Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:41:02.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Explaining Innovation: The Environmental Protection Agency, Rule Making, and Stakeholder Engagement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2014

Jeffrey J. Cook
Jeffrey J. Cook*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
*
Address correspondence to: Jeffrey J. Cook, Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, 1782 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523; (phone) 970-491-5156; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been considered one of the most innovative federal agencies in the nation, and the agency recently has employed a new stakeholder engagement practice in rule makings termed shuttle diplomacy. Though the agency has long been experimenting with new stakeholder practices, it is unclear what factors explain the agency’s decision to settle on shuttle diplomacy. This study conducts original interviews with senior career civil servants at the EPA to unpack this decision-making process. These data are then structured by applying Toddi Steelman’s (2010) implementing innovation framework so as to assess what factors are most impactful in the adoption of this new innovative procedure at the EPA. This research suggests that Steelman’s structure and individual variable are of value in explaining the EPA’s rationale for adopting this new practice. Finally, this research discusses the implications of this approach and the practical and political constraints that impact its use.

Environmental Practice 16: 171–181 (2014)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 171 - 181
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). 1995. Building Consensus in Agency Rulemaking: Implementing the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. ACUS, Washington, DC, 75 pp. Available at http://archive.org/details/gov.acus.1995.consensus.Google Scholar
Balla, S.J., and Wright, J.R., 2003. Consensual Rule Making and the Time It Takes to Develop Rules. In Politics, Policy, and Organizations: Frontiers in the Scientific Study of Bureaucracy, G.A. Krause and K.J. Meier, eds. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 187–206.Google Scholar
Bryner, G.C. 1987. Bureaucratic Discretion: Law and Policy in Federal Regulatory Agencies. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 117 pp.Google Scholar
Bryson, N.S., and Mannix, R.J. 2001. Better Regulations: The Bush Administration EPA Blueprint. Environmental Quality Management 11(1):101–104.Google Scholar
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (CCSTG). 1993. June. Risk and the Environment: Improving Regulatory Decision Making. CCSTG, New York, 150 pp. Available at http://www.ccstg.org/pdfs/RiskEnvironment0693.pdf.Google Scholar
Clinton, W.J., President. 1993. February. Executive Order #12838: Termination and Limitation of Federal Advisory Committees. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100846.Google Scholar
Clinton, W.J., President. 1994. June. Executive Order #12866: Regulatory Planning and Review. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/orders/2646.html.Google Scholar
Coglianese, C. 1997. Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking. Duke Law Journal 46(6):1255–1348. Available at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol46/iss6/1/.Google Scholar
Coglianese, C. 2001. Assessing the Advocacy of Negotiated Rulemaking: A Response to Philip Harter. New York University Environmental Law Journal 9(2):386–447.Google Scholar
Cook, J.J., and Rinfret, S.R. 2013a. The EPA Regulates GHG Emissions: Is Anyone Paying Attention? Review of Policy Research 30(3):263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, J.J., and Rinfret, S.R. 2013b. A Revised Look: EPA Rulemaking Processes. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 3(3):279–289.Google Scholar
Cook, J.J., and Rinfret, S.R. 2014. Are They Really So Different? Climate Change Rule Development in the USA and UK. Journal of Public Affairs, doi:10.1002/pa.1512.Google Scholar
Copeland, C.W., for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. September 18. CRS Report for Congress: Negotiated Rulemaking. Congressional Research Service Report RL32452. Government and Finance Division, CRS, Washington, DC, 8 pp. Available at http://bit.ly/fVypjp.Google Scholar
Croley, S.P. 1996. Practical Guidance on the Applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. American University Administrative Law Journal 10:111–178.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Our Mission and What We Do. EPA, Washington, DC. http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Current Leadership. EPA, Washington, DC. http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/current-leadership/.Google Scholar
Field, A.B., and Robb, K.E.B. 1990. EPA Rulemakings: Views from Inside and Outside. Natural Resources & Environment 5(1):9–13.Google Scholar
Fiorino, D.J. 1988. Regulatory Negotiation as a Policy Process. Public Administration Review 48(4):764–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorino, D.J. 1990. Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 15(2):226–243.Google Scholar
Fiorino, D.J. 1995. Regulatory Negotiation as a Form of Public Participation. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, J. Mumpower and O. Renn, eds. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 223–237.Google Scholar
