Rev: ST 6 The Upper Class

Stratification is the social process where scarce social & physical resources such as wealth, income, power, status, etc. are non randomly distributed among members, groups, classes etc. of society

Power is the ability to affect the actions of others

There are SIX basic sources of power

1. Authority

2. Politics: voting, elections, etc.

3. Force and Coercion

4. Control of Information

5. Wealth and Income

6. Influence

5. Wealth & Income as a Source of Power

Money may be translated into political power by:

a. giving access to the media

b. getting elected which often costs millions of dollars

c. influencing elected officials through campaign contributions and through support that money can buy from the public

But wealth is no guarantee to power

Billionaires Ross Perot ( new money ) & Steven Forbes (old money ) have repeatedly run for President, & while they lost, both have had significant influence on national politics

While the majority of people in Congress are millionaires, & thus "naturally" understand & represent the interests of the wealthy, most do not have enough money to self finance their campaigns & thus must appeal the the middle, upper middle, & upper classes for money & to all classes for votes

Self financed Congressional campaigns are becoming ever more common

Marx & Weber both wrote extensively on the relationship btwn economics & politics

Marx believed that wealth determined power & thus he is often thought of as an economic determinist

Those who own the means of production determine virtually all characteristics of society, because:

a. the economic or work process shapes human existence more than any other type of process & therefore it shapes the way we think about the world: our world view, our ideology, the way we feel & think

b. the owners of the means of production have power to shape it, thus they shape the relations of our lives, our world view

Karl Marx saw wealth & power as essentially the same

Weber thought that wealth & power were distinct: one does not guarantee the other

Class mobility had increased in Weber’s time & there was a middle class

Pluralists believe that power is divided among many competing groups

Pluralists believe that no single group can gain too much power

Pluralists believe that if one group does begin to gain too much power, other groups will form alliances against it

Pluralists believe that there is a "balance of interests

For pluralists, there are EIGHT major players in society, including:

1. business

2. labor

3. govt

4. ethnic groups

5. racial groups

6. regional groups

7. religious groups

8. political groups

9. other special interest groups

For pluralists, a veto group is an interest group that possesses the power to block policy changes or proposed laws that threaten their interests

Veto groups are strong enough to prevent change, but not strong enough to bring about change alone

For pluralists, a swing group is a small group who allies with other group to bring about a change

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Upper Class: Social Power

External
Links

- Project: The Richest Person, Most Powerful Person, Most Famous Person You Know

Link

The Table on the Convergence of Occupation, Bureaucratic & Property Divisions of Class Categories shows that there is no simple way to classify a population but THREE important dimensions are occupation, bureaucratic authority, & property ownership

Link

The Table of Nine Classes in the Modern Industrialized Nations ( Primarily the US ) shows that a relatively complex class structure is necessary to understand stratification in a modern world / global system

The make-up of the upper class is often defined at any of 5 levels as a % of the population, including
The top      0.5 %             the 1.4 mm richest people in families in America ( of 285 mm in 2000 )
                   1 %                     2.9
                   5 %                     14
                   10%                    29
                   20%                    57

There are SEVEN reasons, the upper class ( & the corporate class ) are largely "invisible" when compared to the upper class in other countries, or in the past

1. The US had no real upper class at first because the European upper class did not come to America

2. Other groups attract more attention in the media: e.g. celebrities, sports stars, politicians

3. Most conflict in society is NOT w/ the upper class, it is among people of similar class

4. Most conflict is based on race, class, religion, gender, etc., and not among classes

5. The govt mediates conflict, so a lot of conflict is w/ the govt

Link

6. Only a few business leaders ( corp class ) attract public attention & almost no upper class members

7. Wealth is no longer primarily stored in property, mansions, & other "real wealth," instead it is stored in "commercial paper"

Many theorists (Domhoff, Mills, Baltzell) catalogue the uniting social practices & forces which maintain the unity of action & mind of the upper class

For Domhoff, Mills, Baltzell & others, there are FOUR reasons the upper class has class unity & class consciousness: common schools & clubs, in group marriage, a distinctive style of life, common social circles

1. Common “we” feeling created from common school & clubs

Preparatory schools or private boarding schools may begin w/ elementary school and run through grad school

