Engo Policy Influence Via Legislative Committees

ENGO POLICY INFLUENCE VIA LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES

ENGO POLICY INFLUENCE VIA LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES IN CANADA, THE UNITED STATES, AND RUSSIA

BY MARGUERITE MARLIN, B.A., M.A.

A Dissertation in The Department Of Political Science

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Comparative Public Policy) McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Within the under-populated realm of scholarship on legislative committees, there have been numerous studies which have looked at the ability of legislative committees to achieve policy influence in the wider legislature. However, fewer have examined the ability for non- governmental organizations – particularly those with relative outsider status in the policymaking process – to influence the policy recommendations of committee members.

As environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have often worked through legislative committees to try to influence policy, this dissertation examines how the characteristics of different legislative institutions work to facilitate or limit influence by representatives of ENGOs. This is done by comparing the interactions of ENGOs with legislative committees in Canada, the United States, and Russia – countries which respectively have parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential systems, and hold in common the derivation of a large portion of the country’s GDP from natural resource-based industries.

The central research question for this study asks how the institutional organization of legislative committees affects the ability of ENGOs to achieve influence through engaging the committees, and how other factors interact with this to increase or decrease the potential for ENGO influence. A key finding that emerges out of this line of inquiry is that there is evidence that some conditions for influence in committees cannot be seen as extensions of the wider legislature but can rightly be seen as unique to the committees themselves or as manifesting in unique ways within them.

Acknowledgements

There are few occasions where unambiguous success can be felt in a single moment like it can with a dissertation defence. Trials that are bound up with our most central ambitions – those which have the highest stakes in our heart – are few and far between. To be put to this test at all is a testament to many good things, and there are people whom I would consider no less of a scholar for having failed to pass this particular examination. Nevertheless, I am incredibly grateful to those who helped me reach that joyous July day when I was told that my dissertation and defence had officially cut the mustard.

Canadian author and journalist Merle Shain once said that “the act is unjustifiable that either begs for a blessing, or, having succeeded gives no thanksgiving.” Thus, I must give credit where credit is due. First, to my supervisor and chair of the McMaster Department of Political Science, Karen Bird. I came into the program with less than an in-depth understanding of research methods, and I could not have had a better guide on this and many other subjects central to developing a quality dissertation. Because of her standard of excellence, I have derived more from a PhD education than many others can hope to receive.

Committee member Stephen McBride, whose joy in empirical evidence is infectious, furthered some of my most interesting contributions by providing needed encouragement at key points in the process. Peter Graefe – besides being an excellent TA supervisor – provided me invaluable insights into the application of theoretical literature on Canadian politics. Marshall Beier taught me unforgettable lessons on the historical context of Indigenous research before the focus of my dissertation changed from the Arctic to ENGOs. M