Citation
Cheap beer

Material Information

Title:
Cheap beer venue and arena shopping a Wisconsin sin tax
Creator:
Arney, Jeremy
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 212 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor of philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public affairs

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Since 1951 ( fast )
Beer -- Taxation -- Wisconsin ( lcsh )
Venue -- Wisconsin ( lcsh )
Beer -- Taxation ( fast )
Political science ( fast )
Venue ( fast )
Politics and government -- Wisconsin -- 1951- ( lcsh )
Wisconsin ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Colorado Denver, 2010. Public affairs
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 200-212).
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jeremy Arney.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
707477551 ( OCLC )
ocn707477551

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CHEAP BEER: VENUE AND ARENA SHOPPING A WISCONSIN SIN TAX
by Jeremy Amey
B.A., Colorado State University, 1993 M.A., Colorado State University, 2000
A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Affairs 2010
The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the undersigned, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation and scholarly standards of work in the discipline listed below. We approve its publication.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Jeremy Amey has been approved by
Peter deLeon
Christine Martel!


1
I
Amey, Jeremy (Ph.D., Public Affairs)
Cheap Beer: Venue and Arena Shopping a Wisconsin Sin Tax Thesis directed by Professor Peter deLeon
ABSTRACT
This thesis highlights a case study conducted on agenda-setting and the recent attempts by legislators and supporting interest groups to increase the excise tax on beer produced in Wisconsin. Drawing on the venue shopping literature, the analysis examines how political actors sell their policy solution (a beer tax increase) to the citizens of Wisconsin through their legislative representatives. In addition to performing a content analysis of media coverage concerning the beer tax increase over the last five years, in-depth interviews were conducted with each legislator who either authored or supported Assembly Bill 287. After analyzing the data, the research indicates there is growing momentum toward increasing the beer tax in Wisconsin. The evidence shows legislators and policy advocates rely on two main strategies to shop or sell a beer tax increase (AB 287) to the public and their legislative representatives. The first strategy is to emphasize the needed economic gains in state revenues the tax increase would bring. Second, by framing the beer tax as a sin tax, policy actors are attaching their policy solution to the growing public concern with the social costs incurred from alcohol-related tragedies in the state of Wisconsin. Finally, by relating the findings of this case study to the work of Sarah Pralle on venue shopping, it appears that future studies in this area should draw a clear distinction between the concepts of policy venues and arenas.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend its publication.
Signed
Dr. Peter deLeon
Hi


ACKNOWLEGMENT
The author would like to thank all of the interviewees for participating in this case study including Terese Berceau, Fred Risser, Steve Hilgenberg, Kelda Helen Roys, Lisa Maroney,
Julia Sherman, and Carol Lobes. In addition, the author is grateful for all of the work his committee members did to help him reach the end product, especially the chair Dr. Peter deLeon.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables.......................................................ix
List of Figures......................................................x
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION
The Social Construction of Problems and Issues..................1
The Policy Issue: Added taxation of the Wisconsin beer industry.3
Agenda-setting and venue shopping...............................7
Research Questions.............................................12
The Remaining Dissertation Chapters............................17
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................20
Agenda-setting.................................................22
Achieving agenda-status........................................26
The problem stream: Framing attachable solutions........26
The policy stream.......................................30
The politics stream.....................................31
Models of Venue Shopping.......................................32
v


The Dynamic Model: Punctuated Equilibrium
32
Expanding on PET and venue shopping........................40
The static model of venue shopping.........................43
Venues, Arenas, and Jurisdictions................................45
Other nuances of venue shopping..................................49
Internal Organizational Factors and Venue Shopping.........52
External opportunities and constraints on venue shopping...53
Policy subsytems and venue shopping..............................55
Key decision-making venues.......................................56
Venue shopping and outsider strategies in policy arenas........59
Sin-taxes........................................................63
The ebb & flow of issues.........................................68
Summary..........................................................75
3. RESEARCH METHODS.....................................................77
Research Design..................................................77
Task One: Specification of the problem and research objective. ..77 Task Two: Developing a research strategy...................79
vi


Task Three: Case selection...................................80
Task Four: Describing the variance in variables..............81
Task Five: Formulation of data requirements..................82
Mixed-methods and triangulation......................................83
Data Collection Strategies...........................................85
Secondary data and archival research.................................85
Content Analysis.....................................................87
Primary data: Interviews.............................................90
Limitations of interviews............................................95
Saturation...........................................................97
Qualitative Data Analysis............................................98
Coding...............................................................98
Codebook............................................................100
NVivo ..............................................................102
Intercoder Reliability..............................................103
Validity............................................................104
Reliability.........................................................105
vii


4. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND
107
Background: Alcohols role in Wisconsin...........................107
The last beer tax increase in 1969...............................109
The beer tax presently............................................110
Advocates of the beer tax: the legislators........................111
Berceaus Legislative Colleagues..................................115
Advocates of the beer tax: interest groups........................117
Opponents of the beer tax.........................................119
The Public Hearing on AB 287 .....................................122
Summary...........................................................125
5. DATA ANALYSIS........................................................127
Content Analysis by Frequency of Articles.........................127
Content Analysis by the Code......................................130
Interview Analysis................................................140
Individual interviewees and their coded references................144
Representative Terese Berceau..............................144
Representative Hilgenberg..................................146
viii


Senator Fred Risser
148
Representaive Kelda Helen Roys............................149
Carol Lobes...............................................151
Lisa Maroney..............................................153
Julia Sherman.............................................155
Analyzing the Research Questions.................................156
Selling..........................................................157
Cost of Inaction.................................................158
Economic Gain.............................................159
Health Gains..............................................160
Giving Feedback...........................................161
Saliency..................................................162
Audience Friendly Feedback.......................................164
Growing Public Concern....................................165
Human Health Impact.......................................166
Local Impact..............................................168
Selling vs. Saliency.............................................169
IX


Research Question Three
171
Comparison of Content Analysis and Interviews.............173
Final Thoughts............................................177
6. FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS......................................179
Making the distinction between venues and arenas..........180
Ambiguities in venues and arenas still exist..............186
Findings from testing the propositions....................189
Future testing of the causality of the variables in agenda-setting.196
Future research on the beer tax in Wisconsin..............196
APPENDIX A......................................................199
APPENDIX B .....................................................201
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................203
x


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Codebook.......................................................101
Table 5.1: Number of Article by Month and Year............................128
Table 5.2: Content Analysis Coding References.............................131
Table 5.3: Interviewee and Attribute......................................141
Table 5.4: Number of Coding Reference by Individual and Total.............142
Table 5.5: Political Factors by Individual................................170
Table 5.6 Content Analysis vs. Interview Analysis.........................172
xi


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Bernard and Ryan (2010) Steps for Content Analysis...........87
Figure 5.1 Breakdown of Economic Gain or Loss...........................132
Figure 5.2: Growing Public Concern......................................134
Figure 5.3: Human Health Gains or Losses and Human Health Impact........135
Figure 5.4: Local Impact................................................136
Figure 5.5: Audience Friendly Feedback..................................138
Figure 5.6: Coding References by Attribute..............................142
Figure 5.7: Terese Berceau..............................................144
Figure 5.8: Hilgenberg..................................................146
Figure 5.9: Fred Risser.................................................147
Figure 5.10 Kelda Helen Roys............................................149
Figure 5.11: Carol Lobes................................................151
Figure 5.12: LisaMaroney................................................153
Figure 5.13: Julia Sherman..............................................154
Figure 5.14: Research Question One......................................156
Figure 5.15: The Cost of Inaction by Interviewee........................157
Figure 5.16: Economic Gain by Interviewee...............................158
Figure 5.17: Giving Feedback by Interviewee.............................160
Figure 5.18 Research Question Two.......................................162
Figure 5.19: Audience Friendly Feedback by Interviewee..................163
Figure 5.20: Growing Public Concern by Individual.......................164
Figure 5.21: Human Health Impact by Individual..........................165
Table 5.22: Local Impact by Individual..................................167
Figure 5.23 Saliency and Selling by Attribute...........................168
Figure 5.24 Selling Propositions by Content Analysis....................173
Figure 5.25 Selling Propositions by Interview Analysis..................173
Figure 5.26 Saliency Proposition by Content Analysis....................174
Figure 5.27 Saliency Proposition by Interview Analysis..................175
XII


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The Social Construction of Problems and Issues
Alcohol-related social problems are thought to be the source of many major and continuing public health issues in America (Centers for Disease Control, August 6, 2008). Likewise, policy solutions designed to address the social ills connected with alcohol abuse are equally as abundant, of which federal Prohibition was clearly the most noted (Cook 2007; Okrent 2010). A recurring question by concerned policy actors over the years has been, how expensive is alcohol abuse nationally? The indicative answer is that the economic costs are substantial. Alcohol abuse and addiction cost the nations citizens an estimated $220 billion in 2005more than cancer ($196 billion) and more than obesity ($133 billion)(The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, May 2006). While down from averaging nearly 30,000 deaths in the early 1980s, drunk drivers are still killing 15,000 Americans on average each year and injuring hundreds of thousands more (www.rockvmountainnews.com. Anonymous, January 2, 2009).
1


While citizens struggle with national public health policies designed to reduce the detrimental effects of heavy alcohol drinking, Wisconsin residents have the distinction of leading the nations states in many public health situations because of their drinking culture. According to the Wisconsin State Council on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, in 2008 Wisconsin was ranked first in the country in adult binge' drinking, the percentage of current drinkers in the population, and in driving under the influence (www.scaoda.state.wi.us~). As recently as 2005, Wisconsin had the second highest binge drinking rate for college students in the population (Anonymous, February 23, 2005). Even more recently, Wisconsin has had the highest underage drinking rate in the country (U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2007). Alcohol and drug abuse is the 4th leading cause of death in Wisconsin, behind heart disease, cancer and stroke (Wisconsin Alcohol Traffic Facts Book, 2001). And only Montana has a higher percentage of driver fatalities in which blood alcohol concentrations exceed .08 (Traffic Safety Facts Data: Alcohol, NHTSAs National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Washington, DC, 2005).
While the definition of "binge drinking" is continually being debated The National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) adopted the 5/4 definition of binge drinking where a "binge" is a pattern of drinking alcohol that brings blood alcohol concentration to 0.08 gram percent or above. For the typical adult, this pattern corresponds to consuming 5 or more drinks (male) or 4 or more drinks (female) in about 2 hours. The annual Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended changing its measure of binge drinking from a 5-drink standard to a gender-specific measure of 5 drinks for males and 4 drinks lor females (Weehsler and Nelson 2008).
2


The Policy Issue: Added taxation of the Wisconsin beer industry
Of all of the policy solutions available to reduce harm from the overconsumption of alcohol, one of the most oft cited is to increase the price via taxation (Wagner 1983; Shughart II 1997; Cook and Moore 2002; Wagenaar et al. 2009; Sharma 2009). An increase in taxation on the indulgence of certain commodities (i.e., alcohol and tobacco) have often been referred to as sin taxes. According to Lorenzi (2010), sin taxes can be defined as those government revenues garnered from the purchase or consumption of resources that exhibit addiction, self-harm and harm to the public. These so-called sin taxes were a major source of revenue for the federal government (and its war excursions) up until the creation of the federal income tax in 1913 (Shughart II 1997; Salanie 2003; Okrent 2010). While there are many ways in which a sin tax can be framed, it is the pros and cons used to justify tax increases on sin that draws the most public attention. For instance, supporters of a beer tax increase see it as a user fee that helps pay for the negative externalities (i.e, social costs) brought about by the overconsumption of beer (Shughart II 1997). Opponents of a beer 2
2 According to Merriam-Webster (2009), beer is defined as an alcoholic beverage usually made from malted cereal grain (as barley), flavored with hops, and brewed by slow fermentation. While the standard alcohol content in most domestic beers fall within a range between 4 and 6 percent, the craft beer industry usually maxes out at fourteen percent alcohol. However, new yeast research has allowed brewers to experiment with the emerging science that has pushed the traditional cap of 14 percent alcohol by volume for beer. In fact, Samuel Adams brewing company has just released a beer that is the highest ever recorded alcohol content in a beer made in the U.S. at 27 percent (Contreras, November 30, 2009).
3


tax increase say that it unfairly taxes responsible beer drinkers and is yet another sign of government impeding on an individuals choice of lifestyle (Peters 2010). Nonetheless, there has been recent attempts to frame these tax increases as prosocial strategies to reduce the likes of anti-social behaviors like drunk driving and binge-drinking. Sin taxes remain a viable, important public policy tool for raising needed government revenues, for encouraging pro-social behavior, and for curbing anti-social consumption (Lorenzi 2010, p. 330). Therefore, policymakers and actors in favor of increasing the have analytic evidence to counter those opposed to adopting beer tax increasesalthough, as Lorenzi points out sin taxes face the greatest opposition from those who produce the sin
(ibid)3.
To supplement the familiar anecdotal evidence of alcohol tragedies, several recent studies have been used to illustrate the positive consequencesin terms of national public healthfor increasing beer taxes nation-wide. For example, beer is the beverage most commonly consumed by people stopped for impaired driving or involved in alcohol-related crashes and, as such, accounts for 81% of all alcohol that is drunk in hazardous amounts in the U.S. (Greenfield and Rogers 1999; Rogers and Greenfield 1999). Therefore, one study of the positive
3 There is also a history of opposition by the consumers as well. In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton proposed an excise tax on alcohol to boost revenues and curb consumption the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 later ensued, forcing federal officials to quell an uprising of angry Pennsylvanians (Altman, Time Magazine, April 2, 2009).
4


public health effects of taxation on alcohol-related problems has found that higher taxes can reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths (Ponicki et al. 2007). Moreover, there are studies that suggest for every 1% increase in the price of beer, the traffic fatality rate declines by 0.9% (Ruhm 1996). Grossman and Markowitz (1999) found that a 10% increase in beer taxes has been projected to reduce the overall number of students involved in some sort of violent behavior by about 4%. Chaloupka (2002) indicated that if alcohol in beer were taxed at the same rate as alcohol in distilled spirits, the number of fatalities among 18-20 year olds in traffic crashes would decrease by 21%. Saffer et al. (2001) found that higher beer taxes lead to significant reductions in crime, particularly in the under 21 age population. Cook and Moore (2002) have also shown how taxation can reduce the percentage of youth who drink heavily and engage in binge drinking. And, most recently, a meta-analysis from the Harvard School of Public Health of 112 studies with 1,003 relationships of tax and consumption found that significant relationships between alcohol tax or price measures and consumption of alcohol exist (Wagenaar et al. 2009). The authors concluded that alcoholic beverage prices and taxes are inversely related to drinking4, as prices go up, people become less likely to drinkand when they do drink, they drink less. These findings held for teenagers as well as adults (Wagenaar et al. 2009).
4 They found aggregate r = -. 17 for beer, .30 for wine, .29 for spirits and .44 for total alcohol.
5


Yet numbers alone are often insufficient to push an issue higher on the governmental agenda. Stone (2002, p. 177) contends that, Numbers in politics are measures of human activities, made by human beings, and intended to influence human behavior. They are subject to conscious and unconscious manipulation by the people being measured, the people making the measurements, and the people who interpret and use measures made by others. Statistics and other products of professional research and analysis can be used for either enlightenment or ammunition because actual policy decisions are claimed by many to be based on ordinary knowledge and social interaction (Lindblom and Cohen 1979; Weiss 1989). Regardless of whether actual policy decisions are made by presenting statistical accounts or by conveying to the public in laymans terms that there is a problem facing society, for a decision to actually be made on enacting a policy, it must first reach the decision-making agenda of the governing institution. This dissertation is a case study about how policy entrepreneurs and their support groups work to place a policy onto the decision-making agenda of the Wisconsin state legislature. In other words, based on using a cost-benefit analysis5, how do policy actors sell a sin tax to the
5 Lorenzi (2010) refers to three different types of sustainability that carry out the positive goals based in an efficient cost-benefit approach that serves the common good, where the benefit is equivalent to the accounting concept of revenue and a positive-benefit to cost ratio would indicate that the process is efficient, profitable or wealth creating. In accounting terms, the difference between revenues and costs is profitvalue or wealth creation (p. 329). Emphasizing the distribution of benefits and costs when determining policy is not a new line of reasoning, Harold
6


legislature, and by extension, the citizens of Wisconsin when there appears to be deeply entrenched opposition toward such a policy?
Agenda-setting and venue shopping
In addition to problem and issue defining, models of agenda setting emphasize the importance of framing an issue and how issue images are used in shaping policy conflicts ( Brewer and deLeon 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003; Stone 1988; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Schneider and Ingram 1993, Rochefort and Cobbl994; Cobb & Ross 1997; Leech et al. 2002). Shifting or framing the image of an issuethe way an issue is perceived, discussed, and understoodis a key way to mobilize the public and policymakers around a policy problem and a proposed solution (Schon and Rein 1994). Sometimes it is necessary to transform what is considered a condition, or something one lives with, to a problem that one (and/or the government) can do something about (Kingdon 1984; Stone 1988), or, as A.O. Hirschman (1982) phrases it shifting involvement from the personal to the public. Borrowing from the March-Cohen-Olsen (1972) garbage can model, Kingdon (2003) argues that government and government organizations are operating as organized anarchies (Kingdon 2003, p. 86). Therefore, policy actors and entrepreneurs are interested in becoming more organized (simplicity) in the policy making process, rather than
Lasswells (1936; 1958) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How introduced this idea over half a century ago (also see Weimer and Vining 1999).
7


creating more anarchy (complexity). According to Kingdon (2003, p.224), theories of complexity, chaos and garbage can models have some properties in common, they all find pattern and structure in very complicated, fluid, and seemingly unpredictable phenomena. Nonetheless, the complexities never entirely disappear and policy actors for the most part are left to muddle through the policymaking process (Lindblom 1959). Venue shopping is one alternative strategy available to the muddling policymaker.
In some cases, policy entrepreneurs will try to shift attention to different aspects of a complex issue to change how the public and policymakers think about and react to an existing issue in an attempt for that policy to gain access to a decision-making venue (Downs 1972; Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984;
2003; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Leech et al. 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). In the agenda-setting literature, policy entrepreneurs and political forces (i.e., an interest group) might also try to redefine an issue to move consideration of it into a new policy venue, where decision rules, norms, and procedures differ. For instance, according to Baumgartner and Jones (1993), moving ones policy issues to more favorable venuesthat is, across the executive, legislative and judicial branches of governmentis a benefit for policymakers operating in a federalist system like the one found in the U.S. Nearly a decade later, Baumgartner and Jones (2002) continued to support the idea of policy
8


entrepreneurs shopping around until they find a more receptive legislative committeealso referred to by them as a venuewhere their efforts will lead to favorable policy decisions. That is, policy entrepreneurs can increase their likelihood of success by steering legislation they support to committees that are receptive to their positions; alternatively, they can try to steer legislation they oppose to committees that delay, alter, or even terminate legislation. Therefore, this concept of venue shopping asserts that policy entrepreneurs might examine multiple decision-making venues until they find a receptive committee or agency and then they work together to have policy decisions made in this new arena (Baumgartner & Jones 2002; Pralle 2003; 2006).
Others scholars have talked about the important role venue shopping plays in terms of agenda-setting and public policy change. In Up in Smoke (2005), Martha Derthick writes about how anti-smoking advocates decided to file their lawsuits against the tobacco companies in state courts when anti-smoking legislation failed in Congress. As Derthick (2005) wrote, [W]hen litigators file lawsuits, they try to pick venues that will maximize their chances of winning (p.75). This turned out to be the case in the state of Mississippi in the 1990s where tort lawyers found a sympathetic venue in its state Supreme Court that disallowed the tobacco industrys request for a jury trialeventually leading to a
9


settlement in the summer of 1997 for Mississippi litigators (which represented one of 32 states as plaintiffs in lawsuits against the tobacco industry by that time).
More recently, Deserai Crow (2010) has written about the highly contentious policy venues of both the legislature and the courts in Colorado regarding its water rights law. Drawing upon Baumgarten and Jones (1993) theory of punctuated equilibrium, Crow (2010, p. 156) expected to see stakeholders shopping for venues friendlier than traditional venues for voicing opposition to the policy status quo. When the city of Golden was granted a water right to allow recreational in-channel diversion, a state agencythe Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)believed that its status as the authoritative decision-maker regarding in-stream water rights in Colorado was being severely threatened. According to Crow (2010, p. 156), [t]he CWCB decided to take the policy issue outside of the traditional court system venue, to what is considered a friendlier venuethe Colorado General Assembly. Unfortunately for the CWCB, the legislature did not side with them to prohibit recreational in-channel diversion water rights as many expected (p. 156).
These illustrations of venue shopping studies reflect a rational actor approach, where policy actors and entrepreneurs seek to maximize their policys utility by looking for success elsewhere in a different venue more receptive to their cause. Assuming venue shopping does take place, Sarah Pralle (2005)
10



introduces other aspects she has associated with the venue shopping literature, if an issue is firmly under the jurisdiction of just one decision venue, advocacy organizations have little choice but to target that venue. If unsuccessful they will have to use outsider strategies in policy arenas such as the media (Pralle 2010, p.26, emphases added)6. While agenda-setting and venue shopping studies recently carried out by Pralle (2003; 2006) acknowledge the importance of these outsider strategies, much work still remains in elaborating on the various processes and practices associated with these strategies. Pralles work over the last few years has helped show that venue shopping might be an important part of the policy process, but obtaining a true grasp of its usefulness requires that the relationship between policy venues and policy arenas becomes more prominent. The analytic thrust of this dissertation is to contribute to the theoretical implications of venue shopping and the strategies used by policy actors to forward their policy problems and accompanying solutions. Therefore, the following research questions are designed to elaborate on this relationship and to help build on Pralles (2010) proposition that when an issue is firmly under the jurisdiction
6 This is a central argument for this dissertation, and the materials drawn upon to help build and support this thesis were originally taken from a 2005 conference paper presented by Sarah Pralle. Through personal contact (September 7, 2010), Sarah Pralle has graciously provided me with her revised 2010 version of the paper, which is a book chapter in the forthcoming in Advocacy Organizations and Collective Action (Prakash and Gugerty 2010). The cites taken from Pralle in this dissertationfrom this body of workare from the 2010 revised paper.
11


of just one decision venue (p.26), venue shopping requires that the policy actors rely on outside strategies located in alternative policy arenas.
Research Questions
RQ1: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and policymakers?
While the venue shopping literature is still largely underdeveloped, Pralle (2010) asserts that venue shopping continues to give policymakers and their supporting groups an opportunity to keep issues on the agenda of government and other decision-making venues by soliciting the various governmental institutions and urging them to address problematic issues even when others are ignoring them. Although the distinction between a policy venue and policy arena is further developed in the literature review, the main distinction is that a policy venue has the sole governmental authority to place a policy solution onto the decision-making agenda, and then make the additional decision to enact it as policy or not. While policy arenas do not have decision-making authority, they are alternative places to consider policies.
12


Some examples of policy entrepreneurs and their support groups may resemble a wide range of political actors including legislators, members of the medical community, law enforcement, editorial boards and journalists, as well as, concerned members of the public. In addition, some non-governmental institutions also play an important role in keeping a policy issue salient and fresh in the minds of the attentive publics. In addition to how a policy issues is framed, this first research question also attempts to determine what types of venue shopping strategies occur outside the decision-making venue in other policy arenas.
RQ 2: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy problem in a way that increases the saliency of their policy solution to both the public and their representative policymakers?
While similar to the first research question, this research question is focused on the processes involved in posing and persuading the policy to the specific (latent) members of the public and their (seemingly) disinterested legislative representatives. That is, in order for policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups to have success in getting a policy solution placed on the
13


formal decision-making agenda, the audience has to be convinced that a problem exists, and as mentioned earlier, that the problem is more than just a regular part of life (Stone 1988). If Kingdon (1984; 2003) is right that policymakers (and presumably the public as well) learn about problems through indicators, then different indicators may have to be selected for different audiences. In other words, policy actors need to effectively publicize their positions to the citizenry about which problems affect them the most and that a certain policy solution makes the most sense over others (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Kingdon 1984; Stone 1988; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). Using metaphors and analogies could also prove useful, as they could help simplify complex scientific relationships between indicators and solutions (Stone 1988; Edelman 1988).
Nonetheless, indicators alone will not cause agenda and policy change. Policymakers and policy institutions often ignore information or discount it for long periods of time and are also unlikely to respond proportionately (i.e., gamer attention) to changes in problem indicators (Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b). Finally, the policymaking literature provides few examples, or novel arguments, for policy entrepreneurs and other political actors to help them reach the latent masses (Leech et al. 2002, pp.286-87). This means that changing the definition of an issue often requires the mobilization of the previously
14


uninterested public, which may pose a problem for policy actors with limited financial and human resources.
The third research question uses Kingdons (1984; 2003) multiple streams framework to help identify where in his three key political factors is the majority of the venue and arena shopping strategies likelier to take place.
RQ 3: Considering the three key political factors, where are venue and arena shopping strategies by policy entrepreneurs and their support groups likely to occur?
Models of agenda-setting and venue shopping would be incomplete without
attention to shifting political opportunities (Kingdon 1984 and 2003; Jones and
Baumgartner 2005). Kingdons (2003) multiple streams approach to
policymaking is given much greater attention in the following literature review;
for now, however, the concept of multiple streams focuses on three key political
factors affecting agendas: the national mood;7 organized political forces; and
administrative or legislative turnover (p. 146). According to Zahariadas (2007),
Kingdon assumes that policymakers sense a national mood, perhaps via public
opinion polls, and that this mood makes it more likely that the government will
address some problems and solutions more than others (p.77). An anti-
government mood, for example, might prevent proposals for large-scale
7 For the purposes of this dissertation national mood will be substituted with public opinion to keep this case study relevant to Wisconsin only.
15


government intervention in the economy and society from achieving a position on the decision agenda. This is being played out in the current TEA Party movement at all levels of government in the United States, with TEA Party members asking: Are we not over taxed as it is?
Organized political forces may contribute to policymakers understanding of the publics preferencesor at least the preferences of some segments of it and how various solutions will affect target groups, thus influencing policymakers perceptions of solution feasibility. The balance of organized political support and opposition to a policy may shape policymakers agendas and selection of alternatives (Kingdon 2003, p. 150). For instance, while the twenty-first amendment of the U.S. Constitution preserves the states rights to regulate alcohol as they see fit, Wisconsin, along with 18 other states, operate under a three-tier distribution system that organizes political forces representing each of the separate tiers (i.e., producers, distributors, and retailers).
Administrative or legislative turnover often leads to rather dramatic agenda changes, as new administrations push their preferred issues and raise the likelihood of some problems and solutions (p, 153). While it seems taxes are not very popular anywhere, in Wisconsin, the legislature recently raised state taxes more than $5 billion dollars during the 2009 session and will still face a state budget deficit of over $2.5 billion when it convenes in November 2010 (Hardie,


July 13, 2010, Bl). Anticipating legislative turnover affiliated with partisan identification, Republican Senate minority leader Scott Fitzgerald foresees that, [Democrats squandered their first year as the majority party in both houses of the legislature by raising taxes and in 2010 they will be focused on trying to get voters to forget about that (Bauer, January 4, 2010, A6).
Furthermore, because each of Kingdons three political factors exist along a continuum representing different degrees of authoritativeness with respect to governance (Timmermans 2001, p.314), the third research question is an attempt to expand on the literature and determine how much of an effect each factor has on certain policy decisions. More specifically, with respect to the beer tax, the researcher is interested in gauging which of the three political factors will the participants interviewed think has a greater effect on the likelihood of a beer tax increase ever becoming a law in the state of Wisconsin?
The Remaining Dissertation Chapters
Chapter two begins by offering a more general scope of the agenda-setting and venue shopping literature and then narrows its focus on the distinction between policy venues and policy arenas. This distinction between the two terms can help address the ambiguity in the current literature brought about by continuing to use venues and arenas interchangeably. In addition, the distinction may address the concerns of whether venue shopping can exist when access to the
17


decision-making agenda is denied to a group of policy supporters (revoking their lobbying capabilities in that venue). As Pralle (2005) has suggested, utilizing outside strategies to consider policies in alternative arenas may help policy actors in their attempts to gain access to the sole decision-making venue, if indeed, that happens to be the case. Nine propositions are introduced in the latter part of the literature review.
Chapter three discusses the research methods used to answer the overall research questions and their accompanying propositions. Chapter three also highlights the type of data needed to help establish if venue shopping is even taking place in this qualitative case study. A computer-assisted database, NVivo 8.0, was utilized to help store the data for a within-case analysis of the in-depth interviews and for a content analysis on the newspaper data collected during the research.
Chapter four is the detailed description of the Wisconsin beer tax as a case study. The case study is built mainly around archival (secondary data) and the primary data drawn from the in-depth interviews of the policy entrepreneur and the supporting political actors. This chapter provides the context for a public policy and its fit into the agenda-setting exercise of venue shopping.
Chapter five is the analysis that describes how the data collected are relevant to the venue shopping literature. The analysis shows whether or not the
18


research questions and their propositions were supported by the empirical data gathered.
Chapter six is the summary and conclusions about this case study and the future research opportunities regarding venue and arena shopping.
19


CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The following literature review offers a description of the literature of agenda-setting theories in the policy-making process. Building upon the early incrementalist explanation of politics during the 1950s and early 1960s, John Kingdons (1984) multiple streams approach to public policymaking is discussed. Following the discussion of Kingdon, Baumgartner and Jones (1993) continue the discussion around the phenomenon of policy actors shopping their policy solutions as a means to create policy change. While additional venue shopping studies are summarized, more attention is paid to the recent works of Sarah Pralle because of the central role venue shopping plays in her research. Finally, after a review of the several nuances of venue shopping in the literature, a more in-depth description of each of Kingdons three streams couches this dissertations propositions to support the three research questions introduced in the last chapter.
Agenda-setting
Earlier works by scholars studying the policymaking process discussed the conservative nature of politics and how the majority of changes that take place
20


occur in small incremental steps (Laswell 1936; 1958; Simon 1947; 1958; Lindblom 1959). Both Herbert Simon (1947; 1958) and Charles Lindblom (1959) describe how the abilities of decision makers are bounded to incrementalism in politics because of the unforeseen (and unforeseeable) consequences of negative feedback in the policymaking process (e.g., opposition by other policymakers or public outcry over certain issues). Through their interviews of many politicians Lasswell (1936; 1958), Simon (1958) and Lindblom (1959) posited that the majority of policymakers enjoyed the safety incrementalism provided them in their legislative dutiesby taking things cautiously and carefully, they were less inclined to upset their constituents by making sudden and broad sweeping changes. In addition, Aaron Wildavsky (1964) provided an excellent example of the bounding nature of incrementalism in his book Politics of the Budgetary Process. Wildavsky (1964) pointed out that the allocation of resources for governmental agencies are set in place one year prior to any attempts at making or maintaining policy. In other words, fixed budgets almost ensured that a steady equilibrium of politics remained at a conservative pace (Baumgartner and Jones 1993).
In addition to drawing upon the significant work confirming incrementalism as a mainstay phenomenon in the policy making process, scholars have also recognized that many factors beyond the budget constraints of
21


government agencies can lead to rapid change in government institutions and policymaking endeavors, as well as influencing what gets placed on the decision making agenda (Shepsle 1979; Riker 1980; Kingdon 1984; Krehbiel 1991; Baumgartner and Jones 1993). John Kingdon (1984; 2003) fundamentally asks why some policy issues emerge on governmental agendas while others are relatively neglected. Scholars in the problem definition literature (Lasswell 1971; Brewer and deLeon 1983; Cobb and Elder 1983; Dery 1984; Scneider and Ingram 1993; Rochefort and Cobb 1994) have suggested that how an issue comes to be defined as a social problem helps determine the issues ability to gain access to the governmental agenda. Nonetheless, some problems are not seen to be problems at all, but rather as conditions with which we choose to live (Wildavsky 1979; Stone 1988; Kingdon 2003). Problems without readily available and feasible solutions may fail to get on the decision agendas of governmental actors even if they attract public and governmental attention (Wildavsky 1979; Kingdon 2003). Furthermore, policy information may be ignored for long periods because of the cognitive limitations of policy actors and institutions, only to receive disproportionate attention at a later date (Simon 1977; Jones and Baumgartner 2005b). In short, agenda-setting research examines the fates of different public policy issues as they receive more or less public and governmental consideration, and what acts themselves gain attention on the
22


publics radar. Agenda-setting scholars attempt to explain these varying patterns of attention.
According to Kingdon (2003), the agenda-setting perspective starts with four basic assumptions. First, many of the above-mentioned scholars have identified at least three broad agenda in democratic political systems, although they use different terminology to describe them over the years. For the present purposes: the public agenda refers to the set of issues that are most salient to citizens and voters; the governmental agenda consists of the issues that are addressed in governmental institutions such as legislatures and executive agencies; and the decision agenda is the narrower set of issues about which governmental officials are poised to make a decision. Outside of the governmental institutions, such as the media and non-profit organizations also have agenda that can affect the public and governmental agenda (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988; Kingdon 2003).
The second assumption is that each of these agendas has a carrying capacity (referred to much earlier in the literature as bounded rationality) that limits the number of issues it can handle simultaneously, thus creating competition among issues for a place (Simon 1947; 1977; Hilgartner and Bosk 1988; Kingdon 2003). Third, it is less helpful to characterize issues as entirely on or off agenda than it is to think of them as occupying points on a spectrum on
23


which some issues are highly salient and a top priority, others are less salient, and still others do not register at all. Finally, the agenda-setting literature assumes that highly salient issues are more likely to move onto the decision agendas of governmental institutions. More effort and resources are expected to be directed to solve these problems than other less salient problems, although policy change is not guaranteed even when an issue is judged to be highly salient (Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003).
Kingdon (1984; 2003) envisions the rise and fall of issues on the agenda as a product of interplay of three streams or policy processes: problems, policies and politics. These streams apparently operate largely independent of one another, as they tend to have their own rules, star different players, and are subject to different internal dynamics (Zahariadis 2007). Nevertheless, at propitious moments (e.g., when windows of opportunity open), policy
O
entrepreneurs can help guide the coupling or merging of the three streams.
The confluence created by this coupling of the streams dramatically increases the chances that an issue will receive serious attention by policymakers. That is, the likelihood of any issue rising to prominence on the agenda is significantly increased when the problem, policy and politics streams join together. 8
8 According to Kingdon (2003), a policy entrepreneur refers to any political actor willing to invest their resourcestime, energy, reputation, and sometimes moneyin the hope of a future return (p. 122).
24


Such windows of opportunity arise as a result of activities in the political
stream or because a problem is deemed especially pressing. Kingdon argues that
some windows are predictable, such as budgetary and reauthorization processes in
US Congress, electoral cycles and the like. Other windows are governed by less
predictable processes such as focusing events, damning reports, and the sudden
emergence of pressing problems (Kingdon 2003, p. 165). Drawing upon the
Garbage Can Model originally introduced by Cohen, March and Olsen (1972),
often in the primeval soup of policy making, it may be that policy solutions go
looking for a problem to attach themselves to. In other words, when a feasible
solution is attached to what the public and policymakers perceive as an important
public problem, and when political conditions are amenable to change, a policy
window opens. At times, policy entrepreneurs operate in such a way to help
locate these windows of opportunity and when the time is right, they must seize
the opportunity and push for government action. Regardless of whether a
window opens predictably or randomly, policy entrepreneurs must be ready to
seize the moment, for the windows rarely stay open for very long.
Achieving agenda-status: Kinedons three streams and their role in venue shopping
As mentioned above, the three streams are posed by Kingdon (1984; 2003) as operating largely independent of one another, as they tend to have their own rules, star different players, and are subject to different internal dynamics
25


(Zahariadis 2007). The following sections describe in more depth the importance of each of Kingdons stream in the policymaking process.
The problem stream: Framing attachable solutions
In the context of this dissertation, we need to ask: Why would policymakers pay serious attention to a given policy initiative at some times and not others? According to Kingdon (2003), problems come to the attention of policymakers via indicators, focusing events and feedback. Indicators can illuminate the scope and severity of a problem through the monitoring of natural (or social) processes, activities and events. Indicators occur through both routine monitoring and special studies. For example, contemporary scientific and political interest in the numerous effects the British Petroleum oil spill has had on the coastal states of the Gulf of Mexico, has led some people (and a few politicians) to pay closer attention to articles being published in the literature concerning off-shore drillingas well as, to spend an increase in efforts toward discovering and/or using alternative energy sources.
Policymakers also learn about problems through dramatic focusing events that grab attention of the public and policymakers alike. As discussed below, Baumgartner and Jones (1993) define focusing events as punctuations in policy. Later, Birkland (1998) defines focusing events as relatively rare sudden events that can be reasonably defined as harmful or revealing the possibility of
26


potentially greater future harms, and are concentrated in a particular geographical area or community of interest (p.54). Unlike problems that are revealed through long-term monitoring, focusing events highlight a problem (or problems) in one striking (or exogenous) event that the public and policymakers learn about simultaneously (Sabatier et al., 2007).
In addition, policymakers learn about problems through feedback on current policy programs. Typically, this is negative feedback generated by evaluation studies, target groups, bureaucrats or policymakers themselves, who report on what is not working or on the unintended consequences of policies. It is important to note here that even with indicators, focusing events and feedback, issues do not come to the attention of policymakers as objective problems whose meaning is established and uncontested. Instead, much debate exists about whether a problem is amenable to government action, what kind of problem it is, the cause and scope of the problem, and other equally vexing issues (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Stone 1988; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Rochefort and Cobb 1994). In addition, several options are available to policy actors and groups to expand conflict on an issue, including appealing directly to government officials while attempting to turn a private conflict into a public one, or involving a wider public audience to encourage action by the government (Stone 1997). For example, when President Barak Obama presented the problem recognition of
27


millions of Americans being uninsured, he had to convince the public that the government has the capability of solving this problem in the first place by legislating mandatory insurance coverage for all (Mcardle 2010). Stone (1989) recommends that the process of defining a problem should attribute bad circumstances (i.e., tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths) to human conditions (lack of insurance) and that these circumstances are not just anomalies of nature or acceptable matters of fate. As summed by Baumgartner and Jones (1993), [W]hen conditions are argued to stem from human or government sources, then government action is much more likely (p.27). As the image of an issue changes from that of a private misfortune to a public problem amenable to government solutions, the issue may raise itself high on the governmental agenda in terms of shifting involvement(Hirschman 1982).
Policy actors will argue about the severity, incidence, novelty, proximity and crisis nature of an issue, as these factors affect an issues relevance and therefore its agenda status (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Rochefort and Cobb 1994). In general, an issues salience will rise to the extent that policy actors can define the problem as unique and extremely serious, with widespread impacts that hit close to home and result in catastrophic consequences (i.e., when the 9/11 attacks led to the enactment of the Patriots Act). Importantly, policymakers and
28


