G et ty Im ag es Learning Objectives In this chapter you will learn to: •Demonstrate knowledge of the key concepts in public policy formulation and adoption. •Identify the key actors involved in public policy formulation and adoption. •Identify the different arenas of influence and contexts in which public policy formulation and adoption occur. Formulating, Designing, and Adopting Policy 5 the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 145 11/21/12 12:48 PM Section 5.1 What Is Policy Formulation? CHAPTER 5 Federal public policies do not just appear; they have to be created or designed and then adopted by an authoritative decision-making body. If policies are to solve per-ceived problems or emerging issues, then analysis of the most appropriate action to address the problem must take place. As Chapter 1 discussed, policy makers can then choose which type of policy to formulate and adopt. The choice of policy type will also include decisions about who will benefit and who will bear the burden of the policy, based on how groups are socially constructed. In essence, this amounts to which target popula- tion will be affected by the policy. Groups that society perceives negatively will either be ignored or negatively affected by the policy. Analysis involves policy makers’ choosing among alternative courses of action. Inherent in this process is the fact that policy makers must deal with the question of policy design—selecting the correct set of instruments that can actually be adopted and best match the problem. Simply, for successful policy formu- lation, a policy must be politically adoptable. Ideally, the best policy formulation solves the identified problem. In actuality, policy formulation is a political exercise in which the best policy is often sacrificed in favor of an adoptable policy. In sum, the policy must be acceptable to those who adopt policy as well as to target populations. Just as a football team needs support to help it play well, policy formulation is influenced heavily by policy makers’ need to win support for their proposed policy from policy actors within the for- mal institutions of government and society as a whole. Once policy alternatives are designed, however, some kind of governmental decision must be made regarding the direction and type of governmental action that will follow. This seemingly simple act of making the decision to adopt a proposed course of policy action represents a defining moment in the policy process. Only by adopting policies can a pro- posed course of action garner legitimacy within the political and public arena. In sum, the policy adoption stage represents the critical stage in which policy makers politically explore alternatives in the law-making arenas, conduct debate and negotiate within the legislative bodies, and take official actions to promote specific legislative positions over others. 5.1 What Is Policy Formulation? Once a problem or issue is on the public age ...

1. G
et
ty
Im
ag
es
Learning Objectives
In this chapter you will learn to:
•Demonstrate knowledge of the key concepts in public policy
formulation and adoption.
•Identify the key actors involved in public policy formulation
and adoption.
•Identify the different arenas of influence and contexts in which
public policy formulation and
adoption occur.
Formulating, Designing,
and Adopting Policy
5
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 145 11/21/12 12:48 PM

2. Section 5.1 What Is Policy Formulation? CHAPTER 5
Federal public policies do not just appear; they have to be
created or designed and then adopted by an authoritative
decision-making body. If policies are to solve per-ceived
problems or emerging issues, then analysis of the most
appropriate action
to address the problem must take place. As Chapter 1 discussed,
policy makers can then
choose which type of policy to formulate and adopt. The choice
of policy type will also
include decisions about who will benefit and who will bear the
burden of the policy, based
on how groups are socially constructed. In essence, this
amounts to which target popula-
tion will be affected by the policy. Groups that society
perceives negatively will either be
ignored or negatively affected by the policy. Analysis involves
policy makers’ choosing
among alternative courses of action. Inherent in this process is
the fact that policy makers
must deal with the question of policy design—selecting the
correct set of instruments that
can actually be adopted and best match the problem. Simply, for
successful policy formu-
lation, a policy must be politically adoptable. Ideally, the best
policy formulation solves
the identified problem. In actuality, policy formulation is a
political exercise in which the
best policy is often sacrificed in favor of an adoptable policy. In
sum, the policy must be
acceptable to those who adopt policy as well as to target
populations. Just as a football
team needs support to help it play well, policy formulation is
influenced heavily by policy
makers’ need to win support for their proposed policy from

3. policy actors within the for-
mal institutions of government and society as a whole.
Once policy alternatives are designed, however, some kind of
governmental decision must
be made regarding the direction and type of governmental
action that will follow. This
seemingly simple act of making the decision to adopt a
proposed course of policy action
represents a defining moment in the policy process. Only by
adopting policies can a pro-
posed course of action garner legitimacy within the political and
public arena. In sum, the
policy adoption stage represents the critical stage in which
policy makers politically explore
alternatives in the law-making arenas, conduct debate and
negotiate within the legislative
bodies, and take official actions to promote specific legislative
positions over others.
5.1 What Is Policy Formulation?
Once a problem or issue is on the public agenda, then remedies
or solutions to it must be seriously considered. Policy
formulation is the development of remedies that deal with a
specific problem or address a particular issue within the insti-
tutional agenda. It takes place before legislation is enacted and
theoretically ends once
the policy is implemented. In reality, however, formulation
often becomes reformulation
because after policy is implemented and then evaluated, it is
often redesigned to address
political or essential inadequacies. This, then, typifies the
iterative nature of formulation.
The policy process itself is also iterative.

4. Inherent to policy formulation is the notion of bargaining and
compromise. Often
policy-making actors will make concessions to win the most
political support for a par-
ticular solution. From start to finish, policy formation is an
incredibly political process.
The process of formulation involves many competing realities.
One essential reality of
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 146 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5
policy formulation is that, multiple actors can design different
remedies or mechanisms at
the same time for solving the same problem. In Congress, for
example, numerous policy
proposals compete with each other for adoption. This often
results in competing propos-
als fighting for political support. Another reality is that
formulation can occur over a long
period of time, and while it is happening, a continuous process
of coalition building is
going on behind certain policy proposals. A final reality is that
policy formulation does
not necessarily result in policy adoption, even though the
expected result of policy formu-
lation is to solve a problem.
5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments
Once policy makers have decided that government should
intervene to deal with a problem and develop policy, they
involve themselves in policy design, in which they have at their

5. disposal a number of policy instruments, tools, approaches and
techniques with which to craft
a policy. Policy instruments
are simply the means or tools
by which governments reach
the solution to the problem
they are attempting to address.
When discussing what policy
solutions may be developed,
note that policy makers have
the option of using more than
one instrument to solve a prob-
lem and achieve the objectives
of a proposed policy. Often the
choice of instrument(s) depends
on the nature of the problem,
the target population, the goals
of the policy, and finally, how
the policy will be implemented.
Policy scholars have developed
various policy instrument clas-
sification schemes (Schneider and Ingram, 2000). All schemes
describe mechanisms by
which government seeks to alter the behavior of specified target
populations. In reality, such
change might not occur without the government giving the
target populations the ability to
do so. Other common dimensions of these classification
schemes include, first, a focus on
activity, which provides a general sense of what government is
attempting to achieve with
the policy. The second dimension is a delivery system through
which the implementation’s
level of complexity can be gauged. The third dimension is the
program’s administrative

6. level of centralization. The final dimension is the degree to
which the program requires
detailed administrative action. Overall, these dimensions help
us better appreciate just how
similar these schemes are, regardless of the labels used by each
author.
Polka Dot/Thinkstock
Elderly people are among the advantaged population and tend
to have a good deal of influence and thus a greater likelihood
of receiving benefits when targeted by policies.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 147 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5
Actual policy solutions may come in the form of legislation,
executive orders, judicial
decisions, regulations, and approval of referendum or
initiatives. To make sense of these
different forms and of the various policy instrument
classification schemes found in the
literature, one can divide policy instruments into two broad
categories: negative instru-
ments and affirming instruments (Brigham & Brown, 1980).
Negative instruments restrain
the behavior of the target population by prohibiting or deterring
certain actions; affirma-
tive instruments promote certain behavior from the target
population by prescribing or
encouraging certain actions (Verdung, 2003). Thus, negative
instruments will apply pen-
alties, punishments, or costs to the target population. Examples

7. of negative instruments
include laws that compel citizenry compliance—such as
regulating speed limits or alcohol
consumption while driving—or the use of financial incentives to
compel desired behavior
through taxes and spending. Affirmative instruments employ
incentives such as grants,
tax exemption, information, and education to shape citizen
behavior through programs
such as the Just Say No drug awareness campaign. Other
examples of affirmative instru-
ments include intergovernmental loans or the delivery of
services either directly or indi-
rectly through contracts or subsidies.
Although policy solutions are specific to the problem at hand
and may use different means
to achieve the desired outcome, each broadly attempts to
accomplish one of the following:
• prohibit behaviors that put society in jeopardy; for example,
banning smoking in
public areas;
• protect certain activities, markets, or groups; for example,
minorities or people
with disabilities;
• promote activities that are important or of value for the
government and for
society; and
• provide benefits to citizens directly; for example, Social
Security payments.
Whatever policy solution is selected, the following factors must

8. be taken into consideration:
• political feasibility—even if a policy proposal has technical
feasibility, it will not
work without political support;
• availability of resources to implement the solution—without
sufficient resources
to carry out the solution, it is not viable;
• administrative feasibility—can the policy be successfully
established and
managed;
• reaction of the target population—the receptivity of the target
population to
changing its behavior or complying with the policy. A policy
that fails to change
a target population’s behavior fails by definition.
Some policy scholars recognize that designing policy is not just
a matter of determining
the type of policy or the instruments; it is also acknowledging
the influence that per-
ceived merit and political power have on both the design of
policy and its justification. As
Chapter 3 discussed, the theoretical framework known as the
social construction of target
populations argues that within society, groups of individuals
(target populations) with
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 148 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5

