Policy entrepreneurs select experts’ policies when public opinion on an issue is muted. With indecisive public opinion, entrepreneurs are able to invest resources in policies that reflect the attitudes of experts. When entrepreneurs looked for solutions to address problems with broadband networks they initially selected policies that were influenced by experts. As public opinion changed, so did the incentives for entrepreneurs investing resources in net neutrality.
Policy entrepreneurs influence the policy process by selecting certain policies and ignoring others. One way that policy is generated is in what Kingdon calls a policy soup, a way to describe how policy communities influence the creation of policy (Kingdon 117). A policy community, as defined by Kingdon, is a place where specialists (experts) in a given issue area circulate policy ideas or alternatives (Kingdon 117). Experts influence the creation of policy in this soup but have no role in promoting a policy alternative beyond their policy community. Moving a proposal out of a policy community requires the efforts of policy entrepreneurs, who can be members of Congress or other elite actors like the President. These actors do not always select policies that are generated by policy communities, however. Public opinion can increase the cost of supporting a policy that is unpopular. If public opinion is muted or indecisive, the benefits for entrepreneurs gained by selecting alternatives from policy communities outweigh the costs incurred by taking a position on an issue. When public opinion on an issue is polarized, entrepreneurs will select solutions that are more responsive with public opinion or invest political capital – an entrepreneur’s ability to credibly support different issues – to change public opinion. The influence of experts on policy decreases when an issue is salient in public opinion because entrepreneurs are constrained by public opinion.
Experts are able to exert influence because most issues are ignored by the public. When an issue does not have a large issue public, entrepreneurs are less constrained and are able to select a policy from a community of experts that suits their personal interests. If people do not care about a piece of legislation then enacting it costs less political capital. Once a policy is selected, elites can influence public opinion. In a paper on elite leadership of public opinion, authors Brody and Shapiro identify conditions under which public opinion is unified. When elites are unified the public responds to opinion leadership because all the information they receive is in support of elite policy (Brody and Shapiro). Entrepreneurs can select alternatives created by experts that have a small issue public and generate elite consensus (which stifles public opinion) with relatively little political cost, or political capital. If an issue public grows because of special interests or the elite consensus dissolves then an issue becomes polarized. In this environment public opposition means supporting the issue requires more political capital. Entrepreneurs are less likely to select expert alternatives in opposition to public opinion because the costs outweigh the benefits. A polarized environment means that experts have less influence, but they can still soften up public opinion and calm opposition to future legislation (Kingdon 128). Experts can influence policy that is not on the public’s radar or help soften up a polarized electorate.
Net neutrality began with a small issue public and opinion in major polls showed that the public was indecisive on whether they wanted a neutral internet or not. The public didn’t really understand the proposed regulation of broadband access and so the issue public simply included network providers, who had a large stake in regulation and were directly affected by it. A poll taken in 2006 showed that only 7% of people had ever heard of net neutrality or knew what it was (Fisher). Public opinion was not divided it was non-existent. Indecisive or uneducated public opinion is similar to unified public opinion in that it does not constrain entrepreneurs. Taking a position on an issue that people do not know or care about requires less resources and political capital. This was an environment where the potential for expert influence was high because public opinion was undecided. Net neutrality proponents had the opportunity to introduce their expert alternative under the radar and build an elite consensus so that the cost for supporting their legislation was low. The lack of influence public opinion had in 2006 opened a window for entrepreneurs to make less constrained decisions.
Experts produced policies that would have increased the FCC’s ability to regulate the internet and unconstrained policy entrepreneurs were able to introduce policy that reflected these alternatives. In 2006 the CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, produced an “open letter” arguing in favor of net neutrality (Schmidt). Released on Google’s technical blog, the release impacted the way that the neutrality policy community considered the issue. The letter produced momentum to support internet neutral policies. In 2005, RAND Corporation, a policy think-tank, produced a policy analysis memo assessing the issue of broadband access. Their research attempted to determine “policy options for government intervention” (RAND 1) in regulating broadband internet access in North American (and Europe). The RAND proposal included a suggestion that governments encourage “open, non-proprietary and user-led standards” for internet access (RAND 5). Expert consensus was that net neutrality was the best regulatory system, and policy entrepreneurs nudged forth by interests like Google brought the ideas out of this policy community and into Congress.
In 2006, legislation regarding broadband regulation favored a net neutrality approach; it represented the views of experts because public opinion was non-existent. The change in tone of legislation and the ultimate failure of net neutrality legislation to win a majority vote in Congress was the result of a change in constraints on policy entrepreneurs, in this case members of Congress. When network providers realized what was at stake they polarized public opinion and fractured the elite consensus. Interest groups lobbied Congressman (Bosworth) and changed the incentive structure of these entrepreneurs by raising the political cost of supporting net neutrality legislation. The issue was polarized and taking a position required investing political capital. Entrepreneurs’ incentive structures began to favor opposition to net neutrality legislation instead of support for it. Interest groups are one way that public opinion interacts with entrepreneurs to increase the constraints on their vote and make it more difficult for politicians to ignore public opinion. Once the cost of investing resources to support the policy outweighed the benefits of supporting the legislation, it lost support. Instead of selecting policy based on personal preference they made a vote based on electoral incentives because public opinion changed the constraints on entrepreneur’s vote.
The cost of passing net neutrality legislation was too high for policy entrepreneurs in Congress. The potential influence of experts on policy was reduced by the constraints of public opinion. Experts have power when entrepreneurs act unconstrained by public opinion, the ultimate electoral incentive. In the case of neutrality, initial public indecisiveness created a low cost for entrepreneurs to support expert policy which they believed in. The development of competing interest groups increased the costs of passing the legislation and consensus on net neutrality broke down in Congress. This does not mean that experts’ opinion has had no influence. Although the issue is polarized, experts can continue to influence public opinion by softening up the public. Net neutrality’s failure may put the issue on the map in a way that sees public opinion change over time because of the influence experts exerted in 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment