13 b THE FUTURE OF U S AGRICULTURAL

13 b. THE FUTURE OF U. S. AGRICULTURAL POLICY (& How Public Policy Really Works) Larry D. Sanders Fall 2005 Dept. of Ag Economics Oklahoma State University 1

APPENDICES A. B. C. How Public Policy Really Works Alternatives & Consequences Problem Solving Model Community Food Systems & the Changing Culture of Policy and Science 2

A. How Public Policy Really Works Larry D. Sanders 3

Public Policy is. . . “Public policy and sausage have a lot in common. You may like the results of both, but you wouldn’t want to see how they’re made. ” --Governor Henry Bellmon, paraphrasing Germany’s Bismark in the 19 th century 4

THE POLITICAL AGRO-ECONOMICS OF POLICY PLANT LIFE 7. FINAL GROWTH • Dreaded Budget Deficit Virus • Conservatives question use of tax $$$$$ $$ $ $ 8. $$$ AUTHORIZED $ 9 A. MONEY DROUGHT • Nothing Happens • $$$ not released $ $ $ 9 B. $$$ APPROPRIATED 5. MOISTURE • Sweat/Worry of Targeted Group 4. FERTILIZE • Political Bull 10. IMPLEMENTATION 1. PLANNING Goal -- Political Success 6. PEST ATTACK* • Lobbyists • Foreign Competitors • Economists 2. PLANT • Seeds of Good Intention * NOTE: PEST ATTACKS MAY OCCUR AT ANY TIME IN LIFE CYCLE 3. EARLY GROWTH • Sprout in Washington, DC • Till in Media • Weed in Countryside 5

High School Civics Model No Action Citizen Concern Representative Action Committee Senate/ House President 6

Pre-1990 s Model (1) House/ Senate Committees (2) Farm Organization Leaders Committee Staff Writes Bill Committee Senate/ House President 7

1990 s Model—ala Newt GOP Leaders Farm Organization Leaders Committee Majority Senate/ House Fail Committee Compromise Demo Leaders Conference (compromise) Other Interest Groups President Veto Sign 8

Future Model? GOP Farm Organizations No Compromise Gridlock Demos Other Interest Groups 9

Expansion of Support ADVOCATES Problem Recognition Convergence of interest Formulation of Proposal Identification of Authorities Presentation of Proposal Reduction of Opposition AUTHORITIES Reduction of Support Authoritative Consideration DECISION OPPONENTS Emergence of Opposition Formulation of Counterproposal Identification of Authorities Presentation of Counterproposal Expansion of Opposition EVALUATION Note: Based on work by Alan Hahn IMPLEMENTATION

Power Clusters FOREIGN RELATIONS AGRICULTURE RURAL WEST LABOR ENVIRONMENT URBAN SOUTH AGED CONSUMERS HEALTH CARE NORTH TRADE DEFENSE EAST BUSINESS Etc. 11

What Makes a Power Cluster Work Kingmakers: Kings: Active Public: Interested Public: Apathetic Public: Influential Core Legislative Committees Interest Groups Agencies Professionals Volunteers Attentive Public Latent Public

Policy Making “War Stories” OCTOBER, 1999 MULTI-STATE CES GROUP PLANNED $10 MIL. RISK MGMT EDUCATION PROGRAM NO HOUSE BILL KEY CONGRESSMAN LGU RISK STATE LGU CONTS DIRECTORS USDA HB 4018 FUNDING $30 M. 3/16/00 AIDE CONGRESSIONAL REPS CONFERENCE COMMITTEE 4/24/00 APPROVED $5 MIL/YR & USDA CONTROL (STATES LOST CONTROL} USDA AESOP, KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS & ETC CONGRESS AG SENATE AG COMMITTEE STAFFERS COMMITTEE CHAIR (SNOWSTORM? ? ? } CONGRESS CO-SPONSORS MISSED SOME KEY CONGRESS LEADERS COMMODITY ORG LEADERS HB 2559 ARPA WITH $0 FOR RISK MGMT PASSED IN SEPT. 1999. S 2251 BILL $30 M FUNDING ADDED 3/22/00 PRESIDENT SIGNED HR 2559 6/2000 NOTE: With a few exceptions, main support of key commodity orgs. was to offer no opposition. Don’t underestimate that kind of support. It’s critical to gain no-opposition if you can’t get active support. However, some active support was gained as well. NOTE: Case study developed by J. Novak, D. Jose, K. Klair, J. Newkirk, K. Stokes, D. Tilmon, 13

How to “Do Policy” By the Numbers. . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Plan proposal and strategy to get approval by legislative body. Gain a broad coalition including key players. Gain support of a key staff aide. Walk the halls (Congress or Legislature) and also get support of Executive Branch (USDA or state dept of ag (no mistakes). Expand legislative base of support. Work with key staffers (hope for snowstorm? ). Use your own lobbyist and other groups with lobbyists to follow in your tracks. Get a “champion” in Congress and in the Conference Committee. NOTE: Case study developed by James Novak, et al. 14

How to “Do Policy” By the Numbers (continued). . . 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Expect that what is authorized is less than what was hoped for. President or Governor signs legislation if they were “brought along”. Plan effort to work with appropriations committees and expect less than what was authorized. Plan to work with the implementing agency. Track implementation and provide feedback. Collect and share success stories with key committee and public and/or suggested improvements in law. “Don’t forget who brung you to the dance. ” Begin again at #1 as appropriate. NOTE: Case study developed by James Novak, et al. 15

Summary & Caveats u Simple? Yeah, right! u Pork, Investment & Rent-seeking u There’s the deal, and there’s the real deal. u Never under-estimate the power of 20 -somethings in Washington. u If you think you’re starting to figure it out, you may have to throw out the rule book for the next 4 years. u Life is not a sports event. Sooner or later we have to figure out how to get along, cooperate and find common ground. u Compromise is essential for a democracy to work. 16

Remember Pogo: “we are the enemy. ” What we were trying to do with our legislation. . . was wanton, cheap and greedy—a sluttish thing. This should come as no surprise. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. . Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us. --P. J. O’Rourke, 1991. 17

References u Bellmon, Henry, public comments. u Flinchbaugh, Barry, Kings and Kingmakers. u Hahn, Alan u House, Vern, Working With Our Publics, 1987. u Novak, James, personal communications with author, 2000. u O’Rourke, P. J. Parliament of Whores, 1991. u Rauch, Jonathan, Demosclerosis, 1994. 18

B. Alternatives/Consequences Problemsolving Model 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Define the problem, not the symptoms. Frame the issue constructively, not destructively. Determine a brief range of relevant, realistic alternative solutions. Conduct scientific, objective evaluation of alternatives. Compare the consequences of each alternative to desired goals. Encourage policy makers to act on preferred alternative. 19