By Samantha Cocco-Klein
This week’s lead precis looks at policy decision-making processes and asks ‘how we can achieve change within the confines of an established political system’. The main confine noted by the author is the US campaign finance system which permits wealthy individuals and organizations to have a greater influence on the electoral system than the less wealthy. In short, individuals with greater economic power are able to translate that into political power, maintaining a lock on who is elected to decision-making positions within government. This invariably limits the ability of other, less wealthy actors to affect change.
In response, this precis picks up Deborah Stone’s model of policy analysis “that recognizes the dark, self-interested side of political conflict but also sees politics as a valuable creative process for social harmony.” The precis argues that the greater influence of the wealthy is part of the inevitable ‘dark-side’ of politics, but paradoxes of policy-making explored by Stone leave ample space for change led by committed citizens. As an example, the piece looks at how young activists are achieving policy action on climate change. The young activists are not wealthy, not politically well-connected, and many are still minors, unable to vote or stand for elections. And yet in partnership with concerned adults they are making headway on an issue that has been considered insurmountable for decades.
A foundational theory for understanding policy making, and how to affect change within it, is pluralism, which is based on the assumption that interest groups are the key actors shaping public policy within a democratic system. Through competition and collaboration between interest groups, public policies are determined. Pluralism recognizes that not all groups are equal in terms of influence and access to government – but remains optimistic that regular citizens can form ‘power centers’ of their own, so that “all legitimate voices can and will be heard.” (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009) The role of government in a pluralist system is to produce policies that represent interests of the public, resolve conflicts, foster compromise and maintain stability (Schneider & Ingram, 1997).
A key aspect of government and its power within pluralism is that it is fragmented, between local, state and federal levels, and between legislative, executive and judicial branches. This fragmentation serves as a check on the power of any one group, which will be unable to control at all levels and places, but it also provides multiple venues to seek change. (Schneider & Ingram, 1997) Young climate activists have taken advantage of this fragmentation to seek action at different venues of government. iMatter, which was founded by 13 year old in 2009, initially tried bringing a solution to the climate crisis by raising awareness, collecting signatures for a petition to Congress, and participating as a youth-delegates at international climate talks. When this failed to move US government policy, the group allied with Our Children’s Trust (OCT) to bring cases against the federal and state governments for failure to protect the atmosphere for future generations under the public trust doctrine[i]. A second federal case, which has expanded to include violations of the plaintiffs constitutional rights, has already survived a motion of dismissal brought by the fossil fuel industry and the Obama administration, and has been described by Naomi Klein “as the most important lawsuit on the planet right now.” [ii] While the court cases continue, led by OCT, iMatter has turned to city councils as a venue where they could find the most traction. This ‘venue shopping’ by the young climate activists illustrates the ways that interest groups with limited means and influence can find spaces in which to spark change (Stone, 2012).
Pluralism has not been without criticism. Like the ‘invisible hand’ in the market that transforms individual self-interest into the common good, so pluralism assumes that competing groups and interests will also arrive at public policies that are acceptable to society as a whole. As a consequence, policy is not held up to any normative standards, and with the focus on competition and self-interest, there is no space for citizenship and regard for others (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). As an alternative to pluralism, Stone proposes a different model, that of the polis or political community. Self-interest and completion still have a role to play in Stone’s polis, but these are tempered by altruism and cooperation. Votes and money are a source of power, but ideas, influenced by emotions and moral considerations, are even more powerful. (Stone, 2012)
Within the polis, climate change emerges as a commons problem, in which self-interest and public interest work against each other. Most public policy questions can be framed as commons or collective action problems, as the costs and benefits of a given policy are rarely contained. Within the polis model, groups don’t just advance their interests, but actively work to redefine the ideas and definitions around costs and benefits, using not just arguments based on numbers and efficiency, but also through appeals to emotions and moral intuitions (Stone, 2012). The advocacy work by iMatter works well within this model of policy-making. The young climate activists are able to reframe the risk of climate change, which has been abstract and long-term, as more immediate and personal by highlighting to the adults the impacts that will occur during their lifetime. Even without formal political authority, they are able to exert moral authority by highlighting the inequity caused by transferring climate risks to children and future generations. Within iMatter’s current strategy this moral authority is being used at the local level, within town councils, to push for science-based plans to reduce carbon emissions. [iii]This moves moral accountability away from polluters and a national legislature unable to take action, to local authorities. (Stone 2012,) For OCT, it is translated directly into a legal case for inter-generational equity and justice.
The policy work of the young people does not occur in a vacuum. It is helped by the massive work done by researchers and scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) to document climate change, model scenarios and assess the likely impact of different regulations and incentives on the emission of greenhouse gases. It also relies on the support of other citizen groups active on climate change, adult mentors and benefactors, along with the provision of financial resources, including wealthy individuals and foundations. Without this support the policy making activists of the young activists would be limited. But the pressure to mobilize support is also part of the rich, messy and complex policy process described by Stone that requires us to “to interact with an audience, to persuade others, and to look outside our own will for grounds for action. Without that pressure, we could not communicate and we could not be a community.” (Stone, 2016)
[i] Cocco-Klein, Samantha (2015) Case Study: iMatter Kids vs. Global Warming, Equity for Children, The New School, http://www.equityforchildren.org/imatter-kids-vs-global-warming-a-case-study-on-climate-change-and-youth-engagement/
[ii] Our Children’s Trust (2016) Landmark US Federal Legal Lawsuit http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/
[iii] Cocco-Klein
This week’s lead precis looks at policy decision-making processes and asks ‘how we can achieve change within the confines of an established political system’. The main confine noted by the author is the US campaign finance system which permits wealthy individuals and organizations to have a greater influence on the electoral system than the less wealthy. In short, individuals with greater economic power are able to translate that into political power, maintaining a lock on who is elected to decision-making positions within government. This invariably limits the ability of other, less wealthy actors to affect change.
