Teaching and learning in Brussels: Sinn Féin’s strategic ‘venue shopping’ approach in the European Parliament

Sinn Féin was once staunchly Eurosceptic and has periodically campaigned against the ratification of European Union treaties in Ireland. Since the early 2000s, however, they have rejected the Eurosceptic label and self-described as ‘critically engaged’ with the European Union. This article explores how Sinn Féin have used their membership of the European Parliament and the European United Left/Nordic Green Left parliamentary group since their first Members of the European Parliament were elected in 2004, with a particular focus on the acrimonious post–Brexit referendum period. The article argues that the European Union forum is seen in terms of its utility by Sinn Féin, as a venue to teach and learn from their colleagues on their particular understanding of Irish history, nationalism and party strategy. It concludes by arguing that, in a process beginning before Brexit, the opportunities the European Union platform affords Sinn Féin have led to the adaptation of a particularly novel engagement strategy with European institutions.

The American Political Economy: Markets, Power, and the Meta Politics of US Economic Governance

This article provides an overview of the emerging field of American political economy (APE). Methodologically eclectic, this field seeks to understand the interaction of markets and government in America's unequal and polarized polity. Though situated within American politics research, APE draws from comparative political economy to develop a broad approach that departs from the American politics mainstream in two main ways. First, APE focuses on the interaction of markets and governance, a peripheral concern in much American politics research. Second, it invokes a theoretical orientation attentive to what we call meta politics—the processes of institution shaping, agenda setting, and venue shopping that unfold before and alongside the more visible processes of mass politics that figure so centrally in American politics research. These substantive and theoretical differences expand the study of American politics into neglected yet vital domains, generating fresh insights into the United States’ distinctive mix of capitalism and democracy. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

The Agenda-Setting Process in Crises: Toward a Conceptual Framework

An agenda is a list of issues being discussed and sometimes decided upon. This discussion can take place in society (the public agenda), in media outlets (the media agenda), and in government institutions (the political agenda). The number of issues that can be discussed in these fora is limited and thus not every issue will get onto the agenda. Actors will therefore try to put some issues on the agenda while blocking others. Not all issues, however, have the same weight. Some issues (such as the economy) are of such a magnitude that they can bump other issues off the agenda. This ability to push issues from the agenda is also attributed to crises. After all, an event with such an impact on society will surely affect what is being discussed. Reality, however, is more complex, starting with the fact that society may not perceive an event to be a crisis even though it has a huge impact on those directly affected. And even if society defines the event as a crisis, which aspect(s) of the crisis will be put on the agenda? Will the focus be on, for instance, preventative measures, or the fact that some parts of the population were more affected by the crisis than others? By combining several strands of literature (most notably the agenda-setting, media, and framing literature), it is possible to discern five elements that need to be included in a conceptual framework if one wants to explain how crises affect the agenda-setting process. These five elements are (a) agenda interaction, (b) windows of opportunity, (c) entrepreneurs, (d) venue shopping, and (e) framing and problem definition. Agenda interaction refers to the interaction between and within the three types of agendas: the public, the media, and the political agendas. If political actors are, for example, able to define the event as minor and this definition is accepted by the public and the media, the issue will drop from all agendas. Windows of opportunity are moments in time when issues can be pushed onto the agenda and may even lead to policy change. Crises are one way to open these windows. A person who is trying to use that window to get a problem or solution on the agenda (and sometimes succeeding) is an entrepreneur. Other actions entrepreneurs can use include venue shopping—strategically selecting (and trying to access) those decision making arenas that seem to be a good bet when one tries to win a debate. To get access to these venues, however, entrepreneurs need to ensure that they frame the problem in such a way that a venue will decide that the issue falls under its jurisdiction. Framing also plays a role in whether an event becomes defined as a crisis, which type of window will open, and which particular aspect of the crisis will make it onto the agenda.

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.

Justice among institutions : the IRB as a component of Canadian refugee status determination

This paper takes an institutional approach to examine justice in Canadian refugee status determination, focusing on the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) as an administrative tribunal. The IRB is viewed in the historic context of post-Second World War international rights expansion and the rise of New Public Management as an administrative paradigm. Policies implemented by the recent Harper governments are reviewed in light of the IRB’s high permeability to executive influence and low judicial intervention; issues undermining the IRB’s substantive independence are discussed; the interaction of the IRB with other institutions in Canadian refugee status determination, such as the IRCC and CBSA, are examined in terms of venue shopping for implementing desired policy. The possibility of integrating adversarial-style hearings into the IRB while maintaining its currently centralized research and jurisprudence is proposed. Keywords: separation of powers, refugee status determination, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, administrative tribunal, rights expansion, managerialization, New Public Management, endogeneity of law, executive permeability, judicial intervention, venue shopping, inquisitorial hearing, adversarial hearing.

