Introduction

In this chapter we describe state and local government policy processes and the various actors and interests that typically seek to influence those processes.  Public policy and the policy process have been defined in the following way by most social scientists that study these phenomena (Ripley and Franklin, 1987):

From this definition of key terms, it is clear that a diverse set of actors can become involved in the making of state and local public policy.  Beginning with the perception of a problem, making it an issue for government action, getting it on the government’s agenda for consideration, and finally securing relevant government action all entail the involvement of many parties sharing a stake in the form of government action taken (Kingdon, 1984). For many state and local governments the public policy process can become rather complex, featuring a multitude of actors engaged in one or more aspects of policymaking.  Broadly speaking, one can place the actors in the state and local government policymaking process into one of two broad, mutually exclusive categories:  institutional actors and non-institutional actors.

The institutional actors involved in the public policy process are governments and governmental agencies that are dealing with public affairs — namely, the subjects of many other chapters in this book, including legislative bodies, executive departments, and the judicial branch.  Depending on the policy issue in question, there are often state and local, as well as national-level institutions involved in policy issues arising in our federal system of government.  As discussed in other chapters, the United States has a very large number of such agencies and governments due to the federal (as opposed to unitary) nature of the U.S. political system.  The separation of powers provided for in both our federal and state constitutions keep our governmental system decentralized; in countries such as Japan, Great Britain or France, where governmental power is substantially more centralized, far fewer such institutional actors become involved in regional and local policymaking.

The non-institutional actors involved in the policy process, a principal focus of this chapter, are rather diverse and can include political parties (e.g., Republicans and Democrats), interest groups (e.g., the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union), social movements (e.g., the Civil Rights Movement, the Environmental Movement, the Black Lives Movement, the Gun Control Movement), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (e.g., the League of Women Voters, Project Vote Smart), and the mass media (e.g., newspapers, radio, television, the social media found online on the Internet), and individual citizens.  These potential actors are fiercely independent of the government and have different types of resources at their disposal, and employ varying strategies in their efforts to influence state and local public policy.  This chapter will discuss each of these sets of actors and describe how they may exercise influence over state and local policy processes.  More specifically, this chapter will accomplish the following goals important for a sound understanding of state and local government and politics:

• review the changing nature of the policy process in postindustrial society,
• examine how citizens can get involved in state and local government policy processes
• discuss the role of political parties and elections in state and local politics and policymaking
• discuss the types of interest groups present and the strategies these groups typically use in state and local policy processes
• review the role of the mass media in policy processes
• examine how industry and business can often exert significant influence in state and local politics
• discuss the role of social movements in shaping state and local politics and policy processes
• compare how policymaking processes differ between various systems including the separation of powers political system found in the U.S. and the integration of powers (parliamentary) political systems found elsewhere
• briefly present models of how the policy-making process occurs in state and local governments
• offer suggestions for how policy processes and actors can enhance community sustainability

Political Participation in Postindustrial America

Contemporary studies of public participation in postindustrial societies suggest that a new style of politics has emerged over the course of the last several decades (Dalton 1988; Inglehart and Baker, 1999; Wilson, 1981).  This new style of politics is characterized in major part by an expansion of what has been considered appropriate political action.  Some scholars who carry out research in this area argue that support for new modes of participation arise out of some specific socio-political changes that occurred in the postwar period (Ciglar and Loomis, 1983; Inglehart, 1997).  These scholars note that historically unprecedented economic growth, a prolonged period of prosperity, and relative political stability have created an increasingly better educated public that places new types of demands on government to address ever-changing problems arising in the management of postindustrial societies — including the challenge of sustainability.  The contemporary grassroots citizen organizations and associated social movements that arise in this context are considerably more likely to engage in protest politics or elite-challenging political activities — such as demonstrations and boycotts — than were previous generations of activists (Dalton, 1988; Szabo, 1983).  The advent of social media and advances in digital communication technology has greatly expanded the range of actions which public policy advocacy can take.  In this regard, the modern cell phone has become a major tool in the arsenal of public policy activists.

Political conflicts arising over increasingly complex issues — such as sustainable development, immigration reform, gun safety, police reform, and “wokism” in public libraries and school curricula — have generated a multitude of new interest groups, many of which draw citizens into the political process via single-issue concerns as opposed to a broad philosophical orientation to proper governance.  One such policy arena with this type of political conflict is found in the domain of environmental policy (Pierce et al., 1992).  Traditionally, in the United States environmental management was a process largely insulated from public scrutiny.  By the 1970s, however, quite widespread concern became evident concerning the proper management of the natural environment (Dunlap, 1992; McCright and Dunlap, 2008).  Environmental organizations grew in size and proliferated in many economically advanced countries, and these organizations succeeded in mobilizing citizens, in challenging traditional environmental management practices, and in presenting new environmental issues for public debate (Caldwell, 1992; Dunlap and Jones, 2002).

Given the difficulty ordinary citizens have in dealing with the scientific and technological complexities associated with environmental issues, the process by which democratic societies confront complex scientific and technical issues involving the broader public interest is important to understand.  The formation of NGOs and interest groups is critical in this respect.  The emergence of community-based interest groups and social movements has been characterized as an “eruption from below,” with demands for increased citizen input in the decision-making process lying at their base (McAdam and Boudet, 2012; Miliband, 1989).  Interest groups and community-based advocacy groups have generally pushed for increased democratization as a fundamental component of public policy.  In doing so, the activities of interest groups illustrate the inherent tensions existing between a politicized, issue-driven segment of the electorate and “expert” decision-makers operating in the realm of natural resource and environmental policy (McAvoy, 1999; Theodori and Luloff, 2002).

The prominent University of Michigan political scientist Ronald Inglehart argues that there are two distinct forms of political participation that should be recognized (Inglehart, 1997 and 1983).  The “elite-directed” mode of political action is represented by socio-political institutions, such as political parties, bureaucratic agencies, labor unions, and industry associations that are hierarchical in nature and mobilize citizens into action in a coordinated “top-down” fashion.  In contrast to this familiar pattern of citizen mobilization is the elite-challenging mode of political action, a pattern of political advocacy that is generally more issue-specific, tends to operate outside traditional political channels, and tends to make use of unconventional and sometimes disruptive tactics in an attempt to influence the public policy agenda and actions of state and local governments (Cable and Cable, 1995; Inglehart, 1997).

Elite-challenging activism is a form of political activity that usually addresses specific policy goals such as local community opposition to the location of a prison near a town or city, or concerns over the movement of hazardous materials on local roadways (Gamson, 1995; Petrova, 2013).  Sometimes this type of community-based political activism has been called “NIMBY” politics (i.e., Not in My Backyard).  In the area of elite-challenging environmental activism, Rothenberg has described this particular form of political action in the following terms (Rothenberg, 1992):

According to the highly regarded political scientist David Truman, industry groups that perceive threats to existing values often are put on the defensive by such tactics.15 One example of this is the tobacco industry after the scientific demonstration of a direct link between smoking and cardiac and pulmonary disease.  The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered on November 23, 1998 between the four largest United States tobacco companies (Philip Morris Inc., R. J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard and the state attorneys general of 46 states.  These elected officials at the state level responded to the advocacy of anti-tobacco harm groups, taking on the issue as their own.  The states all settled their respective Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related health-care costs.  The tobacco companies agreed to cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay in perpetuity annual payments to the states to compensate them for the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses.  The settlement also dissolved the tobacco industry “pseudo-scientific” Tobacco Institute, the Center for Indoor Air Research, and the Council for Tobacco Research.  The tobacco industry agreed to pay a minimum of $206 billion over the first 25 years of the agreement.

