In the lobbying literature, the effects of competition—two or more interests lobbying on opposing sides of a policy debate—have not been assessed with regard to government agency policymaking. Consequently, neither the amount nor the effect of competitive lobbying is well understood. Using nearly 1,700 comments on 40 federal agency rules, we evaluate two questions: Do government agencies respond to lobbying by changing agency policies? and Does lobbying on one side of a policy issue beget lobbying on the opposing side? We demonstrate that agencies change the content of final rules in favor of the side that dominates the submission of comments. Thus, it seems the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” during rulemaking. We find no evidence, however, of counteractive lobbying during agency rulemaking. Our results suggest that interest groups may further their policy goals by observing more closely the actions of opposing groups during agency policymaking.
Ando, A.W. (2001). Economies of scope in endangered-species protection: Evidence from interest-group behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 312-332.
3.
Austen-Smith, D., & Wright, J.R. (1994). Counteractive lobbying. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 799-833.
4.
Austen-Smith, D., & Wright, J.R. (1996). Theory and evidence for counteractive lobbying . American Journal of Political Science, 40, 543-564.
5.
Balla, S.J. (1998). Administrative procedures and political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 92, 663-673.
6.
Balla, S.J., & Wright, J.R. (2001). Interest groups, advisory committees, and congressional control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 799-812.
7.
Baumgartner, F.R., & Leech, B.L. (1996). The multiple ambiguities of “counteractive lobbying.” American Journal of Political Science, 40, 521-542.
8.
Baumgartner, F.R., & Leech, B.L. (1998). Basic interests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Becker, G.S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 98, 371-400.
10.
Bendor, J., & Moe, T.M. (1985). An adaptive model of bureaucratic politics. American Political Science Review, 79, 755-744.
11.
Bentley, A.F. (1908). The process of government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Browne, W.P. (1990). Organized interests and their issue niches: A search for pluralism in a policy domain. Journal of Politics , 52, 477-509.
13.
Carpenter, D.P. (2002). Groups, the media, agency waiting costs, and FDA drug approval. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 490-505.
14.
Carpenter, D.P., Esterling, K.M., & Lazer, D.M.J. (2004). Friends, brokers, and transitivity: Who informs whom in Washington politics?Journal of Politics, 66, 224-246.
15.
Chubb, J.E. (1983). Interest groups and the bureaucracy: The politics of energy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
Croley, S.P. (1998). Theories of regulation: Incorporating the administrative process. Columbia Law Review, 98, 85-168.
17.
Cuéllar, M.F. (2005). Rethinking regulatory democracy. AdministrativeLaw Journal, 57, 411-499.
18.
Eijk, C.V.D. (2001). Measuring agreement in ordered ranking scales . Quality and Quantity, 35, 325-341.
19.
Environmental Law Institute. (1979). Three case studies in environmental regulation. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
Epstein, D., & O' Halloran, S. (1994). Administrative procedures, information, and agency discretion. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 697-722.
21.
Furlong, S.R. (1997). Interest group influence on rule making. Administration and Society, 29, 325-348.
22.
Furlong, S.R. (1998). Political influence on the bureaucracy: The bureaucracy speaks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 8, 39-65.
23.
Furlong, S.R., & Kerwin, C.M. (2005). Interest group participation in rule making: A decade of change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 353-370.
24.
Gains, S.E. (1977). Decision making procedures at the Environmental Protection Agency. Iowa Law Review, 62, 839-908.
25.
Golden, M.M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 245-270.
26.
Goodsell, C.T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
27.
Gormley, W. (1986). Regulatory issue networks in a federal system . Polity, 18, 595-620.
28.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996a). The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American states. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
29.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996b). A niche theory of interest representation. Journal of Politics, 58, 91-111.
30.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1997). Life in a niche: Mortality anxiety among organized interests in the American states. Political Research Quarterly , 50, 25-47.
31.
Hamilton, J.T. (1996). Going by the (informal) book: The EPA's use of informal rules in enforcing hazardous waste laws. Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Growth, 7, 109-155.
32.
Hayes, M.T. (1978). The semi-sovereign pressure groups. Journal of Politics, 40, 134-161.
33.
Heaney, M.T. (2004). Issue networks, information, and interest group alliances: The case of Wisconsin welfare politics. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 237-270.
34.
Heinz, J.P., Laumann, E.O., Nelson, R.L., & Salisbury, R. (1990). Inner circles or hollow cores? Elite networks in national policy systems. Journal of Politics, 52, 356-390.