Some prep & private schools include Groton, Choate, St. Andrew's Colleges, Yale, Princeton, ("two") Harvards

The education delivered in the elite schools is far superior to most public education

Men's clubs include Bohemian, Knickerbocker, Somerset, etc., serve as gatekeepers & networks

Members of private, elite clubs share ideas on politics & economy & maintain social & business ties

There are FIVE common characteristics of upper class clubs

a. Membership is by invitation only

b. Nomination by 2 or more members

c. List 5 members as references

d. Interviews

e. Members vote on admittance

Domhoff assumes the unity still exists among the upper class

Domhoff's study of the Bohemian Club demonstrates a high level of interaction in the upper class and 673 of the top 797 corporations have members in the same 15 clubs

2. In-group marriage unites families by blood & money

Marrying outside one's class is frowned upon: Cinderella; Erich Segal: Love Story; Pretty Woman

Women sometimes marry up, but may not be accepted: Princess Diana
She was from a millionaire family, but definitely not aristocratic class

3. Distinctive style of life including schools, arts, charities, clubs, etc.

Veblin examines the lifestyle of the upper class in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) and finds that men of wealth engage in the life of a gentleman and do not manage the businesses they own

Example: Movie: "Family Man" shows us how the new rich live
Nicholas Cage
People wait on him hand & foot, but he works all the time

Life of Princess Diana: Work less, interact more w/ others of the old money class

4. Common social circles, i.e. networks

Mingling w/ politicians & celebrities is also common for the upper class

It's becoming increasingly difficult to determine who's in upper class & who's not

Members of the upper class & the corp class do not "go to the mall" Why?

The social register (est. 1887) was an accurate indicator of upper class membership, but is not so accurate today

People are dropped off the social register for economic & social reasons

The social register was taken over by the Malcom Forbes family in 1976

Today the social register is just as it's name implies, a register of people who achieve a particular social status, regardless of their class standing

Wealth, income, power are imp., but esteem promotes solidarity

Link

Domhoff (1970) believes there are FIVE indicators of upper class membership, including that:
1. they are listed in the social register
2. males attend exclusive prep schools
3. males belong to exclusive social clubs
4. females attend prep school or belong to social clubs
5. the family leader (male or female) was millionaire or $100 G corporate executive or lawyer

But how much unity can the an upper class have being composed of 57 mm people? ( .5 % = 1.4 mm .... 20 % = 57 mm )

Baltzell shows that upper class unity does exist, but it mostly occurs at the local level

Upper class unity does not mean there is a conscious conspiracy to economically & culturally dominate society
The argument for upper class unity is that the social practices described above build unity as well as social forces

There are FIVE social forces build class unity & consciousness

1 Economic forces, esp the preservation of wealth

Domination of the economic, military, govt social structures such as banks, stock markets, stable currency builds upper class unity & consciousness

2. Economic forces: the pursuit of income, eg profit

In the pursuit of income & profit, domination of the economic, military, govt social structures such as open markets, relations of production, interest rates, etc. builds upper class unity & consciousness

3. Preservation of the status quo of political /govt system to maintain a stable business environment

Domination of the economic, military, govt social structures builds upper class unity & consciousness
Illusion of two party system represents various strata in the upper class & the corporate class & the other classes

4. Preservation of stratification: nationally & globally

A hierarchy must be maintained because the growth of power/wealth of the middle class can wrest power from an upper class

Domination of the economic, military, govt social structures builds upper class unity & consciousness

5. Preservation of values/ culture which supports hierarchy & "worship of wealth"

Domination of family, religion, charity, ed, media, leisure / rec builds upper class unity & consciousness

Does the upper class still dominate society today?

The upper class was more powerful at the turn of the century,
but even then, they did not totally control things.
Many conflicts w/in groups.