In response to the elite-challenging behavior of consumer, environmental, and social equity advocacy groups (e.g., National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council), industry groups are motivated to establish communication networks and create a common front against new policies that might negatively affect their ability to conduct business as usual.  Instead of competing against one another as a market-based economy model would predict, various industry-wide groups (e.g., Cattle Ranchers, Wheat Growers, Automobile Manufacturers and Retailers, Real Estate interests) focus on their lowest common denominator of common interest and work in concert to take advantage of political opportunities to oppose these new groups.  Such “coalitions of convenience” have indeed become quite commonplace in many conflicts coming before U.S. state and local governments.  They share a common interest in opposing any form of state and local regulation and/or taxation that would affect their “bottom line” profitability.  The emergence of new “elite challenging” forces in American society has led to the creation of a broad array of interest groups, citizen groups, political party factions, and government agencies becoming active in the state and local government policymaking process.  Each of these types of key actors will be addressed briefly in the chapter sections to follow.

Interest Groups

All postindustrial nations, including the United States, are experiencing explosive growth in the number, scope of concerns, and size of interest groups seeking to influence public policy (Nownes, 2013).  Community-based interest groups and other grassroots organizations concerned with a variety of public policy issues are variously labeled as public interest groups (McFarland, 1976), citizen groups King and Walker, 1989), or social movements (Baer and Bositis, 1993; Beaford et al., 2000).  These particular terms are used to distinguish between citizen and community-based groups, which as a whole differ in their goals from groups representing either business or professional interests.  According to the noted economist Mancur Olson’s seminal work The Logic of Collective Action (1965), such not-for-profit groups typically experience considerable difficulty organizing and mobilizing for sustained action.  Groups of this type usually seek collective benefits that are often non-material, such as preserving endangered species or promoting civil rights, and are inclusive rather than exclusive in nature (that is, the benefit sought will accrue to everyone regardless of their contribution to securing it).  Despite these rather formidable obstacles, however, public interest groups have grown dramatically in number and in size in virtually all U.S. states and in urban and rural areas alike in recent decades, and they have become important players in the American state and local government public policymaking process nationwide.

Interest groups are highly diverse in terms of their size, the resources at their command, the scope of interest and activities in which they tend to engage, their policy preferences, and their organizational form.  They can be involved in a host of state and local government policy issues, including the areas of environmental protection, poverty reduction, public safety, child health and welfare, gender equity, senior citizen services, and transportation system reform.  Such groups can be of the large-scale membership type organized nation-wide, or they can be community–based and focused on local conditions.  International organizations (commonly referred to as ‘international nongovernmental organizations, or INGOs), issue-focused think tanks (e.g., The Heritage Foundation, the Vera Institute), and activist organizations (e.g., Habitat for Humanity, Doctors without Borders, the Union of Concerned Scientists) also often engage in policymaking in U.S. state and local governments on a selective basis.  According to David Korten of the People-Centered Development Forum, many community-based and grass-roots public interest groups have been effective advocates of public policies intended to promote sustainability (1990):

Although interest groups differ quite widely in their human, financial, and organizational resources (Nownes, 2012), in general it can be said that community-based and grassroots groups tend to be understaffed and poorly financed in comparison with organizations representing private sector interests such as the petrochemical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the telecommunications industry, the insurance industry, agricultural commodity groups, etc. (Cable and Cable, 1995; Pierce et al., 1992).  Most community and grassroots nonprofit groups are managed by either an unpaid or poorly compensated staff and claim very few official members, although some have developed large memberships and/or long lists of generous financial contributors and have hired skilled researchers, lawyers, and organizational managers (Heyman, 1989).  Moreover, interest groups can have two fundamentally different types of memberships — one composed exclusively of individual citizens, and another consisting of representatives of large institutions, business firms, charitable foundations, or state and local governments (King and Walker, 1989).

Some observers of interest groups also note that there is an increasing use of professional agents such as lobbyists and political consultants, professionals (often former elected public officials or legislative staff) who are adept at influencing policy processes and mobilizing support or posing opposition to public policy initiatives (Salisbury et al., 1984).  According to the research conducted by political scientist Andrew McFarland, it is as much the skill of such agents that determines the groups’ success as it is their size of membership or financial resources (McFarland, 1989).

Another source of influence and success in the policy process is the formation of coalitions of interests.  Such alliances feature numerous smaller groups or businesses as members rather than individual citizens.  These coalition-type groups can become a formidable political force due to their pooled financial resources and their freedom from dependence upon typically highly variable individual membership dues.  Another source of group strength identified by political scientist Jack Walker is the role of powerful patrons who are located outside of the group but who provide critical financial and social networking resources (Walker 1983).  The support of the many private foundations (e.g., the Nature Conservancy, the Russell Family Foundation, the Northwest Area Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the W.W. Kellogg Foundation), of wealthy individuals (e.g., Bill Gates, Paul Allan, Norton Simon, George Soros, Warren Buffet, etc.), and of government agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Booneville Power Authority, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture) allows some environmental and public health groups to reduce their heavy reliance on individual memberships dues.

A variety of strategies have been developed to influence the policy process and have been identified by social scientists who study the policymaking process in state and local government.  Central among these strategies are the various forms of lobbying of elected officials and governmental agencies, the organizing of grassroots activists to mobilize public opinion, the building of coalitions with other like-minded groups, and the making of strategic financial contributions to supportive politicians (Baer and Bositis, 1993; Berry, 1989).  The specific strategy (or combination of strategies) used by a particular organization is influenced by various factors, including the types and amounts of resources available to it, the perceived effectiveness of the strategies available, and the governmental structure in place.  Large memberships give interest groups an advantage in letter writing, in the staging of public demonstrations, and in the training of volunteers to carry out grassroots activities.  In contrast, those organizations possessing few members but commanding large budgets generally wish to focus on influencing the election of key decision makers or lobbying such decision makers after the holding of elections.  The latter has been the preferred strategy for industry and commercial interests, and as a result many industrial interests have benefited significantly from some governmental programs and from government subsidies in some cases.

Regardless of the size of their budgets and memberships, however, Berry (1989) argues that they have compelling reasons to convince people at the grass roots of the righteousness of their core arguments, believing that changed public opinion will eventually lead to changed elite opinion.  This long-term perspective is especially the case in the advocacy of sustainability, because issues of sustainability are becoming increasingly salient among citizens in postindustrial countries (Dunlap and Mertig, 1992; Freudenberg and Steinsapir, 1992; Folke et al., 2003).

The story of Greta Thunberg, the young Swedish environmental activist who worked to address the problem of climate change, is instructive in this regard.  She has received numerous invitations to speak about climate change at high impact media events reported upon all over the world.  She has given speeches at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and at the European Parliament as well as in front of the legislatures of Italy, France, the United Kingdom, and before the United States Congress. In September 2019 her appearance at a UN climate event in New York City — to which she traveled on an emissions-free yacht — drew particular attention for her moving comments: “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words…We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money, and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.  How dare you!” That same month millions of protesters marched in “climate strikes” in over 160 countries.  Greta Thunberg has been credited with shifting some people’s views and behaviors regarding climate change.

Table 5.1 provides information derived from a 2015 random sample survey of the leaders and members of public interest groups and NGOs involved in the promotion of civil society, or civic engagement and public education on public affairs (Steel, 2015).  The diversity of resources used by advocacy groups working in civil society is quite apparent, as well as the heavy reliance typically placed upon group members and volunteers to gather the material and human resources needed to carry out necessary group activities.  Around two thirds of the group leaders and members taking part in the survey have some type of membership in an advocacy group, including individual and institutional members; and virtually all the groups taking part in the survey spend a substantial amount of their time pursuing resources (e.g., fundraising, hosting events to attract new members, etc.) rather than directly advocating on behalf of their public policy objectives.

Table 5.1 NGO Resources and Capacity

Source: Steel, 2015.

The survey also asked these public interest group-affiliated people about the types of strategies they used and about the activities in which they engaged, including their interactions with government, the public, other groups, and the mass media.  The strategies listed in Table 5.2 range from traditional forms of influence such as lobbying government officials to elite-challenging activities such as organizing and staging political demonstrations and engaging in civil protests.  While many of these groups are active at various levels of government, most groups have more influence in state and local government rather than in the national government.  This observation substantiates former U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill’s often-quoted remark, “all politics are local.”  Another finding supportive of the discussion above is that public interest groups promoting a civil society spend a great deal of time attempting to educate the public and working in concert with other groups to promote their agenda.  Of course, the strategies used by such public interest groups and industry-based groups are partially dependent on the structure of government and its potential points of access, as we will note later in this chapter.