WM
advocacy groups will also engage in debates over how to categorize a problem, the cause of it, and how to solve it (Schon and Rein 1994; Stone 2002).
It is important to note that policymakers process the flow of information from indicators, feedback, focusing events and problem definitions in a disproportionate manner. Jones and Baumgartner (2005a and 2005b) argue that policymakers often ignore or under-react to problem indicators in the larger environment for a variety of reasons. For instance, since policymakers are limited in the amount of information they can process when they are bombarded with an overload of information, this may lead to cognitive dissonance or a short-circuit in their ability to process and act on a plethora of problem indicators (Festinger 1957; Steinbruner 1974). However, circumstances may change (for example, indicators may reveal a severe problem, new aspects of the problem become evident, or new framings of the problem emerge) such that policymakers recognize their error, pay disproportionate attention to a problem, and respond in non-incremental ways to it (Brewer and deLeon 1983). The result is an altered pattern of attention that includes long periods of stability punctuated by bursts of agenda (and potentially) policy change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and b).
The policy stream. Indeed, the debate over solutions, or what Kingdon (2003) calls the policy stream, is a critical part of the agenda-setting, and even
29


more importantly here for the venue shopping process. In addition to a problem stream, Kingdon (2003) envisions a policy stream in which solutions are being generated by specialists and experts within policy communities and are waiting to be attached to the salient problems of the day. While there are many potential solutions to a specific problem set, only a select few are chosen and implemented. Kingdon argues that proposals must pass a threshold test of technical feasibility and congruence with reigning values to be selected. Moreover, solutions must be perceived as staying within budgetary limits. As mentioned earlier, budgetary considerations prevent policymakers and those close to them from seriously considering some alternatives, initiatives, and proposals (Kingdon 2003, p.106). While Kingdon does not dwell on this point, these criteria are subject to change and that political actors will try to shape the public and policymakers perceptions about them. Hence, even budgetary constraints that appear to be objective are subject to varying interpretations (Wildavsky 1964). The most important point that Kingdon (2003) makes about policy solutions is the absolute need for a policy entrepreneurs and supporting political groups to actually have one: problems that have no solutions attached to them are less likely to make it onto governmental and decision agendas. In addition, specific segments of the population are less likely to worry about problems when they feel there is nothing to be done about them (Abbasi 2006, p. 146). As Cobb and Elder (1983) have
30


pointed out, the public includes a mass public, a smaller sympathetic public, and an even more circumscribed attentive public. This dissertation adds the latent public to the clientele and the need for policy actors to mobilize or gain the attentiveness of the less-engaged public.
The politics stream. Kingdons (1984; 2003) model of agenda-setting and venue shopping would be incomplete without attention to shifting political opportunities. Briefly, the multiple streams model focuses on three key political factors affecting agendas: the national mood9, organized political forces, and administrative or legislative turnover (Kingdon 1995, p.146). Kingdon assumes that policymakers sense a national mood, perhaps via public opinion polls, and that this mood makes it more likely that the government will pay more attention to some subset of problems and solutions than others (Zahariadis 2007, p. 77). An anti-government mood, for example, might prevent proposals for large-scale government intervention in the economy and society from achieving a prominent place on the decision agenda. Organized political forces may contribute to policymakers understanding of the publics preferencesor at least the preferences of some segments of itand how various solutions will affect target groupsthus influencing policymakers perceptions of solution feasibility. The balance of organized political support and opposition to a policy may shape
9 For the purposes of this dissertation national mood will be substituted with public opinion in order to keep this case study relevant to Wisconsin only.
31


policymakers agendas and selection of alternatives (Kingdon 2003, p. 150). Administrative or electoral turnover often leads to rather dramatic agenda changes, as new administrations push their preferred issues and raise the status of some problems and solutions. While the politics stream is the least developed of the three in Kingdons model, he does acknowledge the important role it plays in the policymaking process.
Models of Venue Shopping
The Dynamic Model: Punctuated Equilibrium. The most utilized example of the logic behind the dynamic model can be found in Baumgartner and Jones (1993) punctuated equilibrium model. Baumgartner and Joness (1993) punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) addresses both incremental and large policy changes, asserting there is a period of equilibrium (or stasis) interrupted by a punctuated changeand then returning to another period of equilibrium. This state of equilibrium remains fairly stable over time experiencing quiet periods of small incremental changes, but nothing significant enough to be designated as a punctuation. In other words, PET stresses the role stability plays for maintaining policy agendas and that stability does not indicate a lack of movement but rather small adjustments from the status quo (Jordan 2002, p.203).
These small adjustments or increments describe the most common movement on the policy agenda and has been used to refer to the policy making
32


process in America since the 1950s as a practice in incrementalism (Simon 1947; Lindblom 1959; Wildavsky 1964). Also remember the foundations of incrementalism is based on Simons (1947; 1977) concept of bounded rationality where the human minds ability to rationally and comprehensively resolve problems is limited due to the restraints of serial processing; the individual can only focus on a limited number of problems at a time (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005)'. At the group level, conflict begins to arise when policy makers cannot agree on whether or not a problem exists, or its magnitude, or its importance. Therefore, consensus on how to resolve an issue is modeled as not likely to happen. This tendency toward disagreement and conflict is an important aspect of incrementalism and strong evidence has been provided in the previous literature that patterns of incrementalism are hard to break away fromespecially when policy makers have been shown to have a vested interested in maintaining the status quo and trying to reduce conflict by submitting only incremental policy alternatives (Lindblom 1959; Wildavsky 1964; Jordan 2003). Therefore, punctuations are assist, according to Baumgartner and Jones, during periods of conflict and 10
10 Conflict also occurs at the individual level when they suppress information that could be contradictory to what the individual believes if perceived a certain way. Referred to by Leon Festinger (1957) as cognitive dissonance, an individuals thought processes may reject, repress, or downgrade this contradictory information to the point where a conflict no longer exists (in Brewer and deLeon 1983, p.36).
33


political instability when windows of opportunity exist for large significant changes to occur in the policy process.
Hence, PET is an agenda-based theory where the process encourages venue shopping by the political actors. That is, the process an issue must go through to get on the official agenda is the foundation of PET. The very structure of the American political system, incrementalism, contributes to maintaining the current official agenda which incorporates multiple political parties, as well as, checks and balances of various government branches. One political party will often try to restrain the actions of another political party, or the parties negotiate less controversial policy changes to get any changes implemented at all. These usually result in changes that are small and relatively easy to undo, if necessary. Also, one branch of government is granted powers by the Constitution that that can also restrain the actions of another branch of government. Furthermore, interest groups can apply pressure through lobbying, lawsuits, voting, and other methods of voicing their view that also limit fast-moving and expansive policy changes. All of these political characteristics contribute to a stable agenda and equilibrium (Jordan 2003).
Prior to Pralles (2005) distinction between agendas and arenas, Baumgartner and Jones (1993) also defined the agenda as the place where 11
11 Kingdons (1984; 2003) multiple streams theory also talks about a window of opportunity.
34


decisions are made and policies are chosen for implementation (although they followed Kingdons initial distinction between public, governmental, and decision agendas). The process of deciding which issues are placed on the agenda is competitive, largely due to the cognitive limitation (bounded rationality) of the decision making group.12 Since decision makers cannot address all problems simultaneously, the more successful participants in this agenda-setting process will see their problems addressed while others will not. Within a political and often crowded political environment, it is understandable that some issues do not make it to the agenda for consideration. Therefore, with many policy issues waiting to gain access to the decision-making agenda, it is important for an issue to attract attention distinguishing it from the rest (Jordan 2003; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). A critical part of attracting attention to an issue is problem definition. The definition of a problem influences how decision makers view the problem and subsequently impact how or whether they address the problem by placing it on the agenda (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Dery 1984; Rochefort and Cobb 1994). In addition, problem definitions seek to place the problem within a certain context of a frame of reference, while the image of the problem becomes more defined (Schon and Rein 1994). Stone (1997; 2002) argues that the image determines whether the issue is perceived in a negative or positive context.
12 See also Cyert and Marchs 1992 discussion of the behavioral theory of firms in addition to bounded rationality arguments.
35


Furthermore, a problem definition that has a powerful advocateoften referred to in the literature as a policy entrepreneuris more likely to reach the top of the agenda (Kingdon 1984; 1995; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005).
In The Politics of Attention (2005), Jones and Baumgartner continue to support the existence of bounded rationality throughout the various stages of the decision-making process (i.e., problem recognition, assessing the various dimensions and images of the problems, and while sorting through various solutions to make a choice). Both individuals and organizations are fundamentally affected by what they call the dynamics of attention shifting. Within the dynamics of attention shifting, individuals and organizations are limited to paying attention to only a few issues at a time; however, they recognize that decision-making bodies in government are made up of several individuals and therefore can delegate authority to others to look into many more issues than an individual could alone. Therefore, it is the allocation of attention that reflects the priorities for the agenda (Jones and Baumgartner 2005). The policy issues that find themselves on a governing bodys official agenda, according to Jones and Baumgartner, have exceeded the threshold of importance, which means that a limited number of issues have been deemed sufficiently urgent for attention and are placed on the agenda (Jones and Baumgartner 2005, p.206).
36


The question arises: What can the policy actors outside of the governing bodies do to increase their chances of gaining access to a decision-making agenda? One strategy is to expand the scope of conflict around an issue. The amount of attention, mobilization, and conflict surrounding a policy problem or proposal affects whether it gets on agenda and how it is resolved (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Furthermore, a lack of change in agenda and policies is due in part to the ability of dominant policymakers and advocacy groups to restrict the scope of conflict around a policy issue. These actors constitute a policy monopoly in which they control both the image of a policy problem and access to the policy process (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). As long as conflict remains restricted in its scope, a small group of stakeholders can largely direct the policy process surrounding an issue (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b).
Therefore, it is crucial for the policy outsider to expand the scope of the conflict surrounding an issue in an attempt to break up the policy monopoly or firmly established policy subsystem (Schattschneider 1960/1975). For Schattschneider, enlargement of the scope of political conflict was essential to the democratic processes, as well as to challenging those who have the power to define the issue in the first place. According to Schattschneider (1960/1975, p.71) organization is the mobilization of bias where members of institutions
37


with jurisdiction over a policy area favor some interests over others, thereby
controlling access to the institution in order to maintain existing policies. In
Baumgartner and Jones words (1993, p.36), the losing side seeks to increase its
allies and the winning side seeks to restrict participation in order to preserve its
advantageous position. This concept remains central to the majority of studies
focused on agenda setting, since it raises the question of the motivations of those
seeking to put something on the public agenda or to keep something from
reaching it (Riker 1962; Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). Therefore, issue
definition is linked to agenda-setting because changes in an issues definition
often may be the catalyst that leads to the appearance of an issue on the public
agenda (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). More recently, Pralle (2005) asserts,
Those seeking significant agenda and policy change often invite attention to and participation in a conflict in order to get movement on an issue that has languished in the backwaters of some decision room, has become stalemated by the usual suspects, or is simply not deemed important enough to warrant governmental attention (p.14).
Several options are available to policy actors and groups to expand conflict on an issue, including appealing directly to government officials while attempting to turn a private conflict into a public one (Hirschman 1982). As the image of an issue changes from that of a private misfortune to a public problem amenable to government solutions, the issue may raise itself high on the governmental agenda (e.g., acknowledging the environmental impacts of being a
38


throw away society, and the governments increased support behind becoming a more environmentally responsible greener society). Another option for the policy entrepreneur or policy group is to involve a wider public audience to encourage action by the government (Stone 1997). Furthermore, Stone (1989) recommends that the process of defining a problem should attribute bad circumstances that affect human conditions and that these circumstances are not just anomalies of nature or acceptable matters of fate. As reasoned by Baumgartner and Jones (1993), [Wjhen conditions are argued to stem from human or government sources, then government action is much more likely (p.27),!3 In other words, as the public becomes more aware of a problem and demands action, decision makers face pressure to either break up the policy monopoly or circumvent itand hence, agenda setting (and perhaps even policy change) is often the result of these pressures (Pralle 2005, p.14).
Therefore, according to Baumgartner and Jones (1993), [T]he agendasetting process implies that no single equilibrium can be possible in politics... and that a political system that displays considerable stability over long periods of time is likely to experience punctuations with periods of volatile change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993, p.4). Baumgartner and Jones argue their dynamic model established in PET illustrates how stability and rapid change are important
13 See also Schneider and Ingrams (1993; 2005) writings on the social construction of target populations.
39


characteristics of the American policy making system. And, even more recently they have stated: when we see a smoothly functioning institution we note that it is a matter of time before that equilibrium is broken or substantially adjusted by the inclusion of some new dimension of debate, some new set of participants, or some new definition of the underlying problem (Jones and Baumgartner 2005, P-279).
Expanding on PET and venue shopping. Pralle (2003) raises a precautionary note when she observes, [WJhile Baumgartner and Jones model is valuable for understanding the dynamics of policy turbulence, disruption, and change, it is less effective at accounting for periods of policy stability (p.234). Her point is well-taken. In fact, one of the earliest shortcomings of PET was the ambiguity around what actually qualifies as punctuation in American politics (True et al., 2007). In other words, punctuations appear to be an all-encompassing term for many of the problems that can occur (and that often intersect with one another) during the policy process. For instance, according to Jones and Baumgartner (2005), passing a statute or achieving a major budgetary increase or decrease implies punctuation in a policys equilibrium stage. They also point to legislative hearings being an important part of a punctuation process (and in getting laws passed). However, they point out that gaining access to the
40


formal agenda through legislation and hearings is subject to political and attentional dynamics, but institutional barriers at this stage are low (p.280).
The idea, then, for Baumgartner and Jones (1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b) is that if a policy niche has become too sclerotic (as policy monopolies want to do) American politics allows for policy entrepreneurs and groups to look for friendlier venues. For Baumgartner and Jones, just as consumers should not care where they buy a product after considering key factors like price and convenience, advocacy groups and policy entrepreneurs should not prefer one venue over another based on anything other than the possibility of reaching their policy goals (Baumgartner and Jones 1993, p.36). In their own words, [Tjhere are many possible institutional agendas, and for policymakers who seek that institutional niche where decisions would likely go in their favor, none is inherently better than any other (p.36, emphases added). Therefore, policymakers should have no pre-existing affinity for one venue over another. Not only has Pralle been able to provide evidence against such claims over the last few years, she has also added value to the literature by making the important distinction between agendas and arenas and how their interactive relationship aids in the agenda setting process (Pralle 2003; 2005; 2006a and 2006b).
41


As mentioned in the discussion below on the static model of venue
shopping, because of the checks and balances of a federal political system, it often
seems that those opposed to change have a variety of venues to impede policy
development and prohibit significant change or alterations in policy (Lindblom
1968; Rose 1976; Bardach 1977). While Baumgartner and Jones (1993) and their
dynamic PET have maintained the opposite, the many venues of politics work
against conservatism (p.240). That is, the separation of powers and shared
jurisdictional authorities emphasize opportunity for policy change in such systems
(Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). While
Baumgartner and Jones focus of attention is on the issues themselves, Praile adds
a different approach and shifts attention to the policy actors engaged in the
process of agenda-setting, which could also include such tactics as venue
shopping. As Praile succinctly claims,
Indeed, we cannot understand the role of venues in policy change processes without theorizing about and observing the behavior of policy entrepreneurs and advocacy groups as they attempt, or fail to attempt, to move issues into new venues. Their actions, along with the reactions of their opponents and institutional actors, shape the frequency and pace of venue shifting and policy change (Praile 2003, p.237).
As Praile suggests, any addition to the literature regarding the dynamic model of
venue shopping needs to consider both the policy issues being shopped and the
behaviors (and preconceived notions) of policy entrepreneurs and actors together
as an integral part to the policymaking process. One of the more recent attempts
42


to test the dynamic model of venue shoppingwhile taking in consideration both the policy issue and actors involvedis Crows (2010) case study concerning policy change in Colorado water rights. While Crows research supports PETs explanation for policy change at the state levelwhere policies changed to allow for recreational in-channel uses of waterher research did not find similar support for policy change at the local level.
The static model of venue shopping. The static model suggests that policy entrepreneurs and the groups that support them choose a specific strategy and generally persist with it, thereby, relying upon tools with which they are familiar and fit the groups organizational structure and culture (Gais and Walker 1991; Kollman 1998). Interestingly, Bryan D. Jones (2001) has found more recent evidence to support the static model of venue shopping. Joness (2001) evidence suggests that policy actors may become comfortable with a venue because they are familiar with its rules and protocols. In turn, this may stifle any attempt by them to shop their policy in another venue that unbeknownst to them may be more beneficial for getting the policy change they seek. In addition, individual political actors often turn to the well-known strategies, or established routines, within which they feel comfortable operating in. This is especially likely when groups or individuals develop expertise and skills over time while working in a particular venue, thus allowing them certain amounts of success in that particular
43


1
venue. Under such circumstances, they may be reluctant to switch venues, even if such a shift would more quickly advance the groups policy goals (ibid).
Pralle (2003; 2005; 2006a) holds that there are at least three other reasons that support the static model of venue shopping14, including: they develop strategic relationships with legislators that become valuable resources within the decision making venue; as well as, potential allies in the public may identify and decide to join a particular interest group because they identify with the venue shopping strategy that group is using and the organizational identity it holds in the eyes of the media, the public and the marketplace (i.e., the mobilizing power of Greenpeace). The third factor shaping the political groups static approach to venue shopping, as suggested by Pralle, is the groups ideological values and orientation. For instance, if an environmental group believes in grass roots mobilization, then they might want to stay with local political support and not want input from state and federal government entities.
Pralle (2003) offers additional insight into why some policy actors may refrain from testing other venues, indeed, policy entrepreneurs might abstain from venue shopping altogether when an institution has firm jurisdictional control
14 While there may be a multitude of factors that operate as barriers or constraints to a political groups venue shopping activities, both empirical and theoretical evidence has shown that some form of the static model of venue shopping has been used in other studies. For instance, in Derthicks (2005) Up in Smoke, the political constraints of federal legislation led anti-smoking advocates to spread their successful lawsuit tactics against the tobacco industry across the Supreme Court venues of 32 states in the 1990s.
44


over an issuecontrol that is uncontested and uncontestabie (Pralle 2003, p.240). While Baumgartner and Jones (see below) would advise policy actors to shop elsewhere, Pralle further describes how some venues become inaccessible to outsiders due to structural biases,
These rules, procedures, and norms create structures of bias that give some interests more access to the venue than others (Hall and Taylor 1996). In other words, some venues raise significant barriers to participation, rewarding established interests and making it difficult for newcomers to gain entry to the venue (Pralle 2003, p.240).
Venues. Arenas, and Jurisdictions
To better understand policy change, policy scholars are increasingly incorporating the notions of policy venues and arenas into their analyses of the policy process (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Dudley and Richardson 1998; Godwin and Schroedel 2000; Hansen and Krejci 2000; Timmermans 2001; Burnett and Davis 2002; Pralle 2003; Crow 2010). According to Pralle, however, the policy process literature has not yet resolved the question of whether and how policy venues advance or inhibit policy change (Pralle 2003, 235). In an unpublished conference paper, Pralle (2005) sets out to provide well-needed conceptual clarity to the literature by distinguishing between decision venues, policy arenas, and jurisdictions. According to Pralle (2005):
45


Decision venues are governmental and quasi-govemmental institutions where authoritative decisions about policy are made.15 Policy arenas are non-authoritative locations where policy debates and conflicts emerge and play out. Both venues and arenas are potential sites of competition over policy issues, but only venues issue authoritative decisions about specific policies (p.4, emphasis in original).
Decision venues (which Pralle refers to interchangeably as venues) exist at several levels of government: from the broad international, national and regional levels to the narrower state and local levels. Pralle (2005) also says that (decision) venues include legislatures, executive departments and agencies, and the courts. Birkland (2007, p.69) resonates with this depiction when he defines a venue as a level of government or institution in which the group is likely to gain the most favorable hearing. We can think of venues in institutional terms legislative, executive, or judicialor in vertical termsfederal, state, local government.
Perhaps the most informative addition to what is considered to be a decision venue, according to Pralle (2005), is that they may also contain semipublic bodies or special committees with autonomy and decision making authority in a particular policy area (p.4). And, in countries with capitalist traditions, these special committees are known to issue binding decisions on
15 Pralle relies upon Timmermans (2001) definition of authoritative meaning that legal, political, or social sanctions are possible to prevent that decisions are ignored (p.314). Because some institutions are quasi-authoratative in nature, Pralle notes it is perhaps best to think of decision venues as existing along a continuum representing different degrees of authoritativeness.
46


economic policy (Timmermans 2001). In order to avoid certain confusion
amongst the different types of venues, Pralle (2005) uses the term:
system venue to refer to legislatures, executive agencies, and the courts, and subsystem venue to refer to venues within venues. For example, the U.S. Congress is a system venue while its various committees and subcommittees are subsystem venues. Similarly, the federal court system as a whole is a system venue, while specific appellate courts within the system are subsystem venues (pp.4-5, emphases in original).
In her paper, Pralle moves on to distinguish between (policy) venues and
(policy) arenas. According to Pralle (2005), while the actions and events in
arenas can shape policy decisions, their influence is indirectly related:
Since policy arenas do not issue authoritative decisions, substantive changes in policy must eventually be made in decision venues. Examples of policy arenas include the media, the public arena, the electoral arena, and the marketplace. Arenas also exist at several levels, although not necessarily in a formal sense. For example, we might speak of a local media market versus a national media market, or local elections versus national elections. The public includes a mass public, a smaller sympathetic public, and an even more circumscribed attentive public (P-5).
Finally, according to Pralle (2005), jurisdictions refer to the issues, or aspects of issues, that decision venues have authority over at any particular time (p,5, emphasis in original). In addition, these jurisdictions of decision venues have versatile boundaries that can expand, contract or even grow more blurry over time:
47


Sometimes institutions relinquish control over issueseither voluntarily or involuntarilyto another decision venue. At other times, the jurisdictions of decision venues expandas when the courts began asserting jurisdiction over pesticides policy in the 1970s (Bosso 1987) (P-5).
In her own research on pesticide policy, Pralle (2006b) has shown how this expansion is often accompanied by a blurring of jurisdictional boundaries, as other venues seek to maintain some decision making authority over the policy in question.
Pralle (2005) points out many other factors that influence the content and boundaries of a venues jurisdiction, including: Constitutional mandates and interpretations, institutional norms and rules, history, and custom. Political actorsfor example, legislators, judges, bureaucrats, and advocacy groupsalso play a large role in the changing of jurisdictional assignments and boundaries (p.6). Pralle references Kings (1994) description of the power the House and Senate have to shape committee jurisdictions in Congress through their power of referraland summarizes the complexity of factors related to jurisdictional control, some of broad historical nature, and others which exist at the individual or group level (ibid). Some of these factors are highlighted in other studies that include the idea of policy actors and entrepreneurs actively participating in venue, as well as arena shopping endeavors. For instance, Hansen and Krejci (2000) illustrated how local interest groups in Lubbock, Texas and Jacksonville, Florida
48


used the local media arena to block base closures and defense downsizing administered by the governing venue of the Department of Defense. And in international studies, Dudley and Richardson (1998) showed how alternative policy arenas were used by interest groups outside of Britains Public Transportation Department to reffame transit policy in the latter half of twentieth century England.
Other nuances of venue shopping
Pralle (2003) submits that the key to understanding various strategies and motives for why policy entrepreneurs and other policy actors venue shop is first understanding that policy venues differ from one another on several dimensions. Her point being, if all venues had the same structural bias, then what would be the advantage of shopping around for different venues (Pralle 2003, p.237)? Pralle continues:
But because venues differ with respect to their rules of access and participation, their procedures governing decision-making, their constituencies, and the incentives facing institutional actors, strategically minded advocacy groups will target a venue that offers the best advantage over their opponents (p.237).
Pralle goes on to illustrate many assumptions and limitations of current venue shopping theory, including the problems bounded rationality creates for policy entrepreneurs and the groups they represent. Similar to a consumers interest in comparison shopping to find the best bargain, evidence in the literature suggests
49


that policy entrepreneurs seek alternative venues after their own policy alternatives fail to make any significant changes in a venue (regardless of the stage of policymaking the shoppers policy is in). Due to bounded rationality, however, policy entrepreneurs may not have complete knowledge of the opportunities and constraints the initial policy venue may hold for their specific policy issue. In this sense, there is more trial and error to venue shopping and this could result in a delay, or even a denial, in preferred policy. For instance, information about the venue may be purposely withheld from the policy entrepreneur. Or the policy becomes co-opted by someone who is only slightly committed to seeing it enacted ( Piven and Cloward 1979). In addition, the person or persons helping a policy entrepreneur gain access to a venues agenda, may have only marginal connections to the venue and may be too far down the pecking-order in terms of having any decision-making power themselves. Therefore, the policy entrepreneur cannot help being bounded in their rationality when it comes to venue shopping (Pralle 2003).
For example, Baumgartner and Jones (1993) point out that the most common and persistent example of the continuing battle of competing metaphors in postwar American politics is between economic growth versus environmental and social costs (p.105). As Baumgartner and Jones (1993) claim, images are linked to venues, and the variety of venues of policymaking in American politics
50


can allow many contrasting images of the same issue to exist simultaneously. Likewise, the same variety of venues allow those with policy monopolies a chance to secure the agenda of the salient policy sub-governments and build up and around particular issues, thus creating limited access to policy niches (p.33). The generation or the avoidance of controversy surrounding a policy is closely related to the venue within which it is considered and where there is no controversy, niches can become very secure (ibid).
Pralle (2005) describes the distinction between static and dynamic models of venue shopping. While she admits there is empirical evidence to support the existence of both types of models, she then inquires of the two models: when, and under what conditions are policy entrepreneurs and other policy actors likely to respond in ways consistent with each other? In other words, what factors affect the practice of venue shopping within each of the respective models (2005, p.10)? In her work over the last few years involving pesticides and the forestry industry, she has identified three sets of factors that she have the biggest impact on the pace and nature of venue shopping: internal organizational factors; external opportunities and constraints; and subsystem characteristics. Surprisingly, she describes these factors together more thoroughly in her unpublished conference paper, than in any of her other published works.
51


Internal Organizational Factors and Venue Shopping. As Pralles (2005)
discussion on the static model of venue shopping suggests, a policy (and/or
interest) groups orientation toward using a specific strategy over others is shaped
by several factors internal to the groups organization, including:
its ideology, its beliefs about how to achieve policy change, its perceived need to develop a strategic niche, and the preferences and expertise of group leaders. Taken together, these factors predispose an advocacy group to act in ways consistent with either the static or dynamic model (p. 10).
Pralle indicates that the policy (or interest) group with strong ideological beliefs to policy change, strong internal pressure to create a policy niche, and whose leaders have already developed specialized skills are more likely to gravitate toward a static model of venue shopping. On the other hand, policy groups whose organizations are pragmatically oriented and not tied to any specific ideology or strategies generally conform to the dynamic model of venue shopping.
Pralle mentions two other internal organizational factors that either reinforce or hamper a policy groups orientation toward either the static or dynamic venue shopping model (p. 11). The first factor is having the availability of material and human resources that affects the groups ability to change venue shopping strategies and participate in the policy game at multiple levels, in numerous policy arenas, and in several decision venues if need be (ibid). Therefore, a lack of resources may lead groups to shop for allies who will
52


carry on the battle in alternative venues and arenas (ibid.). The second additional internal organizational factor is whether the policy group is organized around a specific or broad policy goal, which significantly impacts their motivation to venue shop. Those groups that focus on more specific goals (or issues) are likely to target whatever venue holds the most promise for success, and are prone to switch targets6 as political opportunities occur (ibid). Such groups form more tangible goals because the focus is narrowed on the ability to get their policy enacted (or avoid being defeated) and, hence, tied to a more specific policy solution (ibid). Alternatively, those policy groups that are more broadly focused organize around multiple aspects of an issue and take a long-term approach to obtaining success. While they too want their policy to win by being enacted, their organizational mission is not so closely tied to victory in just one policy conflict (p.12).
External opportunities and constraints on venue shopping. According to Pralle, policy actors do not operate in a vacuum, but work within the political contexts where opportunities for policy change (via access to the decision venues agenda) expand and contract. According to Kingdon (1984; 2003), successful groups are able to identify and perhaps even anticipate the opening and closing of these windows of opportunity. Furthermore, Pralle (2005) proposes, the
16 In her 2005 conference paper, Pralle uses the general term targets to refer to any and all institutions, processes, and actors that are the focus of political (interest) group efforts (p.4).
53


receptivity of decision venues to particular claims may increase or decrease as
institutional actors and rules change (p. 13). Hence, the shifting of external
opportunities and constraints affects the policy actors propensity to venue shop in
certain decision venues and policy arenas. Even policy groups who are
predisposed to participate in venue shopping in more static models, have
incentives to shop for alternative venues and arenas when their opportunities
dramatically shift. As an example, Pralle (2005) writes:
After a national election, environmental groups might find themselves with far less access to the administration, to government agencies, or to Congress. As access dries up, such groups are likely to turn, if only temporarily, to other decision venues and policy arenas that afford more access and a better chance of success (p.13).
Pralle goes on to propose that we should expect more venue shopping in
systems with multiple venues and arenas, she posits that regardless of the
internal characteristics of the various political groups, multiple venues lead to an
aggregate increase in the level of venue shopping in a system (p. 13). This line
of reasoning is supported in Baumgartner and Jones (1993) dynamic model,
where venue shopping is more prevalent in a federalist political system with
shared (and/or fragmented) authority over decision making in a variety of venues.
However, Pralle (2005, p. 13) argues:
[B]y contrast, if an issue is firmly under the jurisdiction of just one decision venue, advocacy groups have little choice but to target that
54


venue. If unsuccessful, their only alternative is to use outsider strategies in policy arenas such as the media.
The further investigation into these outsider strategies are of particular interest
for this dissertation, and they are associated in greater detail with Kingdons
(1984; 2003) work in a section of this literature review below. But first, it is
necessary to briefly introduce Pralles (2005) discussion surrounding the third
factor she believes has the largest effect on the pace and nature of venue
shoppingsubsystem characteristics.
Policy subsvtems and venue shopping. According to Pralle (2005), in
addition to working within a context defined by shifting political opportunities,
policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups work within an environment
Pralle refers to as a subsystem.17 How this environment is structured, according
to Pralle, can have a clear effect on the degree of venue shopping by any group:
A subsystem crowded with advocacy groups organized around similar issues increases pressure on groups to find and maintain a unique organizational niche. Over time, the subsystem may reach an equilibrium, whereby advocacy groups occupy well defined strategic roles. Knowledge about the turfs of different advocacy groups will spread informally through the subsystem, resulting in few attempts to replicate the strategies of others (p.14).
Pralle goes on to propose that the many political battles that take place in multiple venues and arenas are not necessarily due to the venue shopping
17 Pralle (2005) uses subsystem to depict her notion of venues within venues. For instance, a states legislature is referred to as a system venue, and the various subcommittees are subsystem venues.
55


strategies of one or two policy groups, but it is a byproduct of the sheer number of policy groups within a subsystem. This tends to further Baumgartner and Jones (1993; 2002; 2005) idea that specialization and fragmentation virtually guarantees that campaigns will be carried out in every decision venue that has jurisdiction over an issue, assuming access is granted and the issue is not kept off the agenda (Pralle 2005, pp. 15-16, emphasis added). This dissertation accepts this assumption, and asks what choices do policy entrepreneurs and the political actors that support them have when their policy solution has continually been denied access to a specific decision agenda? Or, when their choice of alternative policy venues is circumscribed? Do these policy actors utilize venue shopping strategies in alternative arenas (i.e., the media, public opinion polls, special interest groups) outside of the decision venue, as Pralle (2005) has suggested? Because it is inferred that access to decision-making venues is the key for a policys success, the next section briefly reviews Pralles (2006) published description of key decision-making venues.
Key decision-making venues. In Branching Out, Digging In, Pralle (2006a) utilizes a venue shopping approach to explain the intentions of the political actors involved in her two North American case studies of the forest industry in Northern California and British Columbia. Those representing the interests of the forest industry and those advocating for environmental groups
56


both fought to obtain policy changes in their repective venues. According to Pralle,
This is due in part to the fact that less dominant advocacy groups are often prevented from participating in key decision-making venues or face biases within these institutions that effectively exclude them18. Challenging groups therefore have an incentive to shop for an alternative policy arena. Dominant groups, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy advantages in key venues, at least for some period of time (p. 227, emphases added).
Pralle goes on to discuss how these challenging groups begin to gain access into
the key decision-making venues over time,
The increased access is driven by group leaders, institutional actors within a venue, or some combination of the two. Often, institutional actors legislators, for examplefeel pressure to expand access to decision making when a conflict is highly visible and salient with the public. The result is that previously excluded groups slowly begin to compete in these venues, although perhaps not on equal footing with their opponents (p.227-228).
While checks and balances surely exist in the American political system, perhaps these same entities limit the number of venues policy makers are able to joinat least the number of key decision-making venues that can affect policy change. Nonetheless, Pralle (2006) reminds us of the varying effects these key decision-making venues have over the policy issues,
18 Pralle borrows this assumption from the work of Burnett and Davis (2002), which documents the abilities of environmental groups to introduce new information to key decision-makers in the Congressional venue, therefore, allowing them to overcome the structural biases built into the existing forest policy developed between 1960 and 1995 and successfully change it.
57


The solution that a court offers can differ dramatically from one that a legislative body, or government agency, provides. A court may issue an injunction on logging in a particular area, for example, while a legislative body can write a law that governs logging in all national forests. An executive branch can issue orders that quickly and sometimes dramatically change policy, but successive administrations can overturn executive orders made under previous ones (240-41).
While the above provides an explanation for how policy solutions may be handled differently in key decision-making venues like courts, legislative bodies, and other branches of government, there is no discussion over whether or not some issues are exclusively handled in one key decision-making venue over another.
In short, groups and policy actors are apt to prefer some venuesthe key decision-making onesto others depending on their perceptions about the most effective means of policy change or the suitability and sustainability of certain kinds of policy solutions.19 In addition to taking inventory of these preferences, beliefs and pre-conceived notions, we should include the other reasons that help explain why some venues are perceived to be better than others in the policymaking process.
One of the main reasons adhered to is the authority and jurisdiction of certain decision venues involving specific issues. In other words, regardless of
19 Pralle also takes into consideration whether or not the venue is appropriate for the image of the policy entrepreneur or groups overall message with respect to the policy changes they seek. For instance, policy actors run the risk of compromising their policys image if they shop it in the wrong venuea grassroots movement committed to the ideal of local control would opt for a venue at the local, state, or regional level before shopping their cause at the national level (Pralle 2003, p. 241).
58


the preferences of the policy entrepreneurs and their supporting political groups, for their policy solution to come to fruition, they need access to the agenda of decision-making venues. Baumgartner and Jones (1993) suggested that if an issue stalls in one venue, that policy supporters should pursue their case in alternative venues. Pralle (2005) takes venue shopping further by suggesting that if one venue is closed to some policy actors, that perhaps they should look to present their policies in alternative arenas. Therefore, Pralles (2005) distinction between venues and arenas is one of the starting points to examinewhether or not, when policy actors are denied access to the decision-making venue, do they take their venue shopping strategies to outsider arenas in order to help them gain access to the decision venues agenda and with the intention of getting their policies enacted?
Venue shopping and outsider strategies in policy arenas
Based on the preceding literature, we posit that venue shopping occurs when policy actors are motivated by the opportunity to advance their policy onto the decision-making agenda of institutions having both jurisdiction and authority over particular policy issues (Dudley and Richardson 1998; Hansen and Krejci 2000; Pralle 2003; 2005; 2006; 2009). In her 2009 article, Pralle does not specifically make the distinction between venue shopping strategies in either venues or arenas. However, she does utilize Kingdons (1984) three streams
59


approach to agenda setting to explore strategies for keeping the issue of climate change on agendas and moving it up the list of policy priorities (Pralle 2009, p. 781). In addition to framing this dissertations research questions and propositions in Kingdons work as well, some of the strategies indicated by Pralle (i.e., reporting problems in user friendly terms; emphasize growing public concern; emphasize local impacts; emphasize human health impacts; emphasize economic gains; provide feedback; and, emphasize the cost of inaction) were used to create the propositions designed to attempt to discuss the first two research questions. However, we plan to extend Pralles work by suggesting there is a crucial difference between venues and arenas.
By using the example of enacting a tax on beer in Wisconsin as a case study, this dissertation seeks to suggest which factors associated with both venue and arena shopping help the issue of the Wisconsin beer tax to rise up and stay high on the agendas of relevant policy venues, as well as, in non-governing institutions (arenas). The beer tax may be considered on the agenda of many of the above mentioned policy arenas (public opinion polls, op-ed pieces in the media) nonetheless, its (lack of) position on the decision-making agenda in the legislature has varied little across time and space (Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003). It may, for example, appear to be rising on the legislative agenda when alcohol-related traffic fatalities are up and there is a need to pay for stricter
60


enforcement of drinking and driving laws. Or, the mere mention of another tax could result in a lack of interest, steering the attention of politicians to other issues. In any case, government and public officials are unlikely to solve the many alcohol problems brought about by excessive consumption in Wisconsin with a single policy enacted at a particular moment.
Briefly mentioned in the opening pages of this literature review, two agenda-setting models provide especially useful insights into how policy issues gain saliency and maintain a central place on public and governmental agendas. John Kingdons (1984; 2003) streams model of agenda-setting devotes attention to how problems get addressed and how issues move onto decision agendas, and Rochefort and Cobbs (1994) problem definition framework investigates how problems are strategically framed so as to increase their salience. The agendasetting strategies described earlier in Baumgartner and Jones (1993) punctuated equilibrium model (further developed in Jones and Baumgartner 2005b) are useful for understanding patterns of agenda stability and changeand for identifying some of the factors that drive these dynamics. However, Kingdon (1984; 2003) and Rochefort and Cobb (1994) provide a more in-depth look at particular factors that increase the odds of a problem receiving a lot of attention, gaining in salience, and achieving high agenda status20. Therefore, it is this agenda setting
20 Pralles 2009 article applies these two agenda-setting frameworks to the recent attempts to improve the saliency of climate change.
61


literature we turn to help further describe venue shopping and if the outsider strategies in alternative policy arenas are indeed utilized to help policy actors gain access to the decision-making legislative agenda.
Borrowing from Kingdon (1984), Baumgartner and Jones (1993) argue that the existence of multiple arenas for policy decision-making increases opportunities for agenda and policy change. Hence, if advocacy groups are stymied in one venue, they can appeal to another institution and invite it to assert jurisdiction over the issue. Pralle (2003) later discusses the roles these new institutions play in venue shopping: the new institution may take an interest in the problem and put it on its agenda; it may accept a different definition of the problem and therefore give advocates a chance to advance a new understanding of the issue; and, finally, it might also provide privileged access to one set of actors so that policy can move forward. More recently, Pralle (2006a; 2006b; 2009) has attempted to show how venue shopping gives policymakers and advocacy groups an opportunity to keep issues on the agenda of government and other decisionmaking venues by shopping among the various governmental institutions and urging them to address problematic issues (i.e., climate change) even when others are ignoring them.
62


Sin-taxes
Sin taxes are a popular term for fees charged for certain indulgent commodities, like alcohol. Sin taxes have been a source of government revenue for over 200 years. When President Clinton proposed to drastically increase the federal excise tax on cigarettes, because smoking can have damaging health consequences, it was the same type of justification that Alexander Hamilton used to enact the first sin tax on whiskey in 1790 (Shughart II 1997). In 1927, economist Frank Ramsey discussed the relationship between the elasticity of demand and the excess burden that is placed on consumer. Later known as the Ramsey rule, in order to minimize the excess burden of raising a given amount of tax revenue, taxes should be placed on goods in inverse proportion to their elasticities of demand (Shughart II 1997, p.17). In Taxing Choice, Shughart II (1997) explains how the Ramsey rule has been used to justify the selective taxation of goods such as alcohol and tobacco because of their relative inelasticityconsumers will continue to purchase them even when their prices are increased. But are sin taxes corrective, in that they penalize the individuals for participating in what legislators consider to be harmful behaviors that create social costs (like drinking and driving) and are used to compensate those who are harmed by these negative externalities? Or, are they inherently unfair and discriminatory? As the previous literature review reiterated about the majority of
63


how public policies are perceived, the answer to the last two questions depends on how a sin tax gets framed.
One way to frame a sin tax is to refer to it as a corrective tax, one that allows an increase to an already established excise tax to correct for the negative externalities that result from the over or harmful consumption of the product that is not reflected in the original price. For instance, when taking a public health approach to the selective taxation of alcohol, additional revenues from sin taxes would be earmarked for treatment and prevention services as an attempt to off-set the social costs caused by the over-consumption of alcohol. In addition, studies have shown that an indirect effect of an increase in liquor tax rates (even a small increase) leads to a reduction of consumer demand (International Center for Alcohol Policies, 2006). In addition, a price increase in alcoholic beverages causes a decrease in per capita consumption (behavior modification) resulting in fewer incidences of alcohol-related problems (Sharma, 2009). However, Shughart II (1997, p. 18) points out the faulty logic of increasing tax rates to pay for services, while at the same time increasing tax rates to curb unwarranted behavior:
The underlying rationale for such taxes is that taxation will discourage the consumption of goods or services that the majority finds objectionable.
But the Ramsey rule singles out products to be taxed precisely because taxations impact on consumption is minimal. Hence, the regulatory and revenue-raising justifications for sin taxes work at cross purposes.
64