Many changes have reduced power of the upper class:
1. Managers seem to dominate corps. (will examine this later)
2. Fed govt. has regulated big biz
3. Upper class has less influence in govt.
4. Upper class is less unified

Domhoff is an advocate of position that upper class continues to dominate

Upper class cannot completely dominate in a society of widely competing interests, but it is the major influence

Upper class must work together if it expects to dominate: even industry & upper class members cannot get all they want

The managerial thesis holds that the corporate class has slowly taken power from the upper class

The managerial thesis holds that mgrs & "new money" now control corporations & so dominate society

Top

Table The Convergence of Occupation, Bureaucratic & Property Divisions of 5 Class Categories

Kerbo 0305

Positions in Three Main Types of Institutional Structures

Class Categories

Occupation

Bureaucratic Authority

Property Relation

Upper Class

High

Owner

Corporate Class

High

Nonowner

Middle Class

High to Mid Level

Mid Level

Nonowner

Working Class

Mid Level to Low

Low

Nonowner

Lower Class

Low

Nonowner

Top

Table of Nine Classes in the Modern Industrialized Nations ( Primarily the US )

Upper Class
( Old Money )

Families high in property ownership
w/ high authority flowing from said ownership
EG: the old established families:
Rockefellers, Du Ponts, Mellons, Fords, Carnegie

Corporate Class
( New Money)

Families w/ high authority & power in
       major corporations
       in government
    usually w/o extensive ownership in these corporations
Examples: corp. presidents, vice presidents, & top board members
Most analysts agree that the UC is shrinking while the Corp Class is growing

Upper Middle Class

Families w/ relatively little property
      but high to middle positions
      in occupation (nonmanual labor)
      and authority
Examples: lesser corporate managers, doctors, lawyers....

Middle Class

Families w/ relatively little property
      but middle positions
      in occupation (nonmanual labor)
      and authority
Examples: lesser corporate managers, doctors, lawyers
                & major office workers, clerks, salespeople

Lower Middle Class

Families w/ relatively little property
      but middle to low positions in
      occupation (nonmanual labor)
      and authority
Examples: office workers, clerks, salespeople

Skilled Working Class

Families w/ little or no property
      Middle to low positions in a skilled occupation
      Manual labor
      Little or no authority
Examples:
      Plumber (blue collar)

Unskilled Working Class

Families w/ little or no property
      Middle to low positions in an unskilled occupation
      Manual labor
      Little or no authority
Examples: Fast-food worker (white collar)
      Construction Laborer (blue collar)

Lower Class

Families w/ no property & no authority
      Often unemployed
      Receive enough $ to stay in a home
               ( family, welfare, social sec, disability, crime... )

Destitute

Families w/ no property & no authority
Often unemployed
Do not receive enough $ to stay in a home

Top

6. Only a few business leaders ( corp class ) attract public attention, & almost no upper class members

Supplement: Gates' Lobbying Link

Kerbo 0306

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Upper Class: Economic Power

External
Links

Introduction
The UC controls the economy & thus the culture
Bill Gates controls more wealth (over $100 bb) in 2000 than the lower 20% of the population
There are now over 1000 billionaires in the world
American income distribution demonstrates that the richest 20% has more income as all the rest
The top 5% of the population controls more than the lower 40% of the population

Link

Table of Nine Classes in the Modern Industrialized Nations ( Primarily the US )

Link

Table on the Convergence of Occupation, Bureaucratic & Property Divisions of Class Categories

The make-up of the UC is often defined at any of 5 levels as a % of the population

Conclusion on income inequality:
In 1991, the upper 1/5 of the population
- has a share of income that is about equal to that of the rest of the population
- earns on average about $ 100 k while the average of the total population is about $ 38 k
- earns on average about 2.6 times the average of the total population
- the upper 5 % of the population has a 20 % share of the income & earns on average $ 141 k
- the distribution of wealth is much more unevenly distributed than income

Conclusions on wealth inequality:
- The distribution of Wealth is much more unequally distributed than income
- The top fifth of the population earns 49 % of the income & owns 85 % of the wealth
- The bottom fifth earns 3.7 % of the income & owns -1.5 % of the wealth, i.e. they are in debt
- The wealthiest 10 % own 90 % of all stocks, bonds & trusts
- The next richest 40 % of the population owns 12 % of all stock
- 50 % of the population owns no stock
- The wealthiest of top 1 % now controls 39 % of the wealth

In 1992 families in the top 5% earned over $100,000 which was 18.6% of household income

Median income in 1992 was $36,812 (middle)

Mean income in 1992 was $44,483 (average)

The upper class gained 16% in income in the 80s while lower 60% of people lost income

The top 1% of the population gained 63% in income in the 80s

In 1989, the top 1% had 38% of all wealth and 15% of income

In 1922, the top 1% had 32% of all wealth

In 1989, the top 1% had 47% of all stock,
73% of all bonds
53% of all trusts

How is UC's economic power maintained?

