attitudes and values toward policy issues, and (3) changing the behavior of voters
and decision makers. These categories are ranked by the degree of influence the media are likely to
have over their audiences. The power of television does not really lie in persuading viewers to take
one side of an issue or another. Instead, the power of television lies in setting the agenda for decision
making-deciding what issues will be given attention and what issues will be ignored.
The media can create new opinions more easily than they can change existing ones. They can
often suggest how we feel about new events or issues-those for which we have no prior feelings or
experiences. And the media can reinforce values and attitudes that we already hold. But there is
very little evidence that the media can change existing values.
The viewer's psychological mechanism of selective perception helps to defend against bias
in news and entertainment programming. Selective perception means mentally screening out
information or images with which one disagrees. It causes people to tend to see and hear only
what they want to see and hear. It reduces the impact of television bias on viewers' attitudes and
behavior.
FORMULATING POLICY
Policy formulation is the development of policy alternatives for dealing with problems on the
public agenda. Policy formulation occurs in government bureaucracies; interest group offices; leg~
islative committee rooms; meetings of special commissions; and policy~planning organizations,
otherwise known as think tanks. The details of policy proposals are usually formulated by staff
members rather than by their bosses, but staffs are guided by what they know their leaders want.
Think Tanks
Policy~planning organizations are central coordinating points in the policy~making process.
Certain policy~planning groups-for example, the Council on Foreign Relations, the American
Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Center for American Progress, and the Brookings
Institution-are influential in a wide range of key policy areas.
Formulating Policy 43
These organizations bring together the leadership of corporate and financial institutions, the
foundations, the mass media, the leading intellectuals, and influential figures in the government.
They review the relevant university and foundation~supported research on topics of interest, and
more important, they try to reach a consensus about what action should be taken on national prob~
lems under study. Their goal is to develop action recommendations--explicit policies or programs
designed to resolve national problems. These policy recommendations of the key policy~planning
groups are distributed to the mass media, federal executive agencies, and Congress. The purpose is
to lay the groundwork for making policy into law.
The following are among the more influential think tanks:
The Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution has long been the dominant
policy~planning group for American domestic policy, despite the growing influence of compet~
ing think tanks over the years. Brookings staffers dislike its reputation as a liberal think tank,
and they deny that Brookings tries to set national priorities. Yet the Brookings Institution has
been very influential in planning the War on Poverty, welfare reform, national defense, and tax~
ing and spending policies. The New York Times columnist and Harvard historian writing team,
Leonard Silk and Mark Silk, describe Brookings as the central locus of the Washington "policy
network," where it does "its communicating: over lunch, whether informally in the Brookings
cafeteria or at the regular Friday lunch around a great oval table at which the staff and their guests
keen over the events of the week like the chorus of an ancient Greek tragedy; through consulting,
paid or unpaid, for government or business at conferences, in the advanced studies program; and,
over time, by means of the revolving door of government employment."5
The American Enterprise Institute. For many years Republicans dreamed of a "Brookings
Institution for Republicans" that would help offset the liberal bias of Brookings itself. In the late
1970s, that role was assumed by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The AEI appeals to both
Democrats and Republicans who have doubts about big government. President William Baroody, Jr.,
distinguished the AEI from Brookings: "In confronting societal problems those who tend to gravi~
tate to the AEI orbit would be inclined to look first for a market solution ... while the other orbit
people have a tendency to look for a government solution."6
The Heritage Foundation. Conservative ideologues have never been welcome in the
Washington establishment. Yet influential conservative businesspersons gradually came to under~
stand that without an institutional base in Washington, they could never establish a strong and
continuing influence in the policy network. So they set about the task of "building a solid institu~
tional base" and "establishing a reputation for reliable scholarship and creative problem solving."7
The result of their efforts was the Heritage Foundation.
Center for American Progress. On the left of the political spectrum is the newly in~
fluential Center for American Progress (CAP), the intellectual source of policy "change" in
the Obama Administration. CAP is funded largely by George Soros, the billionaire sponsor of
MoveOn.org and other flourishing left~liberal outlets. It was founded in 2003 by John Podesta,
former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, and designed to give the "progressive" move~
ment the same ideological influence in the Obama Administration as the Heritage Foundation
exercised in the Reagan Administration.8 CAP promises to "engage in a war of ideas with
conservatives," and to be more active on behalf of progressive policies than the more scholarly
Brookings Institution.
44 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
The Council on Foreign Relations. Political scientist Lester Milbraith observes that the in~
fluence of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) throughout government is so pervasive that it
is difficult to distinguish the CFR from government programs: "The Council on Foreign Relations,
while not financed by government, works so closely with it that it is difficult to distinguish Council
actions stimulated by government from autonomous actions."9 The CFR itself, of course, denies
that it exercises any control over U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, its bylaws declare, "The Council
shall not take any position on questions of foreign policy and no person is authorized to speak or
purport to speak for the Council on such matters."10
But policy initiation and consensus building
do not require the CFR to officially adopt policy positions. Many foreign policy decisions are first
aired in the CFR's prestigious publication, Foreign Affairs.11
INTEREST GROUPS AND POLICYMAKING
Washington is awash in special interest groups, lawyers and law firms, lobbyists, and influence
peddlers. Interest groups are active in both policy formulation and policy legitimating. Organized
interests frequently develop policy proposals of their own and forward them to the White House
or to members of Congress or the mass media to place on the agenda of decision making. And
they are even more active in policy legitimating. Indeed, political life in Washington is a blur of
"lobbying," "fund~raising," "opening doors," "mobilizing grassroots support," "rubbing elbows," and
"schmoozing."
Interest groups influence government policy in a variety of ways. It is possible to categorize
efforts to influence government policy as follows:
1. Direct lobbying, including testifying at committee hearings, contacting government
offices directly, presenting research results, and assisting in the writing of legislation
2. Campaign contributions made through political action committees (PACs)
3. Interpersonal contacts, including travel, recreation, entertainment, and general
"schmoozing," as well as the "revolving door" exchange of personnel between
government offices and the industries and organizations representing them
4. Litigation designed to force changes in policies through the court system, wherein
interest groups and their lawyers bring class~action suits on behalf of their clients or
file amicus curiae (friend of the court) arguments in cases in which they are interested
5. Grassroots mobilization efforts to influence Congress and the White House by
encouraging letters, calls, and visits by individual constituents and campaign
contributors
Lobbying
Washington's influence industry is a billion~dollar business. Each year lobbyists spend almost
$3 billion trying to influence policy-more than $5 million for each member ofCongress!12
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce regularly ranks at the top of the lobbying spenders. At
the industry group level, pharmaceutical and health product manufacturers spend a great deal on
lobbying. The insurance industry also ranks high in direct lobbying expenditures, followed by tele~
phone utilities, the oil and gas industry, the defense industry, and electric utilities (see Table 3-4).
