Premium
The “Science” of Policy Development During Administrative Rulemaking
Author(s) -
Yackee Susan Webb
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
policy studies journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1541-0072
pISSN - 0190-292X
DOI - 10.1111/psj.12350
Subject(s) - rulemaking , premise , legitimacy , political science , government (linguistics) , evidence based policy , conflict of interest , scientific evidence , scientific consensus , public policy , public administration , science policy , positive economics , public relations , public economics , law and economics , economics , law , politics , epistemology , medicine , ecology , philosophy , linguistics , alternative medicine , pathology , climate change , global warming , biology
The legitimacy of government agencies rests in part on the premise that public administrators use scientific evidence to make policy decisions. Yet, what happens when there is no consensus in the scientific evidence—i.e., when the science is in conflict? I theorize that scientific conflict yields greater policy change during administrative policymaking. I assess this claim using data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I identify policy change—what I refer to as “policy development” in this article—between the FDA's draft and final rules with a novel text analysis measure of shifts in regulatory restrictions. I then go on to find that more policy development does occur with scientific conflict. Moreover, using corresponding survey data, I uncover suggestive evidence that one beneficiary of such conflict may be participating interest groups. Groups lobby harder—and attempt to change more of the rule—during conflict, while an in‐survey experiment provides evidence of increased interest group influence on rule content when scientific conflict is high.