Justice among institutions : the IRB as a component of Canadian refugee status determination

This paper takes an institutional approach to examine justice in Canadian refugee status determination, focusing on the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) as an administrative tribunal. The IRB is viewed in the historic context of post-Second World War international rights expansion and the rise of New Public Management as an administrative paradigm. Policies implemented by the recent Harper governments are reviewed in light of the IRB’s high permeability to executive influence and low judicial intervention; issues undermining the IRB’s substantive independence are discussed; the interaction of the IRB with other institutions in Canadian refugee status determination, such as the IRCC and CBSA, are examined in terms of venue shopping for implementing desired policy. The possibility of integrating adversarial-style hearings into the IRB while maintaining its currently centralized research and jurisprudence is proposed. Keywords: separation of powers, refugee status determination, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, administrative tribunal, rights expansion, managerialization, New Public Management, endogeneity of law, executive permeability, judicial intervention, venue shopping, inquisitorial hearing, adversarial hearing.

Federalism and LGBT Politics and Policy in the United States

The LGBT policymaking process in the United States is fragmented and LGBT citizens face different policy contexts depending on which local government and state they reside in. With a lack of national consensus on LGBT rights and the country’s federal political system, which allows states to have substantial policymaking authority, policymakers have created a diverse and decentralized set of policies. Indeed, this governmental system significantly shapes the opportunity structure for the adoption of LGBT inclusive policy. It allows for remarkable LGBT rights advances in some states and localities, but little to no progress in others. States in the Northeast and on the West Coast tend to have more LGBT inclusive policies than those in the South or Midwest. In some instances, localities in states that lack inclusive policies engage in compensatory policymaking to provide added LGBT protections. However, the ability of localities to do this is shaped by state law concerning home rule authority and whether the state legislature has decided to proscribe such action. When trying to advance LGBT rights policy, advocates must venue-shop for favorable policymaking circumstances. Favorable circumstances commonly include institutional control by Democrats or municipalities with greater diversity, higher education levels, and more people engaged in management, business, science, and arts occupations. Opponents to LGBT rights are engaged in venue-shopping as well, but they normally hold the defensive advantage of maintaining the status quo. Both proponents and opponents of LGBT rights have used the court systems of states and the national government to shape LGBT rights related policy.

The Politics of Regime Complexity in International Derivatives Regulation

This book examines the post-crisis international derivatives regulation by bringing together the international relations literature on regime complexity and the international political economy literature on financial regulation. Specifically, it addresses three interconnected questions. What factors drove international standard-setting on derivatives post-crisis? Why did international regime complexity emerge? How was it managed and with what outcomes? Theoretically, this research innovatively combines a state-centric, a transgovernmental and a business-led explanations. Empirically, it examines all the main sets of standards (or elemental regimes) concerning derivatives, namely: trading, clearing, and reporting derivatives; resilience, recovery, and resolution of central counterparties; bank capital requirements for bank exposures to central counterparties and derivatives; margins for derivatives non-centrally cleared. Regime complexity in derivatives ensued from the multi-dimensionality and the interlinkages of the problems to tackle, especially because it was a new policy area without a focal international standard-setter. Overall, the international cooperation that took place in order to promote regulatory precision, stringency, and consistency in the regime complex on derivatives was remarkable, especially considering the large number of policy actors involved (states, private actors, regulators). The main jurisdictions played an important role in managing regime complexity, but their effectiveness was constrained by limited domestic coordination. Networks of regulators facilitated international standard-setting and contributed to managing regime complexity through formal and informal tools. The financial industry, at times, lobbied in favour of less precise and stringent rules, engaging in international ‘venue shopping’; other times, it promoted regulatory harmonization and consistency.

The Systemic Turn and Participatory Budgeting: The Case of Rio Grande do Sul

Participatory budgeting (PB) has been one of the most popular local democratic reforms in Latin America in recent decades. This article examines what happened to PB when it was scaled up to the state level and integrated in a participatory system in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (2011–14). Using theories of deliberative systems, multichannel participation, ‘venue shopping’ (the practice of seeking the most favourable policy venue) and countervailing power, as well as a multimethod research design, we explain how the systems approach allowed for both deliberation and direct democracy and mobilised new sectors to participate online. However, on the negative side, the different participation channels undermined each other. Social movements migrated to other spaces, leaving the budgeting process open to control by well-established, powerful public-sector groups.