Table 5.2 Strategies and Activities of Interest Groups

Question: “Given your organization’s goals, please indicate how often your organization engages in the following activities:” [N=175]

Source: Steel, 2015.

Yet another interesting finding derived from this study is the degree of self-perceived success of these groups.  The survey results presented in Table 5.3 indicate that 68 percent of the civil society groups believe they are being either “effective” or “very effective” in working with citizens.  The second highest level of self-assessed success noted is that of working with local governments, followed by working with state government agencies and working with political parties.  Working with the national government (i.e., Congress and federal agencies) elicited the lowest level of self-assessed perceived success.

Table 5.3 Self-Perceived Effectiveness of NGOs

Question: In your opinion, how effective is your organization in working with the following organizations and citizens? [N=175]

Social Movements

As discussed previously, political scientists have identified two distinct forms of political participation intended to influence public policy — i.e., the “elite-directed” and “elite-challenging” modes of political action.  Contemporary studies of the policy process in postindustrial societies indicate that the elite-challenging mode of politics has been very effective in bringing about policy change when it is associated with the development of a social movement.  Social movements are broad-based efforts to change societal institutions and practices that emphasize a collective identity reflective of an identifiable set of shared values.  Social movements encapsulate a broad range of concerns and engage a large number of organizations and individual citizens who become united for a particular cause.  Such movements have included the moralistic causes of the Prohibition of the Manufacture and Sale of Alcohol, Workers’ Rights, Civil Rights, Environmental Protection, Gun Safety, and Women’s Rights.  All of these movements affected state and local politics and public policymaking in state and local government.  Currently, the LGBTQ+ Rights movement is also very active at state and local levels of government.  Efforts to promote the recognition of benefits associated with civil unions and the legal recognition of gay marriage are public policy changes being sought by this contemporary social movement (Montagno et al., 2021).

Sociologists and political scientists who have studied social movements closely have identified some characteristics associated with them that have been associated with successful public policy advocacy in the past; these characteristics include the following (Gooden and Jasper, 2003; McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Morris and Mueller, 1992; Tilly, 2004; Weber et al., 2017):

(1) Sufficient financial resources to recruit and educate new members and to promote the desired policy outcomes in the general public.  Having sufficient financial support is particularly important in areas where the proposed changes are strongly opposed by entrenched groups with substantial resources.

(2) Involving people and organizations with prior grassroots experience.  Having staff and leadership skilled and experienced in grassroots politics expedites successful organizational efforts.  This is likely the case because experienced people are more likely to know which strategies work and which do not work under given circumstances.  Experienced people are also more likely to be connected to affected communities and know the political landscape within which the successful recruitment of movement participants can be accomplished.

(3) Identifying emotional issues to motivate people to participate.  This process is known as “dramatic spotlighting,” and it occurs in cases wherein dramatic events that lead to public outrage are carefully highlighted for the media and potential participants.  The advances in cell phone technology and social media platforms have greatly expanded the practice of dramatic spotlighting – most often with real time video and occasionally with the posting of fabricated events.  There are many examples of injecting emotion into a natural resource and environmental policy issues in particular — such as the filming of the clubbing of baby seals in annual hunts in Canada done by Greenpeace and a 1970’s EPA television commercial using a stately Native American elder (actually an Italian-American actor) with tears flowing from his eyes after coming upon a polluted river; while these are particularly noteworthy examples, many others could be given.

(4) Using a “micro-mobilization” approach.  Organizing small informal and formal groups at the local level, all connected to a much larger network or coalition, has been found to be an important component of successful social movements in the past.  Having people interact at the local level creates social bonds among otherwise isolated persons, and these bonds increase issue interest and participation in social movement activities.  At the same time as local bonds are being built there must be an ongoing connection to a larger movement; locally bonded people scattered across a myriad of communities are more likely to take part in movement activities if they believe large numbers of others are also participating in other localities facing the same problems they are dealing with in their own community.  The advent of social media platforms has allowed precisely this kind of timely knowledge to be shared broadly, quickly, and inexpensively.  Examples of historically successful movements in the United States would be the women’s suffrage movement (i.e., “first wave” feminism), the civil rights movement, and the early environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s leading to the annual celebration of Earth Day on April 22nd.

(5) The absence of crosscutting cleavages.  Crosscutting cleavages — such as liberal versus conservative, rural versus urban, prosperous versus low income, WASP versus ethnic and/or racial minority, etc. within a social movement — often lead to political conflict and undercut efforts at building a large, cohesive, and effective movement.  Successful social movements in the past have grown from original exclusive into much more  inclusive entities over time; starting with a core set of fairly uniform actors who maintain a steadfast focus on their shared cause, as the movement demonstrates some initial success it begins to spread across more and more segments of American society.

(6) Having a diverse and “co-optable” communications network.  Successful social movements tend to develop communication networks that connect large and diverse numbers of people to the cause — the greater the number and diversity of people actively participating in the network, the more likely the movement is to become successful.  The communication network needs to connect individual and group participants in the movement to one another, it needs to connect participants with the mass media, and it needs to connect the movement with potential new participants.  Once again, the advent of modern cell phone technology and social media platforms has greatly facilitated the expansion of social movement communications channels.

(7) Having capable and competent leadership.  Articulate and charismatic leaders and organizers are much more likely to inspire emotion and participation than passive followers and inarticulate leaders.  If leaders are identified as being too partisan or allied too closely with a particularly divisive interest group, then their ability to lead a broad- based movement is proportionately diminished.

(8) Having an optimistic expectation.  This characteristic of successful social movements is related to “sense of efficacy” or “agency” – the belief that one’s action will make a tangible difference.  People need to feel they are joining ranks with large numbers of like-minded people, and that their own participation will contribute materially to the success of the movement.  While this is a very difficult characteristic to engender in contemporary America, with only about 60 percent of the eligible population participating in the electoral process, it is nonetheless very important for successful social movements.

(9) Encouraging solidarity instead of free riding.  With many state and local issues in the political sphere, there are many free riders — people willing to sit back and watch others take action and then benefit from those actions without themselves having contributed their fair share.  Successful movements can move people to take private actions that contribute to collective political action (writing letters, attending public meetings, voting for supportive candidates, joining groups, donating money, recruiting other people, etc.) despite the temptation to free ride on the noble sacrifices of others making a sacrifice for the greater good.

Citizens

As discussed previously, there are a variety of ways that citizens can influence state and local policy processes as discussed above — traditional and elite-challenging methods.  Traditional methods would include (Dalton, 1988):  (1) voting in elections; (2) working on political campaigns for candidates or political parties, which could include convincing others how to vote, attending rallies or meetings, and fund-raising activities; and, (3) communal activities such as working with groups to solve community problems or contacting governmental officials.  In contrast, elite-challenging or “unconventional” political participation could include: (1) signing petitions; (2) participating in lawful demonstrations; (3) participating in boycotts; (4) participating in unofficial strikes; and, (5) taking part in “sit-ins” and the occupation of buildings or facilities in order to dramatize a claimed injustice; (6) posting informative messages and images on social media sites to inform friends and encourage the “liking” and “sharing” of those postings.

While citizens can take a number of steps to participate in politics, overall participation in the United States compared to many other democracies is noticeably lower, particularly in recent years.  However, the 2022 U.S. congressional elections saw a notable increase in engagement, with 52.2% of the eligible voting-age citizens casting ballots.  This level of participation is only surpassed by one previous midterm election since the year 2000.  Voter registration also soared to an all-time high for a midterm, with 69.1% of citizens of voting age registering, an upswing of 2.2 percentage points from the 2018 figure of 66.9%, as disclosed by the Current Population Survey (CPS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. There was a discernible trend towards alternative voting methods, with 31.8% of the electorate choosing mail-in voting, a noticeable increase from the 23.1% in the last midterm elections.  Furthermore, the proportion of voters who opted to vote early escalated to 47.1%, a significant rise from the 37.8% who did so in 2018 (U.S. Census, 2023).