9. culturally constructed images inevitably affect the policy
process. In sum, social construc-
tion is how society perceives a group; it is the image others
within the political arena and
society hold of a group. Public policy scholars like A. L.
Schneider and H. Ingram argue
that the justification and substance of any policy can be
understood by identifying how
groups targeted by a given policy are socially constructed.
Schneider and Ingram (2000)
contend that policy makers are influenced by these images when
they design policy; social
construction dictates the benefits and burdens they are willing
to distribute to the groups
through policy.
The effect of such image construction, some authors argue, is to
allow office holders
seeking reelection to maximize their electoral advantage
through the policy choices they
made while in office (Donovan, 1993; Herek & Capitanio,
1998). The ideal objective of
such behavior is to give the greatest benefits to groups with the
most positive images and
the most political power while giving the burdens to groups
with negatively constructed
images and the least political power. In reality, of course, the
ideal is often not achieved.
In the real world many groups are positively constructed but
powerless; other groups
are negatively constructed but historically powerful, due to their
economic and political
resources. For example, battered women are positively
constructed but weak in terms of
their power to influence policy makers, while unions are

10. generally negatively constructed
but strong in their position to influence elected representatives.
Thus, the distribution
of benefits and burdens is not as straightforward as the ideal
suggests. Often the influ-
ence a group wields through its actual or attributed power will
dictate the distribution of
benefits and burdens of the group in order to maximize the
electoral ambitions of policy
makers. To justify this behavior, Schneider and Ingram (1993)
argue, policy makers offer
a number of believable rationalizations. Thus, policy makers
rationalize maximizing the
benefits and minimizing the burdens for favored groups.
In the social construction model, four types of target
populations are identified using
a typology that measures the interrelationship between social
construction and political
power. Figure 5.1 shows four distinct population types:
advantaged, contenders, dependents,
and deviants. What determines each group’s label is the manner
in which they mobilize
their members, the public’s perception of how deserving the
group is to be helped (based
on general assumptions of lifestyle), and the group’s general
political fortunes (based on
the group’s level of resources). The resources that are available
to groups are economic,
political, motivational, and organizational. The net effect of this
balance between image
and power is that advantaged populations tend to have a good
deal of influence and thus
a greater likelihood of receiving benefits when policies target
them. They are also likely
to have a high level of control over the way policy is shaped.

11. Contender populations
have little influence over the distribution of benefits but a
relatively good deal of control
over the substance of policy burdens. In comparison, dependent
populations are more
likely to receive burdens than benefits. However, dependents,
because of their image, can
exercise some influence over the policy process, so they may
also be targeted for benefits.
Finally, deviant populations receive burdens rather than benefits
and have little or no
influence over policies that may affect them. A deviant social
construction is significant
because policy makers will create policies that are punitive
rather than rewarding.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 149 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.1: Social construction and political power—types of
target
populations
Advantaged populations have more available resources and
more influence and are thus more likely to
benefit from targeted policies.
Adapted from Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social
construction of target populations: Implications for politics and
policy.
American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.
Groups and individuals seek policy changes to achieve benefits

12. while minimizing costs
or transferring them to other groups or individuals. James Q.
Wilson is the author of one
of the most prominent typology classifications of policy.
Wilson’s (1973b) scheme focuses
on policies’ distribution of costs and benefits. Costs and
benefits are not necessarily finan-
cial and can be perceived as concentrated or diffuse. According
to Wilson (1973b), “costs
and benefits are widely distributed or narrowly concentrated
from the point of view of
those who bear the costs or enjoy the benefits” (p. 332).
Basically, Wilson’s concern is
whether benefits or cost are being distributed and whether the
beneficiaries are concen-
trated or dispersed. Concentrated costs and benefits are
confined to a few individuals or
particular segment of society. If costs and benefits are
distributed, then society as a whole
accrues them. Table 5.1 illustrates the Wilson classification
scheme and gives examples
of how costs and benefits are distributed. Wilson’s concentrated
or dispersed typology
helps explain why certain types of policy are implemented, even
though they seem to
have little support.
Social Construction
Power
ADVANTAGED
Elderly
Business
Veterans
Health-care workers

13. Positive Negative
Strong
Weak
CONTENDERS
Wealthy
Minorities
Unions
Cultural elite
DEPENDENTS
Children
Battered women
People with disabilities
DEVIANTS
Criminals
Drug addicts
Gangs
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 150 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.2 Policy Design and Policy Instruments CHAPTER 5
Table 5.1: Wilson’s typology of concentrated or distributed
costs and benefits of policies
Benefits Broadly Distributed Concentrated Benefits
Costs broadly distributed Majoritarian politics: Many
people benefit and many

14. people pay.
Example: Social Security
Client politics: Few people
benefit but many people pay.
Example: Veterans benefits
Concentrated costs Entrepreneurial politics: Many
people benefit but few pay.
Example: environmental
protection
Interest group politics: Few
people benefit and few people
pay.
Example: auto industry workers
unions vs. auto industry
corporations
Adapted from Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation.
New York: Basic Books.
To recap: When policy is designed, it will either benefit or cost
target populations. Next, in
policy design it is impossible to ignore the interplay of factors
such as economic analysis,
societal values, policy makers’ belief systems, the structure of
the policy process, and the
distribution of power within the structure. With these two
considerations in mind, how
does one judge one particular policy solution against another
policy solution that deals

15. with the same issue?
As the earlier discussion made clear, policy makers are not
monolithic or neutral, so bear
in mind that the choice of policy solutions is often fought for
among a group of policy
makers, each pushing their own alternatives within the
institutional agendas. This bat-
tle is theoretically the process of examining and evaluating
alternative policy proposals
intended to lessen or resolve a problem and is generally referred
to as policy analysis.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 151 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.3 Policy Analysis CHAPTER 5
5.3 Policy Analysis
First used by political economist Charles Lindblom in 1958, the
term policy analysis refers to a type of quantitative analysis
involving incremental comparisons in which nonquantitative
methods are included in the recognition of values and policy
(Lind-
blom, 1959). Over the years, policy analysis has also come to be
defined in other ways that
can be categorized as either analysis for policy making or
analysis of existing policy (Gor-
don, Lewis, & Young, 1977). In terms of policy formulation,
analysis for policy making is
the most useful approach.
Analysis for policy making involves decision makers using
reason and evidence to

16. choose the best policy from a number of alternatives. This type
of policy analysis identi-
fies and verifies a problem’s existence; it allows alternative
ways to address the problem
to be compared and then formats that comparison in a way that
is useful for decision
makers. The objective of this type of policy analysis is to help
decision makers make more
intelligent, more ethical, more effective, and more efficient
choices. Policy analysis, how-
ever, is not an exact science, because it cannot ensure that
chosen proposals will be in the
best interest of the public or will even solve the problem
completely.
Most public policy theorists would agree that policy analysis
requires a sequence of
steps (Patton & Sawicki, 1986). Theorists might disagree about
the number of steps in the
sequence, but general agreement exists that a sequence of
activities that must be carried
out for effective analysis. Each step clearly links to the next,
and if the sequence is dramati-
cally broken, then the likelihood of the analysis being flawed
greatly increases. Figure 5.2
illustrates this sequence (MacRae & Wilde, 1985; Patton &
Sawicki, 1986; Bardach, 2000).
The objective of any piece of analysis for policy making is to
develop alternatives (policy
proposals) that can be evaluated by how well they address the
problem as it is identified
and understood.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 152 11/21/12 12:48 PM

17. Section 5.3 Policy Analysis CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.2: Policy analysis steps
The number of steps in the policy process can vary, but
theorists do agree the sequence of the steps is
significant and greatly impacts policy analyses.
Adapted from Patton, C., & Sawicki, D. (1986). Basic methods
of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall, pp. 2, 26.
• Policy makers identify alternative policy
solutions specifically to meet problem.
• Policy makers must identify all possible
options so there is choice.
• Policy makers should redefine, modify,
adapt, and omit alternatives until a short
list of viable options remains.
• Policy makers then compare shortlist with
evaluation criteria and problem definition.
• Needed if policy makers are to compare and evaluate
generated
alternatives’ effectiveness in dealing with the problem.

18. • Allows policy makers to judge alternatives as acceptable to
relevant constituencies.
• Common categories of criteria may be applied to all
alternatives;
policy makers can develop other criteria as needed according to
the problem definition.
• Common categories are technical feasibility, including
effectiveness and adequacy; economic feasibility, including
costs,
benefits, and cost-effectiveness; political viability, including
acceptibility to actors and stakeholders; administrative
viability,
including the ability to implement and manage legality and
ethics
(is it legal, is it ethical).
• Policy makers evaluate and compare developed
alternatives against established criteria.
• Policy makers must rank criteria to see which
alternatives are preferable.
• Requires policy makers to identify differences

19. among alternatives.
• Process comes full circle.
• Allows policy makers to
include feedback.
• Allows decision makers to
see if adopted policy is doing
what it’s supposed to, and if
not, why.
PROBLEM
DEFINITION
ESTABLISHING
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
DEVELOPING
ALTERNATIVES
COMPARING
ALTERNATIVES
SELECTING
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION
• Verifies, defines, and details

20. problem-including causes.
• Policy makers must identify all
relevant actors from most to least
affected based on their individual
definition of what problem is.
• Policy makers must identify and take
all influencing factors into account.
• Crucial because if policy makers define
incorrectly, solutions can be flawed.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 153 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation
CHAPTER 5
Analysis of existing policy is the second approach to policy
analysis. It is concerned with
how, why, when, and for whom policy is made, or describes a
policy in terms of its content
and relationship to other policies. Factors such as effectiveness,
feasibility, and equity are
crucial to this type of analysis.
Policy analysis—be it analysis of existing policy or analysis for
policy making—allows

