As legislative venues are increasingly stymied by gridlock, much policymaking responsibility has devolved to the U.S. states. This article analyzes informational inputs and participation by actors within the rulemaking context, focusing on the level of state rulemaking. Specifically, we explore the rulemaking process in Colorado and North Carolina in two environmental sectors. Using data from documents and in-depth interviews, this study finds that goals of deliberative and open regulatory processes are not met in the cases studied here, in part due to informal pre-hearing processes established by agencies which can be navigated most successfully by the regulated community.
AllenP. (1998). Public participation in resolving environmental disputes and the problem of representativeness. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 9, 297-308.
2.
BeierleT. (1998). Public participation in environmental decisions: An evaluation framework using social goals (Discussion Paper No. 99-06). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
3.
BourgeoisL. J.IIIEisenhardtK. M. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34, 816-835.
4.
BradyH.VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89, 271-294.
5.
CheitR. (1990). Setting safety standards: Regulation in the private and public sectors. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
CropperM. L.EvansW. N.BerardiS. J.Dulca-SoaresM. M.PortneyP. R. (1992). The determinants of pesticide regulation: A statistical analysis of EPA decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 175-197.
7.
CuellarM.-F. (2005). Rethinking regulatory democracy. Administrative Law Review, 75, 412-499.
8.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Environmental Protection Agency, Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the Waterkeeper Decision; Final Rule § 9 (2008).
11.
FischerF. (2005). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
12.
FurlongS. R. (1997). Interest group influence on rule making. Administration & Society, 29, 325-347.
13.
GoldenM. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 245-270.
14.
HamptonG. (1999). Environmental equity and public participation. Policy Sciences, 32, 163-174.
15.
HealyR. G.AscherW. (1995). Knowledge in the policy process: Incorporating new environmental information in natural resources policy making. Policy Sciences, 28, 1-19.
16.
HillL. B. (1991). Who governs the American Administrative State? A bureaucratic-centered image of governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 261-294.
17.
JewellC.BeroL. (2007). Public participation and claimsmaking: Evidence of utilization and divergent policy frames in California’s ergonomics rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 625-650.
18.
KerwinC. M.FurlongS. R. (1992). Time and rulemaking: An empirical test of theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 113-138.
19.
KorfmacherK. S.KoontzT. M. (2003). Collaboration, information, and preservation: The role of expertise in farmland and preservation task forces. Policy Sciences, 36, 213-236.
20.
LayzerJ. A. (2012). The environmental case: Translating values into policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
21.
LeachW. D.SabatierP. A. (2005). Are trust and social capital the keys to success? In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 233-258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
LindA. E. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
23.
LindA. E.KanterR. M.EarlyP. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
24.
MaguireL. A.LindA. E. (2003). Public participation in environmental decisions: Stakeholders, authorities, and procedural justice. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 3, 133-148.
25.
MendelsonN. A. (2007). Regulatory beneficiaries and informal agency policymaking. Cornell Law Review, 92, 397-452.
26.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
MontiniT.MangurianC.BeroL. (2002). Assessing the evidence submitted in the development of a workplace smoking regulation: The case of Maryland. Public Health Reports, 117, 291-298.
28.
NixonD.HowardR.DeWittJ. (2002). With friends like these: Rule-making comment submissions to the securities and exchange commission. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 59-76.
29.
North Carolina Utilities Commission (2007). In the Matter of Rulemaking Proceeding to Implement Session Law 2007-397: Order Issuing Proposed Rules for Comment. Docket No. E-100, Sub. 113.
30.
PotoskiM. (2004). The regulation dilemma: Cooperation and conflict in environmental governance. Public Administration Review, 64, 152-163.
31.
RubinH. J.RubinI. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
33.
SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS.BradyH. E. (1995). Participation’s not a paradox: The view from American activists. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 1-36.
34.
ShapiroS. (2002). Speed bumps and roadblocks: Procedural controls and regulatory change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 29-58.
35.
ShapiroS.Borie-HoltzD. (2013). The politics of regulatory reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
SteevesM. (2002). The EPA’s proposed CAFO regulations fall short of ensuring the integrity of our nation’s waters. Journal of Land Resources and Environmental Law, 22, 367-397.
37.
TeskeP. (2004). Regulation in the States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
VerbaS.NieN. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Waterkeeper Alliance vs. EPA (2nd Cir. 2005).
42.
WestW. F. (2004). Formal procedures, informal processes, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: An institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 64, 66-80.
43.
WestW. F. (2009). Inside the Black Box: The development of proposed rules and the limits of procedural controls. Administration & Society, 41, 576-599.
44.
WestW. F.RasoC. (2013). Who shapes the rulemaking agenda? Implications for bureaucratic responsiveness and bureaucratic control. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 495-519.
45.
WestonC.GandellT.BeauchampJ.McAlpineL.WisemanC.BeauchampC. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24, 381-400.
46.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
47.
WoodsN. (2009). Promoting participation? An examination of rulemaking notification and access procedures. Public Administration Review, 69, 518-530.
48.
YackeeJ. W.YackeeS. W. (2006). A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the U.S. bureaucracy. Journal of Politics, 68, 128-139.
49.
YackeeS. W. (2006). Sweet-talking the fourth branch: The influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 103-124.
50.
YackeeS. W. (2012). The politics of ex parte lobbying: Pre-proposal agenda building and blocking during agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 373-393.
51.
YackeeS. W. (2013). Assessing regulatory participation by health professionals: A study of state health rulemaking. Public Administration Review, 73, s105-s114.
52.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