Those opposed to sin taxes claim they are selective taxes that are inherently regressive and discriminatory by nature (Shughart II 1997). Basically, sin taxes are placed on some products that are part of an individuals lifestyle and not placed on other products. Furthermore, Gant and Ekelund (1997) argue that the majority of indicators used to quantify social costs are actually more private costs suffered by the individual abuser. And medical coststo the extent that they are borne directly by those who consume health care servicesare private costs, not social costs (Gant and Ekelund 1997, p.256). In other words, the case for basing corrective taxation on production losses, absenteeism, or medical care of alcohol users is weak or nonexistenttherefore, the taxation of alcohol (in general) on the basis of social costs does not carry much weight (p.265). Gant and Ekelund even argue that doubling the federal excise taxes on alcohol in 1991 may have been counterproductive if redressing social costs was the aim of that public policy. Because the price of wine disproportionately increased more so than spirits or beer, the 1991 tax increases may have actually increased the social cost of alcohol use insofar that wine drinkers tend to have more responsible attitudes toward drinking and driving than their beer and liquor counterparts (Berger and Snortum 1985; Greenfield and Rogers 1999).
65


Research Questions and Propositions
Based in a cost-benefit approach to selling a sin-tax on beer in the state of Wisconsin, and in accordance with the three research questions of this dissertation, the following propositions are an attempt to test and build upon the venue shopping literature where Pralle has left off.
RQ1: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and policymakers?
Proposition la: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will emphasize to the public and policymakers that the costs of inaction will be greater than the costs of action when they venue and/or arena shop their policy solution.
Public choice theorist Anthony Downs (1972) noted that when the costs attributed to solving a problem is too high, people tend to lose interest in an issuegradually letting it slip from the agenda. In addition, once many Americans start to believe that certain policy solutions are too costly for jobs and the economy, they may also begin to believe that the policy solution is too miniscule to incur any realizable benefits (Abbasi 2006). Nonetheless, while Brewer and deLeon (1983) agree that people avoid the costs of rejecting the status quo, they are just as quick to accept information that agrees with their worldview making the costs negligible to the positive value added to their perceptions (p.
66


37). In fact, this may be more readily so in a state described as having a moralistic culture (Conant 2006).
Proposition lb: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will focus on economic gains or losses when venue and/or arena shopping their policy solution. Proposition lc: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will focus on human health gains or losses when venue and/or arena shopping their policy solution.
A decade ago Godwin and Schroedel (2000) showed how policy actors in California were successful getting localities to change their gun control ordinances because they were able to frame the increasing gun violence as a public health problem. In other words, if the tax increase is framed as a public health issue21, then it becomes possible for advocates to speak about jobs (law enforcement and preventive care) and other economic opportunities associated with adopting a tax increase. In addition to emphasizing the economic gains associated with an increase in revenues, policy entrepreneurs and their support groups may also want to illustrate the money they will save when alcohol-related incidences are on the decline. This is being done across the country in states thirsty for new sources of cash where health-conscious lawmakers are
21 Appealing to the publics health and safety may also be used as a venue and/or arena shopping strategy for political actors that are concerned with keeping certain policies off of the decisionmaking agenda. For instance, Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said he had to side with public health and the safety of the dairy industry in his recent veto of a bill that would have regulated the sale of unpasteurized (raw) milk (Hubbuch, Doyle vetoes raw milk bill, May 20, 2010).
67


proposing taxes on sports drinks, teas and sodas (Anonymous, May 23,2010). Currently 30 states now apply a sales tax to soda, including Colorado, which extended its sales tax to cover the drinks as part of its packages of new taxes in the past year (ibid.).
Proposition Id: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will provide regular feedback about policies and progress when venue shopping.
Feedback on policies can alert policymakers to problems and keep them on the agenda (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003; Stone 1988; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Rochefort and Cobb 1994). Continual feedback on policies and progress may increase attention to the issue and keep pressure on political decision-makers to meet or change their commitments. Or, as Srivistava (2009) warns, continual feedback may have the opposite affect and lead to issue fatigue (or boredom) amongst the populace. By the same calculus, irregular feedback may serve the purpose of the status quo.
The ebb & flow of issues. While Kingdon is primarily concerned with how issues rise on various agendas, the decline of issues is a similarly important question. As mentioned above, a key challenge in maintaining a tax increase high on the public, governmental, and decision-making agendas, is that it must weather any economic storms or other developments that might weaken the commitment of the public and policymakers to solve it. Downs (1972) identifies
68


both the public and the media as driving forces behind issue emergence and decline. Public enthusiasm for solving problems helps to get issues on agendas initially, but subsequent cynicism, unwillingness to sacrifice, or lack of understanding may lead to a decline in attention and agenda status. As addressed in proposition la, as the costs and difficulty of solving a problem become more evident, the public and their representatives tend to lose interest. Similarly, if the public believes that large sacrifices are required, attention to a problem may wane. Actual failure to solve the problem can have a similar effect, as policymakers grow tired of trying to pass or amend legislation and let the problem move to the back burner ( Downs 1972; Kingdon 2003, p.103; see also Srivstava 2009 on issue fatigue). More recently, public opinion data from the U.S. suggests that the state of the economy is frequently a priority concern and that citizens willingness to sacrifice economic growth for other worthy causes (i.e., environmental protection) decreases as the strength of the economy declines (Guber 2003).
In nations facing perilous economic times, those interested in seeing an increased tax liability adopted hope that it remains germane to the public and policymakers and that it maintains its position on governmental and decisionmaking agenda. Public interest in an issue is not the only way to generate relevance for politicians in a democracy, but it is an important one (Jones and
69


Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b). Policies are not enacted by themselves; therefore, venue and/or arena shopping strategies could be considered for increasing its significance more generally so that the everyday policymaker someone with limited time and many potential problems to addressis willing to pay serious and frequent attention to the problem. If the public plays an important role in raising an issues importance for policymakers, then one of the first strategies should be finding out where the public stands on the issue? However, expressing general concern for a problem is not necessarily an accurate or reliable measure of interest in the issue (although, relevance is probably issue dependent). As current survey data show, there is still a significant amount of latent public concern. Therefore, how might policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups tap into this latent concern and thereby raise the salience of the social problems with the public and policymakers?
RQ 2: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy problem in a way that increases the saliency of their policy solution to both the public and their representative policymakers?
70


Proposition 2a: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will regularly report key problem indicators in audience friendly terms when venue and/or arena shopping.
As discussed in the introduction, it is important to frame the policy problem and the desired solution in a way that is simple, clear, and relevant to the audience (the public, policymakers, or both) being shopped too. If Kingdon (1984; 2003) is correct in claiming that policymakers (and presumably the public as well) learn about problems through indicators, then different indicators may have to be selected for different audiences. That is, not only depending on the effects that worry them most, but clarity of communication and ease of understanding should be a priority. Using metaphors and analogies could prove useful, as they could help simplify complex scientific relationships (Stone 1988; Edelman 1988).
Indicators alone will not cause agenda and policy change, however. As noted, policymakers and policy institutions often ignore information or discount it for long periods of time (Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b). In other words, policymakers are unlikely to respond proportionately to changes in problem indicators (that is, attention and policy will not keep pace with changes in indicators). Furthermore, there are few novel arguments, at least for policymakers and experts to help them reach the latent masses (Leech et
71


al.2002, pp.286-87). This means that changing the definition of an issue often requires the mobilization of the previously less-interested, something that is difficult for small or resource poor interest groups.
Proposition 2b: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize growing public concern when venue and/or arena shopping.
Pralles (2009) article on climate change mentions a social experiment designed by Wood and Vedlitz (2007) where they tested how social forces shape peoples assessment of the seriousness of public problems (Pralle 2009, p.790-91). Their experiment indicated that when individuals perceived their own definition of the problem to be out of line with the community, they changed their assessment in the direction of that made by the larger community. Specifically, and noted by Pralle (p.790-91) when respondents were told that 80% of the public viewed global warming as a serious problem, they were more likely to be very concerned about the problem than respondent who were told that only 40% of the public believed it to be very serious (Wood and Vedlitz 2007, p. 564). Such information may prompt those who have displayed less concern over global warming issues in the past to update their views to be more in line with the majority. Perhaps then, on an aggregate scale, as greater numbers of individuals express high levels of concern, the overall salience of the problem may rise and keep it on the agenda.
72


Proposition 2c: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize specific local impacts and personal experience when venue and/or arena shopping.
Problems that are immediate and approximate to people tend to elicit more concern from citizens, than broader issues facing a more generalized public (Rochefort and Cobb 1994). What this research suggests is that social problems should be defined in ways that emphasize local and regional impacts. The need to express the local impacts are important because--as is the case with global warming and climate changeindividuals affected by local impacts will differ depending on the geography and vulnerabilities (and culture) of particular places across a given political constituency (Pralle 2009, p.791). Therefore, messages should be tailored to different geographical audiences so as to enhance its relevancy.
Proposition 2d: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize human health impacts when venue and/or shopping.
As mentioned earlier, policy entrepreneurs and advocacy groups must make it clear to the public that the government has the capability of solving the problem (Stone 1989; 1997). In addition, tax advocates must be prepared to package their message to specific audiences (like other legislators interested in the
73


economics and increased revenues) and also have the ability to repackage the issue by focusing on new dimensions of the issue for other audiences (Cobb and Ross 1997). For instance, the current pattern of sin taxing soda products across the country is being justified not only for the increase in revenues, but for the better health of the general public, as well. Failure to do so is to risk what Hilgartner and Bosk (1988, p.63) refer to as saturation, whereby the public is flooded with redundant messages that lose their dramatic value and decrease attention to the problem (see also Downs 1972; and Srivstava 2009 on issue fatigue).
The third research question for this dissertation is an attempt to expand on the least developed of the three streams proposed by Kingdon (2003), the politics stream. While different from the politics of public opinion and political forces (interest groups), administrative and/or electoral turnover may also lead to dramatic changes to the decision making agenda of the legislative venue. Therefore:
RQ 3: Considering the three key political factors, where are venue and arena shopping strategies by policy entrepreneurs and their support groups likely to occur?
74


Proposition 3: Administrative and/or legislative (electoral) turnover has a greater impact on venue shopping and dictates the success of policy entrepreneurs in their venue and/or arena shopping strategies more so than either public opinion or political forces.
One reason that administrative or legislative turnover may have more of an impact on policy actors (and their solutions) and their ability to gain access to the decision-making agenda more so than public opinion is because, the general public opinion is rarely well enough formed to directly affect an involved debate among policy specialists over which alternatives should be seriously considered (Kingdon 2003, p.66).
Summary
Increasing the saliency of a beer tax increase must go hand-in-hand with developing and selling this policy solution to the public and policymakers via venue and/or arena shopping strategies. In addition, according to Kingdons primeval soup recipe (1984; 2003), problems without attached solutions are less apt to rise high on governmental agendas and are unlikely to make it onto decision-making agendas at all. Solutions also play a role in keeping issues on agendas. If a solution is perceived as too costly, does not fit with prevailing values, or requires too many sacrifices, then the problem to which it is attached may fade from the agenda.
75


This literature review has examined several venue and/or arena shopping strategies for maintaining issues on agendas, as well as, for moving them up the list of policy priorities. Within the process, it is also important to frame solutions in ways that gamer maximum support and protect against opposing forces including cynicism and fatiguethat may lead to the public and policymakers in Wisconsin to abandon efforts to address alcohol-related problems altogether.
The following chapter describes the research methods employed.
76


CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
Research Design
In Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, George and Bennett (2005) identify three phases in the design and implementation of theory-oriented case studies: phase one, the research design; phase two, carrying out the case study; and phase three, drawing on the implications of case study findings for theory. The latter two phases are the subject matter for the following chapters in this dissertation. However, the first phasethe research designis the concern of this research methods chapter. George and Bennett (2005) list five tasks that must be integrated together to accomplish the research design for a case study. The following paragraphs offer a brief discussion on each task.
Task One: Specification of the problem and research objective. As reviewed in the first two chapters, the problem with venue shopping as a theoretical framework is twofold. First, the literature needs to clarify and distinguish between the conceptual differences of what qualifies as a venue, and what qualifies as an arena. Second, borrowing from Pralle (2005) and Timmermans (2001), the current distinction claims that venues hold authoritative
77


jurisdiction over the decision-making agenda, while arenas are the outside places where shopping strategies are apt to take place.
In addition to being useful for generating and testing hypotheses, case studies are valuable at all stages of the theory-building process, but most valuable at that stage where candidate theories are tested and alternative perspectives analyzed (Flyvbjerg 2001, p.77). The case being studied refers to the phenomenon of scientific interest tied to a class of events and the term casing describes the research efforts to further enhance the various subclasses of a phenomenon (George and Bennet 2005). Alternative perspectives concerning the phenomenon of venue shopping have remained empirically unsubstantiated. Therefore, of the six different kinds of theory-building research objectives inventoried by George and Bennett (2005, pp.75-76), the research objective for this dissertation is to conduct a building block case study interested in serving as a heuristic for testing the propositions involving venue shopping introduced in the literature review.
According to George and Bennett (p.78), each blocka study of each subtype (of the phenomenon being studied)fills a space in the overall theory. In addition, the component provided by each building block is itself a contribution to theory (parentheses added to the original). Perhaps more importantly, the building block developed for a subtype is self-sufficient; its validity and
78


JUL
usefulness do not depend upon the existence of other studies of different subclasses of that general phenomenon (ibid). As George and Bennett (2005, p.76) explain, a single research design may be able to accomplish more than one purposesuch as heuristic and theory testing goalsas long as it is careful in using evidence and making inferences in ways appropriate to each research objective.
Task Two: Developing a research strategy and specification of the variables. Although subject to change throughout the study, the research strategy requires early formulation of the research questions and propositions while establishing the parameters of the study through the specification of the independent and dependent variables in the case study (p.79). Much greater attention concerning the variables employed in the case study will be given in the following analysis chapter. However, since the variables are directly related to theory building the independent variable is dichotomous: policy action (the shopping) is taking place in either an arena or venue. The analysis section examines whether or not the type of independent variable (i.e., shopping in a venue or arena) has an effect on the type of shopping strategy to be employed (the dependent variable).
Task Three: Case selection. According to King, Keohane, and Verba (1994), researchers often begin their inquiries with either a theory in search of a
79


test case or a case in search of a good theory to test. Since George and Bennett (2005) concur that either approach is viable, this dissertation offers a combination of the two. The first step for the researcher, according to George and Bennett (2005), is to become immersed in the literature in order to become familar with how scholars have previously utilized the concepts surrounding venue shopping and its role in agenda-setting. The goal of this dissertation is to test some prior propositions made in empirically scant venue shopping studies and offer a fresh new perspective in the realm of policy-making. Case studies are a valuable and appropriate tool for researchers involved in this endeavor (Flyvbjerg 2001; Eisenhardt 2002), because situating ones research in the context of the literature is key to identifying the contribution the new research makes (George and Bennet, 2005, p.70). Agenda-setting theories, like Baumgartner and Jones (1993) punctuated equilibrium or Kingdons (1984; 2003) multiple streams, are good policy frameworks that have found multiple cases to be applied to over the last few decades. This dissertation is an attempt at adding a building block to venue shopping as a theoretical framework, and to further enhance the currently underdeveloped discussion concerning its plausibility as an approach that aptly describes the policy-making process (George and Bennett 2005).
Task Four: Describing the variance in variables. Following the advice of George and Smoke (1974), the argument was adopted that it would be inadequate
80


and unproductive to define the outcomes of certain shopping strategies as either successes or failures, simply because if success was measured by whether or not a policy solution (beer tax increase) was enacted as a legislative act, there would only be one policy success during the last seventy-seven years in the state of Wisconsin. However, George and Smoke were able to identify the different types of failures and successes tied to different types of policy strategies regarding their subject matter of diplomacy strategies and deterrence of war. The result of this typology led to a more discriminating and policy-relevant explanatory theory for deterrence failures (George and Bennett 2005, p.85). Likewise, instead of relying on a beer tax increase to have successfully been enacted as law, this dissertation intends to determine the connections between shopping strategies and whether or not they are being carried out in either a venue or an arena. In other words, looking to verify a causal explanation between where a policy solution is being shopped and the types of strategies being used to do the shopping by testing the propositions introduced, drawn specifically from the literature on venue shopping strategies (Kingdon 1984; 2003; Pralle 2003; 2006a and 2006b; 2009; 2010).
Task Five: Formulation of data requirements and general questions.
George and Bennett propose that (2005, p. 86), the general questions must reflect the theoretical framework employed, the data that will be needed to satisfy the
81


research objective of the study, and the kind of contribution to theory that the researcher intends to make. In addition, there are other particular advantages to relying upon case study techniques when studying the phenomenon of venue shopping beyond the more general philosophical and instrumental questions suggested by George and Bennett (p.87). According to Yin (2009), the case study is a most appropriate method to use when asking how and why research questions. As seen in the earlier chapters, two of the three research questions specifically ask: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and policymakers?; and, How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy problem in a way that increases the saliency of their policy solution to both the public and their representative policymakers? The accompanying propositions to these two questions are the attempts at explaining the why answers to these questions. In addition, by attempting to answer and test the research questions and propositions (respectively) in this dissertation perhaps future researchers may consider these attempts (and methodological procedures) when constructing their own venue and arena shopping frameworks in other studies around the states.
Case studies are also advantageous to a qualitative researcher when they have the
82


ability to directly observe contemporary events, and the ability to gain access to the political actors involved in the policy-making process surrounding such events (Yin 2009).
George and Bennett emphasize that all five tasks are integrated throughout the case study process. To orchestrate the efforts required to accomplish all five tasks in unison, the following sections discuss the usefulness of adopting a mixed-methods approach and taking advantage of a combination of evidence collected from both primary and secondary data sources (Creswell 2003; Borkan 2004). Mixed-methods and triangulation
Case studies are not constructed by using only one or two qualitative (and/or quantitative) research methods to collect theory-building evidence (George and Bennett 2005; Yin 2009). In fact, relying on a triangulation of research methods is an important foundation for when staking research claims based on studying only one case. Critics often ask, how representative is a single case study of a particular theory or conceptual framework when N=1 ? The critics are implicitly contrasting the situation of a single case study to survey research, in which a sample is intended to generalize to a larger universe. As Yin (2009, p.43) points out, li[TJhis analogy to samples and universes is incorrect when dealing with case studies. Survey research relies on statistical generalization, whereas case studies (as with experiments) rely on analytic generalization. In
83



analytical generalization, the investigator is striving to generalize a particular set of results to some broader theory (emphases in original).
The term triangulation has been used to describe the active use of multiple methods to provide a menu of perceptions to help clarify the meaning of the phenomenon (or case) under study (Goetz and LeCompte 1984; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Denzin 1989; Stake 2005). While multiple methods help verify the repeatability of an observation or interpretation, scholars have pointed out that no observations or interpretations are perfectly repeatable (Glesne and Peshkin 1992; Silverman 1993; Flick 1998). Triangulation simply offers the reader alternative ways to view the case under study. Or, as Stake (2005, p.454) puts it, [t]he qualitative researcher is interested in a diversity of perception, even the multiple realities within which people live. Triangulation helps identify different realities. Methodologically speaking, triangulation can also help the researcher avoid collecting redundant data, by offering several routes for data collection (Denzin 1989). Thus, with the assistance of providing a variety of evidence documents, artifacts, interviews, and observationsthe single case can represent a significant contribution to knowledge, theory building and can even help to refocus future investigations in an entire field (Yin 2009, p.48). The following sections discuss both the secondary and primary forms of data collection that involve multiple methods to help facilitate this dissertations case study research.
84


Data Collection Strategies
Secondary data and archival research. The case study approach is designed to address the propositions embedded in the literature review specifically, and more generally the literature on agenda setting and venue shopping more recently (Timmermans 2001; Pralle 2003; 2006a and 2006b; 2009; 2010; Crow 2010).
The research questions ask how policy entrepreneurs and other political actors sell their policy solutions, in this case, to the citizens of Wisconsin. Their respective propositions are specific tests of what has been purported in the venue shopping literature. To assist in testing these propositions, both primary and secondary forms of data collection strategies are necessary to help ensure a well-developed case study. The gathering of primary data via interviews of those involved in the venue shopping process is the backbone of this dissertations case study.
However, one should not assume that these primary sources of data alone will suffice when it comes to answering the research questions posed in this dissertation. According to George and Bennett (2005), to bolster the supportive and evidentiary worth of the primary interview data, one must first carefully examine the contemporary public resources (like newspaper print media) that may document public opinion, as well as, the unfolding of political events around a particular policy problem (and their proposed solutions). These public accounts are an important part of the contextual developments, or a useful description of
85


the playing field on which policymakers should know. Classified accounts of the process of policymaking cannot be properly evaluated by scholars unless the public context in which policymakers operate is taken into account (George and Bennett 2005, p.97). Therefore, accounts from newspaper articles concerning policy changes in the beer tax in Wisconsin are an important part of this dissertations historical description of the debate over the Wisconsin beer tax, as well as the data source for the qualitative content analysis (the next two chapters, respectively). Content analysis focuses on the frequency with which words or concepts occur in texts or across texts (Carley 1993). This approach has been used to examine a variety of topics, including cultural changes over time (Namenwirth and Weber 1987). The basic idea of content analysis is to take a list of concepts (i.e., venue shopping, support of a beer tax, against taxes of any kind etc.) and a set of texts (newsprint editorials) and then simply count the number of times each concept occurs in each text. Differences in the distribution of counts across texts provide insight into the similarities and differences in the content of the texts (see analysis chapter for more details).
According to Crow, newspapers are an appropriate source to use when trying to understand agenda setting in the states. She argues, In local communities newspapers are still the primary, if not the only, source of news coverage about local policy issues and therefore allow for a direct analysis of
86


media influences without competition of new media sources(2010, p. 164). A content analysis of the various editorials and articles in newsprint across the state of Wisconsin (for example, the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and the La Crosse Tribune) was conducted using the coding scheme discussed later in this chapter.
Content Analysis
A content analysis was conducted on a total of 77 newspaper articles that dated
from the years 2005-2010. This is the complete set of articles thought to be
pertinent. According to Priest (2010, p. 84):
Simply measuring the actual amount of space or time given to particular topics is one simple form of media content analysis. Agenda-setting theory tells us that this matters. More often, the purpose of content analysis is to go further to classify certain elements of media material... in a particular way, in order to answer a particular research question the researcher has posed.
As a result, the number of articles by month and year are compared with the periods when legislation was introduced to see, in general, if policy entrepreneurs were engaged in selling their policy solutions to the public during the time the legislation was being debated.
Looking only at the number of articles does not, however, get to the heart of the
research questions and their propositions. As Crow (2010, p.147) notes,
These data have, however, been used ineffectively in much policy scholarship. By using the level of intensity of media coverage, as a measure of the attention being paid to a given policy issue within
87


government systems, scholars are making significant assumptions about the journalistic practices that lead to the selection of stories.
Bernard and Ryan suggest a seven step process for theoretical based content
analysis found below:
1. Formulate a research question or hypothesis, based on existing theory or on prior research.
2. Select a set of texts to test the question or hypothesis.
3. Create a set of codes (variables, themes) in the research question or hypothesis.
4. Pretest the variable on a few selected texts. Fix any problems that turn up in regard to the codes and coding so that the coders become consistent in their coding.
5. Apply the codes to the rest of the texts.
6. Create a case-by-variable matrix from the texts and codes.
7. Analysis the matrix using whatever analysis is appropriate.
________________________________(2010, p. 289)_______________________________
Figure 3.1: Bernard and Ryan (2010) Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic
Approaches
The steps suggested by Bernard and Ryan map directly onto the process used for coding the data for both the content analysis and the interview data.
In addition to reading past and present newspaper accounts of the various attempts to increase the beer tax in Wisconsin, other secondary sources of data were collected (see below) to help assist in developing a qualitative case study around the historical context of venue shopping an increase in the beer tax as policy solution to the drinking culture. Television and public radio debates provided even more material to construct momentum and controversy over the
88


Full Text

PAGE 1

CHEAP BEER: VENUE AND ARENA SHOPPING A WISCONSIN SIN TAX by Jeremy Arney B.A., Colorado State University, 1993 M.A., Colorado State University, 2000 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Affairs 2010 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the undersigned, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation and scholarly standards of work in the discipline listed below. We approve its publication.

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Jeremy Arney has been approved by Peter deleon Christine Martell Laura Appelbam Date

PAGE 3

Arney, Jeremy (Ph.D. Public Affairs) Cheap Beer: Venue and Arena Shopping a Wisconsin Sin Ta x Thesis directed by Professor Peter deLeon ABSTRACT This thesis highlights a case study conducted on agenda-setting and the recent attempts by legislators and supporting interest groups to increase the excise tax on beer produced in Wisconsin. Drawing on the venue shopping literature the analysis examines how political actors "sell their policy solution (a beer tax increase) to the citizens of Wisconsin through their legislative representatives. In addition to performing a content analysis of media coverage concerning the beer tax increase over the last five years in-depth interviews were conducted with each legislator who either authored or supported Assembly Bill 287. After analyzing the data the research indicates there is growing momentum toward increasing the beer tax in Wisconsin. The evidence shows legislators and policy advocates rely on two main strategies to shop or sell a beer tax increase (AB 287) to the public and their legislative representati v es. The first strategy is to emphasize the needed economic gains in state r e venues the tax increase would bring. Second by framing the beer tax as a sin tax" polic y actors are attaching their policy solution to the growing public concern with the social costs incurred from alcohol-related tragedies in the state of Wisconsin Finally by relating the findings ofthis cas e study to the work of Sarah Pralle on venue shopping it appears that future studies in tltis area should draw a clear distinction between the concepts of polic y venues and arenas. This abstract accuratel y represents the content of the candidate s thesis I recommend its publication. Signed Dr. Peter deLeon

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEGMENT The author would like to thank all ofthe interviewees for participating in this case study including Terese Berceau, Fred Risser, Steve Hilgenberg, Kelda Helen Roys, Lisa Maroney, Julia Shennan, and Carol Lobes. In addition, the author is grateful for all of the work his committee members did to help him reach the end product, especially the chair Dr. Peter deLeon.

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ............................................................................... .ix List of Figures ......................................................................................................... x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION The Social Construction of Problems and Issues ........................................ 1 The Policy Issue: Added taxation of the Wisconsin beer industry .............. 3 Agenda-setting and venue shopping ............................................................ 7 Research Questions .................................................................................... 12 The Remaining Dissertation Chapters ....................................................... 17 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 20 Agenda-setting ........................................................................................... 22 Achieving agenda-status ............................................................................ 26 The problem stream: Framing attachable solutions ....................... 26 The policy stream .......................................................................... 30 The politics stream ......................................................................... 31 Models of Venue Shopping ....................................................................... 32 v

PAGE 6

The Dynamic Model: Punctuated Equilibrium .............................. 32 Expanding on PET and venue shopping ....................................... .40 The static model of venue shopping ............................................. .43 Venues, Arenas, and Jurisdictions ............................................................ .45 Other nuances of venue shopping ............................................................. .49 Internal Organizational Factors and Venue Shopping ................... 52 External opportunities and constraints on venue shopping ........... 53 Policy subsytems and venue shopping ...................................................... 55 Key decision-making venues ..................................................................... 56 Venue shopping and "outsider" strategies in policy arenas ....................... 59 Sin-taxes .................................................................................................... 63 The ebb & flow of issues ........................................................................... 68 Summary .................................................................................................... 75 3. RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................. 77 Research Design ........................................................................................ 77 Task One: Specification of the problem and research objective ... 77 Task Two: Developing a research strategy .................................... 79 VI

PAGE 7

Task Three: Case selection ............................................................ 80 Task Four: Describing the variance in variables ........................... 81 Task Five: Formulation of data requirements ................................ 82 Mixed-methods and triangulation .............................................................. 83 Data Collection Strategies ......................................................................... 85 Secondary data and archival research ........................................................ 85 Content Analysis ........................................................................................ 87 Primary data: Interviews ............................................................................ 90 Limitations of interviews ........................................................................... 95 Saturation ................................................................................................... 97 Qualitative Data Analysis .......................................................................... 98 Coding ....................................................................................................... 98 Codebook ................................................................................................. 1 00 NVivo ..................................................................................................... 102 lntercoder Rei iabi I ity ............................................................................... 1 03 Validity .................................................................................................... 104 Reliability ................................................................................................ 1 05 vii

PAGE 8

4. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................ ) 07 Background: Alcohol's role in Wisconsin ............................................... ) 07 The last beer tax increase in 1969 ............................................................ 1 09 The beer tax presently .............................................................................. 1 I 0 Advocates of the beer tax: the legislators ................................................ 111 Berceau's Legislative Colleagues ............................................................ 115 Advocates ofthe beer tax: interest groups ............................................... ll7 Opponents of the beer tax ........................................................................ 119 The Public Hearing on AB 287 ............................................................... 122 Summary .................................................................................................. 125 5. DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 127 Content Analysis by Frequency of Articles ............................................. 127 Content Analysis by the Code ................................................................. 130 Interview Analysis ................................................................................... 140 Individual interviewees and their coded references ................................. 144 Representative Terese Berceau .................................................... 144 Representative Hilgenberg ........................................................... 146 VIII

PAGE 9

Senator Fred Risser ...................................................................... 148 Representaive Kelda Helen Roys ................................................ 149 Carol Lobes .................................................................................. 151 Lisa Maroney ............................................................................... 153 Julia Sherrnan ............................................................................... 155 Analyzing the Research Questions .......................................................... 156 Selling ..................................................................................................... 157 Cost of lnaction ........................................................................................ 158 Economic Gain ............................................................................ 159 Health Gains ................................................................................ 160 Giving Feedback .......................................................................... 16l Saliency ........................................................................................ l62 Audience Friendly Feedback ................................................................... 164 Growing Public Concern ............................................................. 165 Human Health lmpact .................................................................. l66 Local Impact ................................................................................ 168 Selling vs. Saliency .................................................................................. 169 IX

PAGE 10

Research Question Three ......................................................................... 171 Comparison of Content Analysis and Interviews .................................... 173 Final Thoughts ......................................................................................... 177 6. FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................... 179 Making the distinction between venues and arenas ................................. ISO Ambiguities in venues and arenas still exist.. .......................................... l86 Findings from testing the propositions .................................................... 189 Future testing of the causality of the variables in agenda-setting ............ I96 Future research on the beer tax in Wisconsin .......................................... 196 APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................... 199 APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................... 20 I BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 203 X

PAGE 11

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Codebook ............................................................................................ 101 Table 5.1: Number of Article by Month and Year ............................................. 128 Table 5.2: Content Analysis Coding References ................................................. 131 Table 5.3: Interviewee and Attribute ................................................................... 141 Table 5.4: Number of Coding Reference by Individual and Total ...................... 142 Table 5.5: Political Factors by lndividual... ......................................................... 170 Table 5.6 Content Analysis vs. Interview Analysis ............................................. 172 XI

PAGE 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Bernard and Ryan (20 1 0) Steps for Content Analysis ........................ 87 Figure 5.1 Breakdown of Economic Gain or Loss .............................................. 132 Figure 5.2: Growing Public Concern ................................................................... 134 Figure 5.3: Human Health Gains or Losses and Human Health Impact ............. 135 Figure5.4: Locallmpact. ..................................................................................... 136 Figure 5.5: Audience Friendly Feedback ............................................................. 138 Figure 5.6: Coding References by Attribute ........................................................ l42 Figure 5.7: Terese Berceau .................................................................................. l44 Figure 5.8: Hilgenberg ......................................................................................... 146 Figure 5.9: Fred Risser ........................................................................................ 147 Figure 5.10 Kelda Helen Roys ............................................................................. 149 Figure 5.11: Carol Lobes ..................................................................................... 151 Figure 5.12: Lisa Maroney ................................................................................. 153 Figure 5.13: Julia Sherman .................................................................................. 154 Figure 5.14: Research Question One ................................................................... 156 Figure 5.15: The Cost of Inaction by Interviewee ............................................... 157 Figure 5.16: Economic Gain by Interviewee ....................................................... 158 Figure 5.17: Giving Feedback by Interviewee .................................................... 160 Figure 5.18 Research Question Two ................................................................... 162 Figure 5.19: Audience Friendly Feedback by Interviewee .................................. l63 Figure 5.20: Growing Public Concern by lndividual .......................................... l64 Figure 5.21: Human Health Impact by Individual ............................................... 165 Table 5.22: Local Impact by Individual .............................................................. 167 Figure 5.23 Saliency and Selling by Attribute ..................................................... 168 Figure 5.24 Selling Propositions by Content Analysis ........................................ 173 Figure 5.25 Selling Propositions by Interview Analysis ..................................... 173 Figure 5.26 Saliency Proposition by Content Analysis ....................................... 174 Figure 5.27 Saliency Proposition by Interview Analysis .................................... 175 XII

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Social Construction of Problems and Issues Alcohol-related social problems are thought to be the source of many major and continuing public health issues in America (Centers for Disease Control, August 6, 2008). Likewise, policy solutions designed to address the social ills connected with alcohol abuse are equally as abundant, of which federal Prohibition was clearly the most noted (Cook 2007; Okrent 2010). A recurring question by concerned policy actors over the years has been, how expensive is alcohol abuse nationally? The indicative answer is that the economic costs are substantial. Alcohol abuse and addiction cost the nation's citizens an estimated $220 billion in 2005-more than cancer ($196 billion) and more than obesity ($133 billionHThe National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, May 2006). While down from averaging nearly 30,000 deaths in the early 1980s, drunk drivers are still killing 15,000 Americans on average each year and injuring hundreds ofthousands more (www.rockymountainnews.com, Anonymous, January 2, 2009). 1

PAGE 14

While citizens struggle with national public health policies designed to reduce the detrimental effects of heavy alcohol drinking, Wisconsin residents have the distinction of leading the nation's states in many public health situations because of their drinking culture. According to the Wisconsin State Council on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, in 2008 Wisconsin was ranked first in the country in adult "binge"1 drinking, the percentage of current drinkers in the population, and in driving under the influence (www.scaoda.state.wi.us). As recently as 2005, Wisconsin had the second highest binge drinking rate for college students in the population (Anonymous, February 23, 2005). Even more recently, Wisconsin has had the highest underage drinking rate in the country (U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2007). Alcohol and drug abuse is the 41 h leading cause of death in Wisconsin, behind heart disease, cancer and stroke (Wisconsin Alcohol Traffic Facts Book, 2001). And only Montana has a higher percentage of driver fatalities in which blood alcohol concentrations exceed .08 (Traffic Safety Facts Data: Alcohol, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Washington, DC, 2005). 1 While the delinition of "binge drinking is continually being debated The National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NlAAA) adopted the 5/4 definition of binge drinking where a "binge" is a pattern of drinking alcohol that brings blood alcohol concentration to O.OR gram percent or above. for the typical adult. this pattem corresponds to consuming 5 or more drinks (male) or 4 or more drinks (female) in about 2 hours. The annual Behavioral Risk factor Surveillance Survey coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended changing its measure of binge drinking from a 5-drink standard to a gender-specific measure of 5 drinks for males and 4 drinks lor females (Wechsler and Nelson 2008). 2

PAGE 15

The Policy Issue: Added taxation of the Wisconsin beer industry Of all of the policy solutions available to reduce harm from the overconsumption of alcohol, one of the most oft cited is to increase the price via taxation (Wagner 1983; Shughart II 1997; Cook and Moore 2002; Wagenaar et al. 2009; Sharma 2009). An increase in taxation on the indulgence of certain commodities (i.e., alcohol and tobacco) have often been referred to as "sin taxes". According to Lorenzi (20 1 0), sin taxes can be defined as those government revenues garnered from the purchase or consumption of resources that exhibit addiction, self-harm and harm to the public. These so-called "sin taxes" were a major source of revenue for the federal government (and its war excursions) up until the creation of the federal income tax in 1913 (Shughart II 1997; Salanie 2003; Okrent 2010). While there are many ways in which a sin tax can be framed, it is the pros and cons used to justify tax increases on "sin" that draws the most public attention. For instance, supporters of a beer2 tax increase see it as a "user fee" that helps pay for the negative externalities (i.e, social costs) brought about by the overconsumption of beer (Shughart II 1997). Opponents of a beer 2 According to Merriam-Webster (2009), beer is defined as an alcoholic beverage usually made from malted cereal grain (as barley), flavored with hops, and brewed by slow fermentation. While the standard alcohol content in most domestic beers fall within a range between 4 and 6 percent, the craft beer industry usually maxes out at fourteen percent alcohol. However, new yeast research has allowed brewers to experiment with the emerging science that has pushed the traditional cap of 14 percent alcohol by volume for beer. In fact, Samuel Adams brewing company has just released a beer that is the highest ever recorded alcohol content in a beer made in the U.S. at 27 percent (Contreras, November 30, 2009). 3

PAGE 16

tax increase say that it unfairly taxes responsible beer drinkers and is yet another sign of government impeding on an individual's choice oflifestyle (Peters 2010). Nonetheless, there has been recent attempts to frame these tax increases as prosocial strategies to reduce the likes of anti-social behaviors like drunk driving and binge-drinking. "Sin taxes remain a viable, important public policy tool for raising needed government revenues, for encouraging pro-social behavior, and for curbing anti-social consumption" (Lorenzi 2010, p. 330). Therefore, policymakers and actors in favor of increasing the have analytic evidence to counter those opposed to adopting beer tax increases-although, as Lorenzi points out "sin taxes face the greatest opposition from those who produce the sin" (ibid)3 To supplement the familiar anecdotal evidence of alcohol tragedies, several recent studies have been used to illustrate the positive consequences-in terms of national public health-for increasing beer taxes nation-wide. For example, beer is the beverage most commonly consumed by people stopped for impaired driving or involved in alcohol-related crashes and, as such, accounts for 81% of all alcohol that is drunk in hazardous amounts in the U.S. (Greenfield and Rogers 1999; Rogers and Greenfield 1999). Therefore, one study ofthe positive 3 There is also a history of opposition by the consumers as well. In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton proposed an excise tax on alcohol to boost revenues and curb consumption the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 later ensued, forcing federal officials to quell an uprising of angry Pennsylvanians (Altman, Time Magazine, April 2, 2009). 4

PAGE 17

public health effects of taxation on alcohol-related problems has found that higher taxes can reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths (Ponicki et al. 2007). Moreover, there are studies that suggest for every 1% increase in the price of beer, the traffic fatality rate declines by 0.9% (Ruhm 1996). Grossman and Markowitz (1999) found that a 1 0% increase in beer taxes has been projected to reduce the overall number of students involved in some sort of violent behavior by about 4%. Chaloupka (2002) indicated that if alcohol in beer were taxed at the same rate as alcohol in distilled spirits, the number of fatalities among 18-20 year olds in traffic crashes would decrease by 21 %. Saffer et al. (200 1) found that higher beer taxes lead to significant reductions in crime, particularly in the under 21 age population. Cook and Moore (2002) have also shown how taxation can reduce the percentage of youth who drink heavily and engage in binge drinking. And, most recently, a meta-analysis from the Harvard School of Public Health of 112 studies with 1 ,003 relationships of tax and consumption found that significant relationships between alcohol tax or price measures and consumption of alcohol exist (Wagenaar et al. 2009). The authors concluded that alcoholic beverage prices and taxes are inversely related to drinking4 as prices go up, people become less likely to drink-and when they do drink, they drink less. These findings held for teenagers as well as adults (Wagenaar et al. 2009). 4 They found aggregate r = -.17 for beer, .30 for wine, .29 for spirits and .44 for total alcohol. 5