In the analysis of the 2022 U.S. congressional elections, the U.S. Census found:

• A considerable 58.1% of homeowners voted, compared to 36.5% of renters, showcasing the impact of homeownership on voter turnout.
• Married couples turned out more at the polls, with a 61.2% participation rate, outpacing the 42.5% rate among single individuals.
• A notable 67.6% of those settled in their homes for over five years cast ballots, while only 40.5% of those who had moved within the last year did so.
• Veterans showed greater civic participation, with a turnout of 62.7%, compared to 51.3% for nonveterans.
• The voter registration site of choice for 29.8% was the Department of Motor Vehicles.
• Individuals citing busy schedules as the primary reason for not voting led the non-participation reasons.
• In terms of birth status, 53.4% of native-born citizens voted, which was higher than the 41.4% turnout rate of naturalized citizens.
• Regional turnout disparities were evident: the South had the lowest at 48.9%, while the West, Midwest, and Northeast were relatively aligned, with turnouts of 54.7%, 54.1%, and 53.8% respectively.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s inquiry into nonvoting behavior among eligible participants revealed a variety of reasons for citizen abstention.  A notable 27% attributed their non-participation to conflicts with their schedule, while 18% expressed a lack of interest.  Health issues or disabilities prevented 13% from voting, and each of the following reasons accounted for 8%: being away from their home location or simply forgetting to vote.  A further 6% did not feel represented by the candidates or the issues at stake.  Logistical obstacles played a minor role, with 2% each not voting due to some type of transportation challenge, registration complications, or an inconveniently located polling station.  Less than 1% cited adverse weather conditions as a deterrent.  An assortment of other reasons was provided by 11%, and 3% either did not provide a response or declined to specify (U.S. Census, 2023).  These findings point to areas where voting accessibility could be improved and suggest where engagement initiatives could be most effectively directed, especially in communities with a history of low electoral participation.

Because a high level of citizen engagement in self-governance is an important component of civil society and sustainable communities alike, some state and local governments pursuing sustainability have tried to address some of these reasons for so many citizens not participating with respect to specific public policies.  Increasing citizen participation is important to state and local government because: (1) voting and displaying attentiveness to public affairs lies at the heart of the democratic principles upon which the United States was built; (2) citizen participation provides legitimacy to state and local policy decisions to the extent that people recognize that their concerns were incorporated into the laws under which we all must live; (3) citizen engagement can increase the citizens’ sense of attachment to the community and engender the “co-production” of public goods – that is, citizens promote the public welfare by voluntary actions motivated by a sense of civic duty (e.g., recycle to reduce solid waste, maintain safe lighting on private property, make donations to the Red Cross, United Way, Community Food Banks and the like to provide for those in need); (4) it helps to maintain and reinforce community networks and social connections, thus increasing the ability of communities and states to respond to natural and economic disasters; and, (5) heightened public participation also can lead to enhanced momentum to implement new policies and energize community-based initiatives needed to promote sustainability.

Some examples of state and local efforts to increase citizen participation — not only in elections, but also for service on citizen review boards, planning commissions and other venues, include the use of e-government techniques (i.e., providing useful policy- relevant information on the Internet and allowing on-line voter registration), allowing voting before election day, allowing more flexible voter registration opportunities at numerous venues such as on election day, at schools, in hospitals, and in vote-by-mail systems present in Oregon (for all elections) and other states for many state and local elections.  Concerning this latter approach of making voting easier, many states that have traditional polling station elections are also allowing a very flexible system for absentee voting by mail.

One argument that some observers have made concerning the relatively lower rates of participation in the U.S. when compared to other postindustrial countries is that we have a large number of elective offices subject to election due to our federal system.  It is estimated that 520,000+ governmental positions are subject to election nationally when national, state and local offices are combined.  The sheer number of positions and candidates that the typical U.S. voter must consider on their ballot is often overwhelming.  In stark contrast, in many other democratic countries where parliamentary systems are in place (see below), citizens have only one or two offices to fill per election, making the electoral process is far less burdensome on the voter.

Initiative and Referenda:  One way that citizens can affect public policy and even amend state constitutions or county and city charters directly is through the initiative process.  In over a third of the states and in many local governments the initiative provides citizens a process to vote on proposed constitutional amendments, statutes or ordinances.  The initiative process originates from a certain number of registered voters (the number depends on the state and the nature of the proposal) signing a petition to place an issue on the ballot for a “vote of the people” to take place.  With a sufficient number of validated voter signatures either an indirect or direct initiative process ensues.  Under the indirect form an issue is first referred to state legislature for consideration, and then if the legislature does not enact the measure, that same potential piece of legislation is placed before the electorate to decide (in either an advisory or decisional vote).  In the direct form of the initiative, a measure is directly forwarded to voters for their immediate consideration without passing through the state legislature.  In many states the legislatures can also refer a specific measure to the voters for approval or disapproval.  This process is called a referendum, and differs from the initiative process because the measure originates with the legislature.  All of these types of votes collectively are referred to as “ballot measures,” “propositions,” or simply “initiatives,” depending on the state.

The initiative and referendum process is thought to have originated in the Greek city-states studied by Aristotle, and both methods of direct legislation by the people have been used at various times throughout the centuries in countries such as Switzerland, France, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Hahn and Kamieniechi, 1987).  In the United States, the initiative and referendum processes were used by many states to both adopt and later revise their original constitutions.  South Dakota was the first state to adopt the initiative process in 1898, followed by Utah in 1900, and then Oregon in 1902.

Twenty-four states now utilize some form of the initiative process.  The impetus for the adoption of the initiative process in most states was a growing sentiment among the public that there was widespread corruption in legislative politics whereby the interests of citizens were too often ignored and those of “moneyed interests” were protected by nefarious lobbyists.  The presence of patronage-ridden “political machines” in major cities and many state legislatures, whose exploits were covered in muckraking newspapers by investigative reporters, added to the public distrust of state legislatures at the turn of the century.  Within this historical context the initiative process was adopted as a means to circumvent state legislatures by allowing voters to enact laws directly.  This was one of the favored reforms of the Progressives.  It was expected at the time that the initiative process would serve as a check on the state legislature — a warning signal from the people that, if too long ignored, they could take matters into their own hands to pass laws they wanted even if their elected representatives were not prepared to do so.

Arguments commonly made in favor of direct democracy by its advocates include the following (Cronin and Rossant, 1999; Dye, 2000)):

• It makes legislatures more responsive to public opinion
• It allows citizens to take their policy preferences directly to the public for action
• It stimulates public debate over important policy issues
• It increases citizen interest and, thus, participation in elections
• It contributes to higher levels of trust in government

Critics of the initiative process offer the following counter-arguments (Magleby, 1984)

• It often leads to the adoption of poor public policies because the public generally lacks the skills, knowledge, and/or desire to cast informed votes during elections (Campbell et al., 1960; Converse, 1964; Smith, 1989)
• It promotes the “tyranny of the majority” (majority riding roughshod over the rights of minorities) and is potentially dangerous for disadvantaged minority interests (Citrin, 1996; Gamble, 1997)
• It often does not reflect the will of the people because those who vote on initiatives often are not representative of the population at large (Magleby, 1984)
• It is controlled by the very interests (i.e., special interests) that it originally sought to circumvent (Broder, 2000; Ellis, 2002)
• It does not contribute to more responsive and accountable legislatures.

Yet another way in which citizens can directly, or in some cases indirectly, influence the governmental process is through recall provisions.  This citizen empowerment process allows registered voters to petition to recall elected (and in some cases appointed officials) through popular elections.  Most states allow recall elections for local government officials, but at the state level only 18 American states permit recall elections to remove elected or appointed officials.  A famous example of the use of the recall occurred in 2003 when Governor Gray Davis of California was recalled in connection with the mismanagement of the state’s electric energy management policy in a way that made the state’s citizens vulnerable to extremely high charges occasioned by the nefarious dealings of the Enron Corporation (some of whose officials are in federal prison today for their role in those dealings).  The recall of Governor Davis gave rise to the election of the former movie actor and political novice Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Media

The mass media play an important role in state and local government policy processes.  The role of traditional television in disseminating news and information has been declining due to the rise of the Internet and social media platforms.  More and more people, including children and young adults, are consuming content on various devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers.  Streaming services, social media, and online news outlets have significantly altered the way information is being received and consumed.  Children’s screen time has also diversified across different platforms, not just television.  Educational content and entertainment for children and youth are now widely available through apps and online services.  As for news consumption, there has been a noticeable shift, with many persons turning to online sources, including news websites, apps, social media, and even podcasts.

