Exploring How Institutional Arrangements Shape Stakeholder Influence on Policy Decisions: A Comparative Analysis in the Energy Sector

AuthorElizabeth Baldwin
Date01 March 2019
Published date01 March 2019
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12953
246 Public Administration Review March | Apr il 20 19
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 79, Iss. 2, pp. 246–255. © 2018 by
The American Society for Public Administration.
DOI: 10.1111/puar.12953.
Elizabeth Baldwin
University of Arizona
Exploring How Institutional Arrangements Shape Stakeholder
Influence on Policy Decisions: A Comparative Analysis in the
Energy Sector
Abstract: In recent years, there has been an expansion of efforts to include stakeholders in administrative policy
making. Despite significant potential to improve policy decisions, empirical evidence suggests that not all participatory
processes provide meaningful opportunities for stakeholders to shape policy and may even give the most powerful
stakeholder groups disproportionate influence over policy decisions. This article argues that the institutional
arrangements for stakeholder engagement—the rules and norms that determine which stakeholders can participate
and how—affect stakeholders’ influence on policy decisions. This article uses state energy efficiency policy making as
a context in which to compare how different institutional arrangements shape the ways in which stakeholders engage
in and influence the policy process across two states, Connecticut and Maryland. Findings highlight that institutional
arrangements can be used to increase participation, mitigate undue influence of industrial stakeholders, and increase
the influence of public interest stakeholder organizations.
Evidence for Practice
• Traditional “notice and comment” proceedings encourage stakeholders to comment on particularly salient
issues, but they may discourage citizens and citizens’ groups from contributing to more routine policy
decisions.
• Policy makers can increase the diversity of stakeholders that participate in policy processes by either
mandating participation by diverse actors or implementing rules and norms that make public policy decision-
making processes more transparent, legible, and accessible to diverse stakeholders.
• Policy makers can mitigate power imbalances between industry and public interest stakeholders by giving
public interest stakeholders leadership roles in the policy decision-making process.
• Stakeholder engagement processes that encourage deliberation among diverse stakeholders are more likely to
influence policy decisions.
• Stakeholders have more consistent policy influence when there is a clear connection between stakeholder
engagement processes and final policy decisions.
From pre-draft rulemaking proceedings to
citizen engagement in local planning and
permitting decisions, we are witnessing
an expansion of stakeholder involvement in
administrative policy (Bingham et al. 2005; West
2004; Yackee 2011). While participatory approaches
to governance can increase legitimacy, social justice,
and decision effectiveness (Fung 2006), many such
processes have limited policy impact or may favor
industry over public interest stakeholders (Crow
et al. 2015; Irvin and Stansbury 2004; West 2004;
Yackee 2011).
Institutional design can help bridge this gap between
potential and realized benefits of participatory
approaches (Bryson et al. 2013; Edelenbos 2005;
Skelcher and Torfing 2010). Institutional design
influences which stakeholders participate, how they
deliberate and share information, and how stakeholder
engagement processes connect to policy decisions
(Fung 2006; Nabatchi 2012). However, there has
been limited empirical work on how institutional
design affects stakeholders’ policy influence.
This article asks: how do different institutional
arrangements for engagement shape stakeholders’
influence on administrative policy? To answer this
question, the article focuses on state energy efficiency
policy,1 which provides an ideal context for this
inquiry. Traditionally, stakeholder engagement in
administrative energy efficiency policy occurred
through a formal notice and comment process. Since
the 2000s, however, many states have created new
avenues for stakeholder engagement, with significant
variation in formality, permanence, and opportunities
for deliberation (U.S. Department of Energy 2015).
Elizabeth Baldwin is assistant
professor at the University of Arizona.
Her research explores variation in the
institutional arrangements that are used
to govern natural resources and the
environment. She received her PhD from
Indiana University in 2015.
E-mail: elizabethb@email.arizona.edu
Research Article

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT