We devised a big research project that led to Lobbying and Policy Change; the project involved interviewing over 300 lobbyists in Washington, in a complicated but carefully designed methodology.
When we added up all the money, staff, lobbying power, and resources of all the groups pushing in one direction versus all the groups pushing in the opposite direction, across a sample of 98 issues, the findings were what they were: there was no correlation.
We were initially surprised by this, and it certainly made us think. Some people in Washington still don’t believe us, since it goes so much against the grain of accepted wisdom.
But on reflection it makes sense. Lobbying in Washington is virtually never done on a “blank slate” – there is always a status quo policy in place. (Almost always I should say.) That status quo presumably already reflects the power of various actors.
So, when we think about changing it, rather than creating it in the first place, it makes sense that sometimes it will go one way, sometimes the other way.
It’s not at all that power and money don’t matter; rather, they have already had their impact in creating the status quo. But it does mean that in every lobbying instance, it will not be the case that the rich get richer.
Sometimes the conclusion can be that they’ve already gotten too much and we need to pull back a little.
In your book The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence you explain that the death penalty has decreased significantly since 1996. Why has the death penalty declined and is it possible that the pendulum will swing back and there will be an increase in death sentences?
The death penalty declined I believe because of the rise of the argument about the possibility of executing innocent people. No one is in favor of that.
At the same time, it corresponded with a general movement away from punitive crime policies.
Punitive crime policies grew for about a generation from the 1970s through about the mid-1990s to be more and more punitive, including with the death penalty but more broadly than that–three strikes laws, harsh drug penalties, etc. Since about 20 years ago, all these things have been lessening somewhat.
Can it change back? You betcha.
It’s always possible, and in fact our Attorney General (Jeff Sessions) is actively trying to bring back some of the more punitive approaches to crime. So yes it can happen.
I believe, however, that the death penalty will continue its decline. In any case we have not seen any signs of a revival of death sentences; these have been on the decline since about the mid-1990s.
North Carolina has not executed anyone in over 10 years, for example. There do remain some “hot spots” for the death penalty, and Arkansas just revived its execution chamber after not executing any for over 10 years, so one can never be sure.
But nationally and here in NC, the trends are toward decline.
What would the layman find most interesting and accessible within your research?
I would say that in my work on policy making and agenda setting the main conclusions of interest to outsiders are that dramatic policy change is sometimes possible even in the US system with its multiple layers, separation of powers, etc.
- The government does indeed sometimes enact major policy changes. We have banned smoking, whereas the tobacco industry was previously held up as the example of the most entrenched, powerful special interest.
- We have allowed marriage equality for gays, whereas gays were once reviled and treated with hostility throughout the political system.
So, what seems set can sometimes be upset.
Another item more from my recent research is the continuing impact of race and gender on so many public policies, especially those related to criminal justice. That of course should not be a surprise to anyone who has their eyes open, but the scale of it is huge.
In your career what has been your biggest obstacle?
Personally I have been very fortunate: I had a fantastic public university at my doorstep, growing up in Michigan. My professors invested in me and gave me fantastic mentoring and opportunities. My work got published, and eventually got noticed.
Of course, it’s a hard slog at some points and for example I moved around the country, to Iowa, then 11 years in a small town in Texas, then to LA, then 10 years in a small college town in Pennsylvania, always for better professional opportunities, before coming to Carolina 8 years ago.
But let’s be serious: I’m six feet tall, white, male, hetero. My challenges have been pretty easily surmountable with hard work: no one was opposed to my being here. I know that’s not the case with other people. So I don’t want to suggest that I had very great challenges.
If you were to give advice to a student thinking of pursuing a PhD American politics what advice would you give them? What is on the cutting edge of the field?
Follow your passion.
Politics covers a lot. Study what you think is fun and interesting, but which also bothers you.
I’m bothered by racial and gender inequalities, and by the fact that our government officials often seem to focus on the wrong problems, rather than those I think are most important.
So I’ve studied pretty much nothing but that my entire career. It’s fun and I hope to have made a difference.
Why did you gravitate toward studying American politics?
I actually began my research studying comparative politics. My dissertation was about agenda-setting, lobbying, and policy making in France.
I went to Paris for a year, interviewed members of Parliament, interest group officials, and senior civil servants about the policy process related to 30 particular cases of policy, some of which became huge controversies (leading in one case to protests with over 1 million people in the streets of Paris, with counter-demonstrations in Versailles and other cities throughout the country), and others which were considered “merely technocratic.”
I tried to explain why the controversies erupted: how the agenda gets set.
I had actually written my senior thesis as an undergraduate using a roughly similar methodology in Detroit, analyzing urban development projects in the city center as compared to the lack of investment in any neighborhoods; I was from there on interested in why the city (even then) was in decline.
My interests had always been on whose voices get heard in government, and why the front pages are talking about this issue, rather than that one. I’m still studying that same thing now. I’ve done it a lot in the US, but have also studied many other countries; my first book as I mentioned was about France; I published one in 2015 (with collaborators) about Spain!
With all the funding in the world, what would you research and how?
I’d so the same as what I do no, but more of it and on a bigger scale!