Given these shifts in information acquisition, it’s clear that the media landscape is more fragmented and diverse than ever before, and while television remains a significant medium its dominance has been challenged by these new forms of electronic media.  This shift in citizen patterns of information gathering has serious implications for state and local politics, where politicians and interest groups may now use a wide variety of platforms to reach their constituents and engage with the public.  Media consumption habits in the U.S. have continued to evolve significantly, with digital media consumption on the rise and traditional media seeing a sharp decline.  According to a report from Oberlo, in 2023, U.S. consumers spent an average of 454 minutes per day consuming digital media, which was an increase from the previous years.  This trend is expected to continue, with the forecast for 2024 being 466 minutes per day​ (Oberlo, 2024).

The shift from traditional to digital media is particularly evident among younger generations.  The Pew Research Center has found that nearly 1 in 5 teens say they’re on platforms such as YouTube and TikTok almost constantly, with YouTube being the most widely used platform; around seven-in-ten teens report visiting the platform daily, with 16% on it almost constantly.  The same trend is seen with TikTok, with 58% of teens being daily users and 17% reporting almost constant use.  Snapchat and Instagram are also quite popular social media platforms, with about half of all teens using them now on a daily basis.  However, Facebook is less frequented by teens, with only 19% using it on a daily basis (Pew Research Center, 2023a).

Social media platforms also exhibit significant differences in usage based on age, with platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok being used by majorities of adults under 30.  For instance, 78% of 18-29-year-olds report using Instagram, while only 15% of those 65 and older do so.  Similarly, 62% of 18-29-year-olds use TikTok, compared to just 10% among the 65 and older demographic.  The use of different platforms shows considerable variation across racial and ethnic groups as well​ (Pew Research Center, 2024a).

When it comes to getting news, many Americans turn to social media for their convenience and speed.  However, concerns about the accuracy and reliability of news sourced from social media have been growing.  In fact, 40% of Americans who get news from social media pointed out inaccuracy as their main concern, which is an increase from previous years.  Despite these concerns, the convenience of accessing news on social media remains a significant factor for its users (Pew Research Center, 2024b).  In terms of the influence of media on politics, while these statistics do not directly correlate to political influence, they highlight the potential reach and power of digital platforms for political messaging, especially among younger demographics who are highly active online.  Given their consumption habits, it’s likely that these platforms will continue to play a significant role in shaping political opinions and engaging potential voters, particularly for the younger electorate.

In addition to noting these aspects of the new potency of the mass media, it needs to be stated that the mass media traditionally perform certain important functions that are essential to state and local government and politics, including the following:

• Formation of public opinion: the mass media provide information and the reporting of diverse viewpoints that help citizens form their own views of public policy issues
• The mass media help to prioritize public policy issues that come to the attention of state and local government.  In one sense, the mass media can serve as a “marketplace” of ideas; in another sense they help determine what issues come to the attention of policymakers based on their independent assessment of the “newsworthiness” of particular stories and issues
• The news media, particularly the print media, serve as an important “watchdog” over state and local governments and officials, providing a check on corruption, inadequate attention to matters of public concern, unethical conduct and bureaucratic malfeasance
• The media collectively provide an essential link between citizens and their government in a democracy by helping communicate public policy-relevant information, policy preferences, and societal values back and forth between citizens and their governmental leaders and civil servants

The Pew Research Center’s annual assessment of the news media in 2018 is somewhat dire for journalism, for the news industry writ large, and potentially for the maintenance of an informed electorate (Pew Research Center, 2018); the Center observed the following

Corporations and Economic Interests

Businesses and multinational corporations are another set of actors that are extremely important in the political life of state and local government.  The noted scholar Charles Lindblom argued convincingly that business enjoys a “privileged position” in American politics generally, and in state and local government in particular.  In capitalist or market-based economies such as ours, it is private corporations rather than government that control crucial sectors of the society (Coates, 2012; Nyeberg, 2021).  In many democratic countries significant portions of what are private sector businesses in the U.S., such as energy production, major airlines, pharmaceuticals, medical care and health insurance and some social media channels are “nationalized” and are operated by the government.  This glaring fact means that private interests in the U.S. command far more wealth, power and influence vis-à-vis governmental authorities (and colleges and universities) than is the case in virtually any other contemporary democratic nation.

Since a major 2010 Supreme Court decision, the power of corporations to spend money and use their resources in elections has increased drastically.  The U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed for unlimited political donations is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  This landmark decision held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, associations, and labor unions.  The ruling essentially equated the spending of money with protected speech under the First Amendment, arguing that as long as the spending is not coordinated with the candidates, it cannot be limited because it does not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Following the Citizens United ruling, in a related case, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, built on the Supreme Court’s reasoning to strike down limits on individual and corporate contributions to groups that make independent campaign expenditures.  These decisions taken together paved the way for the creation of “super PACs,” political action committees that can receive and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for the election or defeat of federal candidates running for President or seats in the U.S. Congress.

The Citizens United ruling did not affect the transparency aspect of the campaign finances; organizations making independent expenditures are still required to report on their donors and their donations.  However, certain types of nonprofit corporations, which do not have to disclose their donors (colloquially known as “dark money” donors), have since played a more significant role in U.S. elections at all levels of government, raising concerns about the transparency of political spending (Dunbar, 2012). The most common type of dark money group is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classification 501(c)(4), often called “social welfare organizations” in campaign circles.  Such organizations can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals, and unions with no public disclosure required.  Proponents of dark money maintain it is protected under the First Amendment, while critics maintain that the public ought to know who is footing the bill for all candidates for public office.  Dark money is increasingly a factor in state and local government politics.

There are several prominent critiques concerning the vast influence corporations have on American politics. The Harvard International Review points to instances such as Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in political campaigns, raising concerns about how big corporations and extremely wealthy individuals making use of their resources to manipulate democratic processes and public opinion, leading to an undermining of our democratic institutions (Ahmad, 2020).  The Brennan Center for Justice emphasizes the negative fallout occurring after the Citizens United decision.  Polls show that a vast majority of Americans across political affiliations disapproved of the decision and believe that corporations should be limited in how much they can spend to influence elections.  This erosion of trust in public institutions reflects a common sentiment that corporate money plays a too dominant role in our politics (Youn, 2010). Likewise, the Center for American Progress speaks to the broader issue of ‘corporate capture,’ which refers to the disproportionate influence corporations have on major parts of governmental decision-making (Kennedy, 2017).  The Center points out that since the Citizens United ruling, there has been a considerable increase in corporate donations and dark money in politics, contributing to negative campaigning and less campaign transparency.  In addition to these concerns, there’s a broader public sentiment that the political system has deep-rooted issues with the influence of money in elections. A Pew Research Center’s study shows that many Americans view “too much money in politics coming from large corporations and special interests” as one of the biggest problems with the U.S. political system (Pew Research Center, 2023b).

Some critics of American society argue that the power possessed by private corporations has generally increased markedly in recent decades as a direct consequence of the globalization of local economies and the explosive growth in wealth and influence of multi-national corporations.  They argue strongly that the combination of these two factors has led to the exercise of undue corporate influence on U.S. state and local governments that are required to regulate and or levy taxes on some of the activities of these powerful interests.  The implications of this increasing role for global corporations in local communities replacing locally owned, locally financed and locally operated small businesses are rather ominous for state and local government in the U.S.  This is the case in part because interests far removed from the community will decide the ultimate economic fate of that community rather than the community itself — and because, generally speaking, business interests oppose public policies “that they believe would impose significant new costs on them or otherwise reduce expected profits” regardless of their potential benefit to the broader community (Porter et al., 2000).  