Interest Groups and Policymaking 45
TABLE 3-4 Washington's Top Lobbying Spenders*
Lobbying is a $3 billion business in Washington.
Rank* Organization
1 US Chamber of Commerce
2 American Medical Assn
3 General Electric
4 Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America
5 AARP
6 American Hospital Assn
7 AT&T Inc
8 Northrop Grumman
9 Blue Cross/Blue Shield
10 National Assn of Realtors
11 Exxon Mobil
12 Verizon Communications
13 Edison Electric Institute
14 Business Roundtable
15 Boeing Co
16 Lockheed Martin
17 PG&ECorp
18 Southern Co
19 General Motors
20 Pfizer Inc
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, accessed January, 2011, www.c1p.org.
*Rankings are for 1998 through 2010. (OpenSecrets.org)
It is important to note that direct lobbying expenditures provide only one indicator of an
industry's or corporation's clout in Washington. Effective lobbying also requires backup by cam~
paign contributions and in~kind services, election endorsements, and grassroots political sup~
port. For example, a survey of Washington insiders conducted by Fortune ranked the AARP, the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the AFL~CIO as the three most powerful lobbies
in Congress.13 Indeed, only about one~half of the magazine's designated "Power Twenty~Five"
were industry lobbies; others included the National Rifle Association, the Christian Coalition,
the National Right to Life Committee, independent unions (NEA, AFSCME, Teamsters), and
veterans' groups.
Occasionally, when Congress is embarrassed by media reports on extravagant lobbyist~paid
travel, vacations, dinners, parties, and other perks, cries are heard for new restrictions on lobbying
expenditures. Another reform frequently advocated is the elimination of "earmarking" of particu~
lar spending items in larger appropriations bills-items that are heavily lobbied for, yet often are
overlooked by most members of Congress when voting on appropriations bills.
46 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
PACs
Contributions virtually ensure access to government decision makers. It is highly unlikely that any
member of Congress will fail to meet with representatives of groups that helped to fund his or her
election. And top White House staff and cabinet officials, ifnot the president, are almost always pre~
pared to meet with interests that have made significant contributions to the presidential campaign.
Contributions do not guarantee a favorable decision, but they can be counted on to guarantee a hearing.
Political action committees (PACs) solicit and receive contributions from members of
organizations-unions, corporations, professional and trade associations, as well as ideological, envi~
ronmental, and issue~oriented groups-and then distribute these funds to political candidates. PACs
are regulated by the Federal Elections Commission, which requires them to register their finances
and political contributions, and limits their contributions to $5,000 to any candidate per election.
PAC contributions are heavily weighted toward incumbents running for reelection. Usually
two~thirds of all PAC contributions go to incumbents; this is true for corporate as well as union
and other PACs. PACs are well aware that more than 90 percent of incumbent members of
Congress seeking reelection win. Labor unions make heavy use of PACs; union PAC money is
heavily weighted toward Democrats (see Table 3-5).
Assessing Interest Group Influence
Most Americans believe that interest group PACs, as well as big corporations, the news media,
and lobbyists, "have too much power and influence on Washington."14 But it is difficult to assess
exactly how much power interest groups actually wield in the nation's capital. First of all, the
views of members of Congress may coincide with the positions of interest groups independently
of any direct lobbying efforts or campaign contributions. Second, the most important effects of
interest group efforts may not be found on roll call votes but rather on various earlier stages of the
legislative process, including behind~the~scenes negotiations over specific provisions, the drafting
of amendments, and the markup of bills in committees and subcommittees. Third, interest group
lobbying may have its greatest effect on the details of specific legislation rather than on overall
policy directions. Finally, party leadership, constituency influence, and the personal views of the
members of Congress all combine to modify the independent effect of interest group activities.
POLICY LEGITIMATION: THE PROXIMATE POLICYMAKERS
What is the role of the "proximate policymakers"? The activities of these policymakers-the
president, Congress, courts, federal agencies, congressional committees, White House staff, and
interest groups-have traditionally been the central focus of political science and are usually por~
trayed as the whole of the policymaking process. But the activities of the proximate policymakers
are only the final phase of a much more complex process. This final stage is the open, public stage
of the policymaking process, and it attracts the attention of the mass media and most political
scientists. The activities of the proximate policymakers are much easier to study than the private
actions of corporations, foundations, the mass media, and the policy~planning organizations.
Formal Lawmaking Process
Congress is designated in the U.S. Constitution as the principal instrument of policy legitimation.
Article I describes the national government's powers (for example, "to lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises") as powers of Congress. It is important to note, however, that
Policy Legitimation: The Proximate Policymakers 47
TABLE 3-5 Top PAC Spenders* In addition to Lobbying spending, businesses, trade associations, and
Labor unions contribute billions to political campaigns through political action committees (PACs).
Rank PAC Name
1 National Assn of Realtors
2 Honeywell International
3 AT&T Inc
4 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
5 National Beer Wholesalers Assn
6 American Assn for Justice (trial lawyers)
7 American Bankers Assn
8 American Federation ofTeachers
9 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees
10 Operating Engineers Union
11 Teamsters Union
12 National Auto Dealers Assn
13 Credit Union National Assn
14 Boeing Co
15 Laborers Union
16 Carpenters & Joiners Union
17 American Crystal Sugar
18 International Assn of Fire Fighters
19 Plumbers/Pipefitters Union
20 Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, accessed January 2011, www.crp.org.
*Rankings are for 2009-2010. (OpenSecrets.org)
Percentage Given to:
Democrats Republicans
57% 43%
55% 45%
47% 53%
98% 2%
56% 44%
97% 3%
33% 66%
99% 0%
99% 0%
90% 10%
97% 2%
47% 53%
58% 41%
54% 45%
96% 4%
87% 13%
68% 32%
83% 16%
96% 2%
98% 2%
Congress is not the exclusive repository of policy legitimacy. Courts also bear a heavy responsibil~
ity to maintain the legitimacy of governmental authority, and to a somewhat lesser extent, so do
administrative bureaucracies. By focusing attention on the Congress in the policy legitimation
process, we do not mean to detract from the importance of other governmental institutions in
maintaining legitimacy.