21. one to understand and examine the problem, its nature, and its
dynamics. It is critical to
developing appropriate, effective, and efficient policy solutions.
Common to both policy
analysis approaches is a requirement that they be systematic and
organized so that policy
makers can assess either the feasibility of policy alternatives or
the usefulness of an exist-
ing policy. Analysis for policy making represents a critical
thread that ties together all of
the implications of the previously discussed predecision stage.
In essence, policy formula-
tion represents the proposed solution to the identified problem.
Real-world politics often
ensure that because problems are not identified correctly,
generated policy solutions are
not always as effective as they could be. More important, the
most politically feasible solu-
tion is often the one that is adopted, resulting in the wrong
solution to the problem.
5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation
An earlier discussion of the who of policy making (see Chapter
2) referred to the institutional and noninstitutional actors in
policy formulation. The difficulty of formulating policy is that
it involves multiple actors in the process with few rules.
B. Guy Peters (1999) argues that this absence of rules is
responsible in part for the com-
plexity of formulation. The fact that many actors are operating
in a process with few rules
ensures formulation is fraught with political and policy
difficulties. What follows is a
discussion of the important policy formulation actors at the
national level of government.
Note that some actors are more important than others and that in

22. many respects the policy
domain dictates who may be actively involved with any given
issue. However, all actors
involved in the different venues of policy design can and may
attempt to influence formu-
lation at varying points.
The President
The president and the executive offices associated with the
White House are often very
active in policy formulation. The last 50 years has witnessed a
number of president-
created commissions and task forces that solidify the
president’s participation in formu-
lating policy. Such commissions draw attention to a specific
problem. Recent examples
include President Bill Clinton’s 1993 task force on health-care
reform, George W. Bush’s
commission on the intelligence capabilities regarding weapons
of mass destruction in
2005, and President Barack Obama’s 2010 commissions on
fiscal responsibility and reform,
the BP oil spill, and offshore drilling.
In the modern era, presidents commonly take an active personal
interest in policy formu-
lation. (For example, the staffs of Ronald Reagan and Bill
Clinton were often involved in
the preparation of legislation for congressional review.) More
often than not, presidents
are part of the process because they were elected to office with
a policy agenda. That
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 154 11/21/12 12:48 PM

23. Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation
CHAPTER 5
agenda is establishing an administration’s pol-
icy goals and priorities. The public often judges
presidents on the success of their agenda, which
means assessment of which policy solutions
are pursued as well as those that are enacted.
The advantage of presidential participation in
the policy formulation process is that the presi-
dent is the only actor with a national constitu-
ency and national political recognition. This
allows presidents to formulate policies with the
national interest as their focus and to redefine
the national interest to serve their policy agenda.
That can be a drawback, as presidents tend to
define national interests in line with the interests
of those who elected them and not always the
public at large. For example, many critics argue
that George W. Bush tended to initiate policy
proposals in areas such as the environment that
rewarded his electoral backers in the energy and
oil industry. However, in this respect Bush was
no different than any of his predecessors, who
also had to contend with the political and policy
implications of their individual policy agendas.
In his first 2 years in office, President Barack
Obama initiated an ambitious legislative agenda
in response to the policy agenda laid out in his
2008 presidential election campaign. His agenda promised
change and reform that would
bring smart, effective government to Washington. Such an

24. agenda requires a president to
be actively involved in policy formulation. The Obama White
House’s first 2 years saw a
flurry of policy proposals on issues ranging from health-care
reform to corporate execu-
tive compensation to energy to stimulating the economy to
cybersecurity. By the end of
his first year in office, Obama had named 35 policy czars to
manage broad areas of policy
formulation (Schambra, 2009).
Congress
Members of Congress are a significant source of draft
legislation and therefore are most
often associated with policy formulation. Members of Congress
participate in formulation
principally by developing new legislation, legislative oversight,
and legislative review.
Additionally, the integral role played by members’ personal or
committee staffs facilitates
their involvement in policy formulation. These staffs not only
research possible policy
proposals but also design them.
Congressional involvement in developing policy proposals
means that partisan or politi-
cal influence shapes the kinds of remedies that are formulated.
Each member of Congress
confronts the political reality that the best politically
formulated policy is not necessarily
the best solution to a problem. Often the solution is the one that
has or will receive the
Visions of America/Superstock

25. The president plays a large role in policy
formation as former president Bill Clinton
did in the 1993 task force on health-care
reform.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 155 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation
CHAPTER 5
most political support. In addition, legislators tend to formulate
detailed policy propos-
als that often require programs be micromanaged. An example
of this is laws removing
discretionary exclusions from the hands of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
This policy action was the result of congressional members’
formulating and adopting a
policy that returned control of a critical area of immigration
back to policy makers and
away from the day-to-day policy implementers.
The Bureaucracy
Governmental agencies initially develop many policy proposals.
Bureaucrats often have
more expertise and involvement in policy issue areas than many
elected office holders;
bureaucrats may possess the relevant information and data
resources necessary to formu-
late proposals that can be possible policy solutions.
Additionally, bureaucrats understand
implementation procedures and what can and cannot be
accomplished. Such characteris-

26. tics place the bureaucracy in a strong position in the race to
formulate possible remedies
to problems. Bureaucrats therefore have significant
responsibility in the overall policy
formulation process. The implications of such prominence can
be serious for the formu-
lated solutions. For example, because of their desire to maintain
their agency’s survival,
bureaucrats might lack the initiative to develop dramatic or
innovative policy solutions.
Moreover, the political necessity of achieving accountability,
efficiency, and effectiveness
places even greater constraints on the type of policies designed
by bureaucrats. Thus,
bureaucrats have a tendency to formulate incremental proposals.
Interest Groups
Interest groups are major actors in policy formulation and often
propose or initiate pol-
icy solutions. Political scientist Theodore Lowi argues that such
a situation reflects inter-
est group liberalism, in which government defers to interest
groups. Lowi (1967) does not
disagree that interest group demands are legitimate and that the
government’s job is to
advance such demands. Such groups are also key facilitators in
the bargaining, negotia-
tions, and compromises that occur around various alternative
policy proposals. Interest
group primacy in policy formulation can best be understood by
realizing that the primacy
reflects group resources and level of influence. For some, this
translates to buying influ-
ence, lobbying for influence, and suing for influence (Spiller &
Liao, 2006). Authors such

27. as Schattschneider (1975) and Lowi (1979) argue that U.S.
interest groups have undue
power in the policy process and often structure formulations
that reflect their interests
rather than the common good. Critics of interest groups’
activities in this stage of the pol-
icy process argue that powerful groups have significant impact
on the direction of legisla-
tion through the resources at their disposal (see Figure 5.3).
Those who support significant
interest group participation in policy formulation and thus
interest group liberalism argue
that in spite of disparities among groups in terms of their
resources and influence, interest
group participation enhances the democratic process because it
allows for more grass-
roots participation in the policy-making process. Therefore, one
could argue that policy
formulation reflects how the more influential interest groups in
U.S. society mobilize.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 156 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation
CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.3: Total funds given to members of Congress by the
top 50
interest groups
Powerful groups have more disposable resources and, as a
result, often have more of an impact on
legislation.

28. Center for Responsive Politics, http://www.opensecrets.org, Top
Interest Groups to Congress.
Policy Entrepreneurs
Policy entrepreneurs can be found in formal institutions of
government as well as out-
side government. They are distinguished by their motivation to
initiate dynamic policy
change within society (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Kingdon,
1984). Policy entrepreneurs
believe in a cause and want to make that cause part of the
political agenda. Their pres-
ence and actions can significantly affect the probability that the
formulation process will
include particular policy proposals. Entrepreneurs identify
problems, network in policy
circles, shape the terms of policy debates, and build coalitions
behind certain proposals.
These activities attract the attention of decision makers and can
encourage them to initi-
ate appropriate policy responses (Kingdon, 1984; Majone,
1988). Through networking,
entrepreneurs can determine what arguments will persuade
others to support their policy
ideas, and this allows them to shape the debate around their
preferred policy solution
(Kelman, 1987; Kingdon, 1984; Riker, 1986). Simply,
entrepreneurs know which issue to
push and how to sell it to different audiences. For example,
policy entrepreneurs can be
members of an interest group who communicate with
government on behalf of the group
0

29. 200,000,000
400,000,000
600,000,000
800,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,200,000,000
1,400,000,000
Amount contributed to members of Congress
D
o
ll
a
rs
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012*
** September 2011—March 2012
Year
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 157 11/21/12 12:48 PM
http://www.opensecrets.org
Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation
CHAPTER 5
(Ainsworth & Sened, 1993). They can also be bureaucrats who

30. want to improve or change
governmental services (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993). Policy
entrepreneurs who successfully
engage in such activity will be in a good position to build
leverage when it comes to
coalition building and in the long run be more effective in
getting their ideas approved as
viable policy solutions. In many ways policy entrepreneurs are
similar to business entre-
preneurs acting as “brokers” and making the most of any
opportunity that comes their
way. Policy entrepreneurs’ activity will not always lead to the
adoption of a policy, but
whether it does or does not, the significance of such actors in
policy innovation and the
formulation of policy proposals is great.
Think Tanks
The last 40 years have witnessed an explosion in the number of
organizations and individ-
uals who attempt to influence the direction of policy solutions
through expertise housed
in policy think tanks (see Figure 5.4). The Center for American
Progress, the Brookings
Institution, and the Heritage Foundation are examples of such
organizations. These actors
often initiate policy proposals and push other actors to support
their policy preferences.
The implication of such behavior is debatable. The group and
individual level of influ-
ence with key legislators and other policy formulators will
largely determine the degree
of influence in policy formulation. Think tanks, either
independent or associated with
institutions of higher learning, often provide vital research on

31. the feasibility and pos-
sible effects of particular policy proposals. Theoretically, they
operate without any par-
ticular agenda. However, over the last few years it has become
more and more evident
that many of these organizations are linked to specific
ideological platforms. Hence, think
tanks are taking a much more active role in influencing policy
formulation. Today think
tanks develop policy recommendations for specific societal
problems and distribute them
to members of Congress, the executive branch, and the mass
media with the desired goal
that the policy recommendation becomes law.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 158 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.4 Actors Involved With Policy Formulation
CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.4: Growth in the number of policy think tanks in the
United States
since 1970
There has been a growth in the number of think tanks during the
past 40 years. These organizations
now have a more active role in the policy process.
Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy and the politics of
expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 15; and
The Global
Go-To Think Tanks Report 2007, 2010 and 2011, retrieved from
Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program,
http://www.gotothinktank.com.