In response, this precis picks up Deborah Stone’s model of policy analysis “that recognizes the dark, self-interested side of political conflict but also sees politics as a valuable creative process for social harmony.” The precis argues that the greater influence of the wealthy is part of the inevitable ‘dark-side’ of politics, but paradoxes of policy-making explored by Stone leave ample space for change led by committed citizens. As an example, the piece looks at how young activists are achieving policy action on climate change. The young activists are not wealthy, not politically well-connected, and many are still minors, unable to vote or stand for elections. And yet in partnership with concerned adults they are making headway on an issue that has been considered insurmountable for decades.
A foundational theory for understanding policy making, and how to affect change within it, is pluralism, which is based on the assumption that interest groups are the key actors shaping public policy within a democratic system. Through competition and collaboration between interest groups, public policies are determined. Pluralism recognizes that not all groups are equal in terms of influence and access to government – but remains optimistic that regular citizens can form ‘power centers’ of their own, so that “all legitimate voices can and will be heard.” (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009) The role of government in a pluralist system is to produce policies that represent interests of the public, resolve conflicts, foster compromise and maintain stability (Schneider & Ingram, 1997).
A key aspect of government and its power within pluralism is that it is fragmented, between local, state and federal levels, and between legislative, executive and judicial branches. This fragmentation serves as a check on the power of any one group, which will be unable to control at all levels and places, but it also provides multiple venues to seek change. (Schneider & Ingram, 1997) Young climate activists have taken advantage of this fragmentation to seek action at different venues of government. iMatter, which was founded by 13 year old in 2009, initially tried bringing a solution to the climate crisis by raising awareness, collecting signatures for a petition to Congress, and participating as a youth-delegates at international climate talks. When this failed to move US government policy, the group allied with Our Children’s Trust (OCT) to bring cases against the federal and state governments for failure to protect the atmosphere for future generations under the public trust doctrine[i]. A second federal case, which has expanded to include violations of the plaintiffs constitutional rights, has already survived a motion of dismissal brought by the fossil fuel industry and the Obama administration, and has been described by Naomi Klein “as the most important lawsuit on the planet right now.” [ii] While the court cases continue, led by OCT, iMatter has turned to city councils as a venue where they could find the most traction. This ‘venue shopping’ by the young climate activists illustrates the ways that interest groups with limited means and influence can find spaces in which to spark change (Stone, 2012).
Pluralism has not been without criticism. Like the ‘invisible hand’ in the market that transforms individual self-interest into the common good, so pluralism assumes that competing groups and interests will also arrive at public policies that are acceptable to society as a whole. As a consequence, policy is not held up to any normative standards, and with the focus on competition and self-interest, there is no space for citizenship and regard for others (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). As an alternative to pluralism, Stone proposes a different model, that of the polis or political community. Self-interest and completion still have a role to play in Stone’s polis, but these are tempered by altruism and cooperation. Votes and money are a source of power, but ideas, influenced by emotions and moral considerations, are even more powerful. (Stone, 2012)
Within the polis, climate change emerges as a commons problem, in which self-interest and public interest work against each other. Most public policy questions can be framed as commons or collective action problems, as the costs and benefits of a given policy are rarely contained. Within the polis model, groups don’t just advance their interests, but actively work to redefine the ideas and definitions around costs and benefits, using not just arguments based on numbers and efficiency, but also through appeals to emotions and moral intuitions (Stone, 2012). The advocacy work by iMatter works well within this model of policy-making. The young climate activists are able to reframe the risk of climate change, which has been abstract and long-term, as more immediate and personal by highlighting to the adults the impacts that will occur during their lifetime. Even without formal political authority, they are able to exert moral authority by highlighting the inequity caused by transferring climate risks to children and future generations. Within iMatter’s current strategy this moral authority is being used at the local level, within town councils, to push for science-based plans to reduce carbon emissions. [iii]This moves moral accountability away from polluters and a national legislature unable to take action, to local authorities. (Stone 2012,) For OCT, it is translated directly into a legal case for inter-generational equity and justice.
The policy work of the young people does not occur in a vacuum. It is helped by the massive work done by researchers and scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) to document climate change, model scenarios and assess the likely impact of different regulations and incentives on the emission of greenhouse gases. It also relies on the support of other citizen groups active on climate change, adult mentors and benefactors, along with the provision of financial resources, including wealthy individuals and foundations. Without this support the policy making activists of the young activists would be limited. But the pressure to mobilize support is also part of the rich, messy and complex policy process described by Stone that requires us to “to interact with an audience, to persuade others, and to look outside our own will for grounds for action. Without that pressure, we could not communicate and we could not be a community.” (Stone, 2016)
[i] Cocco-Klein, Samantha (2015) Case Study: iMatter Kids vs. Global Warming, Equity for Children, The New School, http://www.equityforchildren.org/imatter-kids-vs-global-warming-a-case-study-on-climate-change-and-youth-engagement/
[ii] Our Children’s Trust (2016) Landmark US Federal Legal Lawsuit http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/
[iii] Cocco-Klein