Congress has developed highly institutionalized rules and procedures to help legitimate its
actions. Indeed, its rules and procedures have become so elaborate that proposed policy changes
are extremely difficult. Very few ofthe bills introduced in Congress are passed; in a typical two~year
session more than 10,000 bills will be introduced, but fewer than 800 (less than 10 percent) will
be enacted in any form. Congress is accurately perceived more as an obstacle to, than a facilitator
of, policy change.
The formal process oflawmaking is outlined in Figure 3-1. The familiar path is taught in vir~
tually every high school and college government class in America. But this outline of the formal
lawmaking process fails to describe the role of parties and leadership in guiding legislation in the
48 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
Senate
Bill Introduced (1)
Committee
Hearings (2)
House of
Representatives
Bill Introduced (6)
Committee
Hearings (7)
Committee Action (3) Committee Action (8)
Calendar Usting (4)
Rules Committee
Consideration (9)
Debate on Floor (5) Debate on Floor (10)
(14)
Vote (5) Vote (10)
Conference Committee
Report (11)
Vote (12) Vote (12)
President (13)
Signature Veto
Law
2/3 Majority Vote 2/3 Majority Vote
Law
1. Introduction. Most bills can be introduced in either
house. (In this example, the bill is first introduced in
the Senate.) It is given a number and referred to the
proper committee.
2. Hearings. The committee may hold public hearings
on the bill.
3. Committee action. The full committee meets in executive
(closed) session. It may kill the bill, approve
it with or without amendments, or draft a new bill.
4. Calendar. If the committee recommends the bill for
passage, it is listed on the calendar.
5. Debate, amendment, vote. The bill goes to the
floor for debate. Amendments may be added. The
bill is voted on.
6. Introduction to the second house. If the bill
passes, it goes to the House of Representatives,
where it is referred to the proper committee.
7. Hearings. Hearings may be held again.
8. Committee action. The committee rejects the bill,
prepares a new one, or accepts the bill with or
without amendments.
9. Rules Committee consideration. If the committee
recommends the bill, it is listed on the calendar and
sent to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee
can block a bill or clear it for debate before the
entire House.
10. Debate, amendment, vote. The bill goes before
the entire body and is debated and voted upon.
11. Conference Committee. If the bill as passed by
the second house contains major changes, either
house may request a conference committee. The
conference-five persons from each house,
representing both parties-meets and tries to
reconcile its differences.
12. Vote on conference report. When committee
members reach an agreement, they report back
to their respective houses. Their report is either
accepted or rejected.
13. Submission to the president. If the report is
accepted by both houses, the bill is signed by the
Speaker of the House and the president of the
Senate and is sent to the president of the United
States.
14. Presidential action. The president may sign or
veto the bill within ten days. If the president does
not sign and Congress is still in session, the bill
automatically becomes law. If Congress adjourns
before the ten days have elapsed, it does not
become law. (This is called the "pocket veto.") If
the president returns the bill with a veto message,
it may still become a law if passed by a two-thirds
majority in each house.
FIGURE 3-1 How a Bfll Becomes a Law The formal process by which a bill becomes a law is complex,
making it easier to defeat a bill than to pass a bill.
Policy Legitimation: The Proximate Policymakers 49
House and Senate, the influence of constituents and interest groups, the influence of the president
and White House staff, and, above all, the continuing pressing need of members of Congress to
raise money for their reelection campaigns.
Party Influence
Party loyalty is stronger among members of Congress and other political activists than it is among
voters. Party votes-roll call votes in the House and Senate on which a majority of Democrats
vote in opposition to a majority of Republicans-occur on more than half the roll call votes in
Congress. Indeed, party votes appear to have risen in recent years, indicating an increase in parti~
sanship in Washington. Party unity in Congress-the average percentage of support among mem~
bers of each party for their party's position on party votes-is also fairly high. On average, both the
Democratic and Republican parties can expect more than 80 percent of their members to support
their party on a party line vote.
It is true, of course, that party loyalty and party line voting in the Congress may not necessar~
ily be a product ofparty loyalty or discipline. They may result more from ideological or issue agree~
ment among members of each party.
The social bases in the electorate of the Democratic and Republican parties are slightly differ~
ent. Both parties draw support from all social groups in America, but the Democrats draw dispro~
portionately from labor, big~city residents, ethnic voters, blacks, Jews, and Catholics; Republicans
draw disproportionately from rural, small~town, and suburban Protestants, businesspeople, and
professionals. To the extent that the policy orientations of these two broad groups differ, the thrust
of party ideology also differs.
What are the issues that cause conflict between the Democratic and Republican parties? In
general, Democrats have favored federal action to assist low~income groups through public assis~
tance, housing, and antipoverty programs, and generally a larger role for the federal government
in launching new projects to remedy domestic problems. Republicans, in contrast, have favored
less government involvement in domestic affairs, lower taxes, and greater reliance on private
action.
Presidential Influence
Presidents are expected to set forth policy initiatives in speeches, in messages to the Congress
(including the annual State of the Union message), and in the annual Budget of the United States
Government. Presidents and their chief advisers regularly sift through policies formulated in think
tanks and policy~planning organizations, developed in the offices of interest groups, law firms, and
lobbyists, and suggested by heavy campaign contributors in the course of preparing a White House
legislative agenda.
But a president's success in getting legislation enacted into law is closely tied to party control
of the Congress. Presidents are far more successful when they can work with a Congress controlled
by their own party. Presidential "box scores"-the percentage of policy initiatives on which the
president took a clear~cut position that is enacted into law by the Congress--depend primarily
on whether or not the president's party controls one or both houses of Congress (see Figure 3-2).
President Barack Obama's success in Congress was closely tied to the large Democratic majori~
ties in both the House and Senate in his first two years. The capture of control of the House of
Representatives by Republicans in the midterm congressional election of 2010 promises a slow~
down of the Obama policy agenda.
50 Chapter 3
100
90
C/) 80
~
0
70(.)
en
C/)
60C/)
Q)
(.)
(.)
50:::::1
en
(ij
40:;::::;
c
Q)
"'C 30"iii
Q)
......