32. 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Number of Think Tanks
N
u
m
b
e
r
Year
1970 1986 2000 2007 2011

33. Policy in Practice: Grassroots Organizations in Policy
Formulation and Design
As of 2009 research indicated that more than 1,800 college
students die each year due to alcohol-
related incidents, including car accidents. Universities,
legislatures, and other institutional stakehold-
ers have developed a range of top-down policies to reduce these
rates and have had some success.
However, some of the most effective policy initiatives come not
from the top, but from the grassroots.
In the late spring of 1980, 13-year-old Cari Lightner was struck
and killed by a drunk driver. She was
one of an estimated 30,000 alcohol-related fatalities that year.
In response, her mother Candy and
ultimately thousands of others who have been affected by or
were concerned about drinking and
driving came together to form one of the most effective
grassroots policy advocacy organizations
ever: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). (continued)
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 159 11/21/12 12:48 PM
http://www.gotothinktank.com
Section 5.5 Models of Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5
5.5 Models of Policy Formulation
Many different models of policy formulation exist, and each
model depends on the criteria used for classification. B. Guy
Peters’s (1999) book on U.S. public policy develops a scheme
for classifying particular approaches for preparing
policy solutions. For Peters policy formulation depends on two
interacting factors: how

34. much factual information is available to the formulators and
how well they understand
the problem’s causes (Peters, 1999). Peters (1999) demonstrates
the interaction between
knowledge of causation and the level of factual information.
Figure 5.5 shows that Peters’s
classification scheme encompasses simple to complex
formulation models: routine, condi-
tional, creative, and craftsman.
Policy in Practice: Grassroots Organizations in Policy
Formulation and Design
(continued)
Extraordinarily effective from almost the very beginning, by
1983 MADD saw 129 anti-drunk-driving
laws passed across the nation, and in the following year,
Candice Lightner appeared with President
Ronald Regan as he signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act into
law. Since then MADD has continued
to be active and effective in contributing to the design and
content of alcohol-related legislation.
In the 1990s MADD was among the leading stakeholders in
moving the legal blood alcohol content
(BAC) level from 0.10 to 0.08. MADD has continued to work to
shape future policy with activities that
include hosting national summits of traffic safety experts and
providing testimony before Congress.
By its 25th anniversary, the efforts of MADD and other alcohol
and transportation policy stakeholders
had resulted in a reduction of alcohol-related fatalities to
around 17,000 that year.
Although many policies are highly technical and significantly
influenced by powerful institutional
actors, the awareness about and content of some policies is
significantly shaped by grassroots orga-

35. nizations like MADD.
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
1. Given that grassroots organizations often do not have the
expertise, stature, or other resources
of larger, more institutional stakeholders, what tools do
grassroots organizations have that
enable them to successfully influence policy?
2. Of the four policy goals described in this chapter, which are
grassroots organizations likely to
have the most influence on and why?
3. To what degree do you think MADD has changed over its
history from a grassroots organization
to a more institutional stakeholder? How does this change what
it does or how it functions?
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 160 11/27/12 3:28 PM
Section 5.5 Models of Policy Formulation CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.5: Peters’s formulation model
These four types of policy formulation models are based on the
interactions between knowledge of
causation and level of factual information.
Adapted from Peters, B. G. (1999). American public policy:
Promise and performance (5th ed.). Chatham, NJ: Chatham
House.
The simplest type of policy formulation is routine formulation,

36. which requires high lev-
els of knowledge about causation and high levels of factual
information. It is the routine
adjustment of existing policies and thus incremental policy
making. Shifts in routine poli-
cies can occur if underlying theories of causation change.
Changes to Social Security poli-
cies are an example of routine formulation.
Conditional formulation occurs when formulators have
sufficient information but lack
causal knowledge. Policy proposals are triggered by changing
indicators of the problem.
Thus, policy proposals are based on the likely effects of the
policy. Such proposals often
allow for possible modification of the policy as it is being
implemented and as conditions
change. A good example of conditional formulation is fiscal
policy.
Creative formulation occurs because formulators lack sufficient
information and causal
understanding. Policy is innovative in design, but effects of
policy proposals are doubt-
ful. Policy makers not only need to be creative but also cautious
in matching individuals’
needs with the needs of the implementing agency. Often, this
requires that policy makers
build in reversible policy choices for use if the creatively
formulated policy turns out to
be unworkable or in need of correction (Peters, 1999). As a
consequence, formulators can
be influenced by bureaucratic claims of expertise and
knowledge of the issue area. An
example of creative formulation is personal social services,
such as counseling.

37. Craftsman formulation occurs when formulators clearly
understand the causes of the
problem but lack supportive information. Formulators base
policy design on what deci-
sion makers believe to be the right response, but lack
knowledge of how the policy will
Routine
High knowledge of causation
High information
Conditional
Low knowledge of causation
High information
Craftsman
High knowledge of causation
Low information
Creative
Low knowledge of causation
Low information
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 161 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
be received. Formulators must therefore develop contingencies.
Thus, a formulated policy

38. relies heavily on probability of outcome. More often than not,
the policy is poorly formu-
lated because even if decision makers know causes, they know
little of the facts of the
situation, and errors are inevitable. A policy that dictates the
use of military force is one
example of craftsman formulation.
The predecision stages of the policy process lead to the
identification of problems, the
setting of agendas, and the formulation of policy solutions.
During these initial stages,
issues of concern emerge, formulators debate ideas, issues enter
and leave the agenda,
and policy makers design alternatives that best address a policy
problem. Once the
formulators design policy alternatives, however, government
must make some kind of
decision regarding the course and form of governmental action.
This entails adopting a
formulated solution.
5.6 Defining Policy Adoption
For a policy to be adopted, the actors and groups with the power
and authority to make decisions must accept it. Policy adoption
is the formal approval by institu-tional actors of a policy
proposal. The key to adoption is political feasibility, which
is the likelihood that the policy has a consensus of support
behind it. The policy might not
present the best or the most correct way to solve the problem,
but it has the most support.
The process of the adoption of laws or policies by a legislature,
such as Congress, is also
referred to as policy legitimation.

39. Decision Criteria Used in Policy Adoption
The decision to adopt a proposed policy would seem a simple
vote: adopt or not. In
actuality, policy adoption is the by-product of the decisions
made by critical institu-
tional actors with the authority to approve a proposed
government action. During the
decision-making process, a variety of decision criteria influence
all institutional actors.
These criteria—values, political party affiliation, interests of
constituents, and defer-
ence to authorities’ interests—reflect the various influences and
factors that actors may
consider when deciding whether to adopt a specific policy
alternative. (For additional
insights, see Kugler & Feng, 1997.)
Values
One of the criteria for decision making, values are a general set
of beliefs and norms that
shape the kind of policy action, if any, that a policy actor
should take. These values reflect
organizational, professional, personal, policy, and ideological
perspectives that may influ-
ence an individual (Anderson, 2000). In many circumstances
some or all of these values
will interact and affect the preference of the decision maker for
certain policy actions over
others (see Figure 5.6).
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 162 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

40. Figure 5.6: Values affecting policy actors’ decisions to adopt
policy
Values influence perspectives that could affect policy actions.
Political Party Affiliation
Political parties directly influence the decisions the various
policy actors make; each pol-
icy maker’s political party affiliation helps to set the
institutional agenda, define the pro-
cess by which legislation is adopted, and influence and
constrain the decisions supported
by the legislative actor. Although independents—those not
affiliated with a particular
political party—have had some success over the last 20 years,
U.S. policy making operates
within a two-party system dominated by Republicans and
Democrats. These two politi-
cal parties continue to have an indelible impact on the policy-
making process. Congress
Values
Organizational
Agencies and institutions
develop cultures that reflect
their mandates, missions,
goals, and histories.
Organizations place high

41. premiums on loyalty and on
adherence to goals that
could compete with
other interests.
Professional and
Personal
Personal backgrounds,
training, and professional
networks can make
individuals favor particular
courses of action over others.
Individuals bring with them
personal values that reflect
their moral, ethical, career, or
financial interests.
Policy and
Ideological
Policy makers must take
credible policy positions

42. so that they do not seem
to allow a problem to persist.
Perceived negative policy
positions will lead to
electoral vulnerability.
Ideology helps to clarify how
someone views the world and
problems; it determines what
action best meets a problem
and fits that person’s vision
of what the world should be.
An individual’s view of the
world will shape his or her
decision about what position
to take on a policy.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 163 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5

43. reflects the two-party system. Members of political parties
introduce legislation, and often
political party leadership will attempt to influence party
members to support or oppose a
particular policy. The Patient and Affordable Care Act of 2010
offers one example of how
political parties influence policy adoption. Democrats in
Congress worked together to
ensure the adoption of this legislation and Republicans worked
together to try to block it.
Political parties affect policy decisions because of the obvious
role the parties play in the
political life of an elected policy maker. Legislatively, because
the passage of legislation
depends on the support of various majorities, members rely on
and foster party loyalty.
Political parties provide an immediate and potential source of
majority political support
for a congressional member’s agenda or policy initiative.
However, the strength of the
political parties rises and falls depending on the degree of
cohesion and party voting that
exists. From 1970 on, the party unity and polarization between
the two dominant political
parties has steadily grown in both the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives (Stan-
ley & Niemi, 2000). Since 1992, for instance, more than 50
percent of all recorded votes
reflected a majority of Democrats opposed by a majority of
Republicans in both chambers
of the legislative branch (Stanley & Niemi, 2000). Moreover,
the Republican revolution of
1994 reinvigorated the role of the party whips in attempting to
ensure and coerce party
discipline. Party whips are senior members of each political

