How Federalism Muddies the Waters of Interest Group Decision-Making
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 6-2014 Like Oil and Water: How Federalism Muddies the Waters of Interest Group Decision-Making Melissa Shaffer-O’Connell Western Michigan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the American Politics Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation Shaffer-O’Connell, Melissa, "Like Oil and Water: How Federalism Muddies the Waters of Interest Group Decision-Making" (2014). Dissertations. 294. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/294 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIKE OIL AND WATER: HOW FEDERALISM MUDDIES THE WATERS OF INTEREST GROUP DECISION-MAKING by Melissa Shaffer-O’Connell A dissertation submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Political Science Western Michigan University June 2014 Doctoral Committee: Priscilla Lambert, Ph.D., Chair Denise Keele, Ph.D. Lynne Heasley, Ph.D. Matthew Mingus, Ph.D. Sybil Rhodes, Ph.D. LIKE OIL AND WATER: HOW FEDERALISM MUDDIES THE WATERS OF INTEREST GROUP DECISION-MAKING Melissa Shaffer-O’Connell, Ph.D. Western Michigan University, 2014 Federalism often creates additional decisions for interest groups in determining how best to advocate for their policy recommendations in the legislative process. Should they focus their advocacy at the local, state, or national level of government? What activities should they use at each level of government? This dissertation examines interest group behaviors in water quality policy in the Great Lakes region from 1940 to 2000, in oil policy in the Beaufort Sea region from 1970 to 2000, and in both policy areas in 2010-2013. I evaluate the reasons for interest group decisions in choice of tactics and targeted level of government. I use two major research strategies: (1) historical analysis of two case studies and (2) interviews with interest group representatives. The results of these analyses show that in many cases groups are influenced in their decision-making by which level of government has greatest jurisdiction over the policy, the internal resources and organizational capacities of each group, and their relationships with policymakers. Copyright by Melissa Shaffer-O’Connell 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation has been a long time coming and would not have arrived if not for the support and assistance of many people. To everyone who is named here and to an untold number of friends and students who have offered support on this long journey, I am unbelievably grateful. I would like to begin by dedicating this dissertation to my husband, Kenneth O’Connell, who has been with me through every step of the process. His support has been both emotional and material. He told me I would finish when I believed I could not, got angry when I could not, and, not least of all, transcribed 42 interviews without pay or recompense. There is no reward great enough for listening to 42 hours of your wife asking the same questions over and over again. I am also thankful to my mother, Elizabeth Shaffer, who has been helpful in so many ways. She told me again and again that I am smart and capable. I’m still not sure that I believe her, but it made me work harder to be that person. She also took up the day-to-day tasks that I often could not get to and made sure that I had clean dishes, dinner, and left the house fully dressed every morning. The rest of my family should also be recognized for putting up with many years of me talking about this project and whining about the difficulties I encountered at each step. Dr. Priscilla Lambert, the chair of my committee, was instrumental in getting me to this point. At key points she would either remind me gently of what needed done, encourage me to keep plugging away, or use threats to get me back to meeting deadlines. I’m not sure if she would have acted on those threats, but I was convinced ii Acknowledgments- Continued enough not to find out, which is just what was needed at the time. Thank you, Priscilla, for both the encouraging words and the threats. My other committee members were also exceedingly important to the process, each taking their turn to help me with a piece of the puzzle. Thank you, Dr. Sybil Rhodes, Dr. Denise Keele, Dr. Lynne Heasley, and Dr. Matthew Mingus. Finally, it is the Political Science department at Western Michigan University that enabled me to begin and ultimately finish this project. To the faculty, staff, and my fellow graduate students, my warmest thanks. And, again, for the colleagues, friends, and students who have offered encouragement and support and help editing, thank you. Melissa Shaffer-O’Connell iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1 Exploring Interest Group Decision-making in Federal Systems: Canada and the United States ................................................................. 1 Importance of Study ............................................................................... 4 Canada and the United States: Comparing the Two Cases .................... 6 Methodology and Data Collection .......................................................... 7 Historical Analysis .................................................................... 8 Interview Analysis .................................................................... 8 Dependent Variables .............................................................................. 9 Level of Government ................................................................ 9 Choice of Tactics ...................................................................... 10 Limitations of the Study ......................................................................... 11 Organization of the Dissertation ............................................................. 12 II. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS ............................................................ 14 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 Interest Groups ....................................................................................... 17 iv Table of Contents—continued Theories and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 26 Targeted Level of Government ................................................. 27 Neoinstitutionalism ....................................................... 27 Elite Theory ................................................................... 34 Organizational Theory .................................................. 36 Political Opportunity Structures Theory ....................... 37 Choice of Tactics ...................................................................... 39 Neoinstitutionalism ....................................................... 39 Elite Theory ................................................................... 41 Organizational Theory .................................................. 42 Political Opportunity Structures Theory ....................... 43 Other Control Variables ............................................................ 43 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 44 III. INTEREST GROUPS IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION: 1940-2000 ... 47 Introduction ............................................................................................ 47 The Great Lakes Region ......................................................................... 48 Methodology of Historical Analysis ....................................................... 53 Targeted Level of Government ............................................................... 56 Historical Analysis .................................................................... 58 Focus on state and provincial governments in both countries, 1940-1960 ..................................................... 58 Focus begins to shift in the United States but not Canada, 1960- 1970 ...................................................... 64 v Table of Contents—continued Focus on national level in the United States and both provincial and national levels in Canada, 1970-1980 ... 68 Focus on national governments by all groups and international involvement by citizen groups in both countries, 1980-1990 ..................................................... 71 Varied foci, 1990-2000 ................................................. 74 Results for Targeted Level of Government ............................... 78 Choice of Tactics .................................................................................... 83 Historical Analysis .................................................................... 85 Lobbying and media as primary tactics at all levels, 1940-1960 ..................................................................... 85 Increase