20D..
10
0
1981
The Policymaking Process
1985 1990
REAGAN BUSH
1995
CLINTON
Rep.
Congress
2000 2005
BUSH
2010
OBAMA
FIGURE 3-2 Presidential Support in Congress Apresident's success in getting his legislation enacted by
Congress is most heavily influenced by whether or not his party controls the House or Senate or both bodies.
SOURCE: Congressional Quarterly, various issues.
Presidents are more successful in stopping legislation they oppose than in getting legislation
they support passed by the Congress. The veto is the president's most important weapon in deal~
ing with Congress. Even the threat of the veto greatly enhances the president's legislative power.
A bill vetoed by the president can be passed into law only by the two~thirds vote of both houses
of Congress. Seldom is a president so weak that he cannot hold the loyalty of at least one~third
of either the House or the Senate. From George Washington to Barack Obama, more than
96 percent of all presidential vetoes have been sustained.
Constituency Influence
Members of Congress like to think of themselves as independent~minded, public~spirited "trustees"
rather then merely message~carrying "delegates" sent to Washington by their districts' voters. The
philosophical justification for this notion was offered by the English parliamentarian Edmund Burke
more than 200 years ago in a speech to his constituents: "Your representative owes you, not his indus~
try only, but his judgment; and betrays, instead of serving you, ifhe sacrifices it to your opinion."15
But the rationale for Congress members' independence from constituency influence may not
be so noble as that implied by Burke. Members know that their constituents are largely unaware
of their voting records in Congress. Only occasionally, on a highly publicized vote, where home
state or district feelings are intense, will a member defer to constituents' views over those of their
party's leadership and campaign~cash~contributing interest groups. On most issues, members are
free to ignore their constituents: "They don't know much about my votes. Most of what they know
is what I tell them. They know more of what kind of a guy I am. It comes through in my letters:
'You care about the little guy."116 A long record of "home~style" politics-doing casework
The Budgetary and Appropriations Processes 51
for constituents, performing favors, winning pork-barrel projects for the district, making frequent
visits back home to "press the flesh"-can protect members from any opposition that might be
generated by their voting records.
Contributor Influence
The cost of running for Congress today virtually guarantees the dependency of its members on
heavy campaign contributors. The average incumbent House member now spends nearly $1.5 million
running for office every two years. The average incumbent U.S. senator spends more than $10
million to maintain his or her seat, and the price tag in some big states can run $50 million or more.
Corporations, interest group PACs, and individual "fat cats" have become the real constituents
of Congress (see Table 3-6). Large corporate and individual donors, together with interest
group PACs, constitute more than two-thirds of the campaign cash flowing into congressional
elections. Small individual donors ($500 or less) provide less than one-third of campaign funds.
Most members of Congress spend hours each day making fund-raising calls from their offices on
Capitol Hill. "Making your calls" is a basic responsibility of the job.
Throughout the lawmaking process, big campaign contributors expect to be able to call or
visit and present their views directly to the officeholders they supported. At the presidential level,
major contributors expect to get a meeting with the president or at least with high-level White
House staff or cabinet members. At the congressional level, major contributors usually expect to
meet directly with representatives and senators. Members of Congress frequently boast of responding
to letters, calls, or visits by any constituent. But big contributors expect "face time" with the
political leaders they help keep in office.
Campaign contributions are rarely made on a direct quid pro quo basis-that is, direct dollar
payments in exchange for sponsoring a bill in Congress or for voting for or against a bill in committee
or on the floor. Such direct trade-offs risk exposure as bribery and may be prosecuted under
law. Bribery, where it occurs, is probably limited to very narrow and specific policy actions: payments
to intervene in a particular case before an administrative agency, payments to insert a very
specific break in a tax law or a specific exemption in a trade bill, payments to obtain a specific
contract with the government. Bribery on major issues is very unlikely; there is simply too much
publicity and too much risk of exposure. But Congress members are smart enough to know what
issues concern the contributors and how to vote in order to keep the contributions coming in
the future.
THE BUDGETARY AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESSES
A great deal of policymaking occurs in the budgetary and appropriations processes. Congress may
authorize policies and programs in legislation, but congress must separately appropriate funds to
implement the legislation.
The Constitution gives the president no formal powers over taxing and spending.
Constitutionally all the president can do is "make recommendations" to Congress. It is difficult to
imagine that prior to 1921 the president played no direct role in the budget process. The Secretary
of the Treasury compiled the estimates of the individual agencies, and these were sent, without
revision, to Congress for its consideration. It was not until the Budget and Accounting Act of
1921 that the president acquired responsibility for budget formulation and thus developed a means
of directly influencing spending policy.
52 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
TABLE 3-6 AU-Time Big-Money Contributors The cost of running for Congress has skyrocketed, making
Congress members ever more dependent on contributions from big corporations and labor unions.
1989-2010 1989-2010
Rank Organization Name Dems Repubs Rank Organization Name Dems Repubs
1 ActBlue (Democratic Party) 99% 0% 25 EMILY's List 99% 0%
2 AT&T Inc 44% 55% 26 National Beer 33% 66%
3 American Fedn of State, 98% 1%
Wholesalers Assn
County & Municipal 27 Microsoft Corp 53% 46%
Employees 28 National Assn of Letter 88% 10%
4 National Assn of Realtors 49% 50% Carriers
5 Goldman Sachs 62% 37% 29 JPMorgan Chase & Co 50% 48%
6 American Assn for 90% 8% 30 Time Warner 72% 27%
Justice (trial lawyers) 31 Morgan Stanley 44% 54%
7 Intl Brotherhood of 97% 2% 32 Lockheed Martin 43% 56%
Electrical Workers
8 National Education Assn 93% 6%
33 General Electric 51% 48%
9 Laborers Union 92% 7%
34 Verizon 40% 58%
Communications
10 Service Employees 95% 3% 35 AFL-CIO 95% 4%
International Union
11 Teamsters Union 93% 6%
36 Credit Union National 48% 50%
Assn
12 Carpenters & Joiners 89% 10% 37 FedEx Corp 40% 58%
Union
13 American Federation of 98% 0%
38 Bank of America 46% 53%
Teachers 39 National Rifle Assn 17% 82%
14 Communications 98% 0% 40 Ernst& Young 44% 55%
Workers of America
41 Blue Cross/Blue Shield 39% 60%
15 Citigroup Inc 50% 49%
42 Sheet Metal Workers 97% 1%
16 American Medical Assn 39% 59% Union
17 United Auto Workers 98% 0% 43 American Hospital 53% 45%
18 Machinists & Aerospace 98% 0% Assn
Workers Union 44 Plumbers & Pipefitters 94% 4%
19 National Auto Dealers 32% 67%
Union
Assn 45 Deloitte Touche 35% 64%
20 United Parcel Service 36% 62% Tohmatsu
21 United Food & 98% 1%
46 American Dental Assn 46% 53%
Commercial Workers 47 International Assn of Fire 82% 17%
Union Fighters
22 Altria Group 27% 72% 48 PricewaterhouseCoopers 37% 62%
23 American Bankers Assn 40% 59% 49 Operating Engineers 85% 13%
24 National Assn of Home 35% 63%
Union
Builders 50 Air Line Pilots Assn 84% 15%
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, "Top ALL-Time Donor Profiles," www.opensecrets.org.