To be fair, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a form of private business self-regulation which aims to contribute to societal goals of a philanthropic, activist, or charitable nature by supporting community development and engaging in ethically oriented business practices designed to have a socially beneficial impact on the communities affected by their organization’s activities.  National and international standards, laws, and business models have been developed to facilitate and incentivize this phenomenon of corporate social responsibility.  That said, profit maximization remains the primary goal for corporations and the influence of corporate social responsibility remains more of an aspirational goal than practical guide to business operations in most circumstances.

While virtually all political scientists agree that business interests command a great deal of influence in state and local government, there is disagreement among social scientists on just how much influence business interests exercise in the policy process.  As the discussion of public policy models found at the end of this chapter illustrates, some scholars make the argument that corporations dominate the policy process, both nationally and internationally (Bennett, 2007), while others argue that business is just one of the many powerful interests involved in the policy process (Thurber et al., 2000).  The highly regarded American political scientist Robert Dahl persuasively argues, however, that those who own and control corporate and personal wealth pose special problems for democratic systems and public policy (Dahl, 1985):

This observation suggests that in the United States and other market-based economies, business interests represent not merely one of many contending interests in state and local governments but represent among of the most influential actors involved in public policymaking in those governments.

Political Parties and Elections

Political parties are important actors in state and local public policy processes throughout the country.  Typically, political parties “reflect a political culture with distinct world views” that are organized to “seek power in government” (Baer and Bositis, 1993).  While the Founding Fathers tried very hard to insulate the new nation from the development of factions and parties through the constitutional arrangements of federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances, they quite obviously were not entirely successful in that effort.  By 1800 the United States was one of the first countries in the world to have nationally organized political parties.  With continental expansion and population growth through mass immigration and the resulting expansion of the electorate — in addition to historical reforms enfranchising African Americans and women — American political parties provided the principal means to mobilize voters through what we have called “elite-directed” politics in our preceding discussion.

Political parties provide a means for the organization and direction of competition for political power.  They prioritize issues to be addressed by government and recruit candidates to stand in elections at the national, state and local levels of government.  After elections are held, the winning party takes control of the government and the minority party calls into question the majority party’s actions in areas where they believe it is subject to criticism that will resonate with citizens in the next election.  This constant give and take, action and reaction between the political parties serves to keep the public informed about the actions of their government and aware of alternates possible to existing policies and practices.

Political parties can also facilitate the work of state government if the same party controls both the legislature and governor’s office, thus reducing the often-divisive effect of separation of powers and checks and balances.  Divided control of state government by different parties typically makes governance more difficult, requiring skillful negotiation to bring differing policy preferences into some degree of accord to permit effective action to address the problems requiring government attention.  Generally, the presence of divided government at the state level acts to restrain the scope of government initiatives to address public problems and leads the respective parties to request a “mandate to govern” in the next election.

The principal function of political parties in democratic countries is “…the development of a solid and durable linkage between the party’s electorate and the policymakers…parties are expected to represent the social composition of those who mandate them and to respond politically to the demands of their electorate” (Cayrol and Jaffe, 1980).  Some additional functions carried out by political parties in the U.S. include:

• They represent groups of interests in U.S. states and communities.  Once elected, however, elected officials not only represent their own party supporters but they also must govern in the interest of all of the constituents in their respective jurisdictions.
• They help to simplify choices for voters by organizing and articulating alternative positions on the issues facing the state and local governments wherein they operate.  Parties also help to recruit and educate candidates for public office so that citizens can make judgments as to whom to trust with the grant of public authority in pending elections.
• They can help to stimulate interest in public affairs, in elections, and in democratic governance in general.  By explaining their positions on the issues, political parties can help to inform and shape public opinion.

There are different types of political parties in democratic countries, with missionary parties and broker parties being two of the major subdivisions identified in the research literature.  Missionary parties tend to be rather ideological in orientation, in a sense of proclaiming a “mission” to fulfill if elected to office in terms of specific public policies and programs.  Missionary parties often enter elections with a “manifesto” or “platform” of specific and detailed policy actions to be undertaken if successful in the election.  These parties are able to maintain a focused agenda because they tend to exercise a high degree of control over membership and carefully monitor who is allowed to make use of the party label as a candidate.  The political party leadership itself selects who will be the candidates standing in local elections and who will serve as leaders of the party.  Missionary parties are most often found in parliamentary style governments and are seldom seen in state and local politics in the U.S.  One can get a sense of how such parties function by watching sessions of the U.K. Parliament’s question time where the Prime Minister takes questions from members of Parliament available on the Internet.

Historically, U.S. political parties have been far less ideologically oriented and seek to “broker” a multitude of interests in order to appeal to the widest segment of the electorate.  Broker parties have weak control over their membership since it is typically self-selected, and those interested in elective office generally nominate themselves in American politics.  Candidates for office in our country are selected through the use of primary elections and caucuses — two candidate recruitment processes that allow interested voters within each party to make the selection of their party’s candidates instead of the party leadership.  The use of primaries to select candidates is a unique feature of American politics when compared to other postindustrial democracies.

While American political parties historically have been generally characterized as centrist concerning policy preferences when compared to parties in other postindustrial nations, over the last decade American political parties are becoming more polarized. This polarization has accelerated in the United States more rapidly than in other democracies like Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, or Germany over the past 40 years.  Factors contributing to this trend could include increased racial divisions, the rise of partisan cable news, and changes in the composition of the parties themselves.  The parties have become more aligned with specific ideologies and identities, which could explain why people from different parties see each other as more different than in the past​ (Kimball, 2020).

Analysis based on decades of roll-call votes in Congress also indicates that both Democrats and Republicans have moved further away from the ideological center, with Republicans becoming more conservative and Democrats becoming somewhat more liberal over time.  This has resulted in a vanishing middle ground where moderate members of either party once found common ground​ (Pew Research Center, 2022).

Research from Northwestern University adds that U.S. political parties have become increasingly polarized in their quest for votes, not necessarily because voters themselves are becoming more extreme.  This research suggests that by moving towards the extremes, parties minimize overlap in constituencies and differentiate themselves to gain votes​ (Yang, 2020).

Lastly, the Pew Research Center’s studies reflect a wider societal trend, where the share of Americans with consistently conservative or liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades, leading to considerably diminished ideological overlap between the two major parties.  This intensification of partisan antipathy is apparent in the increased number of people who view the opposing party’s policies as a threat to the nation’s well-being (Doherty, 2014).

Another important feature of the U.S. political party scene at both national and state levels is the existence of the two-party system.  Since the 1860s the same two political parties have dominated the American political system — Democrats and Republicans.  Most Americans today consider themselves to be either Republicans or Democrats, and while an increasing number of Americans are identifying themselves as independents, they still tend to vote for the two main parties at the ballot box when third party candidates are an option.

Third parties have had a tough time establishing themselves in the U.S. because of our single-member district (SMD) form of electoral representation wherein the one candidate with the plurality of the vote (not necessarily the majority) wins the election.  Many other postindustrial democracies have proportional representation systems with multimember districts (MMDs); such a form of electoral representation tends to encourage multi-party systems because multiple seats are proportionally distributed based on what proportion of the vote a particular party wins.

Two other relatively unique features found in some state and local government elections are the open primary and nonpartisan offices.  Open primaries are primary elections where voters do not need to be members of a specific political party in order to vote for that party’s candidates.  Voters still have to be registered to vote, but can decide to vote for their favorite candidate regardless of which party registration they hold.  Most states have closed primary systems, which are preferred by the parties, wherein only persons who are registered members of a political party can vote using the ballot of that political party.

In nonpartisan elections, candidates run for office without listing a political affiliation.  Typically, the winning candidate is chosen in a runoff election from the top two vote recipients in the primary election.  The candidates in nonpartisan elections are most likely aligned with one of the political parties, but they do not identify themselves as party members.  Nonpartisan elections are generally held for local government offices in some counties, in many cities, and especially in the case of school district and other local special districts and boards and commissions.  Nonpartisan judicial elections are also very common at the state and local levels.

