Windmills and Landfills: Framing Controversial Environmental Policies as a Risk to Human Health and Conflict Expansion Strategies

Conflicts about environmental policies are often focused on the risk to human health posed by a facility or technology. Genetically modified food, oil pipelines, and pesticides are examples of policy issues that have generated tremendous debate related to human health and safety. A key focus of scholarship on such contested policy debates places an emphasis on how these policies are framed, how framing alters the policy process and in turn alters policy outcomes. This research project asks how and why the framing of a policy as a threat to human health influences the policy process and policy outcomes? To answer this question, two case studies of environmental conflicts related to controversial facilities are examined and compared: a waste landfill conflict and a large wind energy conflict. This dissertation seeks to integrate an understanding of the role of risk into theories of public policy by building on the approach to analyzing policy conflicts developed by Sarah Pralle. By using a mix of qualitative, quantitative and process tracing methods in these two cases, this research seeks to understand the role of risk frames in conflict expansion strategies and how such frames are used to include new actors and institutions and thereby alter policy outcomes. The key finding in this study reveals the relationship between the framing of a policy as a threat to human health, the institutional venues in which that policy is contested, and the incentives for strategic venue-shopping these produce. When policy actors are able to successfully frame a facility as a threat to human health, they are able to shift the conflict over that facility to an institutional venue that does not privilege expert understandings of risk. This venue shift opens the opportunity to defeat the facility in a venue more open to non-expert understandings of risk. This finding is not only theoretically important but should serve as warning that institutional venues such as environmental assessment processes that restrict the consideration of risk to expert based assessments will only incentivize opponents to seek out new venues in which to pursue their goals.

Windmills and Landfills: Framing Controversial Environmental Policies as a Risk to Human Health and Conflict Expansion Strategies

Conflicts about environmental policies are often focused on the risk to human health posed by a facility or technology. Genetically modified food, oil pipelines, and pesticides are examples of policy issues that have generated tremendous debate related to human health and safety. A key focus of scholarship on such contested policy debates places an emphasis on how these policies are framed, how framing alters the policy process and in turn alters policy outcomes. This research project asks how and why the framing of a policy as a threat to human health influences the policy process and policy outcomes? To answer this question, two case studies of environmental conflicts related to controversial facilities are examined and compared: a waste landfill conflict and a large wind energy conflict. This dissertation seeks to integrate an understanding of the role of risk into theories of public policy by building on the approach to analyzing policy conflicts developed by Sarah Pralle. By using a mix of qualitative, quantitative and process tracing methods in these two cases, this research seeks to understand the role of risk frames in conflict expansion strategies and how such frames are used to include new actors and institutions and thereby alter policy outcomes. The key finding in this study reveals the relationship between the framing of a policy as a threat to human health, the institutional venues in which that policy is contested, and the incentives for strategic venue-shopping these produce. When policy actors are able to successfully frame a facility as a threat to human health, they are able to shift the conflict over that facility to an institutional venue that does not privilege expert understandings of risk. This venue shift opens the opportunity to defeat the facility in a venue more open to non-expert understandings of risk. This finding is not only theoretically important but should serve as warning that institutional venues such as environmental assessment processes that restrict the consideration of risk to expert based assessments will only incentivize opponents to seek out new venues in which to pursue their goals.

The Power of the Party: Conflict Expansion and the Agenda Diversity of Interest Groups

To what extent do political parties have an effect on the policy-related activity of interest groups? Drawing from ideas of conflict expansion and the structure of extended party networks, we argue that political parties are able to pull interest groups into more policy conflicts than they otherwise would be involved in. We posit that parties are able to draw interest groups to be active outside of established issue niches. We suggest that several mechanisms—shared partisan electoral incentives, reciprocity, identification with the means, and cue-taking behavior—lead groups to participate in more diverse political conflicts. By linking data on interest group bill positions and the policy content of legislation, we generate a novel measure of 158 interest groups’ alignment with political parties. We find that the more an interest group is ideologically aligned with a political party, the more diverse their issue agenda becomes.

The politics of bank structural reform: Business power and agenda setting in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany

Following the financial crisis, the United Kingdom introduced major structural reforms to address concern about Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) banks, while France and Germany adopted much weaker reforms. This is puzzling given the presence of large universal banks engaged in market making activities in all three countries, which suffered significant losses during the international financial crisis, and given the commitments to reform made by political leaders in all three countries. The paper explains this policy divergence by analysing how dynamics of agenda setting contributed to the emergence of policy windows on structural reform. We explain the United Kingdom's decision to delegate the process to an independent commission as an example of venue shifting which helped to insulate the process from industry framing, and resulted in “conflict expansion” by mobilizing a wider coalition of actors in support of bank ringfencing. By contrast, in France and Germany the agenda was tightly managed through existing institutional venues, enabling industry to resist the framing of the issue around TBTF and limiting the role of non-business groups—a process we label as “conflict contraction.” We argue that analysis of agenda setting dynamics provides new insights into the cross-national variability of business power.

Dynamics of policy change in authoritarian countries: a multiple-case study on China

Using evidence from China, this study proposes the conflict expansion model to explore how pressure for policy change can build up to overcome resisting force and stimulate a response from decisionmakers in an authoritarian context. Tracing the policy change processes of four national policies, this study finds that the social pressure mobilised by media reports focused on specific events is a major force for facilitating policy change in China. However, owing to institutional constraints, the influences of societal actors are sporadic, incident-based and varied by population. The policy change process is protracted and difficult when it encounters resistance from state actors who have multiple institutional access channels for influencing the decision-making process. The power distribution between the facilitating and resisting forces determines whether policy change proceeds quickly or arduously.