The Budgetary and Appropriations Processes 53
OMB-Preparing the Presidential Budget
The president, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), located in the Executive
Office, has the key responsibility for budget preparation. Work on the fiscal budget starts more
than a year before the beginning of the fiscal year for which it is intended. After preliminary con~
sultation with the executive agencies and in accord with presidential policy, the OMB develops
targets or ceilings within which the agencies are encouraged to build their requests. This work
begins a full sixteen to eighteen months before the beginning of the fiscal year for which the bud~
get is being prepared. (In other words, work would begin in January 2002 on the budget for the
fiscal year beginning October 1, 2013, and ending September 30, 2014.) Budgets are named for the
fiscal year in which they end, so this example describes the work on the Budget of the United States
Government, 2014 or more simply, "FY14."
Budget materials and instructions go to the agencies with the request that the forms be completed
and returned to the OMB. The heads of agencies are expected to submit their completed requests
to the OMB by mid~September or early October. Occasionally a schedule of "over ceiling" items
(requests above the suggested ceilings) will be included.
With the requests of the spending agencies at hand, the OMB begins its own budget review.
Hearings are given to each agency. Top agency officials support their requests as convincingly as
possible. On rare occasions dissatisfied agencies may ask the budget director to take their cases to
the president.
In December, the president and the OMB director will devote time to the document, which
by now is approaching its final stages of assembly. They and their staffs will "blue~pencil," revise,
and make last~minute changes as well as prepare the president's message, which accompanies the
budget to Congress. After the budget is in legislative hands, the president may recommend further
alterations as needs dictate.
Although the completed document includes a revenue plan with general estimates for taxes and
other income, it is primarily an expenditure budget. Revenue and tax policy staffwork centers in the
Treasury Department and not in the OMB. In late January or early February the president presents
the Budget ofthe United States Government for the fiscal year beginning October 1 to Congress.
House and Senate Budget Committees
In an effort to consider the budget as a whole, Congress established House and Senate budget
committees and a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to review the president's budget after its
submission to Congress. These committees draft a first budget resolution (due May 15) setting
forth target goals to guide committee actions on specific appropriation and revenue measures. If
appropriations measures exceed the targets in the budget resolution, it comes back to the floor
in a reconciliation measure. A second budget resolution (due September 15) sets binding budget
figures for committees and subcommittees considering appropriations. In practice, however, these
two budget resolutions have been folded into a single measure because Congress does not want to
reargue the same issues.
Appropriations Acts
Congressional approval of each year's spending is usually divided into thirteen separate appro~
priations bills, each covering separate broad categories of spending. These appropriations bills are
drawn up by the House and Senate appropriations committees and their specialized subcommittees.
54 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
Indeed, House appropriations subcommittees function as overseers of the agencies included in
their appropriations bill. The appropriations committees must stay within the overall totals set
forth in the budget resolutions adopted by Congress.
An appropriations act provides money for spending, and no funds can be spent without it. An
authorization is an act of Congress establishing a government program and defining the amount of
money that it may spend. Authorizations may be for several years. However, the authorization does
not actually provide the money that has been authorized; only an appropriations act can do that.
Appropriations acts are almost always for a single fiscal year. Congress has its own rule that does
not allow appropriations for programs that have not been authorized. However, appropriations
frequently provide less money for programs than earlier authorizations.
Appropriations acts include both obligational authority and outlays. An obligation of authority
permits a government agency to enter into contracts calling for payments into future years (new
obligated authority). Outlays are to be spent in the fiscal year for which they are appropriated.
Appropriations Committees
Considerations of specific appropriations measures are functions of the appropriations committees
in both houses. Committee work in the House of Representatives is usually more thorough than it
is in the Senate; the committee in the Senate tends to be a "court of appeal" for agencies opposed
to House action. Each committee, moreover, has about ten largely independent subcommittees to
review the requests of a particular agency or a group of related functions. Specific appropriations
bills are taken up by the subcommittees in hearings. Departmental officers answer questions on
the conduct of their programs and defend their requests for the next fiscal year; lobbyists and other
witnesses testify.
Supplemental Appropriations
The appropriations acts often fail to anticipate events that require additional federal spending dur~
ing the fiscal year. For example, the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina both incurred government
spending well above the original appropriations acts for defense and homeland security. It is com~
mon for the president to request Congress to appropriate additional funds in such cases-funds not
in the original budget for the fiscal year or in the original congressional appropriations acts.
Revenue Acts
The House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee are the major
instruments of Congress for consideration of taxing measures. Through long history and jealous
pride they have maintained formal independence of the appropriations committees, further frag~
menting legislative consideration of the budget.
Presidential Veto
In terms of aggregate amounts, Congress does not regularly make great changes in the executive
budget. It is more likely to shift money among programs and projects. The budget is approved by
Congress in the form of appropriations bills, usually thirteen of them, each ordinarily providing for
several departments and agencies. The number of revenue measures is smaller. As with other bills
that are passed by Congress, the president has ten days to approve or veto appropriations legislation.
Policy Implementation: The Bureaucracy 55
Although Congress authorized the president to exercise a "line~item veto" in 1996, the U.S.