Governmental Structures and the Policy Process

Parliamentary and separation of powers governments — the former exemplified by most European countries, and the latter by the United States — are the two principal forms of democratic governance in the postindustrial countries.  In the U.S. we directly elect state governors and members of our state legislatures.  Governors typically have the ability to veto acts of their respective legislatures, but legislatures can override that veto by a supermajority (varies between 60% and 2/3s) of both houses in bicameral state legislatures.  The governor and one or both of the legislative chambers can be from different political parties, and they can and often do disagree over policy issues.  As discussed in other chapters, this political structure is called a “separation of powers” system and can lead to policy “gridlock” where it is very difficult (if not impossible) to pass legislation.  In a sense, there are ‘many cooks in the kitchen and they all have their own recipe.’  Passing legislation in state governments — and the national government — at times can be a very unpredictable and difficult process.  A member of the majority party can vote against the wishes of her or his own party and not fear having to run for reelection because the government has fallen; in a parliamentary style system, in contrast, the consequence of such a dissenting vote could well be the failure of a sitting government and the need for calling an election.  Because of our decentralized political system and weak, broker-type parties, this “gridlock” situation where legislation is very difficult to enact occurs quite often in American state government.

In parliamentary systems such as that of Great Britain citizens only vote for their own member of the House of Commons.  The political party that obtains a majority in the House of Commons then forms the government and it is responsible for policy without the undue influence of opposition parties, unless the government is part of a ruling coalition of political parties.  The leader of the majority party, or head of the coalition, becomes Prime Minister (head of the government).  Unlike in the U.S. where one finds a separation of powers, the Prime Minister selects other leading party members to become government ministers, blurring the line between executive and legislative branches of government.  The Prime Minister and the other ministers must all be members of Parliament.  This political system is typically referred to as featuring integration of powers.

This characteristic of blurring across executive and legislative branches in parliamentary systems clearly differs from the American state constitutions that established three separate, distinct, and co-equal branches of government.  One effect of this clear separation of powers is that the legislative process is much more predictable in the parliamentary system since it is based primarily on the “majority rule” principle as opposed to the checks and balances logic of American constitutional law.  In addition to these structural arrangements, there is also a tradition-based system of “collective responsibility” whereby members of Parliament nearly always vote along party lines.  You don’t see anywhere near the level of vote swapping or shifting coalitions in parliamentary systems as is commonly witnessed in American state governments.

In terms of elections, parliamentary systems make voting decisions relatively simple.  Parties run on a set of promises, sometimes referred to as a manifesto or a mandate, which will become the official set of policies for the new government if elected.  Party manifestos or mandates are typically quite specific in terms of public policy positions, and parties are expected to implement the mandate if elected.  In short, you know where the party stands on a specific issue — say, environmental policy or a social safety net program.  And, if a voter doesn’t like the current conditions or direction of government policies, she or he knows whom to hold accountable for their policy choices.

Separation of power systems, in contrast, can be quite complicated and confusing for voters since there are multiple officials to select (e.g., governors, upper and lower legislative house members, other state-level offices, judicial offices, and ballot initiatives).  In addition, candidates for partisan offices often run personalized campaigns in broker-type parties and are not necessarily representative of established party platforms.  Once elected, the voting behavior of such candidates can be rather unpredictable as well.  Because such candidates are not beholden to their parties so much as to their own campaign organizations in the American setting as opposed to the parliamentary setting, American legislators are particularly open to the exercise of influence by groups and interests which can promise and deliver various forms of campaign support in the next election.  Accordingly, many interest groups make campaign contributions to candidates in both political parties.  This is the case because broker parties will likely have a wide spectrum of candidates seeking such support, and the interest groups can hedge their bets in case their least preferred party does not win the election.

A Review of Policy Models

As noted at the outset of this chapter, public policy has been defined by Thomas Dye in the following way: “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (Dye, 1998).  While there is general agreement among social scientists that this is a suitable working definition of public policy, there is considerable controversy regarding just how the policy process works in different political jurisdictions.  Here we will introduce the two most prominent rival theories in political science and sociology that claim to explain the policy process — namely, pluralist theory and elite theory.  Pluralist theory is an ideal-type democratic theory that holds that the American democratic political process is genuinely open to the involvement of any group that wishes to participate.  Pluralist theory has many adherents among American political scientists and has deep roots in American political thought.  Some of the fundamental constitutional principles embedded in the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) to the U.S. Constitution (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition government for the redress of grievances) constitute core elements of pluralist theory.

According to Thomas Dye, pluralism or “group theory” works along the following lines (1998):

From this description of the American political system as seen from a group theory or pluralist perspective, a pluralistic state and local policy process could feature such groups as business interests, teachers’ unions, police and fire fighter guilds, civic trust members, historic preservation advocates, agricultural interests, environmental groups, gay and lesbian rights advocacy groups, state and local League of Women Voters, etc.  All of these groups and interests would be trying to influence the policy process governed by duly elected officials, and no single group or subset of groups would be able to dominate public policy outcomes.

A more critical perspective on the functioning of the political process is offered by the advocates of elite theory.  Elite theory proponents describe the policy process as one dominated by an elite few whose powerful interests influence policy largely behind the scenes.  These elites and their influence over policy are largely removed from the view and awareness of ordinary citizens within society.  C. Wight Mills described this perspective exceedingly well in the following passage quoted from his classic book entitled The Power Elite (1956):

These elites are said to possess the highest forms of education, to command personal and corporate wealth, to secure the services of the best legal and medical services to protect their wealth and health, to be in a position to dictate the values of those in their employ, and to hold disproportionate political power in their hands as a direct consequence.  Moreover, they are described as being generally unresponsive to the needs of the common citizen in society.  The masses are periodically appeased with symbolic or minor concessions to their needs, but they are kept largely in the dark about public affairs by a subservient press and a trivialized and entertainment-oriented broadcast media (see a portrayal of this view of American politics in Murray Edelman’s classic Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence, 1971).  All of this adds up to the inescapable conclusion that public policy — seen through this model — would be the direct result of economic and political elite preferences, with little impact being exercised by average citizens acting in their roles of voters and proponents of particular public policy preferences.

Because of the great disparities in wealth present in the United States resulting from the operation of a market-based economy wherein so much of the economic activity is in private as opposed to public hands, the danger of elite rule is a constant threat to our democratic institutions.  Sociologist Ralph Miliband in his Divided Societies: Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism describes elite theory as seen from an economic class perspective in the following terms (1989):

It is likely that neither the idealized pluralist model nor the hypercritical elitist model captures the full picture of how state and local governments operate in the United States today.  It is clear that evidence for the operation of both models can be cited, and that some state and local governments are more pluralistic than others and some are more elite-dominated than others.  In those state and local governments where pluralism is present it will be possible for the advocates of sustainability – that is, the simultaneous pursuit of economic vitality, environmental protection, and social equity – to mobilize their forces within the broker parties and candidate-centered electoral processes to gain a strong position for their views.  In state and local government settings where elite-dominated politics prevails, however, the forces of sustainability promotion will likely find it exceedingly difficult to make headway toward their goals.

Conclusion: Policy Processes, Actors and Sustainability

This chapter has shed light on the various actors involved in state and local government governance and the public policy decision-making processes in which they tend to operate.  Citizens, interest groups, the mass media, political parties, and social movements were all discussed in this regard.  As a general backdrop to that discussion, we have described the changing nature of politics in postindustrial societies and what that historical transition to a period of sustained peace and prosperity has meant for the political processes of advanced democracies, including the United States.  The changing nature of state and local politics from decidedly elite-directed to elite-challenging modes of political participation has increased the complexity of policy processes leading to multiple and competing perspectives on who has power and influence and how public policy decisions are actually made in state and local government.