PAGE 18

Yet numbers alone are often insufficient to push an issue higher on the governmental agenda. Stone (2002, p.177) contends that, "Numbers in politics are measures of human activities, made by human beings, and intended to influence human behavior. They are subject to conscious and unconscious manipulation by the people being measured, the people making the measurements, and the people who interpret and use measures made by others." Statistics and other products of professional research and analysis can be used for either "enlightenment" or "ammunition" because actual policy decisions are claimed by many to be based on "ordinary" knowledge and social interaction (Lindblom and Cohen 1979; Weiss 1989). Regardless of whether actual policy decisions are made by presenting statistical accounts or by conveying to the public in layman's terms that there is a problem facing society, for a decision to actually be made on enacting a policy, it must first reach the decision-making agenda of the governing institution. This dissertation is a case study about how policy entrepreneurs and their support groups work to place a policy onto the decision-making agenda of the Wisconsin state legislature. In other words, based on using a cost-benefit analysis5 how do policy actors "sell" a sin tax to the s Lorenzi (20 10) refers to three different types of sustainability that carry out the positive goals based in an efficient cost-benefit approach that serves the common good, "where the benefit is equivalent to the accounting concept of revenue and a positive-benefit to cost ratio would indicate that the process is efficient, profitable or wealth creating. In accounting terms, the difference between revenues and costs is profit-value or wealth creation" (p. 329). Emphasizing the distribution of benefits and costs when determining policy is not a new line of reasoning, Harold 6

PAGE 19

legislature, and by extension, the citizens of Wisconsin when there appears to be deeply entrenched opposition toward such a policy? Agenda-setting and venue shopping In addition to problem and issue defining, models of agenda setting emphasize the importance of framing an issue and how issue images are used in shaping policy conflicts (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003; Stone 1988; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Schneider and Ingram 1993, Rochefort and Cobb 1994; Cobb & Ross 1997; Leech et al. 2002). Shifting or "framing" the image of an issue-the way an issue is perceived, discussed, and understood-is a key way to mobilize the public and policymakers around a policy problem and a proposed solution (Schon and Rein 1994). Sometimes it is necessary to transform what is considered a "condition," or something one lives with, to a "problem" that one (and/or the government) can do something about (Kingdon 1984; Stone 1988), or, as A.O. Hirschman (1982) phrases it "shifting involvement" from the personal to the public. Borrowing from the MarchCohen-Olsen (1972) "garbage can model", Kingdon (2003) argues that government and government organizations are operating as "organized anarchies" (Kingdon 2003, p. 86). Therefore, policy actors and entrepreneurs are interested in becoming more organized (simplicity) in the policy making process, rather than Lasswell's (1936; 1958) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How introduced this idea over half a century ago (also see Weimer and Vining 1999). 7

PAGE 20

creating more anarchy (complexity). According to Kingdon (2003, p.224), theories of complexity, chaos and garbage can models have some properties in common, "they all find pattern and structure in very complicated, fluid, and seemingly unpredictable phenomena." Nonetheless, the complexities never entirely disappear and policy actors for the most part are left to "muddle through" the policymaking process (Lindblom 1959). Venue shopping is one alternative strategy available to the muddling policymaker. In some cases, policy entrepreneurs will try to shift attention to different aspects of a complex issue to change how the public and policymakers think about and react to an existing issue in an attempt for that policy to gain access to a decision-making venue (Downs 1972; Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Leech et al. 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). In the agenda-setting literature, policy entrepreneurs and political forces (i.e., an interest group) might also try to redefine an issue to move consideration of it into a new "policy venue", where decision rules, norms, and procedures differ. For instance, according to Baumgartner and Jones (1993), moving one's policy issues to more favorable venues-that is, across the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government-is a benefit for policymakers operating in a federalist system like the one found in the U.S. Nearly a decade later, Baumgartner and Jones (2002) continued to support the idea of policy 8

PAGE 21

entrepreneurs shopping around until they find a more receptive legislative committee-also referred to by them as a venue-where their efforts will lead to favorable policy decisions. That is, policy entrepreneurs can increase their likelihood of success by steering legislation they support to committees that are receptive to their positions; alternatively, they can try to steer legislation they oppose to committees that delay, alter, or even terminate legislation. Therefore, this concept of venue shopping asserts that policy entrepreneurs might examine multiple decision-making venues until they find a receptive committee or agency and then they work together to have policy decisions made in this new arena (Baumgartner & Jones 2002; Pralle 2003; 2006). Others scholars have talked about the important role venue shopping plays in terms of agenda-setting and public policy change. In Up in Smoke (2005), Martha Derthick writes about how anti-smoking advocates decided to file their lawsuits against the tobacco companies in state courts when anti-smoking legislation failed in Congress. As Derthick (2005) wrote, "[W]hen litigators file lawsuits, they try to pick venues that will maximize their chances of winning" (p. 75). This turned out to be the case in the state of Mississippi in the 1990s where tort lawyers found a sympathetic venue in its state Supreme Court that disallowed the tobacco industry's request for a jury trial-eventually leading to a 9

PAGE 22

settlement in the summer of 1997 for Mississippi litigators (which represented one of32 states as plaintiffs in lawsuits against the tobacco industry by that time). More recently, Deserai Crow (20 1 0) has written about the highly contentious policy venues of both the legislature and the courts in Colorado regarding its water rights law. Drawing upon Baumgarten and Jones (1993) theory of punctuated equilibrium, Crow (20 10, p. 156) expected to see stakeholders shopping for venues "friendlier than traditional venues for voicing opposition to the policy status quo." When the city of Golden was granted a water right to allow recreational in-channel diversion, a state agency-the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)-believed that its status as the authoritative decision-maker regarding in-stream water rights in Colorado was being severely threatened. According to Crow (2010, p. 156), "[t]he CWCB decided to take the policy issue outside of the traditional court system venue, to what is considered a friendlier venue-the Colorado General Assembly." Unfortunately for the CWCB, the legislature did not side with them to prohibit recreational in-channel diversion water rights as many expected (p.156). These illustrations of venue shopping studies reflect a "rational actor" approach, where policy actors and entrepreneurs seek to maximize their policy's utility by looking for success elsewhere in a different venue more receptive to their cause. Assuming venue shopping does take place, Sarah Pralle (2005) 10

PAGE 23

introduces other aspects she has associated with the venue shopping literature, "if an issue is firmly under the jurisdiction of just one decision venue, advocacy organizations have little choice but to target that venue. If unsuccessful they will have to use 'outsider' strategies in policy arenas such as the media" (Pralle 2010, p.26, emphases added)6 While agenda-setting and venue shopping studies recently carried out by Pralle (2003; 2006) acknowledge the importance of these outsider strategies, much work still remains in elaborating on the various processes and practices associated with these strategies. Pralle's work over the last few years has helped show that venue shopping might be an important part of the policy process, but obtaining a true grasp of its usefulness requires that the relationship between policy venues and policy arenas becomes more prominent. The analytic thrust of this dissertation is to contribute to the theoretical implications of venue shopping and the strategies used by policy actors to forward their policy problems and accompanying solutions. Therefore, the following research questions are designed to elaborate on this relationship and to help build on Pralle's (201 0) proposition that when "an issue is firmly under the jurisdiction 6 This is a central argument for this dissertation, and the materials drawn upon to help build and support this thesis were originally taken from a 2005 conference paper presented by Sarah Pralle. Through personal contact (September 7, 2010), Sarah Pralle has graciously provided me with her revised 2010 version of the paper, which is a book chapter in the forthcoming in Advocacy Organizations and Collective Action (Prakash and Gugerty 201 0). The cites taken from Pralle in this dissertation-from this body of work-are from the 2010 revised paper. 11

PAGE 24

of just one decision venue" (p.26), venue shopping requires that the policy actors rely on "outside strategies" located in alternative policy arenas. Research Questions RQl: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and policymakers? While the venue shopping literature is still largely underdeveloped, Pralle (20 1 0) asserts that venue shopping continues to give policymakers and their supporting groups an opportunity to keep issues on the agenda of government and other decision-making venues by soliciting the various governmental institutions and urging them to address problematic issues even when others are ignoring them. Although the distinction between a policy venue and policy arena is further developed in the literature review, the main distinction is that a policy venue has the sole governmental authority to place a policy solution onto the decision-making agenda, and then make the additional decision to enact it as policy or not. While policy arenas do not have decision-making authority, they are alternative places to consider policies. 12

PAGE 25

Some examples of policy entrepreneurs and their support groups may resemble a wide range of political actors including legislators, members ofthe medical community, law enforcement, editorial boards and journalists, as well as, concerned members of the public. In addition, some non-governmental institutions also play an important role in keeping a policy issue salient and fresh in the minds of the attentive publics. In addition to how a policy issues is framed, this first research question also attempts to determine what types of venue shopping strategies occur outside the decision-making venue in other policy arenas. RQ 2: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy problem in a way that increases the saliency of their policy solution to both the public and their representative policymakers? While similar to the first research question, this research question is focused on the processes involved in posing and persuading the policy to the specific (latent) members of the public and their (seemingly) disinterested legislative representatives. That is, in order for policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups to have success in getting a policy solution placed on the 13

PAGE 26

fonnal decision-making agenda, the audience has to be convinced that a problem exists, and as mentioned earlier, that the problem is more than just a "regular part of life" (Stone 1988). If Kingdon ( 1984; 2003) is right that policymakers (and presumably the public as well) learn about problems through indicators, then different indicators may have to be selected for different audiences. In other words, policy actors need to effectively publicize their positions to the citizenry about which problems affect them the most and that a certain policy solution makes the most sense over others (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Kingdon 1984; Stone 1988; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). Using metaphors and analogies could also prove useful, as they could help simplify complex scientific relationships between indicators and solutions (Stone 1988; Edelman 1988). Nonetheless, indicators alone will not cause agenda and policy change. Policymakers and policy institutions often ignore infonnation or discount it for long periods of time and are also unlikely to respond proportionately (i.e., gamer attention) to changes in problem indicators (Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b). Finally, the policymaking literature provides few examples, or novel arguments, for policy entrepreneurs and other political actors to help them reach the "latent masses" (Leech et al. 2002, pp.286-87). This means that changing the definition of an issue often requires the mobilization of the previously 14

PAGE 27

uninterested public, which may pose a problem for policy actors with limited financial and human resources. The third research question uses Kingdon's (1984; 2003) "multiple streams" framework to help identify where in his three key political factors is the majority of the venue and arena shopping strategies likelier to take place. RQ 3: Considering the three key political factors, where are venue and arena shopping strategies by policy entrepreneurs and their support groups likely to occur? Models of agenda-setting and venue shopping would be incomplete without attention to shifting political opportunities (Kingdon 1984 and 2003; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). Kingdon's (2003) "multiple streams" approach to policymaking is given much greater attention in the following literature review; for now, however, the concept of multiple streams focuses on three key political factors affecting agendas: the national mood;7 organized political forces; and administrative or legislative turnover (p.146). According to Zahariadas (2007), Kingdon assumes that policymakers sense a "national mood," perhaps via public opinion polls, and that this mood makes it more likely that the government will address some problems and solutions more than others (p.77). An "antigovernment" mood, for example, might prevent proposals for large-scale 7 For the purposes of this dissertation "national mood" will be substituted with "public opinion" to keep this case study relevant to Wisconsin only. 15

PAGE 28

government intervention in the economy and society from achieving a position on the decision agenda. This is being played out in the current TEA Party movement at all levels of government in the United States, with TEA Party members asking: "Are we not over taxed as it is?" Organized political forces may contribute to policymakers' understanding of the public's preferences--or at least the preferences of some segments of itand how various solutions will affect target groups, thus influencing policymakers' perceptions of solution feasibility. The balance of organized political support and opposition to a policy may shape policymakers' agendas and selection of alternatives (Kingdon 2003, p.150). For instance, while the twenty first amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution preserves the states' rights to regulate alcohol as they see fit, Wisconsin, along with 18 other states, operate under a three-tier distribution system that organizes political forces representing each of the separate tiers (i.e., producers, distributors, and retailers). Administrative or legislative turnover often leads to rather dramatic agenda changes, as new administrations push their preferred issues and raise the likelihood of some problems and solutions (p.153). While it seems taxes are not very popular anywhere, in Wisconsin, the legislature recently raised state taxes more than $5 billion dollars during the 2009 session and will still face a state budget deficit of over $2.5 billion when it convenes in November 2010 (Hardie, 16

PAGE 29

July I3, 20 I 0, B I). Anticipating legislative turnover affiliated with partisan identification, Republican Senate minority leader Scott Fitzgerald foresees that, "[D]emocrats squandered their first year as the majority party in both houses of the legislature by raising taxes and in 20 I 0 they will be focused on trying to get voters to forget about that" (Bauer, January 4, 20 I 0, A6). Furthermore, because each of Kingdon's three political factors exist along a "continuum representing different degrees of authoritativeness" with respect to governance (Timmermans 200 I, p.3I4 ), the third research question is an attempt to expand on the literature and determine how much of an effect each factor has on certain policy decisions. More specifically, with respect to the beer tax, the researcher is interested in gauging which of the three political factors will the participants interviewed think has a greater effect on the likelihood of a beer tax increase ever becoming a law in the state of Wisconsin? The Remaining Dissertation Chapters Chapter two begins by offering a more general scope of the agenda-setting and venue shopping literature and then narrows its focus on the distinction between policy venues and policy arenas. This distinction between the two terms can help address the ambiguity in the current literature brought about by continuing to use venues and arenas interchangeably. In addition, the distinction may address the concerns of whether venue shopping can exist when access to the I7

PAGE 30

decision-making agenda is denied to a group of policy supporters (revoking their lobbying capabilities in that venue). As Pralle (2005) has suggested, utilizing "outside strategies" to consider policies in alternative arenas may help policy actors in their attempts to gain access to the sole decision-making venue, if indeed, that happens to be the case. Nine propositions are introduced in the latter part of the literature review. Chapter three discusses the research methods used to answer the overall research questions and their accompanying propositions. Chapter three also highlights the type of data needed to help establish if venue shopping is even taking place in this qualitative case study. A computer-assisted database, NVivo 8.0, was utilized to help store the data for a within-case analysis of the in-depth interviews and for a content analysis on the newspaper data collected during the research. Chapter four is the detailed description of the Wisconsin beer tax as a case study. The case study is built mainly around archival (secondary data) and the primary data drawn from the in-depth interviews of the policy entrepreneur and the supporting political actors. This chapter provides the context for a public policy and its fit into the agenda-setting exercise of venue shopping. Chapter five is the analysis that describes how the data collected are relevant to the venue shopping literature. The analysis shows whether or not the 18

PAGE 31

research questions and their propositions were supported by the empirical data gathered. Chapter six is the summary and conclusions about this case study and the future research opportunities regarding venue and arena shopping. 19

PAGE 32

CHAPTER2 LITERATURE REVIEW The following literature review offers a description of the literature of agenda-setting theories in the policy-making process. Building upon the early incrementalist explanation of politics during the 1950s and early 1960s, John Kingdon's (1984) "multiple streams" approach to public policymaking is discussed. Following the discussion of Kingdon, Baumgartner and Jones ( 1993) continue the discussion around the phenomenon of policy actors "shopping" their policy solutions as a means to create policy change. While additional venue shopping studies are summarized, more attention is paid to the recent works of Sarah Pralle because of the central role venue shopping plays in her research. Finally, after a review of the several nuances of venue shopping in the literature, a more in-depth description of each of Kingdon's three streams couches this dissertation's propositions to support the three research questions introduced in the last chapter. Agenda-setting Earlier works by scholars studying the policymaking process discussed the conservative nature of politics and how the majority of changes that take place 20

PAGE 33

occur in small incremental steps (Laswell 1936; 1958; Simon 1947; 1958; Lindblom 1959). Both Herbert Simon (1947; 1958) and Charles Lindblom (1959) describe how the abilities of decision makers are "bounded" to incrementalism in politics because of the unforeseen (and unforeseeable) consequences of negative feedback in the policymaking process (e.g., opposition by other policymakers or public outcry over certain issues). Through their interviews of many politicians Lasswell ( 1936; 1958), Simon ( 1958) and Lindblom (1959) posited that the majority of policymakers enjoyed the "safety" incrementalism provided them in their legislative duties-by taking things cautiously and carefully, they were less inclined to upset their constituents by making sudden and broad sweeping changes. In addition, Aaron Wildavsky ( 1964) provided an excellent example of the "bounding nature" of incrementalism in his book Politics of the Budgetary Process. Wildavsky (1964) pointed out that the allocation of resources for governmental agencies are set in place one year prior to any attempts at making or maintaining policy. In other words, fixed budgets almost ensured that a steady equilibriwn of politics remained at a conservative pace (Bawngartner and Jones 1993). In addition to drawing upon the significant work confirming incrementalism as a mainstay phenomenon in the policy making process, scholars have also recognized that many factors beyond the budget constraints of 21

PAGE 34

government agencies can lead to rapid change in government institutions and policymaking endeavors, as well as influencing what gets placed on the decision making agenda (Shepsle 1979; Riker 1980; Kingdon 1984; Krehbiel 1991; Baumgartner and Jones 1993). John Kingdon (1984; 2003) fundamentally asks why some policy issues emerge on governmental agendas while others are relatively neglected. Scholars in the problem definition literature (Lasswell 1971; Brewer and deLeon 1983; Cobb and Elder 1983; Dery 1984; Scneider and Ingram 1993; Rochefort and Cobb 1 994) have suggested that how an issue comes to be defined as a social problem helps determine the issue's ability to gain access to the governmental agenda. Nonetheless, some problems are not seen to be "problems" at all, but rather as conditions with which we choose to live (Wildavsky 1979; Stone 1988; Kingdon 2003). Problems without readily available and feasible solutions may fail to get on the decision agendas of governmental actors even if they attract public and governmental attention (Wildavsky 1979; Kingdon 2003). Furthermore, policy information may be ignored for long periods because of the cognitive limitations of policy actors and institutions, only to receive disproportionate attention at a later date (Simon 1977; Jones and Baumgartner 2005b ). In short, agenda-setting research examines the fates of different public policy issues as they receive more or less public and governmental consideration, and what acts themselves gain attention on the 22

PAGE 35

public's radar. Agenda-setting scholars attempt to explain these varying patterns of attention. According to Kingdon (2003), the agenda-setting perspective starts with four basic assumptions. First, many of the above-mentioned scholars have identified at least three broad agenda in democratic political systems; although they use different terminology to describe them over the years. For the present purposes: the public agenda refers to the set of issues that are most salient to citizens and voters; the governmental agenda consists of the issues that are addressed in governmental institutions such as legislatures and executive agencies; and the decision agenda is the narrower set of issues about which governmental officials are poised to make a decision. Outside of the governmental institutions, such as the media and non-profit organizations also have agenda that can affect the public and governmental agenda (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988; Kingdon 2003). The second assumption is that each of these agendas has a "carrying capacity" (referred to much earlier in the literature as "bounded rationality") that limits the number of issues it can handle simultaneously, thus creating competition among issues for a place (Simon 1947; 1977; Hilgartner and Bosk 1988; Kingdon 2003). Third, it is less helpful to characterize issues as entirely on or off agenda than it is to think of them as occupying points on a spectrum on 23

PAGE 36

which some issues are highly salient and a top priority, others are less salient, and still others do not register at all. Finally. the agenda-setting literature assumes that highly salient issues are more likely to move onto the decision agendas of governmental institutions. More effort and resources are expected to be directed to solve these problems than other less salient problems, although policy change is not guaranteed even when an issue is judged to be highly salient (Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003). Kingdon ( 1984; 2003) envisions the rise and fall of issues on the agenda as a product of interplay of"three streams" or policy processes: problems, policies and politics. These streams apparently operate largely independent of one another, as they tend to have their own rules, "star" different players, and are subject to different internal dynamics (Zahariadis 2007). Nevertheless, at propitious moments (e.g., when "windows of opportunity" open), policy entrepreneurs8 can help guide the "coupling" or merging of the three streams. The confluence created by this coupling of the streams dramatically increases the chances that an issue will receive serious attention by policymakers. That is, the likelihood of any issue rising to prominence on the agenda is significantly increased when the problem, policy and politics streams join together. 8 According to Kingdon (2003), a policy entrepreneur refers to any political actor willing to "invest their resources-time, energy, reputation, and sometimes money-in the hope of a future return" (p. 122). 24

PAGE 37

Such windows of opportunity arise as a result of activities in the political stream or because a problem is deemed especially pressing. Kingdon argues that some windows are predictable, such as budgetary and reauthorization processes in US Congress, electoral cycles and the like. Other windows are governed by less predictable processes such as focusing events, damning reports, and the sudden emergence of pressing problems (Kingdon 2003, p.l65). Drawing upon the "Garbage Can Model" originally introduced by Cohen, March and Olsen (1972), often in the "primeval soup" of policy making, it may be that policy solutions go looking for a problem to attach themselves to. In other words, when a feasible solution is attached to what the public and policymakers perceive as an important public problem, and when political conditions are amenable to change, a policy window opens. At times, policy entrepreneurs operate in such a way to help locate these windows of opportunity and when the "time is right", they must seize the opportunity and push for government action. Regardless of whether a window opens predictably or randomly, policy entrepreneurs must be ready to seize the moment, for the windows rarely stay open for very long. Achieving agenda-status: Kingdon's three streams and their role in venue shopping As mentioned above, the three streams are posed by Kingdon (1984; 2003) as operating largely independent of one another, as they tend to have their own rules, "star" different players, and are subject to different internal dynamics 25

PAGE 38

(Zahariadis 2007). The following sections describe in more depth the importance of each of Kingdon's stream in the policymaking process. The problem stream: Framing attachable solutions In the context of this dissertation, we need to ask: Why would policymakers pay serious attention to a given policy initiative at some times and not others? According to Kingdon (2003), problems come to the attention of policymakers via indicators, focusing events and feedback. Indicators can illuminate the scope and severity of a problem through the monitoring of natural (or social) processes, activities and events. Indicators occur through both routine monitoring and special studies. For example, contemporary scientific and political interest in the numerous effects the British Petroleum oil spill has had on the coastal states of the Gulf of Mexico, has led some people (and a few politicians) to pay closer attention to articles being published in the literature concerning off-shore drilling-as well as, to spend an increase in efforts toward discovering and/or using alternative energy sources. Policymakers also learn about problems through dramatic focusing events that grab attention of the public and policymakers alike. As discussed below, Baumgartner and Jones (1993) define focusing events as "punctuations" in policy. Later, Birkland (1998) defines focusing events as relatively rare sudden events that "can be reasonably defined as harmful or revealing the possibility of 26

PAGE 39

potentially greater future harms", and "are concentrated in a particular geographical area or community of interest" (p.54). Unlike problems that are revealed through long-term monitoring, focusing events highlight a problem (or problems) in one striking (or "exogenous") event that the public and policymakers learn about simultaneously (Sabatier et al., 2007). In addition, policymakers learn about problems through feedback on current policy programs. Typically, this is negative feedback generated by evaluation studies, target groups, bureaucrats or policymakers themselves, who report on what is not working or on the unintended consequences of policies. It is important to note here that even with indicators, focusing events and feedback, issues do not come to the attention of policymakers as "objective" problems whose meaning is established and uncontested. Instead, much debate exists about whether a problem is amenable to government action, what kind of problem it is, the cause and scope of the problem, and other equally vexing issues (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Stone 1988; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Rochefort and Cobb 1994). In addition, several options are available to policy actors and groups to expand conflict on an issue, including appealing directly to government officials while attempting to tum a "private" conflict into a public one, or involving a wider public audience to encourage action by the government (Stone 1997). For example, when President Barak Obama presented the problem recognition of 27

PAGE 40

millions of Americans being uninsured, he had to convince the public that the government has the capability of solving this problem in the first place by legislating mandatory insurance coverage for all (Mcardle 201 0). Stone ( 1989) recommends that the process of defining a problem should attribute bad circumstances (i.e., tens ofthousands ofwmecessary deaths) to human conditions (lack of insurance) and that these circumstances are not just anomalies of nature or acceptable matters of fate. As summed by Baumgartner and Jones (1993), "(W]hen conditions are argued to stem from human or government sources, then government action is much more likely" (p.27). As the image of an issue changes from that of a private misfortune to a public problem amenable to government solutions, the issue may raise itself high on the governmental agenda in terms of "shifting involvement"(Hirschman 1982). Policy actors will argue about the severity, incidence, novelty, proximity and crisis nature of an issue, as these factors affect an issue's relevance and therefore its agenda status (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Rochefort and Cobb 1994). In general, an issue's salience will rise to the extent that policy actors can define the problem as unique and extremely serious, with widespread impacts that hit "close to home" and result in catastrophic consequences (i.e., when the 9/11 attacks led to the enactment of the Patriots Act). Importantly, policymakers and 28

PAGE 41

advocacy groups will also engage in debates over how to categorize a problem, the cause of it, and how to solve it (Schon and Rein 1994; Stone 2002). It is important to note that policymakers process the flow of information from indicators, feedback, focusing events and problem definitions in a disproportionate manner. Jones and Baumgartner (2005a and 2005b) argue that policymakers often ignore or under-react to problem indicators in the larger environment for a variety of reasons. For instance, since policymakers are limited in the amount of information they can process when they are bombarded with an overload of information, this may lead to "cognitive dissonance" or a "short circuit" in their ability to process and act on a plethora of problem indicators (Festinger 1957; Steinbruner 1974). However, circumstances may change (for example, indicators may reveal a severe problem, new aspects of the problem become evident, or new framings of the problem emerge) such that policymakers recognize their error, pay disproportionate attention to a problem, and respond in non-incremental ways to it (Brewer and deLeon 1983). The result is an altered pattern of attention that includes long periods of stability punctuated by bursts of agenda (and potentially) policy change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and b). The policy stream. Indeed, the debate over solutions, or what Kingdon (2003) calls the "policy stream", is a critical part of the agenda-setting, and even 29

PAGE 42

more importantly here for the venue shopping process. In addition to a problem stream, Kingdon (2003) envisions a policy stream in which solutions are being generated by specialists and experts within policy communities and are waiting to be attached to the salient problems of the day. While there are many potential solutions to a specific problem set, only a select few are chosen and implemented. Kingdon argues that proposals must pass a threshold test of technical feasibility and congruence with reigning values to be selected. Moreover, solutions must be perceived as staying within budgetary limits. As mentioned earlier, budgetary considerations prevent policymakers and those close to them from seriously considering some alternatives, initiatives, and proposals (Kingdon 2003, p.1 06). While Kingdon does not dwell on this point, these criteria are subject to change and that political actors will try to shape the public and policymakers' perceptions about them. Hence, even budgetary constraints that appear to be "objective" are subject to varying interpretations (Wildavsky 1964). The most important point that Kingdon (2003) makes about policy solutions is the absolute need for a policy entrepreneurs and supporting political groups to actually have one: problems that have no solutions attached to them are less likely to make it onto governmental and decision agendas. In addition, specific segments of the population are less likely to worry about problems when they feel there is nothing to be done about them (Abbasi 2006, p. 146). As Cobb and Elder (1983) have 30

PAGE 43

pointed out, the "public" includes a mass public, a smaller "sympathetic" public, and an even more circumscribed "attentive" public. This dissertation adds the "latent" public to the clientele and the need for policy actors to mobilize or gain the attentiveness of the less-engaged public. The politics stream. Kingdon's (1984; 2003) model of agenda-setting and venue shopping would be incomplete without attention to shifting political opportunities. Briefly, the multiple streams model focuses on three key political factors affecting agendas: the national mood9 organized political forces, and administrative or legislative turnover (Kingdon 1995, p.146). Kingdon assumes that policymakers sense a "national mood", perhaps via public opinion polls, and that this mood makes it more likely that the government will pay more attention to some subset of problems and solutions than others (Zahariadis 2007, p. 77). An "anti-government" mood, for example, might prevent proposals for large-scale government intervention in the economy and society from achieving a prominent place on the decision agenda. Organized political forces may contribute to policymakers' understanding of the public's preferences-or at least the preferences of some segments of it-and how various solutions will affect target groups-thus influencing policymakers' perceptions of solution feasibility. The balance of organized political support and opposition to a policy may shape 9 For the purposes of this dissertation "national mood" will be substituted with "public opinion" in order to keep this case study relevant to Wisconsin only. 31

PAGE 44

policymakers' agendas and selection of alternatives (Kingdon 2003, p.150). Administrative or electoral turnover often leads to rather dramatic agenda changes, as new administrations push their preferred issues and raise the status of some problems and solutions. While the politics stream is the least developed of the three in Kingdon's model, he does acknowledge the important role it plays in the policymaking process. Models of Venue Shopping The Dynamic Model: Punctuated Equilibrium. The most utilized example of the logic behind the dynamic model can be found in Baumgartner and Jones' (1993) punctuated equilibrium model. Baumgartner and Jones's (1993) punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) addresses both incremental and large policy changes, asserting there is a period of equilibrium (or stasis) interrupted by a punctuated change-and then returning to another period of equilibrium. This state of equilibrium remains fairly stable over time experiencing quiet periods of small incremental changes, but nothing significant enough to be designated as a punctuation. In other words, PET stresses the role stability plays for maintaining policy agendas and that "stability does not indicate a lack of movement but rather small adjustments from the status quo" (Jordan 2002, p.203). These small adjustments or increments describe the most common movement on the policy agenda and has been used to refer to the policy making 32

PAGE 45

process in America since the 1950s as a practice in incrementalism (Simon 1947; Lindblom 1959; Wildavsky 1964 ). Also remember the foundations of incrementalism is based on Simon's (1947; 1977) concept of"bounded rationality" where the human mind's ability to rationally and comprehensively resolve problems is limited due to the restraints of serial processing; the individual can only focus on a limited number of problems at a time (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005)10. At the group level, conflict begins to arise when policy makers cannot agree on whether or not a problem exists, or its magnitude, or its importance. Therefore, consensus on how to resolve an issue is modeled as not likely to happen. This tendency toward disagreement and conflict is an important aspect of incrementalism and strong evidence has been provided in the previous literature that patterns of incrementalism are hard to break away from-especially when policy makers have been shown to have a vested interested in maintaining the status quo and trying to reduce conflict by submitting only incremental policy alternatives (Lindblom 1959; Wildavsky 1964; Jordan 2003). Therefore, punctuations are assist, according to Baumgartner and Jones, during periods of conflict and 1 Conflict also occurs at the individual level when they suppress information that could be contradictory to what the individual believes if perceived a certain way. Referred to by Leon Festinger ( 1957) as cognitive dissonance, an individual's thought processes may reject, repress, or downgrade this contradictory information to the point where a conflict no longer exists (in Brewer and deLeon 1983, p.36). 33

PAGE 46

political instability when "windows of opportunity"'' exist for large significant changes to occur in the policy process. Hence, PET is an agenda-based theory where the process encourages venue shopping by the political actors. That is, the process an issue must go through to get on the official agenda is the foundation of PET. The very structure of the American political system, incrementalism, contributes to maintaining the current official agenda which incorporates multiple political parties, as well as, checks and balances of various government branches. One political party will often try to restrain the actions of another political party, or the parties negotiate less controversial policy changes to get any changes implemented at all. These usually result in changes that are small and relatively easy to undo, if necessary. Also, one branch of government is granted powers by the Constitution that that can also restrain the actions of another branch of government. Furthermore, interest groups can apply pressure through lobbying, lawsuits, voting, and other methods of voicing their view that also limit fast-moving and expansive policy changes. All of these political characteristics contribute to a stable agenda and equilibrium (Jordan 2003). Prior to Pralle's (2005) distinction between agendas and arenas, Baumgartner and Jones (1993) also defined the agenda as the place where 11 Kingdon's (1984; 2003) "multiple streams theory" also talks about a window of opportunity. 34

PAGE 47

decisions are made and policies are chosen for implementation (although they followed Kingdon's initial distinction between public, governmental, and decision agendas). The process of deciding which issues are placed on the agenda is competitive, largely due to the cognitive limitation (bounded rationality) of the decision making group.12 Since decision makers cannot address all problems simultaneously, the more successful participants in this agenda-setting process will see their problems addressed while others will not. Within a political and often crowded political environment, it is understandable that some issues do not make it to the agenda for consideration. Therefore, with many policy issues waiting to gain access to the decision-making agenda, it is important for an issue to attract attention distinguishing it from the rest (Jordan 2003; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). A critical part of attracting attention to an issue is problem definition. The definition of a problem influences how decision makers view the problem and subsequently impact how or whether they address the problem by placing it on the agenda (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Dery 1984; Rochefort and Cobb 1994). In addition, problem definitions seek to place the problem within a certain "context of a frame of reference", while the image of the problem becomes more defined (Schon and Rein 1994). Stone (1997; 2002) argues that the image determines whether the issue is perceived in a negative or positive context. 12 See also Cyert and March's 1992 discussion of the behavioral theory of firms in addition to bounded rationality arguments. 35

PAGE 48

Furthermore, a problem definition that has a powerful advocate-often referred to in the literature as a policy entrepreneur-is more likely to reach the top of the agenda (Kingdon 1984; 1995; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). In The Politics of Attention (2005), Jones and Baumgartner continue to support the existence of bounded rationality throughout the various stages of the decision-making process (i.e., problem recognition, assessing the various dimensions and images of the problems, and while sorting through various solutions to make a choice). Both individuals and organizations are fundamentally affected by what they call the "dynamics of attention shifting." Within the dynamics of attention shifting, individuals and organizations are limited to paying attention to only a few issues at a time; however, they recognize that decision-making bodies in government are made up of several individuals and therefore can delegate authority to others to look into many more issues than an individual could alone. Therefore, it is the allocation of attention that reflects the priorities for the agenda (Jones and Baumgartner 2005). The policy issues that find themselves on a governing body's official agenda, according to Jones and Baumgartner, have exceeded the "threshold of importance", which means that a limited number of issues have been deemed sufficiently urgent for attention and are placed on the agenda (Jones and Baumgartner 2005, p.206). 36

PAGE 49

The question arises: What can the policy actors outside of the governing bodies do to increase their chances of gaining access to a decision-making agenda? One strategy is to expand the scope of conflict around an issue. The amount of attention, mobilization, and conflict surrounding a policy problem or proposal affects whether it gets on agenda and how it is resolved (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Furthermore, a lack of change in agenda and policies is due in part to the ability of dominant policymakers and advocacy groups to restrict the scope of conflict around a policy issue. These actors constitute a policy monopoly in which they control both the image of a policy problem and access to the policy process (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). As long as conflict remains restricted in its scope, a small group of stakeholders can largely direct the policy process surrounding an issue (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b ). Therefore, it is crucial for the policy "outsider" to expand the scope of the conflict surrounding an issue in an attempt to break up the policy monopoly or "firmly established policy subsystem" (Schattschneider 1960/1975). For Schattschneider, enlargement ofthe scope of political conflict was essential to the democratic processes, as well as to challenging those who have the power to define the issue in the first place. According to Schattschneider (1960/1975, p. 71) "organization is the mobilization of bias" where members of institutions 37

PAGE 50

with jurisdiction over a policy area favor some interests over others, thereby controlling access to the institution in order to maintain existing policies. In Baumgartner and Jones' words (1993, p.36), "the losing side seeks to increase its allies and the winning side seeks to restrict participation in order to preserve its advantageous position." This concept remains central to the majority of studies focused on agenda setting, since it raises the question of the motivations of those seeking to put something on the public agenda or to keep something from reaching it (Riker 1962; Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). Therefore, issue definition is linked to agenda-setting because changes in an issue's definition often may be the catalyst that leads to the appearance of an issue on the public agenda (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). More recently, Pralle (2005) asserts, Those seeking significant agenda and policy change often invite attention to and participation in a conflict in order to get movement on an issue that has languished in the backwaters of some decision room, has become stalemated by the "usual suspects," or is simply not deemed important enough to warrant governmental attention (p.14 ). Several options are available to policy actors and groups to expand conflict on an issue, including appealing directly to government officials while attempting to turn a "private" conflict into a public one (Hirschman 1982). As the image of an issue changes from that of a private misfortune to a public problem amenable to government solutions, the issue may raise itselfhigh on the governmental agenda (e.g., acknowledging the environmental impacts ofbeing a 38

PAGE 51

"throw away" society, and the government's increased support behind becoming a more environmentally responsible "greener" society ). Another option for the policy entrepreneur or policy group is to involve a wider public audience to encourage action by the government (Stone 1997). Furthermore, Stone (1989) recommends that the process of defining a problem should attribute bad circumstances that affect human conditions and that these circumstances are not just anomalies of nature or acceptable matters of fate. As reasoned by Baumgartner and Jones (1993), "[W]hen conditions are argued to stem from human or government sources, then government action is much more likely" (p.27).13 In other words, as the public becomes more aware of a problem and demands action, decision makers face pressure to either break up the policy monopoly or circumvent it-and hence, agenda setting (and perhaps even policy change) is often the result ofthese pressures (Pralle 2005, p.14). Therefore, according to Baumgartner and Jones (1993), "[T]he agendasetting process implies that no single equilibrium can be possible in politics ... and that a political system that displays considerable stability over long periods of time is likely to experience punctuations with periods of volatile change" (Baumgartner and Jones 1993, p.4). Baumgartner and Jones argue their dynamic model established in PET illustrates how stability and rapid change are important 13 See also Schneider and Ingram's (1993; 2005) writings on the social construction of target populations. 39

PAGE 52

characteristics of the American policy making system. And, even more recently they have stated: "when we see a smoothly functioning institution we note that it is a matter of time before that equilibrium is broken or substantially adjusted by the inclusion of some new dimension of debate, some new set of participants, or some new definition of the underlying problem" (Jones and Baumgartner 2005, p.279). Expanding on PET and venue shopping. Pralle (2003) raises a precautionary note when she observes, "[W]hile Baumgartner and Jones' model is valuable for understanding the dynamics of policy turbulence, disruption, and change, it is less effective at accounting for periods of policy stability" (p.234 ). Her point is well-taken. In fact, one of the earliest shortcomings of PET was the ambiguity around what actually qualifies as punctuation in American politics (True et al., 2007). In other words, punctuations appear to be an all encompassing term for many of the problems that can occur (and that often intersect with one another) during the policy process. For instance, according to Jones and Baumgartner (2005), passing a statute or achieving a major budgetary increase or decrease implies punctuation in a policy's equilibrium stage. They also point to legislative hearings being an important part of a punctuation process (and in getting laws passed). However, they point out that gaining access to the 40

PAGE 53

formal agenda through legislation and hearings is subject to political and "attentional dynamics", but institutional barriers at this stage are low (p.280). The idea, then, for Baumgartner and Jones (1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b) is that if a policy niche has become too "sclerotic" (as policy monopolies want to do) American politics allows for policy entrepreneurs and groups to look for friendlier venues. For Baumgartner and Jones, just as consumers should not care where they buy a product after considering key factors like price and convenience, advocacy groups and policy entrepreneurs should not prefer one venue over another based on anything other than the possibility of reaching their policy goals (Baumgartner and Jones 1993, p.36). In their own words, "[T]here are many possible institutional agendas, and for policymakers who seek that institutional niche where decisions would likely go in their favor, none is inherently better than any other" (p.36, emphases added). Therefore, policymakers should have no "pre-existing affinity" for one venue over another. Not only has Pralle been able to provide evidence against such claims over the last few years, she has also added value to the literature by making the important distinction between agendas and arenas and how their interactive relationship aids in the agenda setting process (Pralle 2003; 2005; 2006a and 2006b). 41

PAGE 54

As mentioned in the discussion below on the static model of venue shopping, because ofthe checks and balances of a federal political system, it often seems that those opposed to change have a variety of venues to impede policy development and prohibit significant change or alterations in policy (Lindblom 1968; Rose 1976; Bardach 1977). While Baumgartner and Jones (1993) and their dynamic PET have maintained the opposite, "the many venues of politics work against conservatism" (p.240). That is, the separation of powers and shared jurisdictional authorities emphasize opportunity for policy change in such systems (Baumgartner and Jones1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). While Baumgartner and Jones' focus of attention is on the issues themselves, Pralle adds a different approach and shifts attention to the policy actors engaged in the process of agenda-setting, which could also include such tactics as venue shopping. As Pralle succinctly claims, Indeed, we cannot understand the role of venues in policy change processes without theorizing about and observing the behavior of policy entrepreneurs and advocacy groups as they attempt, or fail to attempt, to move issues into new venues. Their actions, along with the reactions of their opponents and institutional actors, shape the frequency and pace of venue shifting and policy change (Pralle 2003, p.237). As Pralle suggests, any addition to the literature regarding the dynamic model of venue shopping needs to consider both the policy issues being shopped and the behaviors (and preconceived notions) of policy entrepreneurs and actors together as an integral part to the policymaking process. One of the more recent attempts 42

