In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

220 10 Managing Policy Conflicts This book began as an attempt to understand why two conflicts over similar substantive issues took such different trajectories, where one expanded internationally while the other was largely confined to the local level. Since Schattschneider (1960), scholars have recognized that the degree of conflict surrounding an issue shapes its development and resolution. Where there is little or no conflict, policy tends to be made by a relatively small set of policy specialists and stakeholders. When conflict is intense, a much wider range of players claims a stake in an issue, typically opening up opportunities for participation in the decision-making process (Baumgartner 1989). Advocacy groups are presumably aware of these dynamics and thus attempt to control the scope of conflict around an issue, knowing it might be the key to realizing their policy goals. We might presume that, despite their efforts, advocacy groups have little control over the scope of a conflict because it is potentially shaped by things like the content of an issue, the actions of policy elites, institutional rules and norms, and relatively stable power arrangements that privilege some interests over others. But the analysis here shows that advocacy groups can and do shape a conflict’s scope through their strategic maneuvering, particularly in the areas of defining issues, managing actors, and shifting policy venues. Quite simply, advocacy group strategies matter. And because of their importance, the outcome of a conflict is anything but certain. One side may be favored over another due to its greater resources or biased rules, or simply because its cause is more popular. And over time, we can assume that teams with superior resources and popular causes will win more often and more easily. But Managing Policy Conflicts 221 a good strategy—and good strategic thinking—can often make up for other deficiencies. As Marshall Ganz (2000, 1044) puts it, “‘Resourcefulness’ can sometimes compensate for a lack of resources.” The case studies in this book highlight the resourcefulness of advocacy groups as they define policy issues, create and reconfigure alliances, and choose institutional venues for policymaking. One conclusion that stands out is the extent to which advocacy groups engage in sustained interaction with one another. Interest group studies and even scholarship on the policy process typically look at how interest groups interact with the state—whether it is through lobbying, elections, or litigation. Less attention is paid to how advocacy groups interact with one another. In other words, how does ongoing interaction between opposing advocacy groups shape the strategies of groups and the trajectories of policy conflicts? The cases examined here suggest that advocacy groups change their strategies not only in response to shifting political opportunities at the institutional level but also in response to the strategies of opposing groups. The dynamics of these interactions need to be explored theoretically and accounted for in our models of agenda and policy change. The model of conflict expansion and containment outlined in chapter 1 largely accepts Schattschneider’s (1960) suggestion that the majority of policy conflicts involve one group (or set of groups) who are attempting to expand conflict and a competing set of groups who are trying to restrict it. While this characterization is accurate for some policy issues and during certain phases of a conflict, for others it falls short. It assumes an enduring and static structure of competition. Schattschneider argues that the “losers” in the policy process will consistently try to expand conflict while the “winners” will attempt to contain it. However, the incentives of the players necessarily change as the nature of a conflict transforms. Ongoing conflict and competition complicate the strategic choices for advocacy groups, many of whom “muddle through” by attempting to manage conflict to the best of their ability. These efforts at conflict management involve unique patterns of interaction between competing actors and groups. The following model of conflict management describes these patterns of interaction between competing advocacy groups. This model takes into account the dynamic quality of the policy process generally and the shifting strategies of political actors in particular. The key characteristic of conflict management strategies is direct engagement and competition with one’s opponent . As noted by Meyer and Staggenborg (1996), direct interaction—even face-to-face confrontation—with one’s opponents is increasingly common in social movement politics...

Share