44. party’s congressional delega-
tion whose job is to ensure that their party’s members are in
their respective chamber of
congress and ready to vote. The whip’s responsibility often
involves using tactics to per-
suade members to vote the position of the party leadership. On
average, for every party
line vote in Congress over the last decade, 80 percent of
Democrats and 80 percent of
Republicans voted with their parties (Dye, 2012).
Every elected member of Congress confronts the real threat of
political retaliation, politi-
cal isolation, and the long-term political consequences that may
result from failing to sup-
port his or her party’s preferred policy positions. From the
passage of legislation within
committees, to the structure and composition of committees, to
placement of legislation
on the various calendars, to the votes and debate on the floor,
elected members must often
rely on the support of their party members if they are to survive
and thrive politically.
The advantage of the political party is that loyalty will be
rewarded. As a member rises
in seniority, more prominent positions on committees become
available. With loyalty and
seniority come opportunities for senior party positions.
Additionally, the parties represent
a potentially powerful group to rely on to pass legislation that
aids the political agenda
of a respective member. In terms of future elections, the
political party offers the political
resources and organizational structure that greatly aid the next
campaign for reelection.

45. In short, the party can significantly influence the decisions
various institutional actors
make. Still, the nature of a particular issue may be even more
significant in explaining
how institutional actors decide or whether they side with the
preferences of the party and
senior political figures.
That is to say certain issues—because of their intrinsic political
nature or sensitivity—
diminish the party’s influence on decision making. Issues that
are of special importance
for constituents within the district, state, or nation, may compel
an actor to stray from
stated positions of his or her political party. The 2002 McCain-
Feingold legislation, deal-
ing with campaign finance reform, represented a legislative
issue that many members
of the Republican Party supported—despite widespread
opposition within the party
(Gleckman, 2002). Similarly, a number of Senate Democrats
dissented from the party
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 164 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
Constituency Interests
Elected decision makers, whether at the local, state, or federal
level, must decide among
the sometimes-conflicting motivations of their constituents,
their political party, and
their own preferences for a particular course of policy action. In
sum, should they be

46. trustees or delegates? The political realities of the electoral
process, however, suggest
that all elected representatives are first and foremost political
animals. As such, constitu-
ency interests must predominate
over all other interests.
The notion of constituency inter-
est suggests, however, that the
preferences of an elected official’s
constituents are clear and readily
discerned. In actuality, decision
makers seldom encounter such
clarity. Certain significant events
or issues may indeed develop
within a respective political arena
and reflect a degree of popular
interest that provides clarity for
the decision maker. Yet, effectively
and consistently determining the
constituency interest can prove
difficult. Constituency interests
are by no means fixed, and the
America’s Polarized Politics
Criticisms of the U.S. political system often suggest there is too
great of a polarization between the
Democratic and Republican Parties. More people have flocked
toward the extremes, making it more
difficult for politicians to find middle ground. Several experts
discuss the current state of U.S. political
parties in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyDgd887sUI
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
1. Why have political parties and Congress become increasingly

47. polarized since 2010?
2. What impacts might such polarization have on the legislative
process?
3. Are there credible solutions or conditions that might help
minimize party and political
polarization?
Getty Images
Political parties have a large effect on not only the elected
policy maker but also on the policy decisions.
majority in supporting President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut
plan. Hence, decisions
regarding whether or not to formally support a policy proposal
reflect a mixture of the
dominance and cohesion of the party, coupled with the political
realities pertaining to
a given issue that surround the institutional actor. At some
point, policy makers have
to decide between the wishes of their political party and the
demands of their respec-
tive constituents. How elected officials decide depends, in part,
on the interests of their
constituencies.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 165 11/21/12 12:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyDgd887sUI
Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
preferences of the policy actor’s respective public can and does
change over time as new

48. circumstances and issues emerge. Moreover, some policy
makers within divided political
districts confront the added difficulty of attempting to discern
what the majority may pre-
fer, even when no clear majority interest may exist among the
constituency. Nonetheless,
the impact of constituency interests may be exaggerated in light
of the day-to-day realities
of policy making.
The impact of constituency interests may depend on how the
term is defined. A narrow
definition may focus on a vast segment of the public. A broader
definition would include
the constituent role of interest groups, associations, lobbyists,
citizen activists, and the
general public. In actuality, a broad definition of constituency
interests includes actors with
an active role in the policy-making process. The public’s
interest, attention, and activism
in the policy-making process vary greatly depending on the
issue. In the absence of an
active and consistent role by the public, decision makers must
make decisions based on
their own preferences, as well as the information, positions, and
preferences outlined by
those actors who are active in the policy process.
Arguably, the role of constituency interests varies depending on
how an issue is perceived
within the public and political agenda. Many policy actions,
such as those dealing with
detailed regulatory changes, budgetary appropriations, or other
detailed legislation, may
hinder the constituency from playing a wider role. Essentially,
the more detailed and

49. obscure the proposed policy action, the more unlikely it is that
the broad spectrum of the
public will become active participants in the legislative process.
Other proposed policy
actions, such as those dealing with emotional issues like civil
rights, the environment,
education, or abortion, can be more sensitive to the direct
pressures of constituents. Even
though such emotional issues may spark responses in
constituents’ overall positions, the
detailed minutiae of writing legislation may further obscure the
positions a legislator
should or should not take because proposed legislation may
include a variety of initia-
tives and actions designed to deal with a respective policy
problem.
Deference to Authorities’ Interests
Decisions within the policy-making process are also influenced
by the deference decision
makers can show to the interests of certain policy, political, and
administrative authori-
ties. The technical complexity of certain issues may increase the
role and influence of vari-
ous policy groups both within and out of the government.
Governmental policy groups,
such as the General Accounting Office (GAO) or the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
may affect policy makers’ analysis, understanding, and
positions on specific issues. At a
minimum, these governmental policy agencies provide a useful
source of information and
analysis. Aside from governmental policy research groups,
decision makers may also take
into consideration the analysis and position favored by think
tanks such as Rand, Cato,

50. the Urban Institute, or Brookings. Such think tanks offer policy
expertise and analysis of
both specific issues and broad policy areas. Deference to such
policy actors, however, is
a product of the decision maker’s willingness to accept the
findings and analysis of such
government institutions or think tanks.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 166 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.6 Defining Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
Aside from these governmental or research think tanks, various
political associations
and interest groups provide additional policy expertise and
analysis. Decision makers
may pay attention to the views key political associations and
interest groups offer. Inter-
est groups such as the American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP), the National
Rifle Association (NRA), and the Sierra Club provide both
analysis and understanding
of policy problems. Additionally, associations such as the
National Governor’s Associa-
tion (NGA), the National League of Cities (NLC), or the
National Education Association
(NEA) also conduct independent policy research and analysis.
Policy research provided by interest groups and associations
will inevitably favor certain
positions and decisions on key policy issues. When addressing
issues of particular impor-
tance to them, these organizations may have considerable
influence on policy makers’

51. decisions. In particular, such groups may use financial
resources to influence a legislator,
for example, through campaign contributions. These groups
amass further influence by
the sheer political weight that their stated policy positions carry
within the broad political
arena. For instance, decision makers may defer to such groups
out of reluctance to pub-
licly oppose the positions of politically powerful interest
groups.
Apart from the political influence of interest groups or
associations, decision makers can
and do accommodate senior legislative authorities on certain
issues. Within Congress, for
instance, newer representatives may defer to the party
leadership or senior members of
the committee. To some extent, policy-making reality compels
legislative actors to defer
to the expertise of members who sit on the committee
responsible for the proposed piece
of legislation. That is not surprising given the sheer size of
some proposed pieces of legis-
lation, coupled with the scope of various programs and services
under discussion. Aside
from policy and political deference, various administrative
agencies provide additional
guidance.
The administrative agency’s hierarchical nature leads officials
within the agency to fol-
low the guidance and dictums of both administrative and
political superiors. Officials
must follow the directives of their administrative authorities for
an agency to be effective.
Deference is based on the authority accorded certain agency

52. officials and political appoin-
tees. Such deference, however, can lead to conflicts between the
stated positions preferred
by the political appointees and the preferences of career agency
officials. Additionally,
agency oversight by congressional actors further complicates
decision making because
agency officials, vulnerable to the regulatory and budgetary role
of Congress, may have to
defer to the preferences of respective members of Congress.
Conversely, during the policy
formulation and adoption stages, members of Congress may also
decide to defer to the
positions preferred by senior administrative officials within
various respective agencies.
Overall, deference reflects the interpersonal role that persuasion
and influence can have
on the policy decisions various institutional actors make.
Deference may be based on
the hierarchy of authority established within an administrative
agency. In other cases,
however, deference reflects the political power of senior party
officials, senior commit-
tee members, policy actors, and interest groups to compel other
actors to defer to their
positions. Still, the real weight of such deference depends on
the extent to which other
factors—values, political party affiliation, or constituency
interests—affect the decision-
making process of the legislative actor.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 167 11/21/12 12:48 PM

53. Section 5.7 The Legislative Process and Policy Adoption
CHAPTER 5
5.7 The Legislative Process and Policy Adoption
Policy proposals are adopted by winding through an
institutional process that helps structure the respective political
actors’ course of action. The path of policy adoption varies
among and within each institution with degrees of policy-
making power. The
courts, the executive branch, and Congress all have unique
environments and contexts in
which various government actions are considered for adoption.
Institutionally, the policy
process is fragmented and divided among all three branches of
the federal government.
Formulation and adoption of proposed policy actions occur
within the executive and leg-
islative branches, and constitutional oversight is afforded to the
judicial branch. The focus
of the following section, however, is on the prominence of
Congress and its central role in
decision making throughout the legislative process.
The primary responsibility for formulating and adopting of
federal policy proposals rests
within the legislative and executive branches. The bicameral—
or two-chamber—Congress
pairs with the executive branch in guiding policy proposals.
These roles are critical to under-
standing the origins of policy proposals, as well as the
particular kinds of policy action that
the government can take. Congress can take four kinds of
legislative action: bills, joint reso-
lutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions (for more
information, see http://

54. thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php). Table 5.2 summarizes these
types of action.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 168 11/21/12 12:48 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php
Section 5.7 The Legislative Process and Policy Adoption
CHAPTER 5
Table 5.2: Kinds of legislative action
Bills Joint Resolutions Concurrent
Resolutions
Simple Resolutions
• Form used for most
legislation can be
either public or
private. A public bill
is one that affects the
wider public, while a
private bill affects a
specified individual.
• A bill originating in
the House of Repre-
sentatives is desig-
nated by the letters
H.R. and is followed
by a number it re-
tains throughout the
legislative process.

55. • A Senate bill is des-
ignated by an S and
a number that it re-
tains throughout the
legislative process.
• The term Companion
Bill describes a bill
that is identical to
a bill introduced in
the other house of
Congress.
• May originate in
either the Senate or
House—not jointly
in both houses.
• Are similar to bills,
requiring approval
by both chambers
and the president,
except when dealing
with constitutional
amendment issues,
when approval by
the president is
unnecessary if two-
thirds congressional
support is garnered.
• If originating in the
House, it is desig-
nated as H.J. Res.
followed by a num-

56. ber. A joint resolu-
tion in the Senate
is designated as S.J.
Res. followed by a
number. Such joint
resolutions become
law in the same
manner as bills.
• Address matters
affecting the opera-
tions of both houses
and are not equiva-
lent to a bill.
• Such resolutions
are used to express
facts, principles,
opinions, and pur-
poses of the two
houses.
• These actions are
not presented to
the president for
veto or signature.
• Such resolutions in
the House are des-
ignated H. Con Res.
followed by a num-
ber. On approval by
both houses, they
are signed by the
Clerk of the House
and the Secretary of

57. the Senate.
• Concern the rules,
operation, or the
opinion of either
house alone. Simple
resolutions are con-
sidered only by the
body in which they
are respectively
introduced.
• In the House, simple
resolutions are
designated as H.
Res. together with a
number. In the Sen-
ate, simple resolu-
tions are designated
as S. Res. together
with a number.
• Upon adoption,
simple resolutions
are attested to by
the Secretary of
the Senate or Clerk
of the House and
are published in
the Congressional
Record.
Constitutionally, the separation of powers ensures a multiple
path by which individuals,
groups, and institutions can attempt to influence and shape the
beginnings of the adop-

58. tion of legislation. In theory, no one institution, individual, or
group possesses greater
influence than any other, and no one policy actor can be
prevented from proposing a piece
of legislation and pursuing its adoption. Interestingly, any
citizen can draft and propose
a piece of legislation for an elected representative to consider
submitting. Depending on
the issue, various institutions, groups, and individuals can have
considerable influence on
legislative decisions.
To what extent any one actor influences policy adoption
depends to some degree on how
well the actors understand the formal legislative process. This
process by which a bill
becomes law represents the main policy playing field for the
formulation and adoption
of proposed legislation. In other words, the legislative arena can
be recognized as the
playing field for an intense political competition in which
advocates, both in and out of
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 169 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the
Legislative Process CHAPTER 5
government, hold competing positions as to what decisions
should be made and what
policy should be adopted.
5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the Legislative
Process

59. To become adopted, a bill must survive a fragmented, conflict-
prone legislative pro-cess that also involves competing bills,
each of which faces institutional and political obstacles. The
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, outlines the basic
legislative
process. The legislative process begins when a proposed piece
of legislation or bill is intro-
duced into the House and the Senate (see Figure 5.7). Once
introduced, the bill is referred
to a specific committee. At this stage, the real business of
policy adoption occurs.
After being introduced and assigned to the relevant full
committees, a bill can be further
divided among relevant subcommittees. If a bill successfully
leaves the committee review
in the House and the Senate, it moves to the floor of each
chamber for a vote to pass into
law. Before it may become law, a bill must emerge from both
chambers of Congress with
identical wording; the conference committee performs this task.
A piece of legislation that
is adopted by majorities in both chambers continues its path to
either law or extinction
when it is transmitted to the president for consideration. A
president has the power to
approve or veto the bill. A bill becomes law if the president
signs it or if the bill remains
unsigned for more than 10 days while Congress is in session. A
vetoed bill, however, goes
back to Congress, where a two-thirds majority in both chambers
can override the presi-
dential veto. However, if a session of Congress formally ends
its session within the 10-day
window in which a president is considering a piece of

60. legislation, and if the president has
not yet signed the bill, the president effectively vetoes the bill
by means of the pocket veto.
While the president’s legislative power seems limited in
nature—essentially signing or
vetoing a bill—the threat of veto represents a powerful force in
the formulation and adop-
tion of policy throughout the legislative process in Congress.
In reality, the modern-day legislative process extends beyond
the framework outlined
by Article 1 and includes the significant role of congressional
committees, political par-
ties, and rules that are not specifically articulated within the
Constitution. In particular,
within the bicameral Congress, the legislative process is
structured and divided between
the dominant legislative roles committees and subcommittees
within both chambers play
and the party structure that establishes key party positions are
accorded specific legisla-
tive roles. Any member of Congress can introduce legislation.
Although some bills may be symbolic or political in value, only
a few can or will become
law. Between 1999 and 2010, of the total number of acts, bills,
and joint resolutions intro-
duced, no more than 4.5 percent became law (for more
information, see http://www.gov
trackUS.com, August 4, 2011). This statistic makes
resoundingly clear the circuitous and
obstacle-ridden path that legislation must follow if it is to
become law (see Figure 5.7).
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 170 11/21/12 12:48 PM

61. http://www.govtrackUS.com
http://www.govtrackUS.com
Section 5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the
Legislative Process CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.7: The federal legislative process
Only 4.5% of acts, bills, and resolutions introduced between
1999 and 2010 became laws.
Bill Introduced
Committee and
Subcommittee
Hearings and Markup
Committee Vote
Post Committee
Adjustment
Rules Committee
House Floor Action
Vote and Immediate
adoption
*Identical to Senate bill
Bill Introduced
HOUSE SENATE

62. Committee and
Subcommittee
Hearings and Markup
Committee Vote
Post Committee
Adjustment
UCA Rules
Committee
Senate Floor Action
Conference Committee
Final Vote
House/Senate Action
Veto Override Law
President
Signature
Veto
Vote and Immediate
adoption
*Identical to Senate bill
Adoption by both Houses

63. • The bill is placed on
the calendar for
discussion on the floor
of the other house.
• If the bill fails to pass on
the floor, is is dead; if it
passes, it must then
repeat this process in
the other chamber of
Congress.
• Legislation originates
in the House, Senate,
White House, or
federal department or
agency.
• Representative or
Senate submits
proposal to the clerk

64. or the House or Senate.
• If the same version of bill
adopted, sent to President
for consideration.
• Different versions of the bill
can result in a call for joint
Conference committee.
• If Conference report is
favorable, the bill is sent
back to both Chambers for
Final Vote with no possible
changes to the final version
of the bill.
• President must then review
the bill, and if he does
nothing in 10 days, it
becomes law.
• He may veto bill, in which

65. case it goes back to House
and Senate, where 2/3
majority is needed to
override Presidential veto.
• The bill is referred to proper
committee, which refers it to
subcommittee for research
and hearings; bill can be
amended at this point.
• Subcommittee sends bill back
to committee, and it may
proceed without further
review, or it may be subject
to more hearings.
• Bill may now be amended or
killed; most bills introduced in
Congress die in committee.
• If bill survives, it’s sent to

66. Rules committee (majority
leader in Senate), which
decides whether bill will be
subject to open or closed rule;
under open rule, a bill sees
more debate and can be
amended to a greater degree.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 171 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the
Legislative Process CHAPTER 5
Presidents are far more influential in the policy adoption stage
when they work with a
Congress controlled by their own political party. Because both
houses had large Demo-
cratic majorities during his first 2 years of office, Obama was
much more successful in
getting legislation that he favored adopted than he was during
the next 2 years. The years
2011 and 2012 have proved far more challenging to him, and the
Obama administration’s
record for these years exemplifies how formulation and
adoption are complicated by the
political environment in which they operate and the presence of
multiple actors who all
try to influence the process. However, data demonstrate that for

67. many presidents, the
number of times a majority of the members of Congress vote
with the president’s position
on roll call votes is still more than 50 percent and that for many
presidents the percentage
is much higher (see Figure 5.8).
Figure 5.8: Percentage of members of Congress voting with the
president’s
position on roll call votes, 1956–2010
Presidents are generally more influential during policy adoption
if their own political party controls
Congress. Still, the majority of Congress members vote with the
president’s position at least 50% of
the time.
Stanley, H. W., & Niemi, R. G. (2000). Vital Statistics on
American Politics 1999–2000. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp.
264–265.
Percentage Voting With President
Position on Roll Call Voters
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e

68. Ei
se
nh
ow
er
96
81
58
64
82
57
77
52
62
85
70
Ke
nn
ed
y
Jo
hn

69. so
n
Ni
xo
n
Fo
rd
Ca
rte
r
Re
ag
an
Bu
sh
Cl
in
to
n
Bu
sh
O
ba

70. m
a
09
/1
0
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 172 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.8 The Roles of Congress and the President in the
Legislative Process CHAPTER 5
Presidents can be particularly influential in the policy adoption
stage by stopping or
threatening to stop legislation that Congress has passed. A piece
of legislation adopted
by majorities in both chambers continues its path to either law
or extinction when it goes
to the president for consideration. The two-thirds override
established by the Constitu-
tion also represents a formidable obstacle, and such large
majorities are rare within each
of the chambers. Thus, the mere threat of veto can reshape the
legislative agenda in both
chambers to better reflect the legislative interests of the
president. Presidents may choose
to veto a legislative proposal they consider to be
unconstitutional, an encroachment on
presidential authority, ill-advised policy, or unacceptable for
political or ideological rea-
sons (Oleszek, 2010). Historically, the use of the veto has
declined significantly from Presi-
dent Franklin D. Roosevelt’s record of 635 vetoes over his

71. tenure to Obama’s tally of 2 as
of January 2012 (Peters, 2012) (see Table 5.3).
Table 5.3 : Presidential vetoes, 1932–2012
President Total Number of Vetoes During
President’s Tenure
Percentage of Vetoes That Congress Did
Not Override
Roosevelt 635 97.6%
Truman 250 93.3
Eisenhower 181 97.3
Kennedy 21 100
Johnson 30 100
Nixon 43 73.1
Ford 66 75
Carter 31 84.6
Reagan 78 76.9
G. Bush 44 96.6
Clinton 37 94.4
G. W. Bush 12 63.6
Obama 2 100

72. The legislative process at the federal level ensures that policy
adoption—or passage of
laws—will prove difficult. At many points in the legislative
process, constitutional and
institutional procedures require members of Congress—as well
as those who seek to
influence them—to decide which actions to take. Figure 5.7
highlights some of the key
points in this legislative process, in which institutional actors
must decide whether to
adopt or reject a policy proposal. Dramatic and immediate
attempts at policy adoption,
although possible, require the effective cooperation of
majorities in both the House and
Senate, party leadership, the committee members, senior
members of the committee,
and the president—as well many noninstitutional actors who
seek to influence these
institutional actors.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 173 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.9 Arenas of Action: The Playing Field CHAPTER 5
5.9 Arenas of Action: The Playing Field
This circuitous legislative process for policy adoption takes
place in more than a single arena such as the Congress; instead,
the process occurs in many important arenas that can be likened
to playing fields of action in which the proposed policies
are debated, formulated, and considered for adoption. Moreover,
such arenas often inter-
mingle to frame the manner in which policy actors adopt the

73. policy positions. The most
significant playing fields of action are the public, executive,
congressional, and political.
The Public Arena
U.S. policy making occurs within a public arena in which public
opinion can shape directly
many legislative positions and strategies, as well as the voting
behavior of elected officials.
The public theater can directly influence the behavior of
legislative actors by constraining
or encouraging actions by decision makers. Attempts to hinder
or encourage policy adop-
tion will inevitably be affected by the extent to which a decision
maker is concerned with
the reactions of the public. The fickle nature of public opinion
makes measured responses
particularly difficult for decision makers.
Within the public arena, various advocates for a particular issue
will attempt to mobi-
lize public opinion to influence the passage or obstruction of
legislation. Elected officials,
quite obviously, are especially sensitive to the public opinions
of their respective constitu-
ent bases. Every elected decision maker remains cognizant of
the positions favored or
opposed by their constituents. The difficulty, however, is that
formulation of public opin-
ion can be shaped and changed as new information and events
develop. For example, as
the public and policy makers learned more about HIV and
AIDS, the policy positions of
policy actors changed and became more supportive of policy
attempting to alleviate the

74. situation and help those suffering from the disease.
Executive Arena
The president, the president’s cabinet, and the agencies that fall
under the responsibility
of the executive branch constitute an additional playing field of
action. Legislative pro-
posals often develop under the direction or guidance of the
president. The preparation
of the fiscal year federal budget that covers all proposed federal
spending represents the
most consistent example of a presidential policy proposal.
Within the executive branch,
cabinet and agency officials also play an integral role in the
development of the budget,
offer policy initiatives, and develop their own regulatory
proposals to address areas of
agency responsibility. As a playing field of action, the
president, the cabinet, and agency
officials will not only prove essential to the development of
policy proposals but also
directly affect whether a policy is adopted via their support—or
lack of it.
Congressional Arena
Congress’s significance as a playing field of action extends
beyond the two chambers to
include both the formal and informal sets of actors who
influence and affect policy adop-
tion. Clearly, within this arena, the voting positions of the 535
members of Congress are
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 174 11/21/12 12:48 PM

75. Section 5.9 Arenas of Action: The Playing Field CHAPTER 5
the most important in ascertaining whether a policy is likely to
be adopted. However, a
member of Congress’s ability to affect explicitly whether a
policy is adopted or not also
depends on the member’s party seniority, position on the
relevant committee, whether
the member is part of the party leadership, and whether the
member’s vote is critical to
develop a majority for or against the policy.
The Political Arena
Through the policy adoption stage, various political players’
personal agendas inter-
mingle within all of the previous playing fields of action. These
sets of noninstitutional
actors—party organizations, interest groups, political
associations, lobbyists, and citizen
activists—represent how intrinsically political the business of
policy making is in mod-
ern U.S. politics. Each of these actors plays a constant role in
attempting to influence the
positions of elected officials critical to the adoption of a policy.
For such political actors,
the goal remains a desire to maximize their self-interests, or the
interests of their clients
or members, at the expense of those with differing interests.
The goal for such actors is
seldom the adoption of the best policy.
National party organizations, such as the Republican National
Committee (RNC) or the

76. Democratic National Committee (DNC), provide fiscal and
electoral resources to elected
members and would-be representatives. During the election
cycle, and especially in what
are expected to be close and contentious congressional
elections, many members of Con-
gress depend on the financial monies and election infrastructure
necessary to run a mod-
ern, media-driven campaign. For members of Congress, their
future in politics can be
affected by the extent to which they can garner the necessary
party support. Therefore,
where a national party organization stands on key policy
proposals, as well as the mem-
ber’s dependence on the party, can provide insight into the
positions a representative may
take during policy adoption.
Interest groups and political associations, in comparison, remain
engaged in the legislative
process from the moment a piece of legislation is even
considered for introduction. These
actors will readily make initiatives and proposals for policy
solutions as they seek to fur-
ther their legislative goals. More important, associations and
interest groups are extremely
active in mobilizing and building coalitions to advance their
legislative interests. Interest
groups can also be essential in influencing the legislative
positions of members of Con-
gress. These groups not only offer policy analyses and
proposals but also actively recruit
members of their association to lobby members of Congress or
the executive branch in
support of their preferred policy positions.

77. Lobbying campaigns are the hallmark strategy by which such
noninstitutional political
actors attempt to influence policy adoption. Lobbying
campaigns include media cam-
paigns, attempts to mobilize members’ voting behavior, letter
and advocacy campaigns,
building political coalitions with other policy actors, as well as
the use of monies to foster
access and influence with members who are essential to policy
adoption in Congress and
the executive branch. To what extent such actors influence
policy adoption depends on
the strategies they employ during the policy process.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 175 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption
The previous description of policy adoption and the legislative
process suggests that it is so complex and so institutional that
only the professional political actors can affect the votes of
critical decision makers in government. In actuality, average
citi-
zens can—if they choose—become citizen activists and
successfully influence which policy
actions are adopted by decision makers. The way such influence
develops involves a pro-
cess and strategy that an array of policy actors can adopt (see
Figure 5.9).
Figure 5.9: A process used to influence the adoption of policy

78. Average citizens can successfully influence policy adoption.
Vote For Adoption Vote Against Adoption
Influence
Meetings
Mobilized
Members
and Votes
Direct
Lobbying
Mail/
Telephone
Campaign
Media
Campaign
Policy Positions
Elected Officials
Active Cititzens and Groups
Direct Influence
Indirect Influence
Unelected Officials
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 176 11/21/12 12:48 PM

79. Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
Some of the available means of influencing policy adoption
include: mobilizing members
and votes, direct lobbying, focused mail and telephone
campaigns, and an aggressive
multimedia campaign.
Mobilizing Members and Votes
For the political activist, influencing elected decision makers
depends on the ability to
mobilize politically like-minded individuals, such as members
of one’s interest group, to
display a show of political force.
Mobilizing requires seeking out
individuals willing to actively
participate in the political process.
Participation may first come in the
form of joining a grassroots move-
ment, which is a loosely organized
group of interested citizens or a
more organized interest group.
Vital to effective mobilizing, how-
ever, is whether members seek to
directly influence elected officials.
The power of mobilizing within a
democratic system is that it pro-
vides a clear political message
that members will vote for elected
officials who support their legis-
lative positions. Because elected
officials are especially cognizant

80. of the political power of disaffected voters, a well-organized
mass of potential voters can
affect whether a decision maker will support a specific policy
position.
Instrumental to mobilizing the ultimate political power of
members of an interest group
or movement is the size of the group. In general, more political
influence is obtained as
the size of the group increases relative to the size of the
electorate. Clearly, sheer numbers
of supporters can translate into both potential votes and
potential political influence. To
what extent a decision maker may be influenced roughly
depends on the size and cohe-
sion of the membership, and whether a group’s support is
essential for reelection. Still,
a small, well-organized group can acquire influence if it is
extremely impassioned, orga-
nized, well financed, and focused in its advocacy efforts. For
example, Mothers Against
Drunk Driving (MADD) began as an especially small interest
group in 1980. Founded in
California by Candice Lightner after a drunk driver killed her
teenage daughter, MADD
has become extremely successful in influencing the adoption of
policies designed to
reduce drunk driving. Today MADD is recognized as a major
interest group, with mem-
bers across the nation.
Getty Images
Attempting to mobilize members’ voting behaviors through
grassroots techniques can be one portion of a campaign.

