Responsive bureaus, equity, and regulatory negotiation: an empirical view

Rulemaking agencies commonly delegate the implementation and enforcement of rules to affected parties, but they rarely delegate rulemaking authority. Regulatory negotiation is an example of this uncommon behavior. Compared to conventional rulemaking, regulatory negotiation is thought to be an attempt to make bureaucracy more responsive to affected stakeholders, especially when the rulemaking concerns politically complicated and technical issues. However, negotiation, while it may make bureaucrats more responsive, may also be less fair in that it is likely to result in relatively more responsiveness to interests supported by those with greater resources. This study presents empirical evidence that compares negotiated to conventional rulemaking processes at the Environmental Protection Agency in respect to both responsiveness and equality. The results uphold the expectation that negotiating rules appears more responsive than the conventional rule-writing process. Furthermore, the results show inequality in both processes; outcomes of negotiated rules may be more unequal than outcomes of conventionally written rules. © 2002 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Toward a deliberative standard: rethinking participation in policymaking

In contrast to communitarian and pluralist approaches to participation, the following article develops a deliberative model of participation in rulemaking at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This deliberative model is distinguished by its concern for the emergence of publics and for the speaking and listening capacities of policymakers and publics alike. The model focuses both on spaces for collective discussion as well as translation between sites of discussion. Embracing a complex view of civil society, and stressing the principle of inclusion, a deliberative model corresponds to a form of legitimacy that extends beyond the boundaries of conventional administrative procedure

Does participation in policymaking enhance satisfaction with the policy outcome? Evidence from Switzerland

This article investigates the benefit of participation in policymaking. Based on data from interviews with various interest groups, private organisations, and representatives of regions that had been involved in recent policymaking processes in Switzerland, this study analyses the relationship between participation and satisfaction with the policy outcome. The study looks at two different aspects of outcome satisfaction: perceived consensus of a decision and preference attainment. The results show that the level of participation is related to both aspects of outcome satisfaction but that the strength of association is dependent on the type of interest group and the level of conflict among the groups participating in the decision-making process