Public Participation and Claimsmaking
Evidence Utilization and Divergent Policy Frames in California's Ergonomics Rulemaking
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6295437 |
|---|---|
| Authors | C Jewell, Cassie Pickens Jewell (University of California, San Francisco), Lisa Bero (0000-0003-1893-6651, University of California, San Francisco) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 625-650 |
| Publication date | 2006-12-20 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1053-1858 • E-ISSN: 1477-9803 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/jopart/mul023 |
| OpenAlex | W1991849444 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 27 |
| References cited | 15 |
Notice and comment provisions in agency rulemaking provide an important mechanism for the public to contribute to policy. Yet there is limited research on how interest groups participate in this process. California's passage of an ergonomics standard in 1997, the only current state statute in the country, provides a useful, high salience policy case for examining public commentary. Between an initially proposed comprehensive standard and the enactment of a much weaker regulation occurred the largest public response in California's state Occupational Safety and Health Administration history. Through a detailed content analysis of the notice and comment submissions we identify features of participation and claimsmaking that differ between business and nonbusiness submissions. Business groups were the large majority of participants and also presented a disproportionate amount of evidence, using an “abstract-technical” policy frame to assert the illegitimacy of the ergonomics standard. Labor, public health organizations and private citizens represented less than one-third of the participants and relied primarily on experiential information and a “concretized-moral” characterization of policy issues in support of the standard. The existence of these distinct “interpretive communities” that mobilize different resources raises questions about whether public commentary can fulfill its purported “democratic accountability” purpose as well as underline the limitations of appealing to scientific expertise for solving complex policy problems
Agency (philosophy · Economics · Law and economics · Notice · Political science · Public economics · Public policy · Public relations · Rulemaking · Salience (neuroscience · Social science · Sociology · Statute · Policy Transfer and Learning · Psychology · Public Policy and Administration Research · Regulation and Compliance Studies · Law · Public Administration
Speaking truth in power
Systematically Reviewing American Law and Public Administration
After the vote
Frames of Influence
Exploring the Necessary Conditions for Evaluation Use in Program Change
Responsive to What? Explaining the Information Quality of Public Comments on Bureaucratic Policymaking Using a Text‐as‐Data Approach
When Do Challengers Succeed? Nongovernmental Actors, Administrative Agencies, and Legal Change
Social media policies as responses for social media affordances
Understanding commenter influence during agency rule development
Examining How Media Coverage Impacts the Regulatory Notice and Comment Process
Administering Public Participation
Client Group Influence in Economic Development Organizations
Political Interpretation of Evidence in Contested Agency Hearings
Citizen Language and Administrative Response
Evaluating Informational Inputs in Rulemaking Processes
Measuring New Public Management and Governance in Political Debate
Emotional citizens, detached interest groups? The use of emotional language in public policy consultations
Emotion and the Advocacy Coalition Framework
Exploring Government‐Citizen Interaction in Public Service Performance Assessment
Invisible (and Visible) Lobbying
Risk Management and Risk Avoidance in Agency Decision Making
Assessing Regulatory Participation by Health Professionals
Evaluating Stakeholder Participation and Influence on State‐Level Rulemaking
Participant Voice in the Bureaucratic Policymaking Process
The Politics of Rulemaking in the United States
The Environmental Protection Agency Regulates Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Public Information and Regulatory Processes
Case Study Research
The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation
A Bias Towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy
The social construction of reality
Agency Discretion and the Dynamics of Procedural Reform
The 1992 Regulatory Moratorium
Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making
Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process
With Friends Like These
Interest Group Participation in Rule Making
Congressional Oversight Overlooked
Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead
Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the Bureaucracy
The demise of repetitive strain injury in sceptical governing rationalities of workplace managers
| Unique citing works | 27 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,59 |
| Citation span | 2009 - 2026 (18) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 26 |