Power lies in the ownership of the means of production

In the past, the ownership of the means of production meant mostly land ownership related to agriculture

After agricultural concentration of the means of production, ownership developed directly into ownership of the proto-industries of the extraction of natural resources: mines, forestry, etc.

After the extraction concentration of the means of production, during the Early Industrial Age ( 1300 - 1700 ) factory ownership developed

During the 1800's, ownership developed around commercial paper, including stocks, bonds, trusts

But the amount of power of the upper class ( & the corp class ) goes beyond this simple ownership

While the upper 5 % may own 90 % of the wealth & (upper 10 % ) generate 20 % of the income, they own key industries & have a higher % of political power, & thus actually have greater control over society in general than their economic ownership indicates

In theory, stockholders control corporations while in practice, a small number of stockholder have power

Major corps own key industries such as banks, oil, the media, etc. as well as key businesses w/in those industries

Corporate mgrs. are, in theory, are appointed by the board of directors who are elected by the stockholders

Thus the largest stockholder of a given corporation should be in control of that corporation

But today it is difficult to determine who controls what because corporations own stock in other corporations and thus may influence/control them

Corporate ownership of stock in other corporations, and the concomitant control of board of directors' seats creates interlocking directorates

There are few family owned corporations today

Because of the wide diversification in stock ownership, 5 to 10 % ownership is often enough to dominate a corporation

But some writers assume that in many cases mgrs. control the corp.

US Senate Committee on Govt. Affairs in 1978 (SCGA) examined corporate ownership & found that 13 of top 122 corps were controlled by one family

Type of Corporation             Upper Class % as Corporate Directors
     Top 20 industrials                               54
     Top 15 banks                                     62
     Top 15 insurance                                44
     Top 15 transportation                         53
     Top 15 utilities                                   30
     Top 201 corps                                   44 (all Directors & Top Officers)

While upper class' the high level of representation on corp boards is far above their 1% representation in the economy, this still does not represent the total of their dominance

If 44 % of all directors & top officers are from the upper class ( old money ), then 55 % must represent the corporate class

A small % ( less than 1 % ) of the directors & top officers of major corporations is made up of labor, civic crganizations, & other "public interests"

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Upper Class: Political Power

External
Links

- Project: The Political Power of the UC

Link

Table of Nine Classes in the Modern Industrialized Nations ( Primarily the US )

Link

Table on the Convergence of Occupation, Bureaucratic & Property Divisions of Class Categories

The make-up of the UC is often defined at any of 5 levels as a % of the population

The federal govt spends approximately 25 % of US yearly income ( GDP )

The influence of the fed govt on society is great

The influence of the upper class, the corporate class & to a lesser extent, the upper middle class on all levels of govt. is great

In the early 1990s the federal budget, is approximately $1.5 trillion which is about 25 % of the $ 6 trillion economy

Some social theorists ( Mills, etc. ) & some politicians, (e.g. H. Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, et al) believe this gives more than 25 % control of the federal budget

Many social theorists & politicians do not believe the Fed Budget gives the govt more power, proportionally

If one can influence the govt., one can have great influence in society

The govt. is influenced through money & power, both of which are available to the upper class, the corporate class & to a lesser extent, the upper middle class

Link

Table: The Upper Class Origins of the Govt Elite

In the Table on the Upper Class Origins of the Govt Elite, Domhoff & others have shown that the President's Cabinet is usually dominated by the upper class

Under Presidents Clinton & Bush, Jr., the Cabinet has been much more diverse w/ respect to race & gender, & appointees are less likely to come from old money & more likely to come from the corp class ( new money )

The laws & traditions of campaign financing allow those w/ money & power to have a greater influence, thus in the US, the upper class, the corporate class, & the upper middle class have disproportionate influence on govt. compared to the general public

The laws & traditions of the public policy process allow those w/ money & power to have a greater influence, thus in the US, the upper class, the corporate class, & the upper middle class have disproportionate influence on govt. compared to the general public