The challenge of moving toward more sustainable forms of economic activity, land use patterns, energy use and production processes, transportation services, public health and social services, and food production and transport will face virtually all state and local governments in the U.S. in the coming decade.  Global climate change may well displace globalization of the marketplace as a principal concern of state and local government officials and the citizens living in communities throughout the country.  Community-based citizen groups, the mass media, private corporations, philanthropic foundations, industry-wide associations, public interest groups and political parties are all going to have to figure out how to work in concert — state-by-state and local community-by-local community — to achieve the level of adaptation to change that sustainability will require.  We must hope that the promise of pluralism held out by its defenders, as it relates to state and local governments in the U.S., is more a reality than a myth.  If entrenched interests and concentrated wealth based on the status quo prevent or delay sustainability-promoting adaptations, we may all be dooming our children such as Greta Thunberg and her contemporaries to a future less inviting than the one we inherited from our own parents.

References

Ahmad, S. (2020). Unmaking democracy: How corporate influence is eroding democratic governance. Harvard International Review. Retrieved from https://hir.harvard.edu/unmaking-democracy-how-corporate-influence-is-eroding-democratic-governance/

Berry, J. (1989). The interest group society. Harper Collins.

Broder, D. (2000). Democracy derailed. Harcourt, Inc.

Cable, S., and Cable, C. (1995). Environmental problems grassroots solutions: The politics of grassroots environmental conflict. St. Martin’s Press.

Caldwell, L. (1992). Globalizing environmentalism: Threshold of a new phase in international relations. In R. Dunlap and A. Mertig (Eds.), American environmentalism. Taylor and Francis.

Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E., and Stokes, D.E. (1960). The American voter. Wiley.

Cayrol, R., and Jaffre, J. (1980). Party linkages in France: Socialist leaders, followers and voters. In K. Lawson (Ed.), Political parties and linkage. Yale University Press.

Citrin, J. (1996). Who’s the boss? Direct democracy and popular control of government. In S.C. Craig (Ed.), Broken contract: Changing relationships between Americans and their government (pp. 245-270). Westview Press.

Cigler, A., and Loomis, B. (Eds.). (1983). Interest group politics. Congressional Quarterly.

Coates IV, J. C. (2012). Corporate politics, governance, and value before and after Citizens United. Journal of Empirical Legal  Studies, 9, 657-696.

Converse, P.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). Free Press.

Cronin, T., and Rossant, M.J. (1999). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum, and recall. Harvard University Press.

Dalton, R. (1988). Citizen politics in western democracies: Public opinion and political parties in the United States, Great Britain, West Germany, and France. Chatham House.

Doherty, C. (2014). 7 things to know about polarization in America. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/

Dunbar, J. (2012). Super PACs explained: Court decisions opened floodgates for unlimited corporate and union spending in presidential elections. The National Law Review. Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/super-pacs-explained-court-decisions-opened-floodgates-unlimited-corporate-and-union-spendin

Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965-1990. In R. E. Dunlap and A. Mertig (Eds.), American environmentalism: The U.S. environmental movement, 1970-1990. Taylor and Francis.

Dunlap, R. E., and Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap and W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology. Greenwood Press.

Dye, T. (1998). Understanding public policy (9th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Dye, T. (2000). Politics in states and communities (10th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Edelman, M. (1971). Politics as symbolic action: Mass arousal and quiescence. Markham Publishing Co.

Ellis, R. (2002). Democratic delusions: The initiative process in America. University Press of Kansas.

Folke, C., Colding, J., and Berkes, F. (2003). Synthesis: Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems (pp. 352-387). Cambridge University Press.

Freudenberg, N., and Steinsapir, C. (1992). Not in our backyards: The grass-roots environmental movement. In R.E. Dunlap and A.M. Mertig (Eds.), American environmentalism: The U.S. environmental movement, 1970-1990 (pp. 27-38). Taylor and Francis.

Gamble, B. (1997). Putting civil rights to a popular vote. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 245-270.

Gamson, W. (1995). Constructing social protest. In H. Johnston and B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social movements and culture. University of Minnesota Press.

Gerber, E. (1996). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 99–128.

Gooden, J., and Jasper, J. (2003). The social movements reader: Cases and concepts. Blackwell.

Hahn, H., and Kamieniecki, S. (1987). Referendum voting: Social status and policy preferences. Greenwood Press.

Heyman, J. (1989). Mobilizing citizens: Citizens’ group membership and political participation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R., and Baker, W. (1999). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19-51.

Kennedy, L. (2017). Corporate capture threatens democratic government. American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/corporate-capture-threatens-democratic-government/

Kimball, J. (2020). U.S. polarizing faster than other democracies, study finds. News from Brown. Retrieved from https://www.brown.edu/news/2020-01-21/polarization

Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Harper Collins.

Korten, D. (1990). NGO strategic networks: From community projects to global transformation. Retrieved from https://davidkorten.org/community-to-global-transformation/

Lindblom, C. (1977). Politics and markets. Basic Books.

Magleby, D. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Press.

McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.

McAdam, D., and Boudet, H. (2012). Putting social movements in their place: Explaining opposition to energy projects in the United States, 2000–2005. Cambridge University Press.

McAvoy, G. E. (1999). Controlling technocracy: Citizen rationality and the NIMBY syndrome. Georgetown University Press.

McCright, A. M., and Dunlap, R. E. (2008). Social movement identity and belief systems: An examination of beliefs about environmental problems within the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 651-676.

McFarland, A. (1989). Why interest groups organize: A pluralist response to Olson. Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association Meetings, Seattle, WA.

Miliband, R. (1989). Divided societies: Class struggle in contemporary capitalism. Clarendon Press.

Mills, C.W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.

Montagno, M. J., Garrett‐Walker, J. J., and Ho, J. T. (2021). Two, four, six, eight… why we want to participate: Motivations and barriers to LGBTQ+ activism. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 644-658.

Morris, A., and McClurg Mueller, C. (1992). Frontiers in social movement theory. Yale University Press.

Nyberg, D. (2021). Corporations, politics, and democracy: Corporate political activities as political corruption. Organization Theory, 2(1). doi:10.1177/2631787720982618

(2024). Digital media consumption (2021-2025). Retrieved from https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-media-consumption

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press.

Pew Research Center. (2018). Five facts about the state of the news media. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/21/5-facts-about-the-state-of-the-news-media-in-2017/

Pew Research Center. (2022). The polarization in today’s Congress has roots that go back decades. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/

Pew Research Center. (2023a). Teens, social media and technology. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/12/11/teens-social-media-and-technology-2023/

Pew Research Center. (2023b). The biggest problems and greatest strengths of the U.S. political system. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/the-biggest-problems-and-greatest-strengths-of-the-u-s-political-system/

Pew Research Center. (2024a). Americans’ social media use. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-social-media-use/

Pew Research Center. (2024b). Many Americans find value in getting news on social media, but concerns about inaccuracy have risen. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/

Pierce, J. C., Steger, M. A., Steel, B. S., and Lovrich, N. P. (1992). Citizens, political communication, and interest groups: Environmental organizations in Canada and the United States. Praeger Publishers.

Pross, P. (1984). Group politics and public policy. Oxford University Press.

Ripley, R. B., and Franklin, G. A. (1987). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy (4th ed.). Dorsey Press.

Rothenberg, D. (1992). Hand’s end: Technology and the limits of nature. University of California Press.

Salisbury, R., Heinz, J., Lauman, E., and Nelson, R. (1984). Who works with whom? American Political Science Review, 81, 1217-1234.

Smith, E.R. (1989). The unchanging American voter. University of California Press.

Steel, B.S. (2015). National survey of non-governmental organizations. Oregon Policy Analysis Laboratory, Oregon State University.

Steel, B.S., Pierce, J.C., and Lovrich, N.P. (1996). Tactics and strategies of interest groups in federal forest policy. Social Science Journal, 33, 401-421.

Szabo, S. (1983). The successor generation in Europe. Public Opinion, 6, 9-11.

Theodori, G. L., and Luloff, A. E. (2002). Position on environmental issues and engagement in proenvironmental behaviors. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 471-482.

Truman, D. (1951). The governmental process. Alfred A. Knopf.

Walker, J. (1983). The origins and maintenance of interest groups in America. American Political Science Review, 77, 390-406.

Wilson, G. (1981). Interest groups in the United States. Oxford University Press.

Youn, M. (2010). Small-Donor Public Financing in the Post-Citizen United Era. Journal of Marshall Law Review., 44, 619.