PAGE 55

to test the dynamic model of venue shopping-while taking in consideration both the policy issue and actors involved-is Crow's (2010) case study concerning policy change in Colorado water rights. While Crow's research supports PET's explanation for policy change at the state level--where policies changed to allow for recreational in-channel uses of water-her research did not find similar support for policy change at the local level. The static model of venue shopping. The static model suggests that policy entrepreneurs and the groups that support them choose a specific strategy and generally persist with it, thereby, relying upon tools with which they are familiar and fit the group's organizational structure and culture (Gais and Walker 1991; Kollman 1998). Interestingly, Bryan D. Jones (2001) has found more recent evidence to support the static model ofvenue shopping. Jones's (2001) evidence suggests that policy actors may become comfortable with a venue because they are familiar with its rules and protocols. In tum, this may stifle any attempt by them to shop their policy in another venue that unbeknownst to them may be more beneficial for getting the policy change they seek. In addition, individual political actors often tum to the well-known strategies, or established routines, within which they feel comfortable operating in. This is especially likely when groups or individuals develop expertise and skills over time while working in a particular venue, thus allowing them certain amounts of success in that particular 43

PAGE 56

venue. Under such circumstances, they may be reluctant to switch venues, even if such a shift would more quickly advance the group's policy goals (ibid). Pralle (2003; 2005; 2006a) holds that there are at least three other reasons that support the static model of venue shopping1 \ including: they develop strategic relationships with legislators that become valuable resources within the decision making venue; as well as, potential allies in the public may identify and decide to join a particular interest group because they identify with the venue shopping strategy that group is using and the organizational identity it holds in the eyes of the media, the public and the marketplace (i.e., the mobilizing power of Greenpeace). The third factor shaping the political group's static approach to venue shopping, as suggested by Pralle, is the group's ideological values and orientation. For instance, if an environmental group believes in grass roots mobilization, then they might want to stay with local political support and not want input from state and federal government entities. Pralle (2003) offers additional insight into why some policy actors may refrain from testing other venues, "indeed, policy entrepreneurs might abstain from venue shopping altogether when an institution has firm jurisdictional control 14 While there may be a multitude of factors that operate as barriers or constraints to a political group's venue shopping activities, both empirical and theoretical evidence has shown that some form ofthe static model of venue shopping has been used in other studies. For instance, in Derthick's (2005) Up in Smoke, the political constraints offederallegislation led anti-smoking advocates to spread their successful lawsuit tactics against the tobacco industry across the Supreme Court venues of 32 states in the 1990s. 44

PAGE 57

over an issue-control that is uncontested and uncontestable" (Pralle 2003, p.240). While Bawngartner and Jones (see below) would advise policy actors to shop elsewhere, Pralle further describes how some venues become inaccessible to outsiders due to "structural biases", These rules, procedures, and norms create structures of bias that give some interests more access to the venue than others (Hall and Taylor 1996). In other words, some venues raise significant barriers to participation, rewarding established interests and making it difficult for newcomers to gain entry to the venue (Pralle 2003, p.240). Venues, Arenas, and Jurisdictions To better understand policy change, policy scholars are increasingly incorporating the notions of policy venues and arenas into their analyses of the policy process (Bawngartner and Jones 1993; Dudley and Richardson 1998; Godwin and Schroedel 2000; Hansen and Krejci 2000; Timmermans 2001; Burnett and Davis 2002; Pralle 2003; Crow 2010). According to Pralle, however, "the policy process literature has not yet resolved the question of whether and how policy venues advance or inhibit policy change" (Pralle 2003, 235). In an unpublished conference paper, Pralle (2005) sets out to provide wellneeded conceptual clarity to the literature by distinguishing between decision venues, policy arenas, and jurisdictions. According to Pralle (2005): 45

PAGE 58

Decision venues are governmental and quasi-governmental institutions where authoritative decisions about policy are made.15 Policy arenas are non-authoritative locations where policy debates and conflicts emerge and play out. Both venues and arenas are potential sites of competition over policy issues, but only venues issue authoritative decisions about specific policies (p.4, emphasis in original). Decision venues (which Pralle refers to interchangeably as "venues") exist at several levels of government: from the broad international, national and regional levels to the narrower state and local levels. Pralle (2005) also says that (decision) venues include legislatures, executive departments and agencies, and the courts. Birkland (2007, p.69) resonates with this depiction when he defines a venue as "a level of government or institution in which the group is likely to gain the most favorable hearing. We can think of venues in institutional terms-legislative, executive, or judicial---<>r in vertical terms-federal, state, local government." Perhaps the most informative addition to what is considered to be a decision venue, according to Pralle (2005), is that they may also contain "semipublic bodies or special committees with autonomy and decision making authority in a particular policy area" (p.4 ). And, in countries with capitalist traditions, these special committees are known to issue binding decisions on 15 Pralle relies upon Timmermans (200 I) definition of authoritative meaning that "legal, political, or social sanctions are possible to prevent that decisions are ignored" (p.314). Because some institutions are quasi-authoratative in nature, Pralle notes it is perhaps best to think of decision venues as existing along a continuum representing different degrees of authoritativeness. 46

PAGE 59

economic policy (Timmermans 2001 ). In order to avoid certain confusion amongst the different types of venues, Pralle (2005) uses the term: system venue to refer to legislatures, executive agencies, and the courts, and subsystem venue to refer to 'venues within venues'. For example, the U.S. Congress is a system venue while its various committees and subcommittees are subsystem venues. Similarly, the federal court system as a whole is a system venue, while specific appellate courts within the system are subsystem venues (pp.4-5, emphases in original). In her paper, Pralle moves on to distinguish between (policy) venues and (policy) arenas. According to Pralle (2005), while the actions and events in "arenas" can shape policy decisions, their influence is indirectly related: Since policy arenas do not issue authoritative decisions, substantive changes in policy must eventually be made in decision venues. Examples of policy arenas include the media, the public arena, the electoral arena, and the marketplace. Arenas also exist at several levels, although not necessarily in a formal sense. For example, we might speak of a local media market versus a national media market, or local elections versus national elections. The 'public' includes a mass public, a smaller 'sympathetic' public, and an even more circumscribed 'attentive' public (p.5). Finally, according to Pralle (2005), ''jurisdictions refer to the issues, or aspects of issues, that decision venues have authority over at any particular time" (p.5, emphasis in original). In addition, these jurisdictions of decision venues have versatile boundaries that can expand, contract or even grow more blurry over time: 47

PAGE 60

.. Sometimes institutions relinquish control over issues-either voluntarily or involuntarily-to another decision venue. At other times, the jurisdictions of decision venues expand-as when the courts began asserting jurisdiction over pesticides policy in the 1970s (Bosso 1987) (p.5). In her own research on pesticide policy, Pralle (2006b) has shown how this expansion is often accompanied by a blurring of jurisdictional boundaries, as other venues seek to maintain some decision making authority over the policy in question. Pralle (2005) points out many other factors that influence the content and boundaries of a venue's jurisdiction, including: "Constitutional mandates and interpretations, institutional norms and rules, history, and custom. Political actors-for example, legislators, judges, bureaucrats, and advocacy groups-also play a large role in the changing of jurisdictional assignments and boundaries" (p.6). Pralle references King's (1994) description of the power the House and Senate have to shape committee jurisdictions in Congress through their power of referral-and summarizes the complexity of factors related to jurisdictional control, "some of broad historical nature, and others which exist at the individual or group level" (ibid). Some of these factors are highlighted in other studies that include the idea of policy actors and entrepreneurs actively participating in venue, as well as arena shopping endeavors. For instance, Hansen and Krejci (2000) illustrated how local interest groups in Lubbock, Texas and Jacksonville, Florida 48

PAGE 61

used the local media arena to block base closures and defense downsizing administered by the governing venue of the Department of Defense. And in international studies, Dudley and Richardson (1998) showed how alternative policy arenas were used by interest groups outside of Britain's Public Transportation Department to reframe transit policy in the latter half of twentieth century England. Other nuances of venue shopping Pralle (2003) submits that the key to understanding various strategies and motives for why policy entrepreneurs and other policy actors' venue shop is first understanding that policy venues differ from one another on several dimensions. Her point being, if all venues had "the same structural bias", then what would be the advantage of shopping around for different venues (Pralle 2003, p.237)? Pralle continues: But because venues differ with respect to their rules of access and participation, their procedures governing decision-making, their constituencies, and the incentives facing institutional actors, strategically minded advocacy groups will target a venue that offers the best advantage over their opponents (p.237). Pralle goes on to illustrate many assumptions and limitations of current venue shopping theory, including the problems bounded rationality creates for policy entrepreneurs and the groups they represent. Similar to a consumer's interest in comparison shopping to find the best bargain, evidence in the literature suggests 49

PAGE 62

that policy entrepreneurs seek alternative venues after their own policy alternatives fail to make any significant changes in a venue (regardless of the stage ofpolicymaking the shopper's policy is in). Due to bounded rationality, however, policy entrepreneurs may not have complete knowledge ofthe opportunities and constraints the initial policy venue may hold for their specific policy issue. In this sense, there is more trial and error to venue shopping and this could result in a delay, or even a denial, in preferred policy. For instance, information about the venue may be purposely withheld from the policy entrepreneur. Or the policy becomes co-opted by someone who is only slightly committed to seeing it enacted ( Piven and Cloward 1979). In addition, the person or persons helping a policy entrepreneur gain access to a venue's agenda, may have only marginal connections to the venue and may be too far down the "pecking-order" in terms of having any decision-making power themselves. Therefore, the policy entrepreneur cannot help being bounded in their rationality when it comes to venue shopping (Pralle 2003 ). For example, Baumgartner and Jones (1993) point out that the most common and persistent example of the continuing battle of competing metaphors in postwar American politics is between economic growth versus environmental and social costs (p.105). As Baumgartner and Jones (1993) claim, images are linked to venues, and the variety of venues of policymaking in American politics 50

PAGE 63

can allow many contrasting images of the same issue to exist simultaneously. Likewise, the same variety of venues allow those with policy monopolies a chance to secure the agenda of the salient policy sub-governments and build up and around particular issues, thus creating limited access to policy niches (p.33). The generation or the avoidance of controversy surrounding a policy is closely related to the venue within which it is considered and where there is no controversy, niches can become very secure (ibid). Pralle (2005) describes the distinction between static and dynamic models of venue shopping. While she admits there is empirical evidence to support the existence of both types of models, she then inquires of the two models: when, and under what conditions are policy entrepreneurs and other policy actors likely to respond in ways consistent with each other? In other words, "what factors affect the practice of venue shopping" within each ofthe respective models (2005, p.l 0)? In her work over the last few years involving pesticides and the forestry industry, she has identified three sets of factors that she have the biggest impact on the pace and nature of venue shopping: internal organizational factors; external opportunities and constraints; and subsystem characteristics. Surprisingly, she describes these factors together more thoroughly in her unpublished conference paper, than in any of her other published works. 51

PAGE 64

Internal Organizational Factors and Venue Shopping. As Pralle's (2005) discussion on the static model of venue shopping suggests, a policy (and/or interest) group's orientation toward using a specific strategy over others is shaped by several factors internal to the group's organization, including: its ideology, its beliefs about how to achieve policy change, its perceived need to develop a strategic niche, and the preferences and expertise of group leaders. Taken together, these factors predispose an advocacy group to act in ways consistent with either the static or dynamic model (p. 10). Pralle indicates that the policy (or interest) group with strong ideological beliefs to policy change, strong internal pressure to create a policy niche, and whose leaders have already developed specialized skills are more likely to gravitate toward a static model of venue shopping. On the other hand, policy groups whose organizations are pragmatically oriented and not tied to any specific ideology or strategies generally conform to the dynamic model of venue shopping. Pralle mentions two other internal organizational factors that either "reinforce or hamper" a policy group's orientation toward either the static or dynamic venue shopping model (p. 11 ). The first factor is having the availability of material and human resources that affects the group's ability to change venue shopping strategies and participate in the "policy game at multiple levels, in numerous policy arenas, and in several decision venues if need be" (ibid). Therefore, a lack of resources may lead groups to "shop for allies" who will 52

PAGE 65

"carry on the battle in alternative venues and arenas" (ibid.). The second additional internal organizational factor is whether the policy group is organized around a specific or broad policy goal, which significantly impacts "their motivation to venue shop". Those groups that focus on more specific goals (or issues) are likely to target whatever venue holds the most promise for success, and are prone to switch targets16 as political opportunities occur (ibid). Such groups form more tangible goals because the focus is narrowed on the ability to get their policy enacted ( or avoid being defeated) and, hence, tied to a more specific policy solution (ibid). Alternatively, those policy groups that are more broadly focused organize around multiple aspects of an issue and take a long-term approach to obtaining success. While they too want their policy to "win" by being enacted, "their organizational mission is not so closely tied to victory in just one policy conflict" (p.12). External opportunities and constraints on venue shopping. According to Pralle, policy actors "do not operate in a vacuum", but work within the political contexts where opportunities for policy change (via access to the decision venue's agenda) expand and contract. According to Kingdon (1984; 2003), successful groups are able to identify and perhaps even anticipate the opening and closing of these "windows of opportunity." Furthermore, Pralle (2005) proposes, "the 16 In her 2005 conference paper, Pralle uses the general tenn "targets" to refer to any and all institutions, processes, and actors that are the focus of political (interest) group efforts (p.4). 53

PAGE 66

receptivity of decision venues to particular claims may increase or decrease as institutional actors and rules change" (p. 13 ). Hence, the shifting of external opportunities and constraints affects the policy actors' propensity to venue shop in certain decision venues and policy arenas. Even policy groups who are predisposed to participate in venue shopping in more static models, have incentives to shop for alternative venues and arenas when their opportunities dramatically shift. As an example, Pralle (2005) writes: After a national election, environmental groups might find themselves with far less access to the administration, to government agencies, or to Congress. As access dries up, such groups are likely to turn, if only temporarily, to other decision venues and policy arenas that afford more access and a better chance of success (p.13 ). Pralle goes on to propose that we should expect more venue shopping in systems with multiple venues and arenas. she posits that regardless of the internal characteristics of the various political groups, "multiple venues lead to an aggregate increase in the level of venue shopping in a system" (p.13 ). This line of reasoning is supported in Baumgartner and Jones' (1993) dynamic model, where venue shopping is more prevalent in a federalist political system with shared (and/or fragmented) authority over decision making in a variety of venues. However, Pralle (2005, p.13) argues: [B]y contrast, if an issue is firmly under the jurisdiction of just one decision venue, advocacy groups have little choice but to target that 54

PAGE 67

venue. If unsuccessful, their only alternative is to use 'outsider' strategies in policy arenas such as the media. The further investigation into these "outsider" strategies are of particular interest for this dissertation, and they are associated in greater detail with Kingdon's (1984; 2003) work in a section of this literature review below. But first, it is necessary to briefly introduce Pralle's (2005) discussion surrounding the third factor she believes has the largest effect on the pace and nature of venue shopping-subsystem characteristics. Policy subsytems and venue shopping. According to Pralle (2005), in addition to working within a context defined by shifting political opportunities, policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups work within an environment Pralle refers to as a subsystem. 17 How this environment is structured, according to Pralle, can have a clear effect on the degree of venue shopping by any group: A subsystem crowded with advocacy groups organized around similar issues increases pressure on groups to find and maintain a unique organizational niche. Over time, the subsystem may reach an equilibrium, whereby advocacy groups occupy well defined strategic roles. Knowledge about the 'turfs' of different advocacy groups will spread informally through the subsystem, resulting in few attempts to replicate the strategies of others (p.l4 ). Pralle goes on to propose that the many political battles that take place in multiple venues and arenas are not necessarily due to the venue shopping 17 Pralle (2005) uses "subsystem" to depict her notion of"venues within venues." For instance, a state's legislature is referred to as a system venue, and the various subcommittees are subsystem venues. 55

PAGE 68

strategies of one or two policy groups, but it is a byproduct of the sheer number of policy groups within a subsystem. This tends to further Baumgartner and Jones' (1993; 2002; 2005) idea that specialization and fragmentation "virtually guarantees that campaigns will be carried out in every decision venue that has jurisdiction over an issue, assuming access is granted and the issue is not kept off the agenda" (Pralle 2005, pp.l5-16, emphasis added). This dissertation accepts this assumption, and asks "what choices do policy entrepreneurs and the political actors that support them have when their policy solution has continually been denied access to a specific decision agenda?" Or, when their choice of alternative policy venues is circumscribed? Do these policy actors utilize venue shopping strategies in alternative arenas (i.e., the media, public opinion polls, special interest groups) outside of the decision venue, as Pralle (2005) has suggested? Because it is inferred that access to decision-making venues is the key for a policy's success, the next section briefly reviews Pralle's (2006) published description of"key decision-making venues." Key decision-making venues. In Branching Out, Digging In, Pralle (2006a) utilizes a venue shopping approach to explain the intentions ofthe political actors involved in her two North American case studies of the forest industry in Northern California and British Columbia. Those representing the interests of the forest industry and those advocating for environmental groups 56

PAGE 69

both fought to obtain policy changes in their repective venues. According to Pralle, This is due in part to the fact that less dominant advocacy groups are often prevented from participating in key decision-making venues or face biases within these institutions that effectively exclude them18 Challenging groups therefore have an incentive to shop for an alternative policy arena. Dominant groups, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy advantages in key venues, at least for some period of time (p. 227, emphases added). Pralle goes on to discuss how these challenging groups begin to gain access into the key decision-making venues over time, The increased access is driven by group leaders, institutional actors within a venue, or some combination of the two. Often, institutional actorslegislators, for example-feel pressure to expand access to decision making when a conflict is highly visible and salient with the public. The result is that previously excluded groups slowly begin to compete in these venues, although perhaps not on equal footing with their opponents (p.227-228). While checks and balances surely exist in the American political system, perhaps these same entities limit the number of venues policy makers are able to join-at least the number of key decision-making venues that can affect policy change. Nonetheless, Pralle (2006) reminds us of the varying effects these key decision-making venues have over the policy issues, 18 Pralle borrows this assumption from the work of Burnett and Davis (2002), which documents the abilities of environmental groups to introduce new information to key decision-makers in the Congressional venue, therefore, allowing them to overcome the structural biases built into the existing forest policy developed between 1960 and 1995 and successfully change it. 57

PAGE 70

The solution that a court offers can differ dramatically from one that a legislative body, or government agency, provides. A court may issue an injunction on logging in a particular area, for example, while a legislative body can write a law that governs logging in all national forests. An executive branch can issue orders that quickly and sometimes dramatically change policy, but successive administrations can overturn executive orders made under previous ones (240-41 ). While the above provides an explanation for how policy solutions may be handled differently in key decision-making venues like courts, legislative bodies, and other branches of government, there is no discussion over whether or not some issues are exclusively handled in one key decision-making venue over another. In short, groups and policy actors are apt to prefer some venues-the key decision-making ones-to others depending on their perceptions about the most effective means of policy change or the suitability and sustainability of certain kinds of policy solutions. 19 In addition to taking inventory of these preferences, beliefs and pre-conceived notions, we should include the other reasons that help explain why some venues are perceived to be better than others in the policymaking process. One ofthe main reasons adhered to is the authority and jurisdiction of certain decision venues involving specific issues. In other words, regardless of 19 Pralle also takes into consideration whether or not the venue is appropriate for the image of the policy entrepreneur or group's overall message with respect to the policy changes they seek. For instance, policy actors' run the risk of compromising their policy's image if they shop it in the wrong venue-a grassroots movement committed to the ideal of local control would opt for a venue at the local, state, or regional level before shopping their cause at the national level (Pralle 2003, p. 241 ). 58

PAGE 71

the preferences of the policy entrepreneurs and their supporting political groups, for their policy solution to come to fruition, they need access to the agenda of decision-making venues. Baumgartner and Jones' (1993) suggested that if an issue "stalls" in one venue, that policy supporters should pursue their case in alternative venues. Pralle (2005) takes venue shopping further by suggesting that if one venue is "closed" to some policy actors, that perhaps they should look to present their policies in alternative arenas. Therefore, Pralle's (2005) distinction between venues and arenas is one of the starting points to examine-whether or not, when policy actors are denied access to the decision-making venue, "do they take their venue shopping strategies to "outsider" arenas in order to help them gain access to the decision venue's agenda and with the intention of getting their policies enacted?" Venue shopping and "outsider" strategies in policy arenas Based on the preceding literature, we posit that venue shopping occurs when policy actors are motivated by the opportunity to advance their policy onto the decision-making agenda of institutions having both jurisdiction and authority over particular policy issues (Dudley and Richardson 1998; Hansen and Krejci 2000; Pralle' 2003; 2005; 2006; 2009). In her 2009 article, Pralle does not specifically make the distinction between venue shopping strategies in either venues or arenas. However, she does utilize Kingdon's (1984) three streams 59

PAGE 72

approach to agenda setting "to explore strategies for keeping the issue of climate change on agendas and moving it up the list of policy priorities" (Pralle 2009, p. 781). In addition to framing this dissertation's research questions and propositions in Kingdon's work as well, some of the strategies indicated by Pralle (i.e., reporting problems in "user friendly terms"; emphasize growing public concern; emphasize local impacts; emphasize human health impacts; emphasize economic gains; provide feedback; and, emphasize the cost of inaction) were used to create the propositions designed to attempt to discuss the first two research questions. However, we plan to extend Pralle's work by suggesting there is a crucial difference between venues and arenas. By using the example of enacting a tax on beer in Wisconsin as a case study, this dissertation seeks to suggest which factors associated with both venue and arena shopping help the issue of the Wisconsin beer tax to "rise up" and "stay high" on the agendas of relevant policy venues, as well as, in non-governing institutions (arenas). The beer tax may be considered "on" the agenda of many of the above mentioned policy arenas' (public opinion polls, op-ed pieces in the media) nonetheless, its (lack of) position on the decision-making agenda in the legislature has varied little across time and space (Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003). It may, for example, appear to be rising on the legislative agenda when alcohol-related traffic fatalities are up and there is a need to pay for stricter 60

PAGE 73

enforcement of drinking and driving laws. Or, the mere mention of another tax could result in a lack of interest, steering the attention of politicians to other issues. In any case, government and public officials are unlikely to "solve" the many alcohol problems brought about by excessive consumption in Wisconsin with a single policy enacted at a particular moment. Briefly mentioned in the opening pages of this literature review, two agenda-setting models provide especially useful insights into how policy issues gain saliency and maintain a central place on public and governmental agendas. John Kingdon's (1984; 2003) "streams" model of agenda-setting devotes attention to how problems get addressed and how issues move onto decision agendas, and Rochefort and Cobb's (1994) problem definition framework investigates how problems are strategically framed so as to increase their salience. The agendasetting strategies described earlier in Baumgartner and Jones' (1993) punctuated equilibrium model (further developed in Jones and Baumgartner 2005b) are useful for understanding patterns of agenda stability and change-and for identifying some ofthe factors that drive these dynamics. However, Kingdon (1984; 2003) and Rochefort and Cobb ( 1994) provide a more in-depth look at particular factors that increase the odds of a problem receiving a lot of attention, gaining in salience, and achieving high agenda status20 Therefore, it is this agenda setting 20 Pralle's 2009 article applies these two agenda-setting frameworks to the recent attempts to improve the saliency of climate change. 61

PAGE 74

literature we turn to help further describe venue shopping and if the "outsider" strategies in alternative policy arenas are indeed utilized to help policy actors gain access to the decision-making legislative agenda. Borrowing from Kingdon (1984), Baumgartner and Jones (1993) argue that the existence of multiple arenas for policy decision-making increases opportunities for agenda and policy change. Hence, if advocacy groups are stymied in one venue, they can appeal to another institution and invite it to assert jurisdiction over the issue. Pralle (2003) later discusses the roles these "new institutions" play in venue shopping: the new institution may take an interest in the problem and put it on its agenda; it may accept a different definition of the problem and therefore give advocates a chance to advance a new understanding of the issue; and, finally, it might also provide privileged access to one s.et of actors so that policy can move forward. More recently, Pralle (2006a; 2006.b; 2009) has attempted to show how venue shopping gives policymakers and advocacy groups an opportunity to keep issues on the agenda of government and other decision making venues by shopping among the various governmental institutions and urging them to address problematic issues (i.e., climate change) even when others are ignoring them. 62

PAGE 75

Sin-taxes "Sin taxes" are a popular term for fees charged for certain indulgent commodities, like alcohol. Sin taxes have been a source of government revenue for over 200 years. When President Clinton proposed to drastically increase the federal excise tax on cigarettes, because smoking can have damaging health consequences, it was the same type of justification that Alexander Hamilton used to enact the first sin tax on whiskey in 1790 (Shughart II 1997). In 1927, economist Frank Ramsey discussed the relationship between the elasticity of demand and the excess burden that is placed on consumer. Later known as the Ramsey rule, "in order to minimize the excess burden of raising a given amount of tax revenue, taxes should be placed on goods in inverse proportion to their elasticities of demand" (Shughart II 1997, p.17). In Taxing Choice, Shughart II (1997) explains how the Ramsey rule has been used to justify the selective taxation of goods such as alcohol and tobacco because of their relative inelasticity--consumers will continue to purchase them even when their prices are increased. But are sin taxes corrective, in that they penalize the individuals for participating in what legislators consider to be harmful behaviors that create social costs (like drinking and driving) and are used to compensate those who are harmed by these negative externalities? Or, are they inherently unfair and discriminatory? As the previous literature review reiterated about the majority of 63

PAGE 76

how public policies are perceived, the answer to the last two questions depends on how a sin tax gets framed. One way to frame a sin tax is to refer to it as a corrective tax, one that allows an increase to an already established excise tax to correct for the negative externalities that result from the over or harmful conswnption of the product that is not reflected in the original price. For instance, when taking a public health approach to the selective taxation of alcohol, additional revenues from sin taxes would be earmarked for treatment and prevention services as an attempt to off-set the social costs caused by the over-consumption of alcohol. In addition, studies have shown that an indirect effect of an increase in liquor tax rates (even a small increase) leads to a reduction of conswner demand (International Center for Alcohol Policies, 2006). In addition, a price increase in alcoholic beverages causes a decrease in per capita conswnption (behavior modification) resulting in fewer incidences of alcohol-related problems (Sharma, 2009). However, Shughart II ( 1997, p.l8) points out the faulty logic of increasing tax rates to pay for services, while at the same time increasing tax rates to curb unwarranted behavior: The underlying rationale for such taxes is that taxation will discourage the conswnption of goods or services that the majority finds objectionable. But the Ramsey rule singles out products to be taxed precisely because taxation's impact on conswnption is minimal. Hence, the regulatory and revenue-raising justifications for sin taxes work at cross purposes. 64

PAGE 77

Those opposed to sin taxes claim they are selective taxes that are inherently regressive and discriminatory by nature (Shughart II 1997). Basically, sin taxes are placed on some products that are part of an individual's lifestyle and not placed on other products. Furthermore, Gant and Ekelund (1997) argue that the majority of indicators used to quantify social costs are actually more private costs suffered by the individual abuser. And "medical costs-to the extent that they are borne directly by those who consume health care services-are private costs, not social costs" (Gant and Ekelund 1997, p.256). In other words, the case for basing corrective taxation on production losses, absenteeism, or medical care of alcohol users is weak or nonexistent-therefore, the taxation of alcohol (in general) on the basis of social costs does not carry much weight (p.265). Gant and Ekelund even argue that doubling the federal excise taxes on alcohol in 1991 may have been counterproductive if redressing social costs was the aim of that public policy. Because the price of wine disproportionately increased more so than spirits or beer, the 1991 tax increases may have actually increased the social cost of alcohol use insofar that wine drinkers tend to have more responsible attitudes toward drinking and driving than their beer and liquor counterparts (Berger and Snortum 1985; Greenfield and Rogers 1999). 65

PAGE 78

Research Questions and Propositions Based in a cost-benefit approach to selling a sin-tax on beer in the state of Wisconsin, and in accordance with the three research questions of this dissertation, the following propositions are an attempt to test and build upon the venue shopping literature where Pralle has left off. RQl: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and policymakers? Proposition 1 a: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will emphasize to the public and policymakers that the costs of inaction will be greater than the costs of action when they venue and/or arena shop their policy solution. Public choice theorist Anthony Downs (1972) noted that when the costs attributed to solving a problem is too high, people tend to lose interest in an issue-gradually letting it slip from the agenda. In addition, once many Americans start to believe that certain policy solutions are too costly for jobs and the economy, they may also begin to believe that the policy solution is too miniscule to incur any realizable benefits (Abbasi 2006). Nonetheless, while Brewer and deLeon (1983) agree that people avoid the costs ofrejecting the status quo, they are just as quick to accept information that agrees with their worldview making the costs negligible to the positive value added to their perceptions (p. 66

PAGE 79

3 7). In fact, this may be more readily so in a state described as having a "moralistic culture" (Conant 2006). Proposition 1 b: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will focus on economic gains or losses when venue and/or arena shopping their policy solution. Proposition 1 c: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will focus on human health gains or losses when venue and/or arena shopping their policy solution. A decade ago Godwin and Schroedel (2000) showed how policy actors in California were successful getting localities to change their gun control ordinances because they were able to frame the increasing gun violence as a public health problem. In other words, if the tax increase is framed as a public health issue21, then it becomes possible for advocates to speak about jobs (law enforcement and preventive care) and other economic opportunities associated with adopting a tax increase. In addition to emphasizing the economic gains associated with an increase in revenues, policy entrepreneurs and their support groups may also want to illustrate the money they will save when alcohol-related incidences are on the decline. This is being done across the country in states "thirsty for new sources of cash" where health-conscious lawmakers are 21 Appealing to the public's health and safety may also be used as a venue and/or arena shopping strategy for political actors that are concerned with keeping certain policies off of the decision making agenda. For instance, Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said he had to side with "public health and the safety of the dairy industry" in his recent veto of a bill that would have regulated the sale of unpasteurized (raw) milk (Hubbuch, "Doyle vetoes raw milk bill", May 20, 2010). 67

PAGE 80

proposing taxes on sports drinks, teas and sodas (Anonymous, May 23, 2010). Currently 30 states now apply a sales tax to soda, including Colorado, which extended its sales tax to cover the drinks as part of its packages of new taxes in the past year (ibid.). Proposition 1 d: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will provide regular feedback about policies and progress when venue shopping. Feedback on policies can alert policymakers to problems and keep them on the agenda (Brewer and deLeon 1983; Kingdon 1984; 2003; Stone 1988; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Rochefort and Cobb 1994). Continual feedback on policies and progress may increase attention to the issue and keep pressure on political decision-makers to meet or change their commitments. Or, as Srivistava (2009) warns, continual feedback may have the opposite affect and lead to "issue fatigue" (or boredom) amongst the populace. By the same calculus, irregular feedback may serve the purpose of the status quo. The ebb & flow of issues. While Kingdon is primarily concerned with how issues rise on various agendas, the decline of issues is a similarly important question. As mentioned above, a key challenge in maintaining a tax increase high on the public, governmental, and decision-making agendas, is that it must weather any economic storms or other developments that might weaken the commitment ofthe public and policymakers to solve it. Downs (1972) identifies 68

PAGE 81

both the public and the media as driving forces behind issue emergence and decline. Public enthusiasm for solving problems helps to get issues on agendas initially, but subsequent cynicism, unwillingness to sacrifice, or lack of understanding may lead to a decline in attention and agenda status. As addressed in proposition 1 a, as the costs and difficulty of solving a problem become more evident, the public and their representatives tend to lose interest. Similarly, if the public believes that large sacrifices are required, attention to a problem may wane. Actual failure to solve the problem can have a similar effect, as policymakers grow tired of trying to pass or amend legislation and let the problem move to the back burner (Downs 1972; Kingdon 2003, p.1 03; see also Srivstava 2009 on "issue fatigue"). More recently, public opinion data from the U.S. suggests that the state of the economy is frequently a priority concern and that citizens' willingness to sacrifice economic growth for other "worthy" causes (i.e., environmental protection) decreases as the strength of the economy declines (Guber 2003). In nations facing perilous economic times, those interested in seeing an increased tax liability adopted hope that it remains germane to the public and policymakers and that it maintains its position on governmental and decision making agenda. Public interest in an issue is not the only way to generate relevance for politicians in a democracy, but it is an important one (Jones and 69

PAGE 82

Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b ). Policies are not enacted by themselves; therefore, venue and/or arena shopping strategies could be considered for increasing its significance more generally so that the everyday policymakersomeone with limited time and many potential problems to address-is willing to pay serious and frequent attention to the problem. If the public plays an important role in raising an issue's importance for policymakers, then one of the first strategies should be finding out where the public stands on the issue? However, expressing general concern for a problem is not necessarily an accurate or reliable measure of interest in the issue (although, relevance is probably issue dependent). As current survey data show, there is still a significant amount of latent public concern. Therefore, how might policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups tap into this latent concern and thereby raise the salience of the social problems with the public and policymakers? RQ 2: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy problem in a way that increases the saliency of their policy solution to both the public and their representative policymakers? 70

PAGE 83

Proposition 2a: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will regularly report key problem indicators in audience friendly terms when venue and/or arena shopping. As discussed in the introduction, it is important to frame the policy problem and the desired solution in a way that is simple, clear, and relevant to the audience (the public, policymakers, or both) being shopped too. If Kingdon (1984; 2003) is correct in claiming that policymakers (and presumably the public as well) learn about problems through indicators, then different indicators may have to be selected for different audiences. That is, not only depending on the effects that worry them most, but clarity of communication and ease of understanding should be a priority. Using metaphors and analogies could prove useful, as they could help simplify complex scientific relationships (Stone 1988; Edelman 1988). Indicators alone will not cause agenda and policy change, however. As noted, policymakers and policy institutions often ignore information or discount it for long periods of time (Jones and Baumgartner 2005a and 2005b). In other words, policymakers are unlikely to respond proportionately to changes in problem indicators (that is, attention and policy will not keep pace with changes in indicators). Furthermore, there are few novel arguments, at least for policymakers and experts to help them reach the "latent masses" (Leech et 71

PAGE 84

al.2002 pp.286-87). This means that changing the definition of an issue often requires the mobilization of the previously less-interested something that is difficult for small or resource poor interest groups. Proposition 2b: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize growing public concern when venue and/or arena shopping. Pralle's (2009) article on climate change mentions a social experiment designed by Wood and Vedlitz (2007) where they tested how social forces shape people s assessment ofthe seriousness of public problems (Pralle 2009 p.79091 ) Their experiment indicated that when individuals perceived their own definition of the problem to be out ofline with the community they changed their assessment in the direction of that made by the larger community. Specifically and noted by Pralle (p. 790-91) when respondents were told that 80% of the public viewed global warming as a serious problem they were more likely to be very concerned about the problem than respondent who were told that only 40% of the public believed it to be very serious (Wood and Vedlitz 2007 p. 564). Such information may prompt those who have displayed less concern over global warming issues in the past to update their views to be more in line with the majority. Perhaps then on an aggregate scale as greater numbers of individuals express high levels of concern the overall salience of the problem may rise and keep it on the agenda. 72

PAGE 85

Proposition 2c: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize specific local impacts and personal experience when venue and/or arena shopping. Problems that are immediate and approximate to people tend to elicit more concern from citizens, than broader issues facing a more generalized public (Rochefort and Cobb 1994). What this research suggests is that social problems should be defined in ways that emphasize local and regional impacts. The need to express the local impacts are important because--as is the case with global warming and climate change-individuals affected by local impacts "will differ depending on the geography and vulnerabilities" (and culture) of particular places across a given political constituency (Pralle 2009, p.791). Therefore, messages should be tailored to different geographical audiences so as to enhance its relevancy. Proposition 2d: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize human health impacts when venue and/or shopping. As mentioned earlier, policy entrepreneurs and advocacy groups must make it clear to the public that the government has the capability of solving the problem (Stone 1989; 1997). In addition, tax advocates must be prepared to package their message to specific audiences (like other legislators interested in the 73

PAGE 86

economics and increased revenues) and also have the ability to repackage the issue by focusing on new dimensions of the issue for other audiences (Cobb and Ross 1997). For instance, the current pattern of"sin taxing" soda products across the country is being justified not only for the increase in revenues, but for the better health of the general public, as well. Failure to do so is to risk what Hilgartner and Bosk (1988, p.63) refer to as "saturation", whereby the public is flooded with redundant messages that lose their dramatic value and decrease attention to the problem (see also Downs 1972; and Srivstava 2009 on "issue fatigue"). The third research question for this dissertation is an attempt to expand on the least developed of the three streams proposed by Kingdon (2003), the politics stream. While different from the politics of public opinion and political forces (interest groups), administrative and/or electoral turnover may also lead to dramatic changes to the decision making agenda of the legislative venue. Therefore: RQ 3: Considering the three key political factors, where are venue and arena shopping strategies by policy entrepreneurs and their support groups likely to occur? 74

PAGE 87

Proposition 3: Administrative and/or legislative (electoral) turnover has a greater impact on venue shopping and dictates the success of policy entrepreneurs in their venue and/or arena shopping strategies more so than either public opinion or political forces. One reason that administrative or legislative turnover may have more of an impact on policy actors (and their solutions) and their ability to gain access to the decision-making agenda more so than public opinion is because, "the general public opinion is rarely well enough formed to directly affect an involved debate among policy specialists over which alternatives should be seriously considered" (Kingdon 2003, p.66). Summary Increasing the saliency of a beer tax increase must go hand-in-hand with developing and "selling" this policy solution to the public and policymakers via venue and/or arena shopping strategies. In addition, according to Kingdon's "primeval soup" recipe (1984; 2003), problems without attached solutions are less apt to rise high on governmental agendas and are unlikely to make it onto decision-making agendas at all. Solutions also play a role in keeping issues on agendas. If a solution is perceived as too costly, does not fit with prevailing values, or requires too many sacrifices, then the problem to which it is attached may fade from the agenda. 75

PAGE 88

This literature review has examined several venue and/or arena shopping strategies for maintaining issues on agendas, as well as, for moving them up the list of policy priorities. Within the process, it is also important to frame solutions in ways that garner maximum support and protect against opposing forcesincluding cynicism and fatigue-that may lead to the public and policymakers in Wisconsin to abandon efforts to address alcohol-related problems altogether. The following chapter describes the research methods employed. 76

PAGE 89

Research Design CHAPTER3 RESEARCH METHODS In Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, George and Bennett (2005) identify three phases in the design and implementation of theory-oriented case studies: phase one, the research design; phase two, carrying out the case study; and phase three, drawing on the implications of case study findings for theory. The latter two phases are the subject matter for the following chapters in this dissertation. However, the first phase-the research design-is the concern of this research methods chapter. George and Bennett (2005) list five tasks that must be integrated together to accomplish the research design for a case study. The following paragraphs offer a brief discussion on each task. Task One: Specification of the problem and research objective. As reviewed in the first two chapters, the problem with venue shopping as a theoretical framework is twofold. First, the literature needs to clarify and distinguish between the conceptual differences of what qualifies as a "venue", and what qualifies as an "arena." Second, borrowing from Pralle (2005) and Timmermans (200 1 ), the current distinction claims that venues hold authoritative 77

PAGE 90

jurisdiction over the decision-making agenda, while arenas are the "outside" places where "shopping strategies" are apt to take place. In addition to being useful for generating and testing hypotheses, case studies are valuable at all stages of the theory-building process, but most valuable at that stage where "candidate theories" are tested and alternative perspectives analyzed (Flyvbjerg 200 I, p. 77). The "case" being studied refers to the phenomenon of scientific interest tied to a "class of events" and the term "casing" describes the research efforts to further enhance the various subclasses of a phenomenon (George and Bennet 2005). Alternative perspectives concerning the phenomenon of venue shopping have remained empirically unsubstantiated. Therefore, of the six different kinds of theory-building research objectives inventoried by George and Bennett (2005, pp.75-76), the research objective for this dissertation is to conduct a "building block" case study interested in serving as a heuristic for testing the propositions involving venue shopping introduced in the literature review. According to George and Bennett (p. 78), "each block-a study of each subtype (of the phenomenon being studied}-fills a 'space' in the overall theory. In addition, the component provided by each building block is itself a contribution to theory (parentheses added to the original)." Perhaps more importantly, "the building block developed for a subtype is self-sufficient; its validity and 78

