Framing the debate: How interest groups influence draft rules at the United States Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

Scholars have identified that interest groups can be most influential on regulatory outcomes during the preproposal stage of the rulemaking process, yet this stage is notoriously understudied.Recently, Rinfret concluded that interest groups use three frames (expertise, fiscal feasibility and instructive) to influence agency personnel at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Of the three, the expertise frame was considered most effective. This work confirms these findings across three more significant rulemakings at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and builds on Rinfret's framework in two ways. First, this analysis adds a relevant fourth frame to the model, the legal frame. Second, this research addresses why interest groups use all four frames, when the expertise frame is considered most impactful. Simply stated, interest groups use each frame to complement the expertise frame and build a coherent story that justifies their preferred solution. Thus, understanding how interest groups use each of the four frames can inform our understanding of why two groups that both use the expertise frame may have varying impacts on the agency.

The States Come Marching In: Examining State Agency Influence on Federal Rules

“…Scholars are somewhat divided on which stakeholders are most influential at this stage in the process. Wagner, Barnes, and Peters () suggest that business interests are most influential, while others suggests this influence is more balanced (Cook, , ; Rinfret, ). For example, Rinfret () concludes that the most influential stakeholders at this stage are not determined by group affiliation, but rather the arguments they make.…”

“…For example, Kerwin and Furlong’s seminal survey () on interest group participation in federal rulemaking covers a variety of interest groups including business, trade association, and public interests, while excluding state government participants. In fact, most research on interest groups compares the influence of business and public interest organizations, without mention of the presence or influence of state agencies (Cook, , ; Golden, ; Kamieniecki, ; Rinfret, ; Wagner et al, ).…”

“…This body of research illustrates that a wide variety of factors influence agency decisions including the president, Congress, and the courts (Eisner, Worsham, & Ringquist, ; Kerwin & Furlong, ). At the same time, interest groups such as business and public interest organizations have also been found to influence regulatory outcomes (Cook, , ; Golden, ; Kerwin & Furlong, ; Rinfret & Furlong, ; Yackee, , ; Yackee & Yackee, ).…”

Crossing the Influence Gap: Clarifying the Benefits of Earlier Interest Group Involvement in Shaping Regulatory Policy

“…Therefore, interest groups attempt to influence outcomes at the pre-proposal stage via their informal interactions with agency personnel (Hoefer & Ferguson, 2007;Naughton et al, 2009;West, 2009;Rinfret, 2011b;Yackee, 2012). In the context of the EPA, scholars (Kamieniecki, 2006;Rinfret, 2011b;Cook, 2018a) have concluded that interest groups exert influence via their strategic framing efforts. Not all interest groups are influential at this stage of the process, and Rinfret (2011b) posited that those interest groups that frame their arguments in scientific and technical terms are more likely to impact regulatory outcomes.…”

The role of conflict framing and social identity in public opinion about land use change: An experimental test in the Australian context

“…Whereas the effect of conflict framing has been studied by political scientists in terms of effects on perceptions of political parties and partisan policy issues, there has been little attention in the environment domain despite broad examination of the effect of frames more generally on attitudes toward environmental issues (Davies et al ; Cook ). In the land use change context, some research with U.S. university student samples has provided insight into the effect of conflict framing on attitudes toward land use change (Schroeder ; Vining and Schroeder ).…”