Supreme Court declared it to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. The
line~item veto would have given the president the authority to "cancel" specific spending items and
specific limited tax benefits in an overall appropriations act. But the Court held that this procedure
would transfer legislative power-granted by the Constitution only to Congress-to the president.17
Continuing Resolutions and "Shutdowns"
All appropriations acts should be passed by both houses and signed by the president into law before
October 1, the date of the start of the fiscal year. However, it is rare for Congress to meet this
deadline, so the government usually finds itself beginning a new fiscal year without a budget.
Constitutionally, any U.S. government agency for which Congress does not pass an appropriations
act may not draw money from the Treasury and thus is obliged to shut down. To get around this
problem, Congress adopts a "continuing resolution" that authorizes government agencies to keep
spending money for a specified period, usually at the same level as in the previous fiscal year.
A continuing resolution is supposed to grant additional time for Congress to pass, and the
president to sign, appropriations acts. But occasionally this process has broken down in the heat of
political combat over the budget. The time period specified in a continuing resolution has expired
without agreement on appropriations acts or even on a new continuing resolution. In theory,
the absence of either appropriations acts or a continuing resolution should cause the entire fed~
eral government to "shut down," that is, to cease all operations and expenditures for lack of funds.
(Shutdown occurred during the bitter battle between President Bill Clinton and the Republican~
controlled Congress over the Fiscal Year 1996 budget.) But in practice, shutdowns have been only
partial, affecting only "nonessential" government employees and causing relatively little disruption.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: THE BUREAUCRACY
"Implementation is the continuation of politics by other means."18 Policymaking does not end
with the passage of a law by Congress and its signing by the president. Rather, it shifts from Capitol
Hill and the White House to the bureaucracy-to the departments, agencies, and commissions
of the executive branch (see Figure 3-3). The bureaucracy is not constitutionally empowered to
decide policy questions, but it does so, nonetheless, as it performs its task of implementation.
Implementation and Policymaking
Implementation involves all of the activities designed to carry out the policies enacted by the
legislative branch. These activities include the creation of new organizations--departments, agen~
des, bureaus, and so on--or the assignment of new responsibilities to existing organizations. These
organizations must translate laws into operational rules and regulations. They must hire personnel,
draw up contracts, spend money, and perform tasks. All of these activities involve decisions by
bureaucrats--decisions that determine policy.
As society has grown in size and complexity, the bureaucracy has increased its role in the poli~
cymaking process. The standard explanation for the growth of bureaucratic power is that Congress
and the president do not have the time, energy, or technical expertise to look after the details of
environmental protection or occupational safety or equal employment opportunity or transporta~
tion safety or hundreds of other aspects of governance in a modern society. Bureaucratic agencies
56 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
The Constitution
I
THE PRESIDENT
Executive Office ofthe President
Office of Management and Budget
Offioe ofNationaiAIDS Policy
White House Chiefof Staff
Council of Economic Advisers
Council of Environmental Quality
Domestic Policy Council
National Economic Council
National Security Council
Offioe of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Science &Technology
President's Foreign Intelligence Board
Office of the United StatesTrade
Office ofAdministration
Office of Faith-Based and Commwrlty Initiatives
National Intelligence Director
Representative
THE VICE PRESIDENT
I
I I I I
AGRICULTURE COMMERCE DEFENSE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT
I I I I
HEALTH AND HOMELAND
HOUSING AND
HUMAN SERVICES SECURITY
URBAN- INTERIOR
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT
I I I I
LABOR STATE TRANSPORTATION TREASURY
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT
I
ENERGY
DEPARTMENT
I
JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT
I
VETERANS
AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, COMMISIONS, AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS
Administrative Conference of the
United States
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
African Development Foundation
AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger
Corporation)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Commission on Civil Rights
Commodity FuturesTrading Commission
Conswner Product Safety Commission
(CPSC)
Corporation for National and Community
Service
Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency for the District of Columbia
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Election Assistance Commission
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commi,ion (EEOC)
Export-Import Bank of the
United States
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC)
Federal Election Commission (FEC)
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission
Federal Reserve System
Federal RetirementThrift Investment Board
Federal Trade Commission (FI'C)
General ServicesAdministration (GSA)
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Inter-American Foundation
International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB)
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA)
National Capital Planning Commission
National Council on Disability
National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA)
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
National Mediation Board
National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (AMTRAK)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
NationalTransportation Safety Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)
Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission
Office of Compliance
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Special Counsel
Office of the National
Counterintelligence Executive
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Panama Canal Commission
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Postal Regulatory Commission
FAQs
E-mail Us
Railroad Retirement Board
Phone
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Selective Service System
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Social SecurityAdministration (SSA)
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
United States Agency for International
Development
United States International
Trade Commission
United States Postal Service (USPS)
FIGURE 3-3 The Federal Bureaucracy Policymaking continues in the vast federal bureaucracy even
after the passage of a law by Congress and its signing by the president.
Policy Implementation: The Bureaucracy 57
receive only broad and general policy directions in the laws of Congress. They must decide themselves
on important details of policy. This means that much of the actual policymaking process
takes place within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the
National Transportation Safety Board, and hundreds of other bureaucratic agencies.
Bureaucratic power in policymaking is also explained by political decisions in Congress and
the White House to shift responsibility for many policies to the bureaucracy. Congress and the
president can take political credit for laws promising "safe and effective" drugs, "equal opportunity"
employment, the elimination of "unfair" labor practices, and other equally lofty, yet vague
and ambiguous, goals. It then becomes the responsibility of bureaucratic agencies, for example,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the EEOC, and the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), to give practical meaning to these symbolic measures. Indeed, if the policies developed
by these agencies tum out to be unpopular, Congress and the president can blame the bureaucrats.
Regulation and Policymaking
Policy implementation often requires the development of formal rules and regulations by bureaucracies.
Federal executive agencies publish about 60,000 pages of rules in the Federal Register each
year. The rule-making process for federal agencies is prescribed by the Administrative Procedures
Act, which requires agencies to
• Announce in the Federal Register that a new rule or regulation is being proposed.
• Hold hearings to allow interest groups to present evidence and assignments regarding the
proposed rule.
• Conduct research on the proposed rule's economic impact, environmental impact, and so on.
• Solicit "public comments" (usually the arguments of interest groups).
• Consult with higher officials, including the Office of Management and Budget.
• Publish the new rule or regulation in the Federal Register.
Rule making by the bureaucracy is central to the policymaking process. Formal rules that
appear in the Federal Register have the force of law. Bureaucratic agencies may levy fines and penalties
for violations of these regulations, and these fines and penalties are enforceable in the courts.