The laws & traditions of the lobbying process allow those w/ money & power to have a greater influence, thus in the US, the upper class, the corporate class, & the upper middle class have disproportionate influence on govt. compared to the general public

One of the main reasons the upper & corporate classes are better able to ensure their interests are advanced/protected is because of the concentration of political power in the US

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Executive Branch

External Links

- Project: Representation & the Branches of Govt

Link

THE CABINET IS DOMINATED BY THE UPPER CLASS

The President's Cabinet is usually dominated by the upper class

Even President Carter, elected after Watergate w/ commitment to no more politics as usual, chose a cabinet dominated by the upper class

The Trilateral Commission is a non governmental organization that is an off-shoot of Council on Foreign Relations, which sought to influence govt policy

Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton's Cabinets shows factions w/in the upper class: old - new rich; cold warriors - coexistence; monetarists - fiscalists; etc.

Link

Table: The Upper Class Origins of the Govtl Elite

OLD MONEY & NEW MONEY & CONFLICT IN THE CABINET

An analysis of the upper class origins of the governmental elite strongly supports the claim that the upper class dominates the executive branch

Many social theorists believe that the question of "old money" or "new money" dominating the exec br & govt in general is an imp one

Most theories hold that the new money group, i.e. the entrepreneurial wealthy, is more responsive to the public good than is the old money group

However, even new money typically has it allegiances w/ the wealthy class advocating some form of trickle down theory

Thus the exec br, even when dominated by the new money grp, advances policies to create wealth for the wealthy, & has less concern for the middle class

The allegiance of the exec br w/ the upper class can be clearly seen in that both Dem & Rep admins continue to appoint & support such exec br appointees as Allen Greenspan, former Chairman of the Fed Res Bank, who consistently favors low interest rates, which benefit the wealthy, at the expense of unemployment, which costs the mid class

While the old - new money split represents one conflict of interest in the cabinet which supersedes other interests, there are many schisms w/in the upper class

Top

Table: The Upper Class Origins of the Govtl Elite

Kerbo 0306

Position in Govt.

Year

% of Upper Class

Domhoff Study, 1998

Cabinet

1932 - 1964

Secretaries of State

63 %

Secretaries of Defense

62 %

Secretaries of the Treasury

63 %

Mintz Study, 1975

All Cabinet

1897 - 1973

66 %

Democratic Cabinet

60 %

Republican Cabinet

71 %

Dye Study, 1995

Top Govt. Elite

1970

6 %

Top Military Elite

1970

9 %

Dye's govt. elite includes the cabinet & an extended list of top executive govt. & congressional officeholders

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Campaign Financing

External
Links

The laws & traditions of campaign financing allow those w/ money & power to have a greater influence, thus in the US, the upper class, the corporate class, & the upper middle class have disproportionate influence on govt. compared to the general public

During the 1950's C. Wright Mills said little on campaign financing because this process was relatively less important during the Cold War Era

Today campaign financing is a major method of influence

Examples of Presidential races political spending:

1972: Nixon $60 mm McGovern $30 mm

1992: Perot: 70 mm of own money

1996: Dole: 250 mm Clinton 140 mm

This gap caused Democrats to get very sloppy in accepting $

A new technique to raise political funds, which is used by both parties is to have the Party, rather than the candidate, accept $$ and run "general political ads"

In the 2000 Presidential election, Forbes tried to defeat other Republicans with his "front loading" i.e. spending big in the primaries

In the 2000 Presidential election, GW Bush opted out of Federal Election matching funds because it is the only way he could keep up w/ Forbes

Bush is aiming for $1/2 billion in the 2004 election

Examples of Senate race political costs

1978: $35 mm from special interest groups

1980: 50 mm

1988: 150 mm and average seat cost $ 4 mm

The VA Gubernatorial election in 2001 was the most expensive in VA history

Early in our democracy, all politicians financed their own campaigns

Thus, early in our democracy, only a “wealthy gentleman” could run

Early in our democracy, the wealthy gentleman did not “run for office,” he “stood for office”

The men of the gentlemen bought all the food & ale & gave speeches

At some point political campaigns just became too expensive even for wealthy individuals

Only a few politicians can afford to finance their own campaigns today:

Perot & Forbes are the only Presidential candidates in recent history to use their own money
Perot also took contributions & Fed Matching Funds while Forbes has not
A few Congress people & governors have funded their own campaigns

Nixon was found guilty in the Watergate hearings (1972 election), so election reform was passed in 1974

- voluntary $1 check off contribution on tax form

- this creates Fed matching funds

- direct, personal funds limit of $1000

- direct, organization funds limit of $5000

- soft money, which is given by PACs to the National Political Committees is legal & unlimited

The 1974 campaign finance reforms merely changed the route of the flow of the $$$

After, the 1974 campaign finance reforms, PACs exploded in number

In 1980, 1585 corporate PACs gave $ 36 mm

In 1980, 240 union PACs gave $ 13 mm

Politicians, Rep & Democrats insist there is no quid pro quo in contributions: in that they receive money, but give no assurance the issue will be addressed-- so it is not a bribe

But there is a high correlation between amount of $ given, & a particular candidates overall voting record for both Rep & Democrats

A possible Campaign Reforms Proposed in 1997, did not pass, & would have limited soft money

The 1997 Campaign Reform Proposal would have limit soft money

The problem w/ limiting soft money is that some believe it limits “free speech” & possibly total amount candidate can spend

Many commentators believe that the even w/ campaign finance reform, the political process will always find another way to get money into campaigns

Other solutions being considered for campaign finance reform include:

- the limiting of the amount campaigns can spend for each office

- finance elections completely w/ federal funds only

- partially finance elections to a greater degree than the matching funds now available

- the demand for full & immediate disclosure of money campaign contributions

- the elimination of all non voluntary contributions from unions, employees, etc.

The McCain-Feingold, Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 was under Supreme Ct. review in 2003 & a decision was given in time to influence the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election

In the judicial review of the McCain-Feingold, Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, it was found that limiting campaign contributions was constitutional & in the national interest

Post 2004 election, it was found that while the McCain-Feingold, Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 limited contributions from individuals, & required full & nearly immediate disclosure of who was giving money to whom, it also allowed the creation of small, independent political campaigning entities

An example of the new small, independent political campaigning entities formed under the McCain-Feingold Act is the Swift Boat Veterans (against Dem Pres Candidate Kerry)

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Public Policy Process

External
Links

- Project: Policy Actors

Link

- Project: The Public Policy Process, Domhoff's Analysis, & Reform of Campaign Financing & Lobbying

Link

Summary of the Public Policy Process:

Industry & interest group lobbying has influence at all stages of the public policy process, & beyond

Congress passes laws

Lobbyists, industry, government agencies, the Public, et al offer "advice" ( lobbying & influence )

The prospective law is signed or vetoed, or line item vetoed by the President

The law given to the appropriate government agency for implementation

Agencies make draft rules which are printed in Federal Register for public approval

Agencies review public comments & write final rules

Agencies implement rules

During implementation, rules must be interpreted and decisions must be made

Courts interpret laws & rules

The upper class directly shapes govt policy by impacting the public policy process

Govt. policy & the public policy process is the least recognized by the general public, but it is the area where the public could have great influence

Several types of policy are "routine" in that they are specified in the Constitution or law & occur regularly

Fiscal policy is perhaps the most visible govt policy

Fiscal policy is the most open to the democratic process & thus highly influenced by the upper class, the corporate class & the upper middle class

Fiscal Policy includes primarily fed law on taxing & spending

Monetary policy is "insulated from politics" which results in almost no input from the general public & great power by the President

Broad monetary policy issues include unemployment & interest rates which are “insulated from politics” by independent boards

The Federal Reserve Board's members appointed for 7 yr. terms during which they set major interest rates and the money supply

Federal Reserve Board members are very difficult to remove, so a President picks them carefully

Domhoff on Government Policy

1. Domhoff believes that the upper class, the corporate class & the upper middle class provide most of the money in the political process

2. Domhoff believes that the upper class, the corporate class & the upper middle class provide most of the money to fund think tanks, foundations, university research, etc.