PAGE 91

usefulness do not depend upon the existence of other studies of different subclasses of that general phenomenon" (ibid). As George and Bennett (2005, p.76) explain, "a single research design may be able to accomplish more than one purpose-such as heuristic and theory testing goals-as long as it is careful in using evidence and making inferences in ways appropriate to each research objective." Task Two: Developing a research strategy and specification of the variables. Although subject to change throughout the study, the research strategy requires early formulation of the research questions and propositions while establishing the parameters of the study through the specification of the independent and dependent variables in the case study (p. 79). Much greater attention concerning the variables employed in the case study will be given in the following analysis chapter. However, since the variables are directly related to theory building the independent variable is dichotomous: policy action (the shopping) is taking place in either an arena or venue. The analysis section examines whether or not the type of independent variable (i.e., shopping in a venue or arena) has an effect on the type of shopping strategy to be employed (the dependent variable). Task Three: Case selection. According to King, Keohane, and Verba (1994), researchers often begin their inquiries with either a theory in search of a 79

PAGE 92

test case or a case in search of a good theory to test. Since George and Bennett (2005) concur that either approach is viable, this dissertation offers a combination of the two. The first step for the researcher, according to George and Bennett (2005), is to become immersed in the literature in order to become familar with how scholars have previously utilized the concepts surrounding venue shopping and its role in agenda-setting. The goal of this dissertation is to test some prior propositions made in empirically scant venue shopping studies and offer a fresh new perspective in the realm of policy-making. Case studies are a valuable and appropriate tool for researchers involved in this endeavor (Flyvbjerg 2001; Eisenhardt 2002), because "situating one's research in the context of the literature is key to identifying the contribution the new research makes" (George and Bennet, 2005, p.70). Agenda-setting theories, like Baumgartner and Jones (1993) punctuated equilibrium or Kingdon's (1984; 2003) multiple streams, are "good" policy frameworks that have found multiple cases to be applied to over the last few decades. This dissertation is an attempt at adding a "building block" to venue shopping as a theoretical framework, and to further enhance the currently underdeveloped discussion concerning its plausibility as an approach that aptly describes the policy-making process (George and Bennett 2005). Task Four: Describing the variance in variables. Following the advice of George and Smoke (1974), the argument was adopted that it would be inadequate 80

PAGE 93

and unproductive to define the outcomes of certain shopping strategies as either successes or failures, simply because if success was measured by whether or not a policy solution (beer tax increase) was enacted as a legislative act, there would only be one policy success during the last seventy-seven years in the state of Wisconsin. However, George and Smoke were able to identify the different types of failures and successes tied to different types of policy strategies regarding their subject matter of diplomacy strategies and deterrence of war. The result of this typology led to "a more discriminating and policy-relevant explanatory theory for deterrence failures" (George and Bennett 2005, p.85). Likewise, instead of relying on a beer tax increase to have successfully been enacted as law, this dissertation intends to determine the connections between shopping strategies and whether or not they are being carried out in either a venue or an arena. In other words, looking to verify a causal explanation between where a policy solution is being shopped and the types of strategies being used to do the shopping by testing the propositions introduced, drawn specifically from the literature on venue shopping strategies (Kingdon 1984; 2003; Pralle 2003; 2006a and 2006b; 2009; 2010). Task Five: Formulation of data requirements and general questions. George and Bennett propose that (2005, p. 86), "the general questions must reflect the theoretical framework employed, the data that will be needed to satisfy the 81

PAGE 94

research objective of the study, and the kind of contribution to theory that the researcher intends to make." In addition, there are other particular advantages to relying upon case study techniques when studying the phenomenon of venue shopping beyond the more general "philosophical and instrumental" questions suggested by George and Bennett (p.87). According to Yin (2009), the case study is a most appropriate method to use when asking "how" and "why" research questions. As seen in the earlier chapters, two of the three research questions specifically ask: "How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and policymakers?"; and, "How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy problem in a way that increases the saliency of their policy solution to both the public and their representative policymakers?" The accompanying propositions to these two questions are the attempts at explaining the "why" answers to these questions. In addition, by attempting to answer and test the research questions and propositions (respectively) in this dissertation perhaps future researchers may consider these attempts (and methodological procedures) when constructing their own venue and arena shopping frameworks in other studies around the states. Case studies are also advantageous to a qualitative researcher when they have the 82

PAGE 95

ability to directly observe contemporary events, and the ability to gain access to the political actors involved in the policy-making process surrounding such events (Yin 2009). George and Bennett emphasize that all five tasks are integrated throughout the case study process. To orchestrate the efforts required to accomplish all five tasks in unison, the following sections discuss the usefulness of adopting a mixed methods approach and taking advantage of a combination of evidence collected from both primary and secondary data sources (Creswell2003; Borkan 2004). Mixed-methods and triangulation Case studies are not constructed by using only one or two qualitative (and/or quantitative) research methods to collect theory-building evidence (George and Bennett 2005; Yin 2009). In fact, relying on a "triangulation" of research methods is an important foundation for when staking research claims based on studying only one case. Critics often ask, how representative is a single case study of a particular theory or conceptual framework when N=l? The critics are implicitly contrasting the situation of a single case study to survey research, in which a sample is intended to generalize to a larger universe. As Yin (2009, p.43) points out, "[T]his analogy to samples and universes is incorrect when dealing with case studies. Survey research relies on statistical generalization, whereas case studies (as with experiments) rely on analytic generalization. In 83

PAGE 96

analytical generalization, the investigator is striving to generalize a particular set of results to some broader theory" (emphases in original). The term "triangulation has been used to describe the active use of multiple methods to provide a menu of perceptions to help clarify the meaning of the phenomenon (or case) under study (Goetz and LeCompte 1984; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Denzin 1989; Stake 2005). While multiple methods help verify the "repeatability" of an observation or interpretation, scholars have pointed out that no observations or interpretations are perfectly repeatable (Glesne and Peshkin 1992; Silverman 1993; Flick 1998). Triangulation simply offers the reader alternative ways to view the case under study. Or, as Stake (2005, p.454) puts it, "[t]he qualitative researcher is interested in a diversity of perception, even the multiple realities within which people live. Triangulation helps identify different realities." Methodologically speaking, triangulation can also help the researcher avoid collecting redundant data, by offering several routes for data collection (Denzin 1989). Thus, with the assistance of providing a variety of evidencedocuments, artifacts, interviews, and observations-the single case can represent a significant contribution to knowledge, theory building and can even help to refocus future investigations in an entire field (Yin 2009, p.48). The following sections discuss both the secondary and primary forms of data collection that involve multiple methods to help facilitate this dissertation's case study research. 84

PAGE 97

Data Collection Strategies Secondary data and archival research. The case study approach is designed to address the propositions embedded in the literature review specifically, and more generally the literature on agenda setting and venue shopping more recently (Timmermans 2001; Pralle 2003; 2006a and 2006b; 2009; 2010; Crow 2010). The research questions ask how policy entrepreneurs and other political actors sell their policy solutions, in this case, to the citizens of Wisconsin. Their respective propositions are specific tests of what has been purported in the venue shopping literature. To assist in testing these propositions, both primary and secondary forms of data collection strategies are necessary to help ensure a well-developed case study. The gathering of primary data via interviews ofthose involved in the venue shopping process is the backbone of this dissertation's case study. However, one should not assume that these primary sources of data alone will suffice when it comes to answering the research questions posed in this dissertation. According to George and Bennett (2005), to bolster the supportive and evidentiary worth of the primary interview data, one must first carefully examine the contemporary public resources (like newspaper print media) that may document public opinion, as well as, the unfolding of political events around a particular policy problem (and their proposed solutions). These public accounts are an important part of the contextual developments, or a useful description of 85

PAGE 98

the "playing field" on which policymakers should know. "Classified accounts of the process of policymaking cannot be properly evaluated by scholars unless the public context in which policymakers operate is taken into account" (George and Bennett 2005, p.97). Therefore, accounts from newspaper articles concerning policy changes in the beer tax in Wisconsin are an important part of this dissertation's historical description of the debate over the Wisconsin beer tax, as well as the data source for the qualitative content analysis (the next two chapters, respectively). Content analysis focuses on the frequency with which words or concepts occur in texts or across texts (Carley 1993). This approach has been used to examine a variety oftopics, including cultural changes over time (Namenwirth and Weber 1987). The basic idea of content analysis is to take a list of concepts (i.e., venue shopping, support of a beer tax, against taxes of any kind etc.) and a set of texts (newsprint editorials) and then simply count the number of times each concept occurs in each text. Differences in the distribution of counts across texts provide insight into the similarities and differences in the content of the texts (see analysis chapter for more details). According to Crow, newspapers are an appropriate source to use when trying to understand agenda setting in the states. She argues, "In local communities newspapers are still the primary, if not the only, source of news coverage about local policy issues and therefore allow for a direct analysis of 86

PAGE 99

media influences without competition of new media sources"(2010, p. 164). A content analysis of the various editorials and articles in newsprint across the state of Wisconsin (for example, the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and the La Crosse Tribune) was conducted using the coding scheme discussed later in this chapter. Content Analysis A content analysis was conducted on a total of 77 newspaper articles that dated from the years 2005-2010. This is the complete set of articles thought to be pertinent. According to Priest (2010, p. 84): Simply measuring the actual amount of space or time given to particular topics is one simple form of media content analysis. Agenda-setting theory tells us that this matters. More often, the purpose of content analysis is to go further to classify certain elements of media material ... in a particular way, in order to answer a particular research question the researcher has posed. As a result, the number of articles by month and year are compared with the periods when legislation was introduced to see, in general, if policy entrepreneurs were engaged in selling their policy solutions to the public during the time the legislation was being debated. Looking only at the number of articles does not, however, get to the heart ofthe research questions and their propositions. As Crow (20 1 0, p.14 7) notes, These data have, however, been used ineffectively in much policy scholarship. By using the level of intensity of media coverage, as a measure ofthe attention being paid to a given policy issue within 87

PAGE 100

government systems, scholars are making significant assumptions about the journalistic practices that lead to the selection of stories. Bernard and Ryan suggest a seven step process for theoretical based content analysis found below: 1. Formulate a research question or hypothesis, based on existing theory or on prior research. 2. Select a set of texts to test the question or hypothesis. 3. Create a set of codes (variables, themes) in the research question or hypothesis. 4. Pretest the variable on a few selected texts Fix any problems that tum up in regard to the codes and coding so that the coders become consistent in their coding. 5. Apply the codes to the rest of the texts. 6. Create a case-by-variable matrix from the texts and codes. 7 Analysis the matrix using whatever analysis is appropriate (20 10, p 289) Figure 3.1: Bernard and Ryan (2010) Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches The steps suggested by Bernard and Ryan map directly onto the process used for coding the data for both the content analysis and the interview data. In addition to reading past and present newspaper accounts of the various attempts to increase the beer tax in Wisconsin, other secondary sources of data were collected (see below) to help assist in developing a qualitative case study around the historical context of venue shopping an increase in the beer tax as policy solution to the drinking culture. Television and public radio debates provided even more material to construct momentum and controversy over the 88

PAGE 101

proposal to increase the beer tax (Assembly Bill 287). These other forms of secondary data were instrumental for tracking key events that drew attention to the issue, and helped determine what problem definitions and policy frames were "winning out" over others. Other forms of secondary data consist of electronic data resources, such as websites of the legislators promoting AB287 or the websites of political interests opposed to such a policy adoption (i.e., the corporate beer industry and the Wisconsin Brewer's Guild). Archival resources, such as the Wisconsin Beverage Tax Commission Reports from the end of Prohibition in 1933 to 1950 were accessed in the special collection of rare books located at Murphy Library on the campus of University of Wisconsin La Crosse. And lastly, the notes taken at the October 13, 2009 Assembly hearing on AB 287-lasting seven hours-were especially informative about how each side was framing the issue, and the legislators' reactions to these frames (Schon and Rein 1994 ). All of these data sources were vital pieces of information to help construct the case study. Hence, combined with primary data sources, secondary sources are vital resources for strengthening case studies and providing the researcher with rich amounts of data to mine during the analysis stage of the qualitative research (Yin 2009). 89

PAGE 102

Primary data: Interviews As Kingdon (2003, p.180) argues, "when researching case studies, one can nearly always pinpoint a particular person, or at most a few persons, who were central in moving a subject up on the agenda and into position for enactment." In addition, Hacker ( 1997) notes, "studies of agenda setting need to examine the strategies of political actors who attempt to shape the agenda of the government, and, in most cases, these strategies can only be fully understood by speaking with the actors themselves" (p.6). This dissertation relies heavily on interviews with key public and private actors involved in the legislative debate over whether an increase in beer taxes should be passed in Wisconsin. These interviews provide valuable insight into the perceptions of the policy-making process from many sides of the issue, as well as the opportunities and constraints policy actors faced along the way. Also, additional knowledge should be obtained about the political strategies and choices these policy actors went through to gain access to the decision-making venue's agenda. In an attempt to gain potential interviewees with multiple perspectives on the proposed beer tax increase, a public hearing for AB287 on October 13, 2009 at the capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin was attended. The original intent of going to the hearing was to determine who the "best" interviewees would be to obtain the perspectives of the beer industry toward AB287 (for example, whoever 90

PAGE 103

testified on behalf of the beer industry's interests in Wisconsin). Possibilities included the representative who spoke on behalfofMiller-Coors, Diane Wagner, because Miller-Coors is the largest brewer in Wisconsin and provides the most employment in the state (and pays the most in taxes on the beer they produce). Other qualified candidates to represent the beer industry's side of the debate include: Carl Nolen, the President of the Wisconsin Brewers Guild (representing Wisconsin's craft brew industry); members ofthe Wisconsin Brewers Guild; and Michael Brown, the President of the La Crosse area Tavern League, who wrote an Op-Ed piece for a local paper on the cons of adopting a new beer tax increase. These interviewees represent private political actors who are not members of the decision-making venue (the Wisconsin legislature), but they are important political actors in the public policy arena who have the ability to sway the voting public. All of the above mentioned individuals were contacted twice via e-mail and once by telephone for an interview request (the maximum number of contacts permitted by Institutional Review Board). The researcher made it clear that he was studying the beer tax in Wisconsin for his dissertation, and was interested in learning what they had to say about AB 287. None of those contacted as representatives of the brewing industry in Wisconsin replied. 91

PAGE 104

The researcher then decided to focus on the venue shopping strategies of the proponents of AB287. Representative Terese Berceau, D-Madison-the author of AB 287 and prior beer tax bills-was identified as the policy entrepreneur as well as being the key informant for recommending other political actors involved in seeing AB 287 reach fruition (Karp 1985). This type of sampling strategy is generally referred to in the qualitative literature as "snowball" or "chain sampling"-a purposive technique that helps the researcher gain analytic generalizations that assists in inductive endeavors such as this dissertation (Miles and Huberman 1994, p.28). That is, someone like Representative Berceau who provides rich material for this study can also identify other key informants that are active participants if it is determined that the phenomenon of venue and/or arena shopping the beer tax in Wisconsin has been practiced (Patton 1990; Kuzel 1992). This snowball process is important when using a theoretical sampling strategy, 22 when the interviewer is interested in seeking out respondents who are likely to epitomize the analytic criteria pertinent to obtaining a better understanding of the agenda-setting strategies used when venue shopping certain policy solutions (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Charmaz 2001; 22 While the analysis chapter develops the concept of using theoretical sampling strategies much further, it is important to note here that because qualitative interviewing is to discern meaningful patterns within the thick description that Glaser and Strauss ( 1967) introduced, therefore, researchers may try to minimize differences among the respondents-say, only interviewing proponents of a specific policy-in order to highlight or contrast patterns found after the data have been collected. 92

PAGE 105

Warren and Kamer 2005). In other words, we were interested in obtaining information from the policy actors who could help address the research questions and propositions surrounding venue shopping strategies submitted in this dissertation. Once contact had been made with the policy entrepreneur-in this case, Representative Berceau-the next step in determining who else to interview was to ask her who supported her endeavors and were politically active in trying to get AB 287 passed. Besides contacting each legislator that either co-authored or sponsored AB 287, additional research verified three other key political actors in support of AB 287 that were invited to participate in separate interviews. The first non-legislative interviewee was Julia Sherman, chairwoman of the State Council on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse. The second non-legislative interviewee was Lisa Maroney, University of Wisconsin Health Legislative Liaison and director of AWARE. The third non-legislative interviewee was Carol Lobes, a representative from the Dane County Executive's office. The role all three interviewees play with respect to a beer tax increase in Wisconsin is further developed in the next two chapters. The interviews themselves were semi-structured interviews ranging in duration between 90 to 150 minutes. The questions are heavily anchored in the dissertation's three research questions (and their accompanying propositions). 93

PAGE 106

The interviews are semi-structured because they combine aspects of both structured and unstructured interview protocols. For instance, in structured interviewing the interviewer asks all the respondents the same series of pre established questions, with a limited set of response categories and little room for variation in responses (Fontana and Frey 2005). While the "highly scripted" nature of the structured interview is useful in many survey studies (marketing for instance), it is too stringent in studies where the same questions may be asked of the interviewees in the same order, but may need to be adjusted according to the role the interviewee played in the policy process. For example, Representative Berceau is the author of AB 287 and has spear-headed efforts to get a beer tax increase introduced in the Wisconsin state legislature over the last four years. Therefore, the interview questions asked of her supporters or colleagues was asked in slightly different (but distinctive) ways. While structured interviews aim to capture precise data with the intent to code to help explain behavior within pre-established categories, unstructured interviews are more open-ended and the interviewer is guided by the topics of interest the interviewee chooses to dictate (Fontana and Frey 2005). The unstructured protocol would not aid in testing the dissertation's propositions drawn from the literature. Thus, a hybrid of both structured and unstructured interview protocols was used to conduct semi structured interviews with this study's respondents. 94

PAGE 107

With the interviewees' permission, the interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed (see Appendix B for examples of the questions drawn from the literature to be asked in each of the interviews). Additionally, notes were taken during the interviews as well to help when searching for themes in the interview data during the analysis stage of the qualitative research. Note taking can also help capture comments made "off the record" to be used during analysis too. That is, "unrecorded" data can be just as important in qualitative studies as the data derived from the recording part ofthe interview (Warren 2001). Nonetheless, audio recordings provide a more accurate rendition of any interview than any other method (Yin 2009). At the end of each interview the participants were given the opportunity to review the transcriptions after they were completed. Limitations of interviews. While the interviews are invaluable in helping understand the strategies of the key policy actors, there are limitations to using interviews as the sole source of data for agenda setting studies. The chief among these is that participants often create post hoc rationalizations for their actions; people may imply that their strategies were more consciously crafted than was the case, or they may ascribe to themselves more noble (self-serving) motives than perhaps they deserve. Hacker ( 1997) also notes that participants might not be the best judges of what influences their strategic decisions. Less visible influences, such as gradual changes in ideas or broad institutional changes, are not likely to 95

PAGE 108

be foremost in the minds of policy actors and/or entrepreneurs (p. 7). Or, as George and Bennett (2005, p. 99) comment on human tendencies: As cognitive dissonance theory reminds us, most people operate with a "double standard" in weighing evidence. They more readily accept new information that is consistent with an existing mind-set and employ a much higher threshold for giving serious consideration to discrepant information that challenges existing policies or preferences. Furthermore, Pralle (2006a) points out that the prevalence of venue shopping does not necessarily mean that policy actors proceed through each of the cognitive stages and thought processes mentioned in the venue shopping literature. Indeed, to attribute such degree of consciousness and forethought to individual groups, or policy actors in general, requires in-depth case studies and interviews with the actors involved in strategizing23. As mentioned in the literature review, policy entrepreneurs, policy actors, and aggregate bureaucratic agencies often act without full knowledge of the opportunities and constraints. The presence of uncertainty exists within each venue (or arena), and information about the opportunities and constraints in each venue might be unreliable, scarce, or deliberately withheld as a means of forestalling policy change (Pralle 2003). Saturation Whereas statistical (Large-N) sampling ends when the researcher has collected data from all available elements in the predetermined sample, inductive 23 Of course, strategizing is done with a conscious effort. The point here is whether or not the political actors actively thought of themselves as venue shoppers trying to sell their "wares" within the legislative venue and in outside arenas. In all likelihood, they were not. 96

PAGE 109

and contingent non-probability (i.e., purposive, snowball/chain) sampling ends when the so-called "saturation point" is reached. Morse (1995) referred to saturation as the process of collecting data until no new information is obtained. The saturation point in qualitative primary data collecting via interviews is normally determined by the discovery that additional interviews are yielding so little new information that "more interviews would be a waste of time" (Schutt 2004, p. 299). Saturation can also be viewed as a "complete" case study (Yin 2009), and completeness can be characterized in at least two different ways when presenting the case study research. First, the complete case is one in which the distinction between the phenomenon (in this case, venue shopping) and its context (Wisconsin) are given explicit attention. Either through logical argument or presentation of evidence, "as the analytic periphery is reached, the information is of decreasing relevance to the case study" (p.186). Second, the researchers should be convinced that they have exhausted their efforts in collecting as much ofthe relevant evidence necessary to draw as complete of a case study as possible; in addition to the body of the text, appropriate footnotes and appendices should be included. According to Yin (2009, p.187) "[T]his does not mean that the investigator should literally collect all available evidence-an impossible task-but that the critical pieces have been given 'complete' attention." After all, 97

PAGE 110

to determine when the saturation point is near, the reader should be convinced that little relevant evidence remains untouched by the investigator. In this case, saturation was reached in two ways. First, every sponsor of the bill was interviewed leaving no additional informants. Second, even though only three advocates were interviewed the researcher stopped generating any new information from the interviews. Qualitative Data Analysis Coding. According to Creswell ( 1998), what is called "open coding" in grounded theory is similar to the first stage of classifying statements in "categorical aggregation" in case study research, but there is a difference. In grounded theory, during the open coding phase the text is examined (e.g., transcripts, field-notes, documents) for pertinent categories of information supported by the text. Using constant comparative analysis, one attempts to "saturate" the categories, looking for instances that represent the category and to continue looking (and interviewing) until the new information obtained provides no further insight into the category (p. 150-51 ). Basically, this is data reduction until only a small set of categories or themes are left to characterize the phenomenon being explored in a grounded study (total induction with no base in the literature). The main difference between open coding in grounded theory and categorical aggregation is when the researcher seeks a collection of instances 98

PAGE 111

from the data hoping that issue-relevant meanings will emerge that are based in the previous literature (as brief as it may be) surrounding the phenomenon (Stake 1995). In addition, the idea of separating the phenomenon from its context is also crucial when compiling the description of a phenomenon via evidence taken from events following an incident, highlighting the major players, sites, mediums and activities that surround such a description-that is the detailed aspects or "facts" about the case (Creswell 1998, p.l54). In their case study involving the effects a gunman can have on a college campus (Asmussen and Creswell 1995), they aggregate all of the facts they collected from the data into about 20 categories (categorical aggregation) and collapsed them into five patterns. In their final section of their study, they generalize about the case in terms of the patterns that emerged in "chunks" ofthe data in their analysis and compared and contrasted them with the published literature on campus violence. According to Miles and Huberman (1994, p.57): Codes are the mechanisms used to retrieve and organize these chunks from data gathered, say from transcribed notes of an interview. The organization of chunks entails some system for categorizing the various chunks, so the researcher can quickly find, pull out, and cluster the segments relating to a particular hypothesis and/or construct relevant to the study. Clustering and displaying the condensed chunks sets the stage for drawing conclusions. 99

PAGE 112

A set of codes was developed based on the research questions and propositions.24 The data was then coded systematically in search for specified codes. As Crow (20 1 0, p. I 54) explains, "In this way the data drive the research findings, but the literature helped narrow the search." The specific codes are outlined in the code book section below. This exercise allows for grouping the (in vivo) phrases into the coded chunks to develop better pictures of the strategies involved in the policy actors thought processes and actions. The process from data collection to analysis is typically an iterative one, gradually developing throughout the entirety of the research. Code book When more than one individual is coding qualitative data, it is important to have a code book. According to Bernard and Ryan (20 I 0, p. 9I ), "The codebook is where the researcher records exactly how the categories ... used in his or her study were identified in the media content used." There were two independent coders for this research projects (see intercoder reliability below). Priest (20 I 0) explains that code books are ordinarily developed as the project progresses when using traditional grounded theory. As noted above, this project used theoretical coding. For this reason, the codes were developed in a preliminary codebook, prior to the actual coding process. 24 A list of codes developed and tied to each research question and proposition can be found in Appendix A. 100

PAGE 113

As the two individuals coding the material began to work together, however, a few caveats to the codes emerged. For example, while a statement about the impact the beer tax could have in providing revenue for state programs could be coded as an economic gain or loss, so too could a statement about the potential loss of jobs if the tax were passed. For this reason both coders decided to include a sub-code for themes 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 2a, 2b, 2c,and 2d above based on whether the tax was being framed as a cost or as a benefit. Table 3.1: Codebook Code Definition 1. Selling involves selling ideas to those already attuned to the policy issue both internal and external to the government arena Ia. Cost of Inaction focus on what could happen if the beer tax is not passed Cost Ia frames the cost of inaction as a cost to the public Benefit Ia frames the cost of inaction as a benefit for the public lb. Economic Gain or focus on finances of the public based on the tax Loss Cost lb frames the tax in terms of financial costs (i.e. loss) Benefit lb frames the tax in terms of financial benefits (i.e. gain) lc. Health Gain or Loss focus on human health effects related to the tax Cost lb frames the tax as a health cost (i.e. loss) Benefit lb frames the tax as a health benefit (i.e. gain) ld. Feedback focuses on giving facts related to the current policy 2: Increasing Saliency involves selling ideas to the general public not necessarily attuned to the policy issue as well as those already attuned 2a. Audience Friendly the use of language appeal to the general public based Feedback on simplistic explanation or euphemisms Cost lb euphemisms framing the beer tax as a cost to the public Benefit lb euphemisms framing the beer tax as a benefit to the 101

PAGE 114

public 2b. Public Concern focus on the current situation specifically drunk driving, alcoholism, and a culture of drinking in Wisconsin Cost lb frames these concerns as costs to the public Benefit lb frames these concerns as benefits to the public 2c. Local Impact focus on what the beer tax might do to local communities Cost lb frame the beer tax as a cost of local communities Table 3.1: cont. Benefit lb frame the beer tax as a benefit for local communities 2d. Human Health focus on the potential human health impacts of the Impact beer tax Cost lb frames the beer tax in terms of negative affects it could have on human health Benefit lb frames the beer tax in terms of positive affects it could have on human health 3. Political Factors language that appeals to one of Kingdon's streams 3a. Legislative reference to legislative turnover Turnover 3b. Organized Political reference to organized political groups Groups 3c. Public Opinion reference to public opinion NVivo The computer-assisted qualitative software program NVivo 8.0 was used to help code and categorize large amounts of narrative text collected from the interviews and/or newspaper articles. The data for the content analysis and the interviews were systematically reviewed line by line to look for the theoretically based codes. Once the codes were determined, NVivo assigned one ofthe codes from 102

PAGE 115

the codebook to chunks of data (from sentences to full paragraphs) -gradually building more complex categories or groups of codes (Yin 2009, p.l28). After all of the data were coded, NVivo aggregated examples for each code and compared these data in tables and matrices. However, unlike statistical analyses, the software's output themselves cannot be used as ifthey were the end ofthe analysis. Instead, one needs to study the outputs to determine whether any meaningful patterns emerge. Finally, to help organize the findings and present a clearer picture of the data sources, methods, and types of analysis, the dissertation included data display tables or even a "display matrix" to let the reader note any inconsistencies and contradictions ( Miles and Huberman 1994, p.65). Data displays are yet another way to present a visual chart or map of the data collected. Intercoder Reliability Intercoder reliability refers to the measure of agreement for coding schemes between multiple coders. According to Priest (20 1 0, p. 85), "The argument is that if different researchers identify the same elements in the material most of the time, the subjective element is small enough that it can reasonably be ignored." Ordinarily multiple coders would agree to individually code the same sections of data and then use a formula to determine their measure of agreement. NVivo can do this automatically. In this case, however, the research was dependent on a colleague trained to use the software program NVivo. As a result, 103

PAGE 116

the researcher did all of the initial coding for the content analysis and interview transcriptions on paper. Then, the colleague coded all of the newspaper articles and interview transcriptions in NVivo. After this was done, both coders compared coding schemes line by line. In cases where there was not agreement (such as a section of text that was coded by one coder and overlooked by the other) a verbal discussion ensued until an agreement was reached. This was done for all of the data, not just a sample. Validity According to George and Bennett (2005, p.19), "[ c ]ase studies allow a researcher to achieve high levels of conceptual validity, or to identify and measure the indicators that best represent the theoretical concepts the researcher intends to measure." Therefore, once the data have been collected and the analysis performed, the ability to compare the conceptual constructs taken from the literature on venue shopping with the conceptual constructs developed in the research questions and propositions determines the amount of construct (or internal) validity the dissertation's final product holds. In addition, the multiple sources of data collection and analyzing techniques also help increase the amount of construct validity-that is, would the experts in the field agree with the way the dissertation builds the conceptual constructs, and are they relevant to the literature's own theoretical constructs (Miles and Huberman 2002). Hence, 104

PAGE 117

construct and internal validity increases in a proposition-testing case study when the constructs created via the research questions and propositions compare favorably with the extant theoretical literature (Eisenhardt 2002). The underlying logic behind external validity in case study research is replication, similar to an experiment, with each case serving to confirm or disconfirm the tested hypotheses and propositions (Yin 2009). If the findings in the dissertation do not "fit well" with the abundance of historical research conducted in the literature, then this would be either a threat to the internal validity or an opportunity to conduct further investigations (Eisenhardt 2002, p.24). Reliability According to Goetz and LeCompte ( 1984 ), reliability is another term for "quality control" or as Yin (2009, p.45) says, "[t]he goal of reliability is to minimize the errors and biases in a study". If one self-consciously sets out to collect the data, and after the analysis, double-checks the findings-using multiple sources and modes of evidence-the reliability will largely be built into the data collection. Triangulation is often called upon to increase the reliability of a study, "by seeing or hearing multiple instances from different sources by using different methods and by squaring the findings with others it needs to be squared with" (Miles and Huberman 1994, p.267, emphasis in the original). And 105

PAGE 118

finally, As King, Keohane, and Verba (1994, p.51) clearly state "the most important rule for all data collection is to report how the data were created and how we came to possess them." In this sense reliability and validity go hand-in hand. Other steps done in this dissertation to enhance the validity and reliability include adjusting the research questions and propositions accordingly to assist in their clarity; and finally, transparency in the data gathering and reporting of findings. 106

PAGE 119

CHAPTER4 CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND Background: Alcohol's role in Wisconsin The production and use of alcohol has played a distinct role in Wisconsin's history. Alcohol production was a factor in early economic growth even while the temperance movement played a role in Wisconsin's early political history. In 1836, Wisconsin's territorial government authorized local alcohol licensure, presaging the current system of municipal licensure (Strong et al. 1885). At the same time, many German immigrants were making their way to America. Wisconsin's farmland, forests, lakes and rivers reminded many of these immigrants of Germany's topography, hence, making it a prime attraction to these settlers. According to census data, there were 38,064 people of German ethnic heritage in Wisconsin in 1850; by 1890, the number was 259, 819. A substantial number of these immigrants had brewing expertise and Milwaukee, "with its ample water, wood for barrels, access to ice in winter and a lucrative nearby market in Chicago, quickly became a beer hub" (Haefer 2009, p.11 ). Between 1850 and 1860, the number ofbreweries in Wisconsin had grew from 22 to 188, with 48 ofthose in Milwaukee alone (ibid.). And, when beer began to 107

PAGE 120

overtake whiskey as the most popular alcoholic beverage in America at the turn of the century, the huge demand led to an increase in farmers planting barley and hops. In fact, up until Prohibition in 1919, Wisconsin was one of the leading regions for growing hops in the U.S., "and at one time hops were the most profitable crop in the state" (Haefer 2009, p. 12). Prior to national Prohibition under the 191h Amendment, there were no excise taxes levied by the individual states on the sale of beer. Since it's repeal, however, all of the states have enacted legislation taxing malt beverages. Beer became legal in Wisconsin on April 7, 1933, and those few brewers25 lucky enough to survive Prohibition were required by law to pay the new Wisconsin state excise tax of $1 per 31 gallon barrel of beer. Wyoming is the only state that has not altered their tax on beer since repeal, which also was (and remains at) $1 per 31 gallon barrel of beer. In 1969, the beer tax in Wisconsin was raised to $2 per 31 gallon barrel in Chapter 195, Laws of 1969 (Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau). The last beer tax increase in 1 969 In the public policy literature regarding advantaged target populations, when burdens are inflicted on advantaged populations, these usually happen when 25 The only Wisconsin owned business affiliated with beer left in Milwaukee is the Major League Baseball team, the Milwaukee Brewers. During the last decade, all of the breweries that survived Prohibition: Miller, Pabst, Blatz, Schlitz, Leinenkugel's, and Huber, are now owned by foreign conglomerates. In addition, during the summer of2009, MillerCoors relocated their Milwaukee headquarters and products-Miller, Pabst, Schlitz, and Blatz-to Chicago. 108

PAGE 121

matters of regulation between two competing powerful groups are required (Schneider and Ingram 2005). This appears to have been the case the last time Wisconsin increased the beer tax in 1969. According to several newspaper articles from forty years ago, during the 1968-1969 legislative session lawmakers were trying to find ways to financially save Marquette's failing medical school. The only source of revenue that both Assembly and Senate could agree upon was to initiate a $1 increase per barrel of beer (Arthur, 1969, p.2). The tax increase was included in a 1969 Special Session for Assembly Bill 4 relating to appropriations for the Marquette School of Medicine. A popular bi-partisan amendment was overwhelmingly passed 82 to 17, and was signed into law November 1, 1969. Possibly, then, the beer tax may never have increased from $1 a barrel to $2 a barrel if the advantaged beer industry was not superseded by an even more advantaged target population at the time, Marquette's medical school and its dire need for the education of medical doctors to commit to staying and practicing in rural Wisconsin. 26 This appears to be the last time the beer industry was superseded, and its status as favored industry has remained intact with the state's legislative body for the last forty years. "Through institutions, the social constructions of target groups become semi-permanent dispositions that 26 Another alternative reason for choosing a beer tax increase, offered by Senator Risser during his interview for this dissertation, was because law makers had no other revenue sources, especially since public debt incurred via building and construction bonds were illegal in the state of Wisconsin at the time. Public bonds were legally ratified in the state constitution five weeks after the new beer tax became law. 109

PAGE 122

are rarely questioned ... this institutionalization ofbias has enormous influence upon citizenship roles, group mobilization, and civic participation" (Schneider and Ingram 2005, p.19). And, unlike those interest groups that have recently been challenging their tax exemptions publicly, These advantaged groups seldom need grassroots social movements, because their access to the important policy is insured through lobbying efforts, as well as through the responsiveness that government officials at all levels grant them by virtue of their political power resources and their image as good, hardworking, loyal Americans (Schneider and Ingram 2005, p.20). The beer tax presently At the state level, Wisconsin voters through their elected state legislature have not increased their beer taxes in the last forty years. Currently, Wisconsin residents are taxed 3.6 cents per six-pack (or $2 a 31 gallon barrel or keg) for beer that is produced for consumption within the state. The Wisconsin state beer tax raised $9.76 million in FY 2005-06 and because it does not take inflation into account was estimated to raise less than that $9.4 million in FY 2007-08 (Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau). Over the last forty years, the Wisconsin beer tax has lost 82% of its value due to inflation; if adjusted for inflation, a keg of beer would be taxed at over $1 0 a barrel, instead of $2 currently. Wisconsin's beer tax is third lowest in the nation at 6.5 cents per gallon behind second lowest Missouri at 6 cents per gallon-and home of Anheuser-Busch-and Wyoming at 1.9 cents per gallon (ibid.). 110

PAGE 123

Consider a comparison of the Wisconsin beer tax to other Wisconsin taxes and their (oft interpreted as intrusive) increases. There have been eight increases in cigarette taxes since 1980 (the most recent passed June 26, 2009), while the tax on gasoline has increased nearly every year since 1983 (Wisconsin Department of Revenue 2007). And, at the risk of falling prey to the same "numbers game" that Stone (2002) warned against, in order to produce the same state excise tax gained through the sale of one carton of cigarettes an unimaginable 524 six-packs would have to be sold (R.J. Reynolds Company Report 2009). Advocates of the beer tax: the legislators State Assembly Representative Terese Berceau, Democrat, has represented the 761 h District in Madison since 1998. Representative Berceau's first attempt at increasing the beer tax in Wisconsin began during the 2005-2006 legislative session, when she introduced Assembly Bill455. AB 455 asked for a 2 cents per bottle increase (the current tax is six-tenths of a penny) to help pay for alcohol treatment costs. One ofthe first things Representative Berceau did to gather support for her bill, according to her interview for this dissertation, was to write opinion columns and submit them around the state to generate discussion about the reasons why the state of Wisconsin needed more money. According to Representative Berceau, this was very successful because it became a topic of interest for others to write their own "favorable" editorial pieces, which in turn Ill

PAGE 124

garnered many additional calls from reporters from around the state. Although there was an increase in interest concerning a new beer tax increase, AB 455 was unsuccessful and never made it out of committee. In her second legislative attempt-during the 2007-2008 legislative session (Assembly Bill 747}--Representative Berceau raised her suggested tax increase to 2.4 cents per bottle to help pay for alcohol and drug treatment and prevention programs, as well as helping to pay the expected increase in law enforcement costs. The editorials she wrote during the previous legislative session (in support of AB 455) led to several invitations to speak in front of many groups who worked in fields where the effects of alcohol impacted their jobs and lives. The social workers and non-profits Representative Berceau spoke to clearly understood the lack of funding Wisconsin was using to address alcohol related problems. Representative Berceau then posted her power-point presentation on her legislative website to try to educate the public on all the costs (they could document) that alcohol-related incidences had on the state, as well as to provide the answers to the arguments posed by the opposition to a beer tax increase (i.e., loss of jobs). Nonetheless, AB 747 had the same outcome as AB 455 and never made it out of committee for further discussion. Representative Berceau' s third and latest attempt occurred during the 2009-2010 legislative session (AB 287; see Apppendix A for the text of the 112

PAGE 125

proposed bill) and remained at 2.4 cents per 12 ounce bottle, so that the total excise tax on a bottle of beer would have been 3 cents. Once again, the revenues gained would have been used to offset the negative externalities alcohol-related incidences cost the citizens of Wisconsin on an annual basis. Representative Berceau's proposed $8 per 31 gallon barrel of beer increase (from the current $2 per 31 gallon barrel) would have raised the overall tax on a 31 gallon barrel of beer to $10 Gust shy of the national average). Representative Berceau has claimed this would provide an extra $58 million in revenue to help pay for preventative public health care that specifically is associated with the alcohol consumption costs in the state of Wisconsin (www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asm76/newsD. These costs are exacerbated, however, by the data suggesting that since 2008 Wisconsin has led the nation in adult binge drinking, percentage of current drinkers in the population, and driving under the influence (State Council on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Report June 2010). As mentioned above, the roughly $9 million raised by the existing beer tax in Wisconsin covers less than I 0 percent of the annual $100 million treatment costs associated with alcohol paid by all Wisconsin taxpayers (drinkers and non drinkers alike). Nor does it even address the additional $825 million in annual alcohol-related healthcare costs that were covered by Wisconsin taxpayers in 113

PAGE 126

2003, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest's: Alcohol Policy Project (Factbook, anonymous, 2004, p.17). Representative Berceau's argument for the increased beer tax points out that on average while Wisconsin residents pays only $1.82 a year on beer taxes, they also are individually paying $18.64 in alcohol treatment costs and another $154 in alcohol-related healthcare costs ($86 specifically from beer) and $500 in alcohol-related criminal justice and societal costs (Factbook, anonymous, 2004, p.20). According to her, Representative Berceau was encouraged by an April 2009 public opinion poll concerning whether or not she should introduce AB287 showed that 58% of those polled favored a beer tax increase in the state-provided that the revenue went to where she said it would, for alcohol prevention and treatment programs, as well as enforcing tougher drinking and driving laws-and 58 % believed alcohol abuse was an important public health issue (The Mellman Group, Inc., 2009). The public opinion poll was paid for by a group called AWARE, based in the University of Wisconsin's School of Medicine and Public Health (see below for more details), which as publically addressed AB 287. While Representative Berceau is grateful for the outside support provided by AWARE and the Dane County's Executive office, the support was not enough to convince her fellow legislators outside of Dane County to move AB 287 beyond a debate (and an actual vote) in the Assembly committee on public safety. While the Assembly 114

PAGE 127

committee on public safety provided the first public hearing regarding a beer tax increase in thirty years, AB 287 was unsuccessful in the 2009-2010 Wisconsin legislative session. Berceau's Legislative Colleagues Representative Berceau had support from two fellow representatives on AB287. The first was Democrat Steve Hilgenberg, a Representative for the 5151 District in the southern rural counties Iowa and Lafayette, and parts of Sauk and Richland counties. Representative Hilgenberg has served on several committees in the Wisconsin Assembly since 2007, and has been acting Chair of the Committee on Veterans and Military Affairs since that time. Representative Hilgenberg sees many connections between Wisconsin's alcohol problems and its many veterans and supported Representative Berceau on the beer tax to help pay for the economic and health costs associated with veterans and alcohol use. The second representative to support Berceau was Representative Kelda Helen Roys, Democrat, from Wisconsin's 8151 District, which includes the area across six different counties just north of Madison. Representative Roys was first elected to the Assembly during the 2008-2009 legislative session, and she supported AB 287 (in 2009-20 I 0) as an additional source of revenue for the various public health issues associated with alcohol problems in the state (although she would ask for more than a 2.4 cent per 12 ounce bottle increase). 115

PAGE 128

Perhaps Representative Berceau's best support on AB 287 came from President of the Democratic majority in the Senate, Fred Risser, who co sponsored the bill. Senator Risser represents the 26th District (Madison), and has the distinction of being the longest serving legislator in Wisconsin history (beginning in 1956), and is currently the longest serving state legislator in the U.S (Wisconsin Blue Book 2009-2010). Senator Risser's longevity in public office is simply an extension of the public service provided and preceded by his father, grandfather and great-grandfather in the Wisconsin legislature (Conant 2006, p. 79). In addition, Senator Risser is no stranger to introducing legislation that has had to endure in legislative limbo for decades. Besides introducing several bills to increase the beer tax in the 1990s, in 1973 Senator Risser was the first in Wisconsin to draft legislation that would ban smoking in public places (p.l56). On July 151, 201 0--approximately thirty-seven years later-Senator Risser's smoking ban was signed into law. Advocates of the beer tax: interest groups The largest support group for AB 287 is an organization called All Wisconsin Alcohol Risk Education or AWARE. AWARE represents a coalition offifty-three organizations and is based in the University of Wisconsin's School of Medicine and Public Health (UW-Health). Since its origins in January of 2008, AWARE's mission is "to improve the health and safety of Wisconsin 116

PAGE 129

residents in the fight against alcohol abuse" (UWHealth.org/ AWARE). The fifty-three organizational members of AWARE represent medical professionals, as well as many public health and safety officials across the state of Wisconsin. According to their website, A WARE's number one initiative is to "increase the beer tax to fund law enforcement and alcohol abuse prevention and treatment" (ibid.). According to A WARE's director (and UW Health Legislative Liaison), Lisa Maroney, AWARE decided to support the efforts of Representative Berceau and AB287 in January, 2009. The State Council on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (SCAODA) has organized a workgroup that examines many ways to address Wisconsin's drinking culture. One of the ways is to focus on making changes in policies that allow the drinking culture to thrive. In addition to the legislative efforts of Representative Berceau, SCAODA is also encouraging legislators to introduce legislation that would allow sobriety checkpoints and pass legislation that has been recently introduced to prohibit parents from buying alcohol for their minors in bars?7 The workgroup's chairwoman, Julia Sherman, is an outreach specialist28 for UWHealth and the Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources. 27 Currently, anyone under the age of twenty one can drink in a bar or tavern as long as they are accompanied by an adult parent. Legislation was introduced during the 2009-2010 session that would have banned the practice for children under the age of eighteen. It was unsuccessful. 28 An outreach specialist offers educational services and support for various communities. In this role, Ms. Sherman works for a variety of educational institutions, organizations and businesses to 117

PAGE 130

Representative Berceau found local level support for AB287 from the Dane County Executive's Office (Madison is in Dane County). Carol Lobes, chair of the Dane County Coalition to Reduce Alcohol Abuse, indicated that Dane County offered its political backing to Representative Berceau in January, 2008one year prior to the creation of their coalition to reduce alcohol abuse. The coalition began in January 2009, as "one facet of Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk's intensive Alcohol Abuse Reduction initiative" ( countyofdane.com/commissions/alcohol). Members of the community of Madison are welcome to join Dane County's efforts with the coalition. In addition to offering their political support, Dane County has also placed several of Representative Berceau's materials and resources from her own website onto the coalition's site. However, there is an equal amount of material and resources concerning the opposition's view against adopting a beer tax increase on their site as well ( countyofdane.com/commissions/alcohol/press ). Opponents of the beer tax While representatives from the beer industry are opposed to any increase in the beer tax, they acknowledge they have been receiving significant tax exemptions over the last four decades in Wisconsin. For the purposes of this dissertation the "beer industry" will refer to the top four beer producers in the ensure that recruitment, enrollment, educational enhancement and placement services meet the needs of the diverse populations residing within the UW-Health system. 118

PAGE 131

state: Leinenkugel, MillerCoors, Pabst, and Mike's Hard Lemonade (all four account for 95% of all the revenue gained from in-state producers). These four are considered as the representatives of the beer industry against an increase in the beer tax because they already pay the most in taxes on beer that is produced and distributed in the state of Wisconsin. According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 2007, Wisconsin beer producers have two major tax exemptions. First, all beer produced in Wisconsin to be exported is exempt from the state beer tax. In 2006, Wisconsin brewers produced 8.5 million barrels of beer, and exported (all tax exempt) 5.9 million barrels or 69% of all beer produced in the state. Second, producers that brew less than 300,000 barrels a year, pay only half of the tax on the first 50,000 barrels. Leinenkugel, Pabst and Mike's Hard Lemonade are taxed at a combination of either 50% or 1 00% of the Wisconsin in-state tax, depending on whether or not they brew more than 300,000 barrels of a product. Most of the smaller craft or "boutique" beer brewers make substantially less than 50,000 barrels of beer a year; thus they pay $1 a barrel instead of $2. In all, only 31% of the beer produced in Wisconsin (beer that was made here and stayed in the state for consumption) is ever subject to the state beer tax. Of that 31%, only 26% of that was taxed at the 100% rate ($2 a barrel). Miller Coors alone accounts for 77% of all in-state beer tax revenue, and is the only beer producer in the state to pay over $1 million in taxes on the beer it distributes in-state. 119

PAGE 132

Opponents of the beer tax view Representative Berceau's policy proposal to the alcohol-related problems in Wisconsin as a discriminatory policy unjustly targeting the beer industry. At the October 13, 2009 public hearing regarding the beer tax increase in Wisconsin, representatives of the beer industry in Wisconsin have claimed by increasing the taxes on beer the state government is "unfairly" making brewers pay for societal ills while other industries are not held equally as responsible. For instance Deborah Carey, President and co-founder of New Glarus Brewing Company (the largest micro-brewery in Wisconsin) asked the committee when she testified "obesity is an issue in the state of Wisconsin; why not increase taxes on fast food, or sugar, or butter, or cheese?" Carey went on to argue: "The dairy industry is just as prevalent in the state as is the beer industry, why are they not being targeted for increased taxes?'' and "Are we not over taxed as it is in this state?" Furthermore, the beer industry argues that beer is a "blue collar drink" and the beer tax disproportionately hits average working people of modest means the hardest, because they drink the most beer. That is, the beer tax is paid by those who consume beer regardless of their income, and hence, it is not a regressive tax. Jeff Becker, President of the Beer Institute, continues: "Approximately 50% of all beer purchased in the United States is by consumers with household income of $50,000 per year or less. That means the relative impact of beer excise taxes on households in the lowest income brackets is 6.5 120

PAGE 133

times greater than those with the highest incomes" (The Beer Institute, Press Releases, February 9, 2009, p.l), hence, making the beer tax regressive. Another argument, according to the Beer Institute, 29 is that an increase in the state beer tax will hurt economic development and cost jobs in Wisconsin if major beer distributors decide to move their business to more tax friendlier states. As Jeff Becker claims: "At a time when the economy is struggling and manufacturing jobs are being lost, America's brewers, beer importers and suppliers stand out as a rare positive story of local businesses committed to goodpaying jobs and contributing billions of dollars in economic activity" (Ibid.). The Public Hearing on AB 287 On October 13, 2009, a public hearing was held in front of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety at the state capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin. The hearing was the first regarding a beer tax increase in thirty years. At 1 Oam, the room was completely full. As author of AB 287, Representative Berceau was allowed to testify first. After she briefly summarized her reasons for the 2.4 cent increase on a bottle of beer, she analyzed one of her opponents' main arguments about the loss of jobs. Representative Berceau said there is no evidence 29 The Beer Institute, established in 1986, is the national trade association for the brewing industry, representing both large and small brewers, as well as importers and industry suppliers. According to their website, www.beerinstitute.org, they are committed to the development of sound public policy and to values of civic duty and personal responsibility. The Beer Institute is cited here because their arguments against the increase in the beer tax were largely drawn upon by the representatives of the beer industry in Wisconsin before and during their testimony before the public health committee on the beer tax increase October 13,2009. 121

PAGE 134

indicating that this small increase in a beer tax would cost the state of Wisconsin any jobs, especially since only 20 percent of the beer brewed in the state is taxed at all. In fact, as Representative Berceau concluded, "the last federal tax increase on beer in 1991 created more jobs across the country."30 The President and Vice President of the Wisconsin Brewer's Guild followed Representative Berceau. President Carl Nolen started out by stating that increases in current hop prices were already forcing local brewers to raise their prices by $3 a case. And, regardless of the lack of evidence, he claimed he would have to cut three or four jobs in production immediately if the beer tax passed because the current recession has already led to a 1 0 percent decrease in demand costing his business, Capital Brewery, $200,000. In addition to contributing further to an economic downturn, representatives of the United Auto Workers and the teamsters claimed that the citizens of Wisconsin should be thanking MillerCoors for what they have done for the state. Instead, the "unfairness" of an increase in beer excise taxes would force MillerCoors31 and others to move their beer producing operations out of the 30 According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics between 1990 and 2000, beer industry wholesale trade employment rose by more than 8,000 jobs, including increases between 1990 and 1992-a year before and after the tax increase ( cspinet.org/booze/taxguide/Beer Jobs). 31 Miller Coors is a conglomerate owned by Molson Brewing from Canada, similar to Anheuser Busch being bought by the Belgian company InBev. Advocates for the beer tax pointed out that beer industry jobs were already being moved out of the state because of these takeovers and that the teamster representatives were using the beer tax as a scapegoat for the loss of jobs they have 122

PAGE 135

state. The spokesperson for MillerCoors, Diane Wagner, touted the $600 million their company generated in Wisconsin, and the number of "safe rider" programs they helped pay for (to help fund alternative rides for those who have been drinking). Ms. Wagner was brief in her statements, but did say that increasing the beer tax would not curb alcohol abuse. Most of the rest of the opponents to AB 287 were smaller craft brewers from around the state testifying exactly how much a beer tax increase would cost them, and what that would mean to the small communities they were part of (especially the local ingredients they purchased for brewing). Mentioned above, the President and co-founder ofNew Glarus Brewing, Deborah Carey, said that if the beer tax increase passed, she would go from paying $150, 000 in taxes on the beer she produces to $850,000. Carey continued, on top of the $1.5 million she lost last year in revenue, she would be forced to "cut loose" the majority of her 53 employees and that would have an effect on the $60 million her brewery generates for Green County. Mrs. Carey's closing statements suggested that if you need to tax something to go ahead and tax fast food or the more lethal alcohol and spirits industry. According to Mrs. Carey, "beer is the beverage of already incurred (and will continue to incur in the future, regardless of whether the increase in a beer tax AB 287 passes or not). 123

PAGE 136

moderation, and is much healthier for you than the more devastating concoctions made with hard alcohol."32 Finally, a small contingency of grocery stores and gas stations were opposed to AB 287, because they would have to pay more up front for the beer they purchased from the distributor. And, many of the smaller "mom and pops" would not be able to afford it. After all of the brewers from across the state gave their testimony, they all left together. Even ifthere were hardly any members in the audience who opposed the beer tax increase, many more people representing many walks of life testified in favor of increasing the beer tax. Medical college presidents, doctors, medical students and hospital associations testified for an increase. High school students and family members who lost relatives due to alcohol-related traffic accidents testified. Emergency response people testified about cleaning up after these accidents. Police officers and sheriff departments testified. Professionals in medical health, addiction, treatment and prevention programs testified. And, finally, after seven and a half hours, a homeless person was the last to testify. 32 Interestingly, in 1871 both American brewers and distillers were also trying to get the federal government to reduce the federal alcohol tax on their products, separately. In an article in a trade magazine, the American Brewer's Gazette, Adolphus Busch referred to distillers as "lepers that produced the worst and cheapest kind of concoctions", while brewer's produce "light, wholesome drinks" (Okrent 2010, p. 34). 124

PAGE 137

Summary The fact that there was a public hearing for the first time in thirty years concerning the beer tax, and that there was greater support for AB 287 at the public hearing was another sign of a gain in momentum to accept a sin tax in Wisconsin. Nonetheless, the lack of support from her fellow legislators outside of Madison never allowed Representative Berceau's AB 287 to make it out of the Assembly for discussion. Therefore, access to the decision-making agenda of the state legislature still relies on how the problem of drinking in Wisconsin get defined (Kingdon 1984; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; 2002; Jones and Baumgartner 2005). According to Birkland (2007, p. 71 ), "problems can be defined and depicted in many different ways, depending on the goals of the proponent of the particular depiction of a problem and the nature of the problem and the political debate." The process of defining a problem or issue in an attempt to get others to believe the same way is referred to as "social construction." Social construction refers to the ways in which members of a society and the various contending interests within its structure tell the stories about how problems come to be the way they are (Schneider and Ingram 1993; Stone 2002). In other words, a group that can create and promote the most effective depiction of an issue has an advantage in the battle over what, if anything, will be done about a problem. For policy change to take place, the 125

PAGE 138

seemingly "disadvantaged" groups seeking to make those changes must have access to the agenda-setting process, as well as the ability to affectively sway public opinion their way (Baumgartener and Jones 1993; 2002). The following chapter is the analysis of the data collected from the political advocates of AB 287 (both legislators and representatives of the interest groups), as well as the findings derived from the content analysis performed on media written since the time Representative Berceau first introduced legislation to increase the beer tax in Wisconsin (AB 455 in 2005). 126

PAGE 139

CHAPTERS DATA ANALYSIS This chapter is divided into two main parts: content analysis and interview analysis. The content analysis examines both the number of articles found as well as the content of those articles as it relates to the codes developed in the methods chapter. The interview data is broken down to look at the overall number of coding references for each research question and proposition. The data is also examined on the basis of responses from individual respondents and then analyzed based on whether the respondent was a legislator or advocate. The coding references are broken down by research question and then compared to each other (within-case analysis). The final comparative analysis draws inferences from the contrasts between the findings in the content analysis and the interview data (cross-case analysis). Content Analysis by Frequency of Articles The content analysis consisted of the investigation of 77 newspaper articles, television, and radio station broadcasts in Wisconsin. Articles were collected for the timeframe over which Representative Berceau (D-Madison) decided to introduce legislation aimed at raising the tax on beer in the State of 127

PAGE 140

Wisconsin. The first articles appeared in March of 2005 and the last one appeared in January 2010. Throughout this six year period, Representative Berceau introduced legislation to raise the beer tax three times.33 As explained in Chapter 4, these bills were introduced in March 2005, May 2007, and June 2009. The third bill resulted in the public hearing that took place October 13, 2009 (see description of hearing in Chapter 4). The preliminary content analysis focused on the number of media articles in each month and year from January 2005January 2010. Table 5.1 summarizes this information. The boxes shaded in grey indicate the month and year the three Assembly Bills were introduced, as well as, the month and year of the public hearing. T bl 51 N b a e : urn ero f Art" I b M th d Y IC e >Y on an ear 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 January 1 1 February 1 March 2 1 2 April 5 11 May 9 9 June 2 2 July 2 2 August 2 September 5 October 2 17 November December 2 Total 9 0 16 5 46 1 33 Assembly members serve two year terms in the state of Wisconsin, meaning Representative Berceau introduced legislation in each of three consecutive terms. 128

PAGE 141

Looking at the table a couple of interesting patterns emerge. First, it is obvious that the number of media articles is highest during the years the legislation was introduced by Berceau: 9 articles the first time; 16 articles the second time; and 46 during the third time a bill was introduced (and a public hearing occurred). Notably, these articles tend to cluster around the month that Representative Berceau introduced the bills. Looking only at the years in which legislation was introduced, we can see a second pattern, an increase in the number of articles related to the beer tax over the years: a 78 percent increase in the number of articles from 2005 to 2007; and a 288 percent increase between 2007 and 2009. This clearly indicates a growth in the media coverage of the legislation. Perhaps even more interesting, 22 out of the 46 articles from 2009 came out before the legislation was introduced that year. This seems to indicate that the beer tax was being shopped in arenas outside of the legislative venue prior to the actual introduction of the bill. Furthermore, 17 of the 2009 articles (37 percent) came out the month ofthe public hearing, suggesting that the hearing itself provided another opportunity for policy entrepreneurs and their support groups to shop their policy solution to the public. Although looking at the number of media articles in relation to the proposed legislation is interesting, it does not provide a full picture of the content of those articles. As highlighted in the methods chapter, simply looking at the numbers 129

PAGE 142

assumes we understand the methods journalists use to decide how and when to publish an article. Since this is not the case, a more detailed picture is needed. Content Analysis by the Code All 77 articles were analyzed using a predetermined coding scheme briefly described above34 For the purposes ofthis part of the content analysis, no distinction was made between research questions one and two (i.e. selling and increasing saliency). Given the fact that the majority of writers were employees of the media organization, it was difficult to determine whether they were simply selling the beer tax or trying to increase its saliency in Wisconsin. The analysis tested for the presence or absence of the predetermined codes. A total of 151 codes were distributed among the coding categories in the following way: Table 5.2: Content Analysis Coding References 34 The codes for the third research question were not coded as part of the content analysis since they are specifically tied to the interview part of the data collection process. 130

PAGE 143

Number of Coding Percent of References Total Audience Friendly Feedback 8 5% Cost of Inaction 1 1% Economic Gain or Loss 71 47% Feedback 0 0% Human Health Gain or Loss 14 9% Human Health Impact 14 9% Local Impact 10 7% Public Concern 33 22% Total 151 Looking at the data, it becomes clear that the most common factor policy entrepreneurs use in the media to sell their policy solution is by focusing on economic gains or losses. There were a total of 71 coding references related to economic gains or losses in the 77 articles, and economic gains or losses accounted for 4 7 percent of the total number of coding references. The second most common factor used by policy actors in the media was a focus on growing public concern, which accounted for 22 percent of the total (or 33 coding references). Human health gains or losses and human health impacts were the third most common theme found in the newspaper articles-with 14 coding references each (or nine percent of the total number of coding references each). Local impact was the next most common with 1 0 references (7 percent of the total) followed by audience friendly feedback with 8 instances (5 percent of the 131

PAGE 144

total), and finally, by the cost of inaction with I instance (or 1 percent ofthe total). There was no instance of feedback on current policies discovered in the 77 articles. Breaking down the coding references into "costs and benefits" may shed further light on the use of these strategies within the media arena by policy entrepreneurs and other policy actors. Policy entrepreneurs in favor of the tax are more likely to focus on economic and human health gains and growing public concern, while those opposing a beer tax increase are more likely to rely on economic loss as an indicator of a "bad" policy. so 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Economic Gain or Loss Framed as a Gain/Benefit Framed as a loss/Cost Figure 5.1 Breakdown of Economic Gain or Loss Looking at figure 5.1, there are 41 instances in which the economic gain or loss is portrayed as a benefit and 30 instances in which it is portrayed as a cost. 132

PAGE 145

This indicates that there were 41 times in which the beer tax legislation is framed as providing an economic benefits (or incentive) for the community and 30 instances in which it is framed as a cost (or loss) for the community. Examining some of the original data associated with this code in reference to the tax as an economic benefit, Scott Bauer, from the Appleton Post Crescent, explains, "The $58 million raised would be used to provide grants to local governments to reduce alcohol-related crimes by hiring more police, fund drug and alcohol abuse treatment services, and substance abuse and prevent programs" (April 2009, p.A6). A similar response was explained by editorial staff from the Appleton Post Crescent in December of 2008 when it argued, "The Tavern League claims the tax increase would hurt business. But in this economy, we doubt a few extra cents on a bottle of Bud is what is going to lead to a bar's demise. If a modest tax increase on a voluntary enjoyment could provide needed revenue for law enforcement, crime prevention and possibly those who prosecute drunken drivers, we see nothing but a benefit to our community and state" (p.B 1 ). A total of 58 percent ofthe instances coded as economic gain or loss portrayed a similar positive outlook. On the other hand, this means that 42 percent of the instances of economic gain or loss were framed as a cost to the state and or community. In the April2009 article from the Appleton Post Crescent used, Scott Bauer summarizes the position of Tavern League Lobbyist Scott 133

PAGE 146

Stenger when he writes; "Raising it now would not only hurt bars, which are already seeing a decrease in customers due to the recession, but it would also harm smaller craft breweries, Stenger said" (April 2009, p.A6). Similarly, in an October 2009 article from the same paper, staff writer Ben Jones quoted Bonita Rowland, president of Rowland's Calumet Brewing: "This will be an added expense to doing business," she said. "Any tax increase is not good, but from $2 to $10? That's quite an increase"(p.Al). Looking solely at growing public concern, we find that there is not a single instance in which public concern is used to frame the beer tax as a cost as opposed to a benefit. In other words, in every article that was coded as growing public concern, the proposed beer tax legislation was framed as something that would aid the public in that concern or at least would be beneficial to the public. See figure 5.2 below. 134

PAGE 147

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Growing Public Concern Framed as a Gain/Benefit Framed as a Loss/Cost Figure 5.2: Growing Public Concern Most of the instances of growing public concern included references to the overuse of alcohol and drunk driving epidemics in the state of Wisconsin. Ben Jones of the Appleton Post Crescent reported that" ... Robert Golden, dean of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, said the extra funding was greatly needed to try to reverse drinking rates he called astonishing" (October 15, 2009, p.Al). That same month, the Editorial Board at the Badger Herald suggested that "If the state wants to generate revenue off of beer consumption, they owe it to the public to use that money to fund programs aimed at dealing with Wisconsin alcoholism." They also added, While a 2.4-cent per bottle tax is hardly enough to pull Wisconsin out of the doldrums of national alcoholism rankings, it's a move in the right 135

PAGE 148

direction. The culture is changing, and with any luck, a truly happy hour is right around the comer (October 15, 2009, p.A1). The same pattern is evident for both the Human Health Gains or Losses code and Human Health Impacts code. Although the data were independently examined for these codes, every instance of how the proposed legislation would make a Human Health Impact was also framed in such a way that it was a benefit (Or Human Health Gain). As a result, there turned out to be no difference between these two codes. See Figure 5.3. so 40 30 20 10 0 Human Health Impact and Human Health Gain or Loss Human Health Impact Human Health Gain or Loss Framed as a Gain/Benefit !I Framed as a Gain/Benefit Figure 5.3: Human Health Gains or Losses and Human Health Impact There was also one other factor used almost exclusively by one side of the debate. Although there were only a total of 10 coding references associated with local impact (or 7% of the total coding references were associated with local impact), in 136

PAGE 149

almost every case appealing to the local impact the beer tax would have on communities was mainly used by the those opposing the beer tax. In other words, when it came to the local impact, the proposed beer tax legislation was almost always framed as a cost or harm for local communities (and the small microbreweries located in those localities). Local Impact so 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Framed as a Gain/Benefit Figure 5.4: Local Impact Framed as a Loss/Cost Nine out of the ten coding references referred to the proposed legislation as a cost. In the sole case coded in which the proposed beer tax legislation was framed as a benefit for local communities, Ray Foley, of the Associated Press reports that "The $58 million raised would be used to provide grants to local governments to 137

PAGE 150

reduce alcohol-related crimes by hiring more police and to pay for drug and alcohol abuse prevention and treatment" (April 28, 2009, p.B2). Once again, more often than not, the appeal to local impact was used to demonstrate how the beer tax would harm local economies, especially through job reductions. For example, an article reprinted in the Eau Claire Leader by Associated Press writer Ray Foley, quotes one observer: This tax could be devastating to my industry in the city of Milwaukee," said Patrick Weyer, president of a United Auto Workers chapter that represents employees at the Miller brewery in Milwaukee. He said the higher tax could lead MillerCoors to transfer some production to other breweries at a time when the company is adding jobs in the city (October 14, 2009, p.IA). Mr. Weyer is not alone. The Editorial Board at the Green Bay Press Gazette quotes Carl Nolen, the President of Capital Brewery (and President of the Wisconsin Brewer's Guild) as arguing; "The tax hike would translate into job cuts, he said. To absorb the tax, brewers would have to cut payroll. If they passed the tax onto drinkers, increased prices would reduce consumption, forcing job cuts" (October 21, 2009, p.A6). Of the remaining strategies/references coded, together they equaled approximately 5 percent of the total and no particular pattern emerged. The code audience friendly feedback had a total of 8 coding references and was framed both as a cost and a benefit. Of these, 2 were neither framed as cost nor benefit. 138

PAGE 151

I so 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Audience Friendly Feedback Framed as a Gain/Benefit Framed as a Loss/Cost L _, __ ------.... --------------------Figure 5.5: Audience Friendly Feedback Jeff Starck ofthe Wausau Daily Herald demonstrated how Representative Scott Suder was framing the proposed beer tax legislationas a cost using Audience Friendly Feedback when he quipped, "Only in Madison would someone come up with the half-baked idea of making Joe and Jane Six Pack pay for the mistakes of others who abuse alcohol or break the law" (May 24, 2007, posted on wausaudailyherald.com). Those on the other side of the debate were not afraid to use their own jargon claiming; Ultimately, the tax shouldn't alter the typical college budget too drastically. According to Ms. Berceau, it would take a week of daily six pack guzzling before you spent an extra dollar on sorrow-drowners, and since the Badgers only lose to Ohio State in football once a year, that scenario should rarely pop up (Editorial Board, Badger Herald, October 15, 2009, p.A1). 139

PAGE 152

Interview Analysis Although the interviews were coded based on the same set of research questions, the coding scheme was broken down a little differently. Since all seven of the interviewees were proponents of a beer tax, there was no need to break the codes into costs and benefits (i.e. all of them framed the beer tax as a benefit no matter which policy shopping strategies they employed). Since the interviews focused on the interviewees as first person primary data sources, the data were broken down by research question (Bernard and Ryan 20 I 0). A hierarchy scheme was used again, this time the coding structure was directly linked to the layout of the research questions (ibid). Data from the interviews were also used to address the third research question about political factors (Kingdon 2003; Zahariadis 2007). A total of seven people were interviewed including Representatives Berceau, Hilgenberg, and Roys and Senator Risser. While four legislators may seem like a small number, they make up the entire group of legislators that authored, sponsored and co-sponsored AB 287. Representatives from the three advocate organizations (support groups for Berceau and AB 287) included: Carol Lobes (Co-chair of the Dane County Coalition to Reduce Alcohol Abuse); Lisa Maroney (UW Health Legislative Liaison and director of AWARE); and, Julia Sherman (Wisconsin Clearing House for Prevention Resources and chairwoman 140

PAGE 153

for SCAODA). These three advocates together represent 56 political interest groups in support of Berceau and AB 287, and a large number of Wisconsin citizens. Table 5.3: Interviewee and Attribute Interviewee Attribute Berceau Legislator Hilgenberg Legislator Risser Legislator Roys Legislator Lobes Advocate Maroney Advocate Sherman Advocate The interview analysis consists of five sections in this chapter. The first section looks at the total number of coding references by individual. The second section compares the total and percent of codes by attribute (legislator or advocate) of the interviewee. The third section examines the individual interviewee results by coded references. The fourth section breaks down the data according to the research questions (and their accompanying propositions). The fifth and final section provides a comparative (cross-case) analysis between the content analysis and the interview analysis. 141

PAGE 154

T bl 54 N b a e : urn ero fC d' R o mg e erence b I >Y ndividual and Total Audi Grow in Huma ence Local Costs Econo Giving Healt Prien g n of dly Public Health Impa lnactio mic Feedb h Concer Impact cts Gain ack Gain Term n n s s Berceau 2 4 0 I I 4 2 0 Hilgenberg 2 3 2 0 3 2 3 0 Risser I 3 0 0 I I 0 0 Roys 4 2 I 0 I I I 0 Maroney I 4 2 I I 2 0 0 Lobes 5 8 I I 3 2 5 0 Sherman 0 4 3 3 I 2 2 3 15 28 9 6 11 14 13 3 Table 5.4 reveals the total number of each of the coding reference by each individual interviewee, as well as, the total number of instances of each code reference across all seven interviews. It is evident from the table that Growing Public Concern was coded the most frequently, followed by Audience Friendly Feedback, Economic Gains, Giving Feedback, The Costs of Inaction, Human Health Impacts, Local Impacts, and finally Human Health Gains. Senator Risser sums up why growing concern tops the list as he explains during his interview for this dissertation: Drunk driving is another subject matter which is a very hot issue around here. When we talk about drunk driving we talk about, well, maybe if you tax some of these alcohol drinks a little more there would be less people using them and it would be helpful in curbing drunk driving a little bit. We have the people who are very anxious to curb drunk driving falling on board to increase the beer tax. 142

PAGE 155

Another way to look at the data presenting in Table 5.4 is to break it down by attribute. In other words, this within-case analysis examines whether the individuals differed in their venue and arena shopping strategies based on whether they are either a legislator or an advocate interest group representative .-------------------Coding References by Attribute Health Gain Giving Feedback Economic Gain Costs of Inaction Local Impacts Human Health Impacts Growing Public Concern Audience Friendly Terms -0 I I _l_ 5 10 15 20 Advocate Legislator -------------------Figure 5.6: Coding References by Attribute Figure 5.6 reveals that references to health gains are only found in the interviews of advocates, whereas legislators are far more likely to utilize audience friendly terms. The interviewees that were advocates revealed that they appealed to economic gains, costs of inaction, local impacts, human health impacts, and growing public concern a fairly even number of times when their interview data is aggregated. Likewise, in the interviews of legislators, economic gain, cost of inaction, growing public concern, and audience friendly terms had a simlar 143

PAGE 156

number of coding references when their coded responses were aggregated ranging from 6-8. Individual interviewees and their coded references Representative Terese Berceau The transcribed interview coded for Representative Berceau (see chapter four for a brief biography of each of the interviewees) had the same number of coding references related to increasing public saliency (i.e. research question #2) as it did for selling (research question #1). This indicates that Representative Berceau was equally engaged with increasing the saliency of a beer tax to the general public (with a total of 7 coding references) as she was in selling it to other legislators and those already engaged in the policy venue ofthe Wisconsin legislature. 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Berceau 144

PAGE 157

Figure 5.7: Terese Berceau When shopping her policy solution to the general public, the representative indicated a preference for focusing on growing public concern. In other words, when selling her policy solution to the general public (an outside arena), in order to increase saliency, Representative Berceau focused on growing public awareness and concern over alcohol use in the state of Wisconsin. There is a somewhat different focus used by Representative Berceau when selling her idea to legislators and other policy entrepreneurs within the decision-making venue. Within the Selling code (RQ 1 ), Representative Berceau was most likely to focus on the economic benefit the tax could provide to the state. She argues that the tax would cover the current shortfall when it comes to paying for the cost of drunk driving and alcohol abuse in Wisconsin. As she states in her interview for this dissertation, We want the resources generated by the beer tax or by an overall increase in the alcohol tax to go for prevention, to go for treatment, to go for law enforcement and associated courts costs and DAs and for support for persons in recovery. All those things are impacts of alcohol abuse and that source of revenue should pay for it. There should not be a huge shortfall. Representative Hilgenberg Unlike Representative Berceau, Representative Hilgenberg is not quite as likely to focus equally on growing public concern (and saliency, RQ2) as he is to focus on selling his ideas (RQ 1) within the decision-making venue and the outside 145

PAGE 158

public arena. The interview transcript was coded with seven separate references to building saliency (RQ2) and another eight coding references to selling his policy solution (RQ 1 ). 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 5.8: Hilgenberg Hilgenberg When talking to the general public and those not necessarily interested in the problems of alcohol and the proposed beer tax (the latent concern), Representative Hilgenberg is most likely to engage in the same strategy as Representative Berceau, focusing on growing public concern. However, when shopping his ideas within the legislature and to those already paying attention the problems caused by alcohol abuse, Representative Hilgenberg is more likely to focus both on the cost of inaction or on giving feedback. As noted in the case study chapter, 146

PAGE 159

Representative Hilgenberg is a strong advocate for Wisconsin veterans and a lot of the feedback he supplies is how veterans are being affected by current policies surrounding alcohol use. In addition, as he talks about the costs of inaction he really does focus on the cost to society, as he argues, "The cost of alcohol abuse to society is staggering. I heard a figure that it costs $5 billion a year in this state." Senator Fred Risser As noted in the case study chapter, Senator Risser has been a long time advocate for an increase in the beer tax. After analyzing his interview transcripts, he is more engaged in increasing awareness of the need to increase the tax in the general public (saliency) than he is engaged in selling the idea of a beer tax increase to his colleagues in the decision-making legislative venue. 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 t=-=ii -Risser ---147

PAGE 160

Figure 5.9: Fred Risser Figure 5.9 reveals that for Senator Risser, growing public concern was the primary tool used for increasing saliency. He explained, Drunk driving is another subject matter which is a very hot issue around here. When we talk about drunk driving we talk about, well, maybe if you tax some of these alcohol drinks a little more there would be less people using them and it would be helpful in curbing drunk driving a little bit. We have the people who are very anxious to curb drunk driving falling on board to increase the beer tax. While shopping his policy solution within the legislative venue he employs a slightly different tactic. Much like Representative Berceau, Senator Risser points out the economic cost to the state in curbing and providing services around drunk driving. However, unlike Berceau, he also focuses on the costs on of inaction. He notes, "You have a group that realizes the state can't continue its services on the current level and is looking for other taxes." Senator Risser advocates the beer tax as a policy solution in generating revenue in order for Wisconsin to be able to continue its level of services, and "because it's good policy." Representaive Kelda Helen Roys The interview transcripts for Representative Roys reveal a very intriguing pattern. The coding references for increasing saliency in outside arenas greatly outnumber those for shopping within already established policy venues or arenas. Increasing saliency had a total of seven coding references while selling only had three separate coding references. 148

PAGE 161

r--" ---"-" -" """ I I I I 20 i 18 i 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 5.10 Kelda Helen Roys Roys Representative Roys' interview demonstrates a different pattern than all five of the previous interviews analyzed. In each of the other cases, the most commonly coded occurrence within increasing the public's saliency was a focus on growing public concern. This was not the case with Representative Roys' interview data. The most often occurring coding reference for her was for audience friendly feedback. She openly discussed the importance of how the problem is framed and in turn how it is accepted by the public. Regarding Representative Berceau's small request to increase the beer tax 2.4 cents per 12 ounce bottle, Roys explains, "So the context is so important. I guess that would have been the short way to say it. You have to set the context. That is one thing we failed by being so reasonable and so moderate in asking for you know such a little normal thing." 149

PAGE 162

In terms of selling her policy solution within the legislative venue, she does not take an extremely active approach, but she does believe in talking to her colleagues (i.e. giving feedback). She argues, I mean talking with staffers, talking with legislators, talking with leadership and saying this is really important. It's the right thing to do. It's good policy. It's what we the Democrats should be supporting. It's effective at doing the things we believe in and want for our constituents mainly keeping the public safe. Carol Lobes, Co-Chair of the Dane County Coalition to Reduce Alcohol Abuse As an advocate, one might expect Lobes to be more involved in increasing saliency (RQ2) in the public, and this is exactly the case. In the interview with Lobes there are 15 coding references to increasing saliency (as compared to 7 for Berceau and 4 for Risser). This does not mean, however, that she does not also work to sell her policy solutions and the solutions of her organization to the legislators within the decision-making venue. In her interview transcript there were still 1 0 coding reference to selling ideas within the policy venue. 150

PAGE 163

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 ---------Figure 5.11: Carol Lobes Lobes While discussing increasing public awareness and saliency in support of a beer tax, Lobes is quick to make note of how the tactics of her organization is taking effect. She explains, "I think we are getting more organized. We are helping groups get organized that have not existed in the past. Because we are joining in statewide groups that are getting organized, I think citizen power is definitely being seen and felt in more ways than we have before." Lobes explains that their organization used personal stories about the loss to individual's health and lives to keep the public aware and concerned about alcohol abuse in the state of Wisconsin. Lobes also stresses the importance of getting feedback from the community (public arena) to policymakers and those within the legislative venue via the media arena. She notes, 151

PAGE 164

I think we have to keep them at that level and we have to continually provide letters and perspectives and stories so that the beat goes on ... so that not only don't they retreat but the message is reinforced. The Wisconsin State Journal, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Madison Capital Times, and a number of local community papers all have been really, really good on this issue. We have to keep furnishing them with material so that this does not just fade away. Lisa Maroney, UW Health Legislative Liaison and Director of AWARE Maroney, a representative for the advocacy organization UW Health, spends way more time engaging in increasing public saliency (RQ2) around the issue of alcohol abuse and support for an increase in the beer tax than she does in selling her organization's policy solutions (RQI). Her interview transcripts reveal eight coding references to saliency, while only three coding references to selling. 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 5.12: Lisa Maroney Maroney 152

PAGE 165

Much like the other advocates35, while trying to increase public awareness and saliency, Maroney is most likely to frame the problem using growing public concern over alcohol abuse in Wisconsin. During her interview she talked about the growing concern of drunk driving, the increase of underage drinking, and the need to prohibit health insurance companies from denying claims for accident victims when the perpetrators test positive for alcohol and other drugs. "We need to continue our efforts at the grassroots level, and convince the leadership in the legislation with respect to members of the budget and finance committee to not be intimidated by those who lobby for the Tavern League and that they should look at the information we provide and give them confidence that they can make a difference in getting this legislation passed." Julia Sherman, UW Health and the Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources and the chairwoman for the SCAODA It comes as no surprise that, as an advocate, Julia Sherman's interview transcripts have more references to increasing the saliency of the public ( 1 0 coding references) than they do to selling policy solutions (8 coding references). Although, as Ms. Sherman will tell you, she does engage in each ofthese shopping strategies. 35 The three representatives for the advocate support groups (Julia Shennan, Lisa Maroney, and Carol Lobes) were not lobbyists themselves. However, an investigation into how many of the 53 coalitions that were members of A WARE (directed by Lisa Maroney) found the only member of AWARE that also lobbied in the Wisconsin state legislature were the Wisconsin Medical College. 153