35.
Heinz, J.P., Laumann, E.O., Nelson, R.L., & Salisbury, R. (1993). The hollow core: Private interests in national policy making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Hill, L.B. (1991). Who governs the American administrative state? A bureaucratic-centered image of governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 261-294.
37.
Hojnacki, M. (1997). Interest groups' decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 61-87.
38.
Holyoke, T.T. (2003). Choosing battlegrounds: Interest group competition across multiple venues. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 325-336.
39.
Hrebenar, R.J. (1997). Interest group politics in America (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
40.
Hula, K.W. (1999). Lobbying together: Interest group coalitions in legislative politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
41.
Kerwin, C.M. (2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
42.
King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347-361.
43.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
Langbein, L.I., & Kerwin, C.M. (2000). Regulatory negotiation versus conventional rule making: Claims, counterclaims, and empirical evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 599-633.
45.
Laumann, E.O., & Knoke, D. (1987). The organizational state: Social choice in national policy domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
46.
Long, J.S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. London: Sage .
47.
Lowi, T.J. (1969). The end of liberalism: Ideology, policy, and the crisis of public authority. New York: Norton.
48.
Magat, W.A., Krupnick, A.J., & Harrington, W. (1986). Rules in the making: A statistical analysis of regulatory agency behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
49.
McCubbins, M.D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science , 28, 164-179.
50.
McGarity, T.O. (1992). Some thoughts on “deossifying” the rulemaking process. Duke Law Journal, 41, 1384-1462.
51.
Moe, T.M. (1985). The politicized presidency. In J. E. Chubb & P. Peterson (Eds.), The new direction in American politics (pp. 235-272). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
52.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2004). Interest group influence on managerial priorities in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 571-583.
53.
Nownes, A.J. (2000). Policy conflict and the structure of interest communities: A comparative state analysis. American Politics Quarterly, 28, 309-327.
54.
Olson, M., Jr. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55.
Pika, J.A. (1983). Interest groups and the executive: Presidential intervention. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (pp. 298-323). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
56.
Ringquist, E.J. (1995). Political control and policy impact in EPA's office of water quality. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 336-363.
57.
Ringquist, E.J., Worsham, J., & Eisner, M.A. (2003). Salience, complexity, and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 141-164.
58.
Rossi, J. (1997). Participation run amok: The costs of mass participation for deliberative agency decisionmaking. Northwestern University Law Review, 92, 173-249.
59.
Rourke, F.E. (1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
60.
Salisbury, R.H. (1992). Interests and institutions: Substance and structure in American politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
61.
Salisbury, R.H., Heinz, J.P., Laumann, E.O., & Nelson, R.L. (1987). Who works with whom? Interest group alliances and opposition. American Political Science Review, 81, 1217-1234.
62.
Schattschneider, E.E. (1960). The semisovereign people. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
63.
Schmidt, P. (2002). Pursuing regulatory relief: Strategic participation and litigation in U.S. OSHA rulemaking. Business and Politics , 4, 71-89.
64.
Scholz, J., & Wood, B.D. (1998). Controlling the IRS: Principals, principles, and public administration. American Journal of Political Science , 42, 141-162.
65.
Shapiro, M. (1988). Who guards the guardians? Judicial control of administration. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
66.
Shapiro, S. (2006). Does volume matter? Public comments, agency responses, and the time to finalize a regulation. Unpublished manuscript.
67.
Spence, D.B. (1999). Agency discretion and the dynamics of procedural reform. Public Administration Review, 59, 425-440.
68.
Stikkers, D.E., Gerard, D., & Fischbeck, P.S. (2004). The political economy of setting risk regulations: An empirical study of U.S. transportation fuels . Unpublished manuscript.
69.
Truman, D.B. (1951). The governmental process. New York: Knopf.
West, W.F. (2004). Formal procedures, informal procedures, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: An institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 64, 66-80.
72.
Wilson, J.Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books .
73.
Wood, B.D., & Waterman, R.W. (1994). Bureaucratic dynamics: The role of a bureaucracy in a democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
74.
Yackee, J.W., &Yackee, S.W. (2006). A bias toward business? Assessing interest group influence on the bureaucracy. Journal of Politics, 68, 128-139.
75.
Yackee, S.W. (2006). Sweet-talking the fourth branch: Assessing the influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 103-124.
76.
Yackee, S.W. (in press). Assessing inter-institutional attention to and influence on government regulations. British Journal of Political Science .