3. Domhoff believes that the info from think tanks, foundations, university research, etc. is funneled into the policy process as evidence/data

4. Domhoff believes that the info from think tanks, foundations, university research, etc. is funneled directly to the government to influence the policy making process

5. Domhoff believes that the info from think tanks, foundations, university research, etc. is funneled directly to the media to influence policy & public opinion

The policy formation process is seen as increasingly important in our information age society

There are many "players' or actors in the policy formation process, that lobby & produce policy documents, including:
- corporations
- the upper class (i.e. those w/ personal fortunes)
- foundations
- universities ( granting agencies )
- policy planning groups ( think tanks )
- govt. commissions, councils, etc.
- national news media
- executive agencies, president, congressional committees, courts
- social movements (conservative, liberal, centrist, etc.)

Each of the players in the policy formation process has a direct role in making policy, & lobbying the other players

Miscellaneous interest groups (e.g. environmental groups, gun groups, anti- & pro- abortion, etc.) & the general public (& organized publics) have input into the public policy process through letters, phone, email, direct contact: spontaneous or "solicited"

Interest groups & the general public (& organized publics) sometimes produce policy documents as do the "players" discussed above, but more often they simply lobby by voicing their opinion

Link

See Also: Policy Formation Process ( Making Law )

See Also: Participants in the Env Debate

Examples of policy planning groups

Brookings Institute

American Enterprise Institute

Cato Business Council

Heritage

Council on Foreign Relations

Committee on Economic Development

RAND Corporation

University boards are influenced & staffed by members of the upper class

Profs & other researchers understand that there are political implications to their work & that policy planning grps will line up for or against them

Blue ribbon panels are "independent," temporary committees which are tasked w/ examining special problems such as riots, the CIA, energy, corruption, accidents, etc.

The media is often said to be liberal, but it is becoming increasingly focused on info-tainment, centralized, controlled by major corps, & big money oriented

Turner vs. Murdock; Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report

There are many processes for transferring money in the policy formation process, including:
- gifts ( donations to politicians & the other players, gifts to universities, etc. )
- endowments
- grants
- contracts
- direct financing of projects

There are many process for transferring information in the policy formation process, including:
- research findings
- personal research reports
- policy recommendations
- reports & news items
- govt. reports
- think tank reports

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Lobbying

External
Links

- Supplement: Gates' Lobbying

Link

THE ACTORS IN THE POLICY PROCESS

There are many "Players' or actors in the policy formation process, that lobby & produce policy documents

1. corporations
2. the upper class (i.e. those w/ personal fortunes)
3. foundations
4. universities ( granting agencies )

5. policy planning groups ( think tanks )
6. govt commissions, councils, etc.
7. national news media
8. president, exec agencies, Congl committees, courts

Each policy actor has a direct role in making policy, & lobbying the other players

Miscellaneous interest groups (e.g. envl groups, gun groups, anti- & pro- abortion, etc.) & the general public (& organized publics) have input through letters, phone, email, direct contact: spontaneous or "solicited"

Interest groups & the general public (& organized publics) sometimes produce policy documents as do the "players" discussed above, but more often they simply lobby by voicing their opinion

See Also: The Policy Formation Process ( Making Law )

See Also: Participants in the Envl Debate

CONGRESSIONAL LOBBYING IS WHERE MOST LOBBYING OCCURS

Congressional lobbying is a high stakes, risky "business"

In the past, all Congressmen had safes in their offices where they kept the money lobbyists gave them

Today, the distinction btwn lobbyist & contributor is wider; only that there is no quid pro quo

In 1990, there were more than 6,800 congressional lobbying groups in the US, however most of them tend to represent certain groups of interests, such as Domhoff three key interest groups

Lobbyists are all registered: There are 8000 registered lobbyists in the mid 1990s

In 2005, there were more than 14,000 registered lobbying groups in Washington, DC, averaging just over two employees each for a total over 30,000 lobbyists (many lobbying firms are small)

In 2005, there were approximately 30,000 members of Congress & staff members, making the ratio of lobbyists to officials on the Hill nearly 1 to 1

In the early 90s the total value of earmarks added to bills was under $100 mm, while in 2005 the value was over $32 bb

Because of corporate influence on govt, there is an inverse relation of corporate size & the amount of taxes paid

ENVL LOBBYISTS PERFECTED LOBBYING FOR INTEREST GRPS

Since the late 1960s, the envl mvmt developed lobbying & political tactics for interest groups, NGO's, etc.

