Public opinion for sale: The role of policy marketers in Greater Yellowstone policy conflict

Abstract

This article develops a macro-level theory of framing to explain the intractable or ‘icked’ nature of environmental policy. Using conflict in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) as a case study, we review how proposed solutions – technical, scientific, and economic – and cultural issues often lead to inadequate policy solutions. We then propose that interest groups, the media, and elected officials do not act solely as linkage mechanisms, but, rather, as policy marketers who market public opinion to citizens. The macro-level trends of a marketing culture in tandem with the rise of consumerism are explored in the context of GYA politics. Finally, we describe how our proposed macro-level theory of framing points to a rich research agenda for empirically testing questions about issue framing, policy marketers, and public opinion formation in environmental policy conflict. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2004

Conduit or contributor? The role of media in policy change theory

“…If indeed, the media is a contributor of policy stories, such a situation most likely increases divisiveness, conflict, and policy stalemate and the ideals of democracy based on discourse, information, and rational persuasion are lost. In this regard, the media is a policy marketer contributing to policy intractability, with policy solutions that offer no long term resolution of the issue (McBeth and Shanahan 2004). In sum, this study meets the goals and standards originally set out by Lasswell and others in the development of the policy sciences.…”

Buffalo tales: interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone

“…One belief is that they are a form of manipulation that harms attempts at democracy and rationality. A series of studies suggest that narratives are barriers to such democratic participation and collaborative decision making (e.g., Shanahan et al 2008;McBeth and Shanahan 2004;Gray 2004). A second belief, however, takes a much more positive view of narratives as a legitimate expression of beliefs and a valid part of democratic policy analysis (Fischer 2003;Hampton 2009;Bridgman and Barry 2002;Roe 1994).…”

“…The nature of wicked issues creates practical problems for those involved in policy making, because wicked problems move the political discourse away from robust deliberations that result in compromise and resolution into monologic policy marketing efforts that result in lose-lose policy processes and inevitably contested policy decisions (McBeth and Shanahan 2004). In recent studies, particular attention has been paid to the role that policy narratives and framing play in the development and perpetuation of wicked environmental policy issues (Nie 2003;McBeth et al 2007;Gray 2004).…”

Failed Collaborative Efforts Relating to Public Lands Use in Idaho’s Boulder-White Cloud Mountains Area

“…Many public lands use disputes are deemed to be "intractable" or "wicked" in nature (Ludwig, Mangel, & Haddad, Brent, 2001;McBeth & Shanahan, 2004;Rittel & Webber, 1973). "Wicked problems come about when social problems are so complex that people disagree about problem definition and solution, and uncertainty about future environmental resources and differences in social values makes it practically impossible to define appropriate solutions" (Lee, 2015, citing to Chapin, Trainor, Huntington, Lovecraft, Zavaleta, Natcher et al, 2008Gunderson, 1999;and Shindler & Cramer, 1999).…”

“…Competing visions for future environmental issues (Hurley & Walker, 2004), differing values or core beliefs (Gregory, Failing, Harstone, Long, McDaniels, & Ohlson, 2012), and conflicting priorities or Environmental Management and Sustainable Development ISSN 2164-7682 2017 competing economic interests (Schmidtz, 2000) may all give rise to wicked problems. McBeth and Shanahan (2004) posit that in wicked problems the political discourse moves from robust deliberations into policy marketing efforts by competing stakeholders or policy entrepreneurs resulting in a lose-lose process where policies remain contested.…”