81. the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 177 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
The Corrupt Side of Lobbying
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff was an extremely influential
Washington lobbyist, but his influence was not
achieved on charisma alone. Abramoff lavished politicians with
expensive gifts such as golf trips and
Super Bowl tickets. He discusses how these and other
techniques helped him gain his widespread
influence, and he notes that he is not the only person to employ
such methods: http://www.you
tube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
1. What does the video segment say about the role of lobbyists
in the legislative process?
2. How did Abramoff influence congressional members and
their staff?
3. How do our legislative system and the process of policy
adoption permit such abuses to occur?
Direct Lobbying
Direct lobbying attempts in an explicit way to influence the
voting or decisions of elected
or other political decision makers. Either through hiring a
lobbyist or by developing and
engaging in a lobbying campaign, direct lobbying promotes
specific policy positions.
Overall, lobbying is an exercise that uses money, knowledge of
the issue, and access to

82. key officials in order to obtain the desired legislative outcome.
Lobbyists, through fundraisers for and contributions to
candidates and parties, can use
money to develop contacts and access. Although money does
not necessarily translate
into direct influence on policy positions, it represents a
powerful tool for lobbyists to gar-
ner access, be able to meet with staff and decision makers, and
present positions to policy
makers instrumental to policy adoption. Money also helps
finance the campaigns—via
the fostering of meetings, presentation materials, and other
research—that allow lobby-
ists to establish knowledge and clear positions for issues during
meetings with decision
makers (Schneier & Gross, 1993).
Knowledge of an issue and the ability to provide clear and
factual information are ingredi-
ents of influence in direct lobbying. With greater information
and knowledge of an issue,
the direct lobbyist can move from being merely a source of
influence to a source of infor-
mation for the decision maker (Smith, 1988; Sherrill, 2000).
Lobbyists prove to be essen-
tial sources of information for decision makers and their staffs
as they formulate policy,
evaluate the consequences of a proposal, and determine whether
or not to adopt a specific
public policy position.
Direct lobbying may rise and fall depending on the access that
the lobbying campaign can
gain and exploit. Access provides the basic opportunity to meet
directly and to influence

83. the opinions and positions of decision makers. Such direct
access and meetings provide
lobbyists with the opportunity to build interpersonal
relationships with staff and decision
makers, establish themselves as knowledgeable experts about
the issues for which they
lobby, and allow them to communicate the political and policy
position they prefer the
decision maker take when deciding whether to adopt a policy
proposal.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 178 11/21/12 12:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10
Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
Focused Mail and Telephone Campaigns
The notion of a letter, fax, or telephone campaign may seem
antiquated in an era of such
modern technologies as e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, and
LinkedIn. However, according to
former governmental officials and staffers in Congress, a well-
designed, focused mail and
telephone campaign represents a potent weapon with which to
influence the opinions of
the decision maker. When conducted appropriately, a personal
letter and mail campaign
reflects the emotion and passion that can affect how actors in
the political process perceive
issues and policy proposals.
A letter campaign can be either handwritten, pro forma

84. (prewritten petitions that con-
stituents simply sign and mail), or e-mail. According to former
officials, representatives,
and staffers, a well-designed campaign can influence how they
see an issue vis-à-vis their
constituency. In particular, a personal, handwritten letter
reflects an increasingly rare con-
stituent action that a policy actor sees as an authentic emotional
expression. An e-mail
or pro forma letter has less emotional significance, but can
resonate if a large number
of citizens participate. Similarly, a telephone campaign garners
influence depending on
the number of calls constituents make in favor of a given issue
position. For the elected
official, the relative dearth of letters and calls made by
constituents concerning many of
the issues Congress debates suggests that a well-organized,
mobilized campaign can and
does greatly influence the course of policy adoption. (More
commonly, many congressio-
nal offices will tally the calls, e-mails, and letters, in order to
roughly evaluate the issue
positions from constituents.)
Aggressive Multimedia Campaigns
Modern advocacy requires not only the exploitation of
traditional tools but also a realiza-
tion that politics and policy operate within a society where a
variety of media sources
frame perceptions and issues. Accordingly, successful advocacy
requires a strategy with
which to build attention and support across a wide swath of the
public and political arena.
An aggressive media campaign mobilizes the disinterested and

85. uninformed public and
political decision maker and further mobilizes the already
politically active. Figure 5.10
highlights some of the elements of a successful media
campaign.
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 179 11/21/12 12:48 PM
Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.10: Elements of media campaigns to influence the
adoption of
public policy
Successful media campaigns can bring attention to issues and
can increase both public and political support.
Press releases, for example, raise awareness about new policy
analyses, special reports
on the problem, and public marches or forums that could lead to
coverage by local or
national news services. Letters to media editors and opinion
pieces represent an attempt
to influence newspaper, magazine, or broadcast positions or to
interject preferences for
certain policy positions within the public debate. Further, radio
talk-show call-ins are
an organized attempt to frame and structure the public debate
surrounding an issue.
Similarly, TV interviews of advocates or encouraging special
reports on an issue of con-
cern represent the goal of influencing public opinion through
the most commonly used
communication medium. Distributing handouts, fliers, and

86. leaflets is a basic grassroots
strategy to build public attention by raising awareness person-
by-person. Finally, the
Internet has revolutionized the ways in which citizens
communicate and inform each
other; it is a relatively simple way to reach supporters and
“educate” those who might
not be supporters about issue positions and other types of
information about the cam-
paign and opponents.
Press Releases
Radio Talk-Show
Call-Ins
Letters to Media
Editors and
Opinion Pieces
TV News
Interviews
Websites,
Facebook,
Twitter
Handouts,
Fliers, Leaflets
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 180 11/21/12 12:48 PM

87. Section 5.10 Influencing Policy Adoption CHAPTER 5
Case Study: Net Neutrality and Policy Development
Today’s technology operates in an increasingly cloud-based
computing environment, an environment where more and
more of the digital information used is located at a remote
server and streamed or downloaded to your local device.
Whether it’s music from Pandora or Spotify, a video from You-
Tube or Netflix, or data from a university’s research library,
the ability to have fast, unrestricted access to the Internet is
increasingly important. But what if Internet service provid-
ers (ISPs) decided to restrict access to such videos or music
contents because they didn’t like or didn’t value the content
or the media sources? This is the central question of net
neutrality—do ISPs have the legal ability to regulate the flow
of information to users or charge those users different rates
based on content or source?
Some commentators suggest the concept of net neutrality, or a
communications network that doesn’t
discriminate between kinds or qualities of message, dates back
to the early days of the telegraph,
when all users and all messages were given equal access to the
network of copper wires that made
up the telegraph system. The formal regulation of the phone and
communications system didn’t
come until decades later, when Congress passed the
Communications Act of 1934, which created the
Federal Communications Commission and gave it the authority
to regulate communications carriers,
the private companies that own the lines through which analog
and now digital information flow.
The current debate about net neutrality emerged in the first few
years of the 21st century with the
collision of three dynamics that represented commercial,

88. entrepreneurial, and regulatory interests.
The first dynamic was largely commercial. Carriers, or ISPs,
companies that built and maintained the
communications infrastructure, realized the number of digital
users and the volume of data being
transmitted was going up enormously. This growth required
considerable expansion and upkeep for
the infrastructure. Who would bear the cost of this expansion
and upkeep? The solution that many
carriers supported was to charge the biggest users the highest
cost, but then in turn assure those
same users the fastest connections.
The second dynamic was entrepreneurial. New and innovative
uses of the Internet were also emerg-
ing at an unprecedented pace. Companies like Vonage began
offering voice over Internet protocol
(VOIP), or phone service via the Internet, in competition with
the older and established phone com-
panies. In addition, the open source file-sharing service
BitTorrent gave users a new, faster, and more
robust way to share all sorts of information over the Internet.
For innovators and entrepreneurs the
possibility that carriers and ISPs would charge them higher
rates because they were smaller, newer,
or marginal users was seen as a potential threat and constraint
to the opportunities afforded by
these new and emerging technologies.
The third dynamic was regulatory. Changes in the technology
and in the communications industry
cast the FCC’s regulatory author into question, requiring several
years of administrative, legislative,
and judicial clarification. Some of the uncertainty was resolved
in 2005 when the Supreme Court
ruled that the FCC did in fact have jurisdiction over broadband

89. providers in relation to competition
issues. Following the court’s decision, the FCC released its
Internet Policy Statement confirming that
the FCC retained the jurisdiction to ensure that ISPs and their
networks are operated
Baran Ozdemir/Vetta/Getty Images
Much of the digital information
streamed today is located on
remote servers.
(continued)
the80472_05_c05_145-188.indd 181 11/21/12 12:49 PM
Summary CHAPTER 5
Summary
Once policy actors have thoroughly examined various solutions
to public prob-lems and have formulated a preferred policy,
they must formally adopt the pol-icy. However, even after
policy adoption, policy formulation is a battle that never
ends, because more often than not, the problem is not solved.
By evaluating implemented
policy, policy makers can change or terminate adopted policy.
The relationship between
formulation and adoption is clear: The nature of a problem
affects how policy makers
formulate solutions and which solution they finally adopt.
Policy adoption is the stage in
the policy process in which policy makers decide what type of
policy action, if any, they