W/ the dawn of the envl mvmt in the 1960s, the envl mvmt first focused on passage of fed envl laws, e.g. lobbying Congress

Today, the envl mvmt plays a greater role:

a. in the implementation of envl regs

b. court cases about the env

c. w/ state laws, implementation & court cases

INDL LOBBYISTS HAVE A VERY LONG RECORD OF LOBBYING

Industry groups developed counter interest groups of lobbying & political tactics

In the past, industry appeared to give up after the policy adoption stage, i.e. law making, only to come back during implementation

Now, like the envl mvmt, industry struggles w/ policy at all levels

Industry has attempted to keep the envl mvmt out of the rule making & implementation processes by limiting public access to rule making

THE GOVT IS THE TARGET OF LOBBYING

In the rule making process, a person must show standing by showing continuing interest in a project or by showing a material interest

Participation is difficult due to short comment periods on proposed rules; usually 30 days

After Reagan's govtl downsizing of the govt, agencies & commissions are often ill equipped & under funded when it comes to implementing policy

Most govt agencies are ill equipped to handle public comment, & this is a place where social scientist are useful in govt.

Most govt. agencies are heavily lobbied at all stages of the implementation process & thus try to find "legal peace" among conflicting parties

Most people & agencies in govt. ( Congressmen & women, Reps, etc. ) all respond similarly to lobbying by seeking legal peace & compromise among the parties

In seeking compromise, govt agencies often seek simply to end the conflict rather than finding the most just outcome that may reduce conflict, but not totally end it

In seeking less than optimally just outcomes, & instead pursing legal peace, govt agencies are eschewing their responsibility to the greater good, ignoring the fact that they too are a player in the public policy formulation process & not merely a broker

The policy implementation is a slow, minutely focused, incremental process

Rules, procedures, etc. change, minutely, year by year, month by month, even day by day

EXAMPLES OF LOBBYING ON ENVL ISSUES

THE SALVAGE LOGGING RIDER

In the salvage logging example, lobbyists lobbied over the definition of a dead tree

1994 was a big wildfire season & therefore in the fall of 1994 & spring & fall of 1995, salvage logging of the burned trees became a priority, which was strongly lobbied

As a result of lobbying, the Salvage Logging Rider ( SLR ) was passed after the devastating 1994 fire season

While there was considerable lobbying around the passage of the SLR itself, lobbying continued throughout the formation of the agency rules to implement the law as seen in the counting of "dead" trees, which may be salvage logged

The players in the SLR policy debate developed policy because there was no "science" on determining when a tree is dead

The players in the SLR policy debate knew that if you wait too long, dead trees cannot be harvested

W/ the SLR there was approximately a 1 year window to salvage the burned timber before the wood became too rotten

W/ the SLR FS personnel, loggers, & envlists argued about the criteria such as 'what % of each species of tree can be brown & it is still likely that the tree will survive?'

In the SLR policy debate, 3 parties argued over actual measurement of brown needles on fire damaged trees

W/ the SLR the FS, the logging corps, & the envlist went to court & a compromise was reached over how to define a dead tree

Compromises in policy are often based as much on politics as science

The implementation of salvage logging changed day by day as either logging corps or envl group members "worked w/" FS officials in the office or out in the field

FOREST HEALTH

In 2002 & 2003, an example of a public policy debate included the proposed Forest Health Legislation

In the 2002/03 proposed Forest Health Legislation, the public policy issue was whether the forest was overgrown because of wildland fire suppression

Public policy explored whether the problem of forest health existed & how it could be fixed

The solutions to forest health, whether the problem exists or not included burning, mechanical thinning, logging, some combination of the above

The forest health public policy debate explored where should the problem be addressed, including in the WUI, in the back country, in particular areas chosen according to particular criteria, etc.

The forest health public policy sought to define WUI, by for example, determining whether it included watersheds, rural zones, etc.

Some players in the forest health public policy sought to exclude NEPA, public comment, & to include categorical exclusions ( CEs )

An example of a public policy debate included whether Microsoft is involved in accusations of monopolistic practices

The example of the Microsoft public policy saw, for the first time, Microsoft "becoming involved in politics" by contributing $$$ to the Republican Party

The End

Top