Fiorino, D.J. 2006. The New Environmental Regulation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 304 pp.Google Scholar
Fiorino, D.J. 2009. Regulating for the Future: A New Approach for Environmental Governance. In Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy, D.A. Mazmanian and M.E. Kraft, eds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorino, D.J. 2012. Environmental Bureaucracies: The Environmental Protection Agency Chapter. In Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy, M.E. Kraft and S. Kamieniecki, eds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 329–354.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. 1997. Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State. UCLA Law Review 45(1):1–98.Google Scholar
Funk, W. 1997. Bargaining toward the New Millennium: Regulatory Negotiation and the Subversion of the Public Interest. Duke Law Journal 46(28):1351–1388. Available at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol46/iss6/2/.Google Scholar
Furlong, S.R. 1995. Reinventing Regulatory Development at the Environmental Protection Agency. Policy Studies Journal 23(3):466–482.Google Scholar
Golden, M.M. 1998. Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2):245–270.Google Scholar
Gore, A.A., Vice President. 1993a, September. Improving Regulatory Systems: Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/reg.html.Google Scholar
Gore, A.A., Vice President. 1993b, September 10. From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs Less—Report of the National Performance Review. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 175 pp. Available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED384294&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED384294.Google Scholar
Harter, P.J. 1982. Negotiating Regulations: A Cure for Malaise. Georgetown Law Journal 71:1–116.Google Scholar
Harter, P.J. 1997. Fear of Commitment: An Affliction of Adolescents. Duke Law Journal 46(6):1389–1429. Available at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol46/iss6/3/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, L.P. 2009, January 23. Opening Memo to EPA Employees. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2009/01/26/opening-memo-to-epa-employees/.Google Scholar
Jupp, V. 2006. The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. Sage, Los Angeles, 352 pp.Google Scholar
Kamieniecki, S. 2006. Corporate America and Environmental Policy: How Often Does Business Get Its Way? Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 348 pp.Google Scholar
Kerwin, C.M., and Furlong, S.R. 2011. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy, 4th edition. CQ Press, Washington, DC, 296 pp.Google Scholar
Kerwin, C.M., and Langbein, L.I. 2000. Regulatory Negotiation Versus Conventional Rulemaking: Claims, Counter Claims, and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(3):599–632.Google Scholar
Klyza, C.M., and Sousa, D.J. 2013. American Environmental Policy, 1990–2006: Beyond Gridlock. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 432 pp.Google Scholar
Langbein, L.I., and Freeman, J. 2000. Regulatory Negotiation and the Legitimacy Benefit. New York University Environmental Law Journal 9(1):60–150.Google Scholar
Lubbers, J.S. 2008. Achieving Policymaking Consensus: The (Unfortunate) Waning of Negotiated Rulemaking. South Texas Law Review 49(4):987–1017.Google Scholar
McGarity, T.O. 1991. The Internal Structure of EPA Rulemaking. Law and Contemporary Problems 54(4):57–111. Available at http://www.heinonline.org.Google Scholar
McGarity, T.O. 1992. Some Thoughts on “Deossifying” the Rulemaking Process. Duke Law Journal 41(6):1385–1462. Available at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol41/iss6/2/.Google Scholar
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edition. Sage, London, 532 pp.Google Scholar
Rinfret, S.R. 2011. Cleaning Up the Air: The EPA and Shuttle Diplomacy. Environmental Practice 13(3):1–8.Google Scholar
Rinfret, S.R., and Cook, J.J. 2014. Environmental Policy Can Happen: Shuttle Diplomacy and the Reality of Reg Neg Lite. Environmental Policy and Governance 24(2):122–133.Google Scholar
Steelman, T.A. 2010. Implementing Innovation: Fostering Enduring Change in Environmental and Natural Resource Governance. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, 224 pp.Google Scholar
US Congress. 1990. 5 USC 561–570: Negotiated Rulemaking Act. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/561.Google Scholar
US Congress. 2010. 5 USC 553: Administrative Procedure Act (1946)—Rule Making. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/.Google Scholar
Vig, N.J., and Kraft, M.E., eds. 2013. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-first Century, 8th edition. CQ Press, Washington, DC, 460 pp.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 1986. National Styles of Regulation Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 325 pp.Google Scholar
Wagner, W.E., Barnes, K.Y., and Peters, L. 2010. Rulemaking in the Shade: An Empirical Study of EPA’s Air Toxic Regulations. Administrative Law Review 63(1):99–158.Google Scholar
Walker, R.M., Avellaneda, C.N., and Berry, F.S. 2011. Exploring the Diffusion of Innovation among High and Low Innovative Localities: A Test of the Berry and Berry Model. Public Management Review 13(1):95–125.Google Scholar
West, W.F. 2004. Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis. Public Administration Review 64(1):66–80.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 240 pp.Google Scholar