Congress itself can only amend or repeal a formal regulation by passing a new law and obtaining the
president's signature. Controversial bureaucratic regulations (policies) may remain in effect when
Congress is slow to act, when legislation is blocked by key congressional committee members, or
when the president supports the bureaucracy and refuses to sign bills overturning regulations. The
courts usually do not overturn bureaucratic regulations unless they exceed the authority granted to
the agency by law or unless the agency has not followed the proper procedure in adopting them.
Adjudication and Policymaking
Policy implementation by bureaucracies often involves adjudication of individual cases. (While
rule making resembles the legislative process, adjudication resembles the judicial process.) In adjudication,
bureaucrats must decide whether a person, firm, corporation, and so on has complied
with laws and regulations and, ifnot, what penalties or corrective actions are to be applied. Federal
58 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
regulatory agencies-for example, the EPA, the EEOC, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-are heavily
engaged in adjudication. They have established procedures for investigation, notification, hearing,
decision, and appeal; individuals and firms involved in these proceedings often hire lawyers spe~
cializing in the field of regulation. Administrative hearings are somewhat less formal than a court
trial, and the "judges" are employees of the agency itself. Losers may appeal to the federal courts,
but the history of agency successes in the courts discourages many appeals. The record of agency
decisions in individual cases is a form of public policy. Just as previous court decisions reflect judi~
cial policy, previous administrative decisions reflect bureaucratic policy.
Bureaucratic Discretion and Policymaking
It is true that much of the work of bureaucrats is administrative routine-issuing Social Security
checks, collecting and filing income tax returns, delivering the mail. But bureaucrats almost always
have some discretion in performing even routine tasks. Often individual cases do not exactly fit
established rules; often more than one rule might be applied to the same case, resulting in different
outcomes. For example, the IRS administers the U.S. tax code, but each auditing agent has con~
siderable discretion in deciding which rules to apply to a taxpayer's income, deductions, business
expenses, and so on. Indeed, identical tax information submitted to different IRS offices almost
always results in different estimates of tax liability. But even in more routine tasks, from processing
Medicare applications to forwarding mail, individual bureaucrats can be friendly and helpful, or
hostile and obstructive.19
Policy Bias of Bureaucrats
Generally bureaucrats believe strongly in the value of their programs and the importance of their
tasks. EPA officials are strongly committed to the environmental movement; officials in the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) believe strongly in the importance of good intelligence to the nation's
security; officials in the Social Security Administration are strongly committed to maintaining the
benefits of the retirement system. But in addition to these professional motives, bureaucrats, like
everyone else, seek higher pay, greater job security, and added power and prestige for themselves.
Professional and personal motives converge to inspire bureaucrats to expand the powers, func~
tions, and budgets of their agencies. (Conversely, bureaucrats try to protect their "turf' against
reductions in functions, authority, and budgets.) "Budget maximization"-expanding the agency's
budget as much as possible-is a driving force in government bureaucracies.20 This is especially
true regarding discretionary funds in an agency's budget-funds that bureaucrats have flexibility
in deciding how to spend, rather than funds committed by law to specific purposes. The bureau~
cratic bias toward new functions and added authority and increases in personnel and budgets helps
explain the growth of government over time.
POLICY EVALUATION: IMPRESSIONISTIC VERSUS SYSTEMATIC
The policy process model implies that evaluation is the final step in policymaking. It implies that
policymakers-Congress, the president, interest groups, bureaucrats, the media, think tanks, and so
on-seek to learn whether or not policies are achieving their stated goals; at what costs; and with
what effects, intended and unintended, on society. Sophisticated versions of the model portray a
Summary 59
"feedback" linkage-evaluations of current policy identify new problems and set in motion the
policymaking process once again.
However, most policy evaluations in Washington, state capitols, and city halls are unsystematic
and impressionistic. They come in the form of interest group complaints about the inadequacies
of laws or budgets in protecting or advancing their concerns; in media stories exposing
waste or fraud or mismanagement in a program or decrying the inadequacies of government
policies in dealing with one crisis or another; in legislative hearings in which executive officials
are questioned and occasionally badgered by committee members or their staffs about
policies or programs; and sometimes even in citizens' complaints to members of Congress, the
White House, or the media. Yet these "evaluations" often succeed in stimulating reform-policy
changes designed to remedy perceived mistakes, inadequacies, wasteful expenditures, and other
flaws in existing policy.
SUMMABY
The policy process model focuses on how policies
are made, rather than on the substance or content
of policies. The model identifies a variety of
activities that occur within the political system,
including identification of problems and agenda
setting, formulating policy proposals, legitimating
policies, implementing policies, and evaluating their
effectiveness.
1. Agenda setting is deciding what will be
decided; that is, what issues will be covered by
the media, brought to the attention of decision
makers, and identified as problems requiring
government solutions.
2. A "bottom-up" portrayal of policymaking
emphasizes the role of public opinion in setting
the agenda for policymakers. Events, and media
reporting of them, can focus public opinion
on issues, problems, and "crises." But it is not
always clear whether opinion molds policy or
policy creates opinion.
3. A "top-down" model of policymaking
emphasizes the role of national leadership in
creating issues and formulating policy. The
general public does not have opinions on many
specific policy questions. In opinion polls,
Americans express doubt about whether the
government understands their thinking or acts
for the benefit of all.
4. The mass media, particularly the television
networks, play a major role in agenda setting.
By deciding what will be news, the media
set the agenda for political discussion. The
continuing focus on the dramatic, violent,
and negative aspects of American life may
unintentionally create apathy and alienationtelevision
malaise.
5. A great deal of policy formulation occurs
outside the formal governmental process.
Prestigious, private, policy-planning
organizations-such as the Council on Foreign
Relations-explore policy alternatives, advise
governments, develop policy consensus, and
even supply top governmental leaders. The
policy-planning organizations bring together
the leadership of the corporate and financial
worlds, the mass media, the foundations, the
leading intellectuals, and top government
officials.
6. The activities of the proximate policymakersthe
president, Congress, executive agencies,
and so forth-attract the attention of most
commentators and political scientists.
But nongovernmental leaders, in business
and finance, foundations, policy-planning
organizations, the mass media, and other
interest groups, may have already set the policy
agenda and selected major policy goals. The
activities of the proximate policymakers tend to
center around the means, rather than the ends,
of public policy.
7. Congress is designated in the Constitution
as the principal instrument of policy
legitimation. Congress members are influenced
by the views of their cash constituents as
much or more than by the views of their
voting constituents back home. Big-money
campaign contributors usually enjoy direct
60 Chapter 3 The Policymaking Process
access to members of Congress during the
lawmaking process.
8. Partisanship is on the rise in Congress. Party
line voting now occurs on more than half of all
roll call votes in Congress. Party divisions have
occurred on many key votes in Congress in
recent years.
9. Presidents are expected to provide the initiative
for congressional lawmaking. Presidential
initiatives are usually outlined in the annual
State of the Union message and followed up in
the presidential Budget of the United States
Government. Presidents aremore successful in
getting their legislative proposals enacted when
their own party controls Congress.
10. A great deal of policymaking occurs in the
budgetary and appropriations processes. The
MySearcblab®EXERCISES
president, through the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), has the responsibility
for preparation of the Budget of the United
States Government each year for submission
to Congress. Congress may have authorized
policies and programs in legislation, but it must
continually appropriate funds to implement
legislation.
11. Policy implementation is an important
component of the policymaking process.
Bureaucrats make policy as they engage in the
tasks of implementation-making regulations,
adjudicating cases, and exercising their
discretion. Professional and personal motives
combine to bias bureaucrats toward expanding
the powers and functions of their agencies
and increasing their budgets, especially their
discretionary funds.
Apply what you learned in this chapter on MySearchLab (www.mysearchlab.com).
NOTES
1. V. 0. Key, Jr., Public Opinion and American ed. James Rosenau (New York: Free Press, 1967),
Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1967), p. 537. p. 247.
2. G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? 10. Council on Foreign Relations, Annual Report,
Power and Politics in the Year 2000 (Mountain 1988, p. 160.
View, CA: Mayfield, 1998), p. 127. 11. Serious students of public policy are advised
3. V. 0. Key, Jr., Public Opinion and American to read the books and journals published by
Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1967), these leading policy-planning organizations,
pp. 422-423. especially The Brookings Review (published
4. Theodore White, The Making of the President, quarterly by the Brookings Institution, 1775
1972 (New York: Bantam, 1973), p. 7. Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC
5. Leonard Silk and Mark Silk, The American
20036); The American Enterprise (published
bimonthly by the American Enterprise
Establishment (New York: Basic Books, 1980),
Institute, 1150 17th Street NW, Washington,
p.l60.
DC 20036); Policy Review (published quarterly
6. Ibid., p. 179. by the Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts
7. Heritage Foundation Annual Report 1985 Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002); Foreign
(Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 1985). Affairs (published five times annually by the
8. See Mark Green and Michele Jolin, eds., Change Council on Foreign Relations, 58 East 68th
for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th Street, New York, NY 10021).
President (New York: Basic Books, 2009). 12. Center for Responsive Politics (2009)
9. Lester Milbraith, "Interest Groups in Foreign www.crp.org
Policy," in Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, 13. Fortune, December 1997.
14. Polling Report, March 1999. www.pollingreport.
com
15. "Speech to the Electors of Bristol," November
3, 1774.
16. Richard E Fenno, Home Style (Boston:
Little, Brown, 1978); also quoted in Roger
H. Davidson and Walter T. Oleszek, Congress
and Its Members (Washington, DC: CQ Press,
2000), p. 149.
17. Clinton v. City ofNew York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANDERSON, }AMES E. Public Policymaking 7th ed.
Cengage Learning, 2011.
CIGLAR, ALLAN J., and BuRDETT A. Lours. Interest
Group Politics, 8th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press,
2011.
DAVIDSON, RoGER H., WALTER J. 0LESZEK, and
FRANCES E. LEE. Congress and Its Members, 12th
ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009.
GoRMLEY, WILLIAM T., and STEVEN T. BALA. Bureaucracy
and Democracy: Accountability and Performance,
2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007.
GRABER, Dorus A. Mass Media and American Politics,
8th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009.
WEB SITES
CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE PoLITics. Source of
information on campaign finances--contributions,
recipients, PACs, lobbyists, etc. www.opensecrets.
org
FEDERAL ELECTIONS CoMMISSION. Official government
site for campaign finance reports. www.fec.gov
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CoMMITTEE. Official site of
the RNC, including GOP policy positions, press
releases, news, etc. www.rnc.org
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CoMMITTEE. Official site of the
DNC, including Democratic Party policy positions,
press releases, news, etc. www.democrat.org
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION. Liberal think tank for
policy research, with policy studies, press briefings,
etc. www.brookings.org
Web Sites 61
18. Donald S. Van Meter and Carl E. VanHorn,
"The Policy Implementation Process,"
Administration and Society, 6 (February 1975),
p. 447.
19. See James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy: What
Governments Do and Why They Do It (New
York: Basic Books, 1989).
20. William Niskanen, Bureaucracy and
Representative Government (Chicago:
Aldine, 1971).
HETHERINGTON, MARK T., and WILLIAM 0. KEEFE.
Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America, 11th
ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009.
KERWIN, CoRNELius, M. Rulemaking: How Government
Agencies Write Law and Make Policy, 4th ed.
Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010.
KINGDON, JoHN W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public
Policies. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984.
SMITH, }AMES A. The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks
and the Rise of the New Policy Elite. New York:
Macmillan, 1991.
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. Moderate think
tank for policy research, with policy studies, press
briefings, etc. www.aei.org
HERITAGE FouNDATION. Conservative think tank
for policy research, with policy briefs, news about
issues currently being debated in Congress, press
releases, etc. www.heritage.org
CouNCIL ON FoREIGN RELATIONS. Leading foreign
relations think tank, with task force reports and
access to its journal, Foreign Affairs. www.cfr.org
CATO INSTITUTE. Libertarian (minimal government)
think tank, with policy studies, press releases, etc.
www.cato.org
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Official site of OMB, with the current Budget of
the United States Government.
Poltcy Evaluation through CongressionalTestimony Secretaty of the Treasuty Timothy Geithner testifies before a Congressional
Oversight Panel evaluating the effectiveness ofthe Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) June 22, 2010. Geithner argued that the
TARP program, often critidzed as the "Wall Street bailout."' was successful in stabilizing the flnandal community and that taxpayers
were recovering a major portion of their investment. (~Benjamin J. Myers/Corbis)