PAGE 166

r------------. I I I 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sherman Figure 5.13: Julia Sherman Like the majority ofthe other respondents, Figure 5.13 reveals that the most often coded strategy within increasing saliency is a focus on growing public concern. She noted how this concern is being raised in many arenas, and this knowledge can be used to help support the beer tax when she asserts, The science is catching up. All people are more cognizant of the impact even moderate alcohol use. That is getting all played out now, in whole groups of ways. Even Elle magazine, that scholarly publication (tongue in-cheek humor), has an article on the impact of alcohol use -even moderate alcohol use on women-and it's not positive. You are seeing we are a more conscious society. The other coding reference that makes Ms. Sherman unique is her focus on health gains within the selling category. Julia Sherman believes that those within the policymaking venue are more likely to support a beer tax increase if they 154

PAGE 167

understand the health benefits that would accompany such an increase. Her account of what was important at the public hearing reveals this strategy: At the hearing there were different strains that people used to talk about the widespread harm of alcohol. It went beyond drunk driving and alcohol dependency. Those are the gut punches. This went beyond that. People were talking about the impact on children. People were talking about the long term consequences of long term heavy drinking even if they never had known anyone in a crash or ifthey never became alcohol dependent themselves. Very interesting to me that the public knowledge was getting far more sophisticated about things. Analyzing the Research Questions Selling The tirst research question focused on how policy entrepreneurs and their support groups sell their policy solutions to those already interested in, or attuned to, the policy problem and/or policy area. Specifically, the first research question asked: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and policymakers? Four different propositions were examined as part of this selling strategy, including: focusing on the costs of inaction; economic gains; health gains; and feedback. By looking at the number of coded responses under the umbrella of"selling" the following patterns emerge: 155

PAGE 168

16 .-----------------------------------------------14 +-------------12 +--------------10 8 6 4 2 0 Costs of Inaction Economic Gain Giving Feedback Figure 5.14: Research Question One Health Gains Figure 5.14 reveals that within this sub-set of propositions, while trying to sell their policy solution to individuals already attuned to the policy problem, policy entrepreneurs were most likely to focus on the economic gains associated with an increase in the beer tax. The second most likely strategy was to provide feedback about policies and progress when venue and arena shopping-followed by spotlighting the costs of inaction. Policy entrepreneurs were least likely to talk about health gains when talking with each other and members of the legislative venue. Each ofthese variables will be broken down by individual interviewees' below. 156

PAGE 169

Cost of Inaction Data coded as "cost of inaction" focused on what would happen if nothing was done (i.e. ifthe beer tax does not get passed). Of those interviews that relied on the cost of inaction, Representative Hilgenberg was the most likely to use this strategy followed closely by Lobes. Berceau 9% Roys 9% Cost of Inaction Figure 5.15: The Cost of Inaction by Interviewee As noted above, Representative Hilgenberg explains: We don't talk about the potential loss of capacity when somebody abuses alcohol. The potential that this person may have had to achieve certain things falls into that addiction. We talk about the social costs and corrections costs and when you go into treatment, but if this person had the potential to be say an engineer or a teacher or professor in college and 157

PAGE 170

ended up sleeping in the shelter across the street the cost was the potential and earning power of that person. This is not really included. Economic Gain Data coded as economic gain frames the tax in terms of the financial benefits that would ensue for the state or for individual departments, organizations, or citizens. Many of the interviewees appealed to this strategy. As noted above, it was the most commonly used strategy among the interviewees. The individual who most often appealed to economic gain was AB 287 author, Terese Berceau. Economic Gain 7% Figure 5.16: Economic Gain by Intenriewee Hilgenberg 15% Julia Sherman 14% Berceau explains the importance of explaining the economic benefits to those within the legislative venue, as well as outside arenas, when she articulates, Usually I have to qualify it by saying, provided the money is used specifically for alcohol treatment programs and law enforcement and whatever. Because in some districts it's been any tax is bad. But when 158

PAGE 171

you talk to most people about the beer tax and what we would be using it for and point out what they're already paying then suddenly it's okay. It makes more sense if you talk to people. It makes more sense for the person who is abusing beer by drinking too much to put more in the kitty for the problem. Health Gains Data coded as health gains framed the beer tax in terms of the positive effects the tax could have regarding human health. This is a classic economic argument for adopting sin taxes in the first place (see chapters one and two for a more in-depth discussion involving sin taxes based in a cost benefit perspective). If beer costs more, individuals will drink less of it. Senator Risser does not employ this argument, but he did point out that we have seen this type of argument play out when it comes to the cigarette tax. Individuals did smoke less-often after it was passed. As noted above, Julia Sherman had the only material with coding references related to health gains. Most of her references to human health had to do with addiction and treatment for the addiction. She said, "The revenue can be put toward treatment programs. To really get at the addiction treatment component is very costly and treatment often doesn't work the first time." Giving Feedback Data that were coded as "giving feedback" focused on the delineation of the current state of affairs or to details relevant to those advocating a beer tax increase 159

PAGE 172

to the general public. This also included giving feedback directly to legislators, as was the case of many ofthe advocates, and to others already involved in the legislative venue (staffers and fiscal agents). Risser 0% Maroney 0% Giving Feedback Figure 5.17: Giving Feedback by Interviewee Of the interviewees that appealed to giving feedback, Lobes, a policy advocate, had the most coding refemces with respect to giving feedback. She claimed "I think we have to keep them at that level and we have to continually provide letters and perspectives and stories so that the beat goes on." Saliency The second research question focused on how policy entrepreneurs sell their policy solutions to the general public, or to those that may not be as aware or interested in the particular policy problem at hand, or may even hold a counter 160

PAGE 173

VIew. Specifically, the second research question asked: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy problem in a way that favorably presents their policy solution to both the latent public and their representative policymakers? Four different propositions were examined as part of this increasing saliency strategy, including: focusing on the growing public concern; using audience friendly terms; focusing on human health impacts; and focusing on local impacts. Looking at the number of coded responses under the umbrella of saliency the following pattern emerges: Audience Friendly Growing Public Terms Concern Figure 5.18 Research Question Two Human Health Impacts 161 Local Impacts

PAGE 174

Figure 5.18 reveals that within this sub-set of propositions, while trying to sell their policy solution to those not already attuned to the policy problem (hence, increasing saliency) policy entrepreneurs were most likely by far to focus on growing public concern. The second most likely strategy was to use audience friendly terms followed by focusing on the human health impacts. Policy entrepreneurs were least likely to talk about local impacts. Each of these variables will be broken down by individual interviewee below. Audience Friendly Feedback Data coded as "audience friendly" included language that appealed to the general public based on terms they could relate to or through euphemisms. Of those that employed this strategy, Lobes was the most likely to do so. Audience Friendly Terms Sherman 0% -------Berceau 13% Risser 7% Hilgenberg 13% Figure 5.19: Audience Friendly Feedback by Interviewee 162

PAGE 175

As an advocate, Lobes mostly relied on personal stories as a way to frame the current situation and to give feedback to individuals in a way that they could relate to. She explains, We act by thinking through the self interests of parents who are concerned about their children and by gathering stories of alcohol abuse and what it has meant in the lives of people not only who have lost loved ones or friends to alcohol issues, but who have to clean up after a fatality or have had to deal in the emergency room with injuries and fatalities related to alcohol, or have had to have the police deal day after day after day with drunk and out of control people. All of those are very real human stories but they have not been told. Growing Public Concern Data coded as "growing public concern" focused on the current situation, specifically, drunk driving, alcoholism, and a culture of drinking in Wisconsin. It was the most commonly used strategy for increasing public saliency around the need for a beer tax. 163

PAGE 176

Risser 11% Growing Public Concern Figure 5.20: Growing Public Concern by Individual Hilgenberg 11% Lobes had the most material with coding references regarding the cost of growing public concern. She explains, But the more you have the people behind you the less you need courage and the more it's a given. So we are trying to provide that support and also provide support to local police and emergency medical folks and docs. All of them have to deal with it. To have their voices heard in all of this because it is not fun for all of them to have to deal with the horrific things they have to deal with. So we need to have lots more voices, lots more stories, lots more examples that counter the millions of dollars in alcohol advertising that say life is not worth living if you don't have lots of alcohol. Human Health Impact Data coded as "human health impact" frames the beer tax in terms of positive effects it could have on human health. Although Sherman was the only interviewee that appealed to health for selling the beer tax (research question one) 164

PAGE 177

to the legislative venue, more of the interviewees did appeal to human health when making their case to the general public (arena). Perhaps not surprisingly, Sherman was still the individual who used this tactic the most often. Human Health Impact Berceau--------0% Figure 5.21: Human Health Impact by Individual Lobes 11% After all, The Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources is a branch of the UW Health organization. Part of her job is to stress the health impacts caused by alcohol and other drugs, as she explains: "It's not just here in Wisconsin, look on the internet, the World Health Organization right now is working on a treaty to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol in Melbourne and Mumbi." Local Impact The data coded as "local impact" focused on what the beer tax might do to local communities. In some ways, this was not much different from human health 165

PAGE 178

impacts, since many of the health impacts are felt locally and have an effect on family and community. Therefore, it should not be surprising (again) that Sherman was also the individual who appealed to local impact the most when trying to increase saliency for the beer tax. Local Impact Hilgenberg Risser 0% 0% Table 5.22: Local Impact by Individual Sherman argues that the beer tax is needed to give localities more control over the alcohol environment when she explains, So in everything-but taxes-local coalitions are far more effective. We license locally, we control licensing locally, our bartenders are licensed locally, our police are local, our education. We are the only state that does not have a state wide school board and elected superintendent of public instruction. So much of what really could change the alcohol environment is handled locally in Wisconsin. 166

PAGE 179

Selling vs. Saliency The above mentioned analyses were individually oriented and their interview responses were coded according to the research questions and their accompanying propositions. This section of analysis breaks down the two strategies (selling vs. saliency) based on whether the person involved was a legislator or an advocate. In other words, this analysis looks at whether a legislator or advocate are more likely to use the shopping strategy of either selling their policy solution (RQ I) or increasing the saliency of their policy solution (RQ2). Saliency vs. Selling 70% 60% 50% 40% Advocate 30% & Legislator 20% 10% I Saliency Selling Figure 5.23 Saliency and Selling by Attribute Figure 5.23 reveals that both the advocates and legislators who were a part of this research study were more likely to increase the saliency of the beer tax to the general (and latent) public. Of the two, advocates were slightly more likely to do 167

PAGE 180

so than legislators. Since these data were not analyzed until after the interviews were completed, the researcher did not have the opportunity to ask the interviewees whether this was a conscious decision (a recognized problem of the survey instrument). It is conventional wisdom, however, to believe that the push for policy change must be supported by the general public. Although this would require further research, it could be that policy entrepreneurs are purposefully trying to shift the support of the general public arena before moving on to policy actors in the legislative venue to showcase the public arena support in order to gain access to the decision-making agenda of the legislature. While this may be more expensive and time intensive for the policy actors, it may be their only course of action if they are continually denied access to the decision-making venue. Figure 5.23 also reveals that legislators were slightly more likely to engage in selling (research question one) their policy solution to the public and fellow legislators. This makes sense since they have already gained access to the legislative venue, and are, therefore, having to sell their policy solution to fellow legislators in order to gain access to the decision-making agenda of the venue in which they reside. However, any efforts to sell a beer tax increase inside the decision-making venue of the Wisconsin legislature has been ineffective for the last forty years. 168

PAGE 181

Research Question Three The content analysis on the media did not address the third research question. The specific research question was: According to the multiple streams model, where of the three key political factors-public opinion, organized political forces, and administrative or legislative turnover-are venue and arena shopping strategies by policy entrepreneurs and their support groups likely to occur? For the interviews, this question was asked directly of the interviewees (see Chapter Three for interview questions). Although all seven of the interviewees agreed each of these played a role, in each case the individual was asked which he or she believed played the key role in (solely) venue shopping strategies. There was not a consensus on this question. Of the seven interviewees, three believed it was legislative turnover, three believed it was organized political groups, and only one (Maroney) believed it was public opinion. See Table 5.5. T bl 55 P l"f IF t b I d" "d a e o 1 1ca ac ors Y n lVI ua . Individual Position Political Factors Organized Political Berceau Legislator Groups Organized Political Hilgenberg Legislator Groups Risser Legislator Legislative Turnover Organized Political Roys Legislator Groups Lobes Advocate Legislative Turnover Maroney Advocate Public Opinion Shennan Advocate Legislative Turnover 169

PAGE 182

A future inquiry might discern whether there is any discriminate difference based on their being either an advocate or a legislator. Table 5.5 reveals that of the three advocates, two believed legislative turnover played the largest role in venue shopping while the other believed it was public opinion. On other hand, three of the four legislators believe organized political groups (and their ties to campaign financing) played the largest role in venue shopping while only one believed it was legislative turnover. If any pattern emerges, it seems to be that six of the seven interviewees did not believe the role they played (as either legislator or advocate) was the key role. That is, none of the individuals from advocacy groups listed organized political groups, and only one of the four legislators listed legislative turnover. The single legislator that did list legislative turnover as being the most important is the longest serving state senator in the country, so he may have a unique window through which to judge this agenda-setting question that the others do not. Comparison of Content Analysis and Interviews The last part of the data analysis compares the results of the content analysis with the results of the interviews for research questions one and two. Chart 5.6 below demonstrates that these are not congruent in terms of answering the research questions. The data in chart 5.6 were generated using the percent of 170

PAGE 183

the total coding for all eight of the propositions under each method of analysis. All eight propositions were analyzed, because no distinction was made between selling and saliency in the content analysis. Table 5. 7 Content Analysis vs. Interview Analysis36 Selling Content Analysis Interviews Cost of Inaction 1% 11% Economic Gain 47% 14% Health Gain 9% 3% Giving Feedback 0% 13% Saliency Content Analysis Interviews Audience Friendly 5% 15% Growing Public 22% 28% Concern Human Health Impact 9% 9% Local Impact 7% 6% Another way to look at the data is to view selling and saliency separately using a pie chart. Figure 5.24 shows the results of the table above in the form of a pie chart graph for the first research question for the content analysis and Figure 5.26 does the same for the interviews. 36 This does not add to I 00 percent due to rounding 171

PAGE 184

Content Analysis for Selling Health Gain Figure 5.24 Selling Propositions by Content Analysis Interviews for Selling Giving Feedback 7% Figure 5.25 Selling Propositions by Interview Analysis 172 Giving Feedback 0%

PAGE 185

Looking at these data via pie chart is striking. In figure 5.24, economic gain or loss seems to take up most of the figure where as in figure 5.25 the figure seems much more evenly divided. Although not in the scope of this research proposal, one can suspect this has something to do with the role of the media and who they publish stories for (and why). In other words, the scope of the media is not for those already included in the legislative venue, but for the general public that may not be aware of what is being debated in the halls of Madison's capital. Perhaps then, research question one is less relevant when the source is the media. The pie charts for saliency tell a different story. Figure 5.26 and 5.27 compare the data for saliency. Content Analysis for Saliency Human Health Impact 21% Figure 5.26 Saliency Proposition by Content Analysis 173 ud ience Friendly 12%

PAGE 186

Interviews for Saliency Impact 16% [_ ----------------Figure 5.27 Saliency Proposition by Interview Analysis Although still not congruent, the respective figures for the content and interview analysis look much more similar. Both demonstrate that touting growing public concern is the key strategy in which policy entrepreneurs try to generate broad public support-increasing the saliency-for the beer tax increase. Because the strategies in the content analysis and the interviews align much more closely under research question two, perhaps this suggests when obtaining access to the general public (informed and latent citizens), regardless of one's attribute-being either the media, policy advocates, or legislators-the task is equally formidable. 174

PAGE 187

Final Thoughts There is evidence for all of the strategies listed in the propositions for research questions one and two. For research question number one, policy entrepreneurs focused on economic gains or losses when shopping their ideas within venues and in outside arenas. For research question number two, both the content analysis and the interview analysis reveal that the most likely of the propositions to be employed by policy entrepreneurs when shopping their ideas (considered to be a latent concern in the population arena) is to focus on growing public concern involving the effects of alcohol and alcohol abuse in Wisconsin. Given the differences between the cross-case analysis between content analysis and interviews and the within-case analysis between the advocates and legislators within the interview data, the following case could be made for the future research discussion in the final chapter of this dissertation. The strategy employed in either venue or arena shopping may have more to do with the type of policy actor doing the shopping. That is, do they feel more comfortable, are they better equipped experientially, or is it their status or position in either an arena or venue that determines whether or not they focus on selling strategies or strategies that increase the saliency of their policy solutions? These questions and others will be part of the concluding chapter. 175

PAGE 188

CHAPTER6 FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION The biggest shortfall of this dissertation is that it did not provide the perspectives of those who opposed AB 287. Therefore, the case study is not as comprehensive as it should be. However, the goal ofthe "building block" case study is to test propositions espoused by previous and current literature surrounding the topic area of interest (George and Bennett 2005). For this case study on the beer tax in Wisconsin, the thesis was designed to see if propositions from the agenda-setting and venue shopping literature applied to attempts made by policy actors in Wisconsin to attain a beer tax increase onto the legislative agenda (Kingdon 1984; 2003; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Pralle 2003; 2009). More specifically, this case study looks at whether or not policy actors engaged in the venue shopping strategies adhered to by other supporters of legislation studied elsewhere. The actual efficacy of the strategies were not looked at per se, rather the types of strategies used by legislators and policy advocates to sell the beer tax (as a policy solution) to the general and latent citizens of Wisconsin-as well as their legislative representatives-was the focus of this case study. A complete study of venue shopping would also include members ofthe opposing side. That 176

PAGE 189

is, venue shopping could be used to keep pending legislation in a committee determined to "bottle it up." Therefore venue shopping becomes a matter of competitive shopping. Future studies should focus on gathering a more complete picture by including both sides of the policy issue. Making the distinction between venues and arenas To better understand policy change, policy scholars are increasingly incorporating the notions of policy venues and arenas into their analyses of the policy process (Baumgartner 1989; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Dudley and Richardson 1998; Godwin and Schroedel 2000; Hansen and Krejci 2000; Timmermans 2001; Burnett and Davis 2002; Pralle 2003; 2006a and 2006b; 2009; 201 0; Crow 201 0). The research, methods, and analyses of this dissertation are attempts to add to the genre of venue shopping in the policymaking literature. In addition, one of the fundamental transitions in venue shopping literature over the last two decades has been a change in focus from Baumgartner and Jones (1989; 1993) punctuated equilibrium approach to venue shopping (the dynamic model) to the more static approach later adopted by other policymaking scholars-including Jones less than a decade later (Gais and Walker 1991; Hall and Taylor 1996; Kollman 1998; Jones 2001; Pralle 2003; 2005; 2006a and 2006b). In fact, 177

PAGE 190

Baumgartner and Jones (2002) have even distanced themselves from their original dynamic model of venue shopping. In Policy Dynamics (2002), Baumgartner and Jones found evidence that further suggests in some areas of science and technology policies are strongly influenced by committees without statutory authority for those issues, and have aptly pointed out "questions still remain about the degree of venue shopping and, more importantly, whether it has any impact on political or budgetary outcomes" (p.134 ). Assuming venue shopping does take place, Pralle (20 1 0) points to another problem with the dynamic model of venue shopping, "if an issue is firmly under the jurisdiction of just one decision venue, advocacy groups have little choice but to target that venue. If unsuccessful, their only alternative is to use 'outsider' strategies in policy arenas such as the media" (Pralle 2010, p.26, emphases added). Regarding a sin tax on beer in Wisconsin, this appears to be the problem as well. The notion of using these alternative arenas (as vehicles of change) to eventually reach the decision-making agenda ofthe Wisconsin legislature adds to the current venue shopping literature. Over the course of the last five years, Representative Berceau has had little success in the decision venue of the Wisconsin state legislature. Nonetheless, it appears Representative Berceau and her supporting groups have made the decision to shop their policy 178

PAGE 191

solution (a beer tax increase) in alternative outside arenas, such as the media, and that these efforts will eventually lead to a spot on the legislative agenda. According to Pralle (2003, p.235), however, "the policy process literature has not yet resolved the question of whether and how policy venues advance or inhibit policy change." In an unpublished conference paper, Pralle (2005) sets out to provide some well-needed conceptual clarity to the literature by distinguishing between decision venues, policy arenas, and jurisdictions. According to Pralle (2005, p.4): Decision venues are governmental and quasi-governmental institutions where authoritative decisions about policy are made. Policy arenas are non-authoritative locations where policy debates and conflicts emerge and play out. Both venues and arenas are potential sites of competition over policy issues, but only venues issue authoritative decisions about specific policies (emphases in original). Pralle relies upon Timmermans (200 1) definition of authoritative meaning that "legal, political, or social sanctions are possible to prevent that decisions are ignored" (p.314 ). Because some institutions are quasi-authoratative in nature, Pralle notes it is perhaps best to think of decision venues as existing along a continuum representing different degrees of authoritativeness. Pralle (2006) continues this line of reasoning in her latest book, Branching Out, Digging In. Nonetheless, in her 2010 paper, decision venues (which Pralle refers to interchangeably as "venues") exist at several levels of government, from the broad international, national and regional levels to the narrower state and local 179

PAGE 192

levels. Pralle (2005) also says that (decision) venues include legislatures, executive departments and agencies, and the courts. Birkland (2007, p.69) resonates this depiction when he defines a venue as "a level of government or institution in which the group is likely to gain the most favorable hearing. We can think of venues in institutional terms-legislative, executive, or judicial-or in vertical terms-federal, state, local government." Perhaps the most informative addition to what is considered to be a decision venue, according to Pralle (2005), is that they may also contain "semipublic bodies or special committees with autonomy and decision making authority in a particular policy area" (p.4). Furthermore, in countries with capitalist economic traditions, these special committees are known to issue binding decisions on economic policy (see also Timmermans 2001). In order to avoid certain confusion amongst the different types of venues, Pralle (2005) uses the term: system venue to refer to legislatures, executive agencies, and the courts, and subsystem venue to refer to 'venues within venues'. For example, the U.S. Congress is a system venue while its various committees and subcommittees are subsystem venues. Similarly, the federal court system as a whole is a system venue, while specific appellate courts within the system are subsystem venues (pp.4-5, emphases in original). 180

PAGE 193

In her paper, Pralle moves on to distinguish between (policy) venues and (policy) arenas. According to Pralle (2005), while the actions and events in "arenas" can shape policy decisions, their influence is indirectly related: Since policy arenas do not issue authoritative decisions, substantive changes in policy must eventually be made in decision venues. Examples of policy arenas include the media, the public arena, the electoral arena37, and the marketplace. Arenas also exist at several levels, although not necessarily in a formal sense. For example, we might speak of a local media market versus a national media market, or local elections versus national elections. The "public" includes a mass public, a smaller "sympathetic" public, and an even more circumscribed "attentive" public38 (p.5). Finally, according to Pralle (2005), "jurisdictions refer to the issues, or aspects of issues, that decision venues have authority over at any particular time" (p.5, emphasis in original). In addition, these jurisdictions of decision venues have versatile boundaries that can expand, contract or even grow more blurry over time (ibid): Sometimes institutions relinquish control over issues--either voluntarily or involuntarily-to another decision venue. At other times, the jurisdictions of decision venues expand-as when the courts began asserting jurisdiction over pesticides policy in the 1970s (Bosso 1987). 17 The electoral arena can sometimes issue authoritative policy decisions, as when binding initiatives or referendums are held (Timmermans 200 I, p.315). Outside of these cases, however, elections are usually understood to have an indirect effect on specific policy decisions (Kingdon 2003). 18 see also Cobb and Elder 1983. 181

PAGE 194

In her research on pesticide policy, Pralle (2006b) has shown how this expansion is often accompanied by a blurring of jurisdictional boundaries, as other venues seek to maintain some decision making authority over the policy in question. Pralle (2005, p.6) points out many other factors that influence the content and boundaries of a venue's jurisdiction, including: "Constitutional mandates and interpretations, institutional norms and rules, history, and custom. Political actors-for example, legislators, judges, bureaucrats, and advocacy groups-also play a large role in the changing of jurisdictional assignments and boundaries." Pralle references King's (1994) description of the power the House and Senate have to shape committee jurisdictions in Congress through their power of referral-and summarizes the complexity of factors related to jurisdictional control, "some of broad historical nature, and others which exist at the individual or group level" (ibid.). While pointing out the complexities of venue and arena shopping, all of the above distinctions are useful in describing and theorizing about venue and arena shopping endeavors. As mentioned earlier, while constructing this case study around the beer tax in Wisconsin, one could see how Representative Berceau has been shopping AB 287 in outsider arenas. Nonetheless, all of Representative Berceau's (and supporting groups) arena shopping endeavors are carried out with the hope they might somehow help them gain access to the 182

PAGE 195

agenda of the legislative decision making venue. Unfortunately, the lines between venues and arenas are being blurred in recent agenda-setting literature once again. Ambiguities in venues and arenas still exist Ambiguities have existed in the agenda-setting literature since Baumgartner (1989) began to conceptualize the activities of venue shopping. The confusion--due mainly to the terms "venue" and "arena" being used interchangeably-continued with Baumgartner and Jones (1993), and, unfortunately, re-introduces itself in Pralle's (2006a) work as well. In Branching Out, Digging In, Pralle (2006a) utilizes venue shopping as a theoretical framework to help explain the intentions of the political actors involved in her two North American case studies of the forest industry in Northern California and British Columbia. According to Pralle (2006a), those representing the interests of the forest industry and those advocating for environmental groups both fought for policy changes in different venues. She goes on to talk about how "[ s ]trategies of participation and venue shopping are also interrelated. Advocacy groups search for arenas with sympathetic audiences and potential allies" (p.30). She then quotes Bawngartner ( 1989, p. 218). Where there are different majorities in different sectors of society (as is often the case because of different intensities of preference), a minority with especially intense feelings can try to shift the debate to that area where it will be best received. Opponents attempt to stop the redirection. 183

PAGE 196

No single group of actors controls the process, and each side engages in a rhetorical battle over the terms of the debate and the proper arena for the controversy (Pralle 2006a, pp.30-31, emphasis added). Pralle's discussion about the "interdependencies among strategies" continues with Baumgartner and Jones (Pralle 2006a, p.31 ): At the same time, Baumgartner and Jones (1993) suggest that venue shopping is a way to affect policy without necessarily having to mobilize large numbers of people. In other words, advocacy groups may pursue institutional strategies like venue shopping because they do not have the resources to rally large segments of the public around their reform efforts. Shifting venues becomes an alternative route to policy reform (emphasis in original). This dissertation takes this idea further and proposes that if the venue is vital to deciding on a policy solution, then perhaps, shifting arenas may also be an alternative route to policy reform. The point being, these "strategies" may be interrelated in venue shopping practices, but without making the distinction clear between venues and arenas it becomes confusing. For example, in her closing statements of Branching Out, Digging In, Pralle (2006a) reminds us that from the outset of political conflicts competing groups will continue to fight (for and against) policy change in different venues (p.227): This is due in part to the fact that less dominant advocacy groups are often prevented from participating in key decision-making venues or face biases within these institutions that effectively exclude them. Challenging groups therefore have an incentive to shop for an alternative policy arena. Dominant groups, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy advantages in key venues, at least for some period of time. They tend to be familiar with 184

PAGE 197

the rules and procedures of existing decision-making institutions and therefore have little desire to switch to a new arena where the rules are different and the loyalties of institutional actors unknown. In short, dominant groups want to avoid venues that are less known to them and where they do not perceive much chance of success. The result is a pattern of mutual noninterference, where competing advocacy groups pursue or fight policy change in different institutional arenas (emphases added). The beginning part of Pralle's text above makes a case for shopping in alternative policy arenas when prevented from participating or face certain biases in key decision-making venues. This is the case for Representative Berceau and AB 287. Pralle's third sentence, however, illustrates why dominant groups stay in key venues, why then would they even consider the new arena she talks about in her fourth sentence? Why would an outside arena even be relevant? And in her next to last sentence, of course they want to avoid venues where they will not be successful. Why would they leave a venue they have control over to go fight in different institutional arenas? It appears that Pralle has retracted her previous convictions that if a key decision-making venue is closed to an individual or group of policy actors, and that their only chance for their policy solution (of which they champion) to be successful requires they reach the agenda of that particular key decision-making venue-then the only alternative they have is to utilize inside subsystems and outside arenas to assist them in their quest for policy change. 185

PAGE 198

Findings from testing the propositions tied to research questions one and two Four propositions were tested to address the first research question: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and policymakers? Proposition 1 a: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will emphasize to the public and policymakers that the costs of inaction will be greater than the costs of action when they venue and/or arena shop their policy solution. Despite their apparent support for a beer tax increase-as long as the funds were earmarked for treatment and prevention programs-the citizens of Wisconsin may not feel a sin tax is a viable option (Public Opinion Poll conducted by the Mellman Group in April, 2009). Similar to the Stem Review Report on global warming that clearly points out the costs of inaction will far exceed costs incurred currently (Stem 2007), "it appears that the public has not absorbed this message" (Pralle, 2009, p. 794). In fact, policy actors who support the beer tax increase in Wisconsin are in fact pointing to the costs of inaction when they try to sell AB287 as a sin tax. Their media campaigns point to several costs absorbed by the Wisconsin tax payer due to the overconsumption of alcohol in the state. Representative Hilgenberg stressed the importance of letting the public know there are other social costs, in addition to the monetary ones, that we may not be 186

PAGE 199

hearing about (i.e., the loss of an individual's potential and their contribution to society). Nonetheless, this proposition does not seem to be very useful in selling the beer tax increase as a policy solution. While the evidence shows a gain in momentum to increase the beer tax, it has remained the same for over forty years. Proposition 1 b: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will focus on economic gains or losses when venue and/or arena shopping their policy solution. This proposition was the one most represented in the media content analysis and the most commonly utilized strategy mentioned by the policy actors interviewed. Representative Berceau was adamant that pointing out the gains to be made by sin tax revenues was the best way for her to sell AB287 to her fellow legislators. Similar to when the federal government needed the increased revenues brought about by the Repeal of Prohibition (Okrent 2010), Wisconsin may have no other choice but to draw upon the revenues gained by increasing the beer tax. Proposition 1 c: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will focus on human health gains or losses when venue and/or arena shopping their policy solution. In addition to framing the beer tax as a sin tax, some of the policy actors who support a beer tax increase have also emphasized the human health impacts created by alcohol-related incidences. It is important to "re-package" the effects 187

PAGE 200

of alcohol abuse by focusing on new dimensions of the issue, in order to avoid the risk of flooding the public with so many redundant messages that they lose interest in the subject (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988). Support from the medical industry has been fairly recent, and it is too early to tell if the emphasis on hwnan health impacts will truly have an effect on the citizens of Wisconsin. However, as with the following proposition, emphasizing the human health impacts was rarely used as a tactic by the policy actors interviewed, nor mentioned in the media content analysis. Therefore, proposition 1c is not supported and appears to be overlapping with proposition 1 d. Proposition 1 d: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups will provide regular feedback about policies and progress when venue shopping. Feedback on policies can alert policymakers to problems and keep them on the agenda (Kingdon 2003). Since a beer tax increase has not been on the legislative agenda for forty years, perhaps continual feedback about the benefits from adopting a sin tax will increase the attention to the issue and keep pressure on legislators to carry on the discussion (Pralle 2009). Nonetheless, inexpensive beer is seemingly a way of life in Wisconsin, and any information about health gains or feedback provided through indicators on the ill effects of harmful drinking has not led to any attempts to create a cultural change. 188

PAGE 201

Four propositions were also tested to help answer the second research question: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy problem in a way that favorably presents their policy solution to both the latent public and their representative policymakers? All four propositions were used to try and explain how policy actors increase the saliency of their policy solution (i.e., the beer tax increase). Proposition 2a: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will regularly report key problem indicators in audience friendly terms when venue and/or arena shopping. If Kingdon (2003) is correct that policymakers learn about problems through indicators, and that different indicators may also have to be used with different audiences, then "clarity of communication and ease of understanding should be a priority" (Pralle 2009, p.789). This idea was supported by Representative Roys when she talked about the importance of framing the context for her constituency. Also, Carol Lobes, representing Dane County's Executive office, was quick to point out the necessity of getting out "real life human stories" to the citizens of Wisconsin. In this case, audience friendly terms meant telling people about their experiences as a police officer, ambulance driver, doctor, a parent would help tap into the previously uninterested or 189

PAGE 202

uncaring population when the beer tax was the topic of concern. While these anecdotes could prove useful in getting buy in from the general (and perhaps latent) public (Stone 1988), policymakers themselves are unlikely to respond proportionately to changes in problem indicators (Jones and Baumgartner 2005). Therefore, the audience certain indicators are being used on may determine the effectiveness of this proposition to increase the saliency of an issue. Proposition 2b: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize growing public concern when venue and/or arena shopping. This is closely tied to the first proposition (audience friendly terms), where getting stories out are necessary to highlight the number of people who are affected by alcohol-related tragedies. However, it has been shown that when people are told that the majority of individuals believe a certain way, they are more apt to change their own assessment and bring their perceptions more towards the conventional point of view (Wood and Vedlitz 2007). In order to increase the saliency of the benefits a sin tax would bring to the state of Wisconsin, emphasizing the growing public concern was the most utilized of the strategies by those interviewed for this case study. Hence, this proposition is the backbone to the current momentum surrounding a beer tax increase in the state. 190

PAGE 203

Proposition 2c: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize specific local impacts and personal experience when venue and/or arena shopping. Rochefort and Cobb (1994) argue that when problems are immediate and close to people, they gamer the most attention from the citizens. The attempt was made by those who advocated for a sin tax to get the stories out that alcohol related incidences affected "real people." Many of those affected-both personally and professionally), testified at the public hearing on AB 287. Proposition 2c was not supported as an overwhelmingly utilized strategy. Proposition 2d: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting groups will emphasize human health impacts when venue and/or shopping. Similar to the first four propositions related to the selling of a policy solution (in research question one), the fourth proposition tied to increasing the saliency of an issue were the least useful or successful of the strategies used by the policy actors who were interviewed. Julia Sherman, representing UW Health, was the strongest advocate for relying upon both human health impacts and the emphasis on local impacts to increase the saliency of the beer tax increase. This, however, is part of her job at UW-Health. The content analysis showed that those who pointed to the human health impacts were mostly those who work in emergency response and medical fields. It remains to be seen if the 191

PAGE 204

medical professions continued efforts to emphasize human health impacts has a difference on the latent public's concern regarding the beer tax. Here in lies the problem with these four propositions. They are all closely inter-related. While the analysis shows more policy actors and media participate in strategies to increase the saliency of the beer tax increase (more so than selling the beer tax increase), perhaps breaking them down into the four propositions presented in this dissertation is not useful. For instance, to emphasize the importance of growing public concern one could utilize all three of the other propositions (i.e., audience friendly terms, human health and local impacts) at the same time. On the other hand, each of the strategies in the four propositions may be beneficial, depending on where one attempts to use them and who they are being used on. For example, emphasizing the local impacts on a community may be especially pertinent in the state of Wisconsin. Municipalities in Wisconsin are governed under a "home-rule charter", which basically means if they do not violate the state's constitution, they are free to govern themselves as they please (Conant 2006). Therefore, any change in the drinking culture in Wisconsin may have to start at the local level (via an ordinance, for instance) and not from a sin tax mandated by the state's legislature. 192

PAGE 205

Future testing of the causality of the variables in agenda-setting If there is a clear distinction made between what qualifies as a policy venue and that of a policy arena, then future research may be able to look for causal relationships between the independent variable (venue or arena) and the dependent variable (shopping or selling strategies). For instance, depending on whether or not a policy actor or group of actors are in a position to shop in either a venue or an arena, does that determine the type of strategy one would pursue. In the case of the beer tax, being shopped as a sin tax, is focusing on growing public concern a better strategy amongst legislators, than to emphasize economic gains and losses? Future research on the beer tax in Wisconsin "The government will fall that raises the price of beer" Famous Czech Proverb "Insanity is doing the same the over and over and expecting change" Albert Einstein During the public hearing concerning the beer tax in October of2009, legislators serving on the Public Health Committee asked a seemingly simple question to representatives of the beer industry and the Tavern League of Wisconsin: If all Representative Berceau is asking for is a 2.4 cent increase on a 12 ounce bottle of beer, why is the sky going to fall and jobs will be lost? The 193

PAGE 206

answers varied according to each of the above mentioned opponents of the beer tax. The Tavern League explained that they do not raise beer prices by the bottle or pint glass in 2.4 cent increments, but rather by .05 cents or a quarter. Any indication of a price increase, however, would cause them to loose current and potential customers if they were forced to raise their prices on a glass of beer by a quarter, if the tavern down the road can afford to increase their prices by only a nickel. The beer industry representatives explain that a 400% markup on a 31 gallon barrel of (from $2 to $1 0) would lead to drastic increases in production prices and, therefore, people would have to be laid off if the economy remained stagnant. Similar arguments were made by the beer industry in the months leading up to the last time the beer tax was increased in 1969. In an article in the Stevens Point Daily Journal (October 30, 1969) Senator James Swan, R-Elkhorn, assured the concerned citizens of Wisconsin there was no reason for the retail price on beer to increase because the $1 per barrel tax hike would amount to a mere one-third of a cent increase per 12 ounce bottle (making it the current tax on a 12 ounce bottle of beer .06 cent). The beer tax increase was signed into law by Governor Knowles on November I, 1969 and by November 7, 1969 Pabst and Schlitz increased their prices on a case of beer by 31 cents. A spokesperson for Pabst said the reason for the increase was higher costs for bottles and cans, raw materials, machinery, wages, real estate taxes and the recent passage of the state 194

PAGE 207

beer tax increase (Wisconsin State Journal, Friday, November 7, 1969). Retailers in the Milwaukee area responded by raising their prices on a case of beer by 50 cents. In conclusion, beer production and distribution is far from the competitive free market system touted by economic texts. As Cook (2007, p. 155) suggests there are several ways government policies could influence the prices on beer: "antitrust, advertising restrictions, and the regulation of relationships between the three tiers." In Wisconsin, the empirical evidence demonstrates that low-taxed beer may be persistent, at least, as long as the excise tax rates remain the same. Finally, by using the Wisconsin beer tax as an example of the policymaking process, perhaps a new definition of venue shopping may want to entail highlighting the strategies used by policy actors that include either selling or increasing the saliency of the policy solution in an attempt to gain access to the agenda of the decision-making venue. 195

PAGE 208

APPENDIX A Research Questions and Propositions and Related Codes RQ 1: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups Code 1: utilize venue shopping strategies in both policy venues and Selling arenas in order to sell their policy solutions to the public and _policymakers? Proposition 1 a: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups Code la. Cost will emphasize to the public and policymakers that the costs of of Inaction inaction will be greater than the costs of action when they venue and/or arena shop their policy solution. Proposition 1 b: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups Code lb. will focus on economic gain or losses. Economic Gain or Loss Proposition 1 c: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups Code lc. will focus on human health gains or losses when venue and/or Health Gain or arena shop their policy solution. Loss Proposition 1 d: Policy entrepreneurs and their support groups Code ld. will provide regular feedback (via mediums) about policies and Feedback progress when venue shopping. RQ 2: How do policy entrepreneurs and their support groups Code 2: use venue and arena shopping strategies to enlist the latent Increasing concern amongst the population and, hence, frame the policy Saliency problem in a way that increases the saliency of their policy solution to both the public and their representative policymakers? Proposition 2a: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting Code 2a. groups will regularly report key problem indicators in audience Audience friendly terms when venue and/or arena shopping. Friendly Feedback Proposition 2b: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting Code 2b. groups will emphasize growing public concern when venue Public and/or arena shopping. Concern Proposition 2c: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting Code 2c. Local 196

PAGE 209

groups will emphasize specific local impacts and personal Impact experience when venue and/or arena shopping. Proposition 2d: Policy entrepreneurs and their supporting Code 2d. groups will emphasize human health impacts when venue Human Health and/or shopping. Impact RQ 3: According to the multiple streams model, where of the Code3: three key political factors-public opinion, organized political Political forces, and administrative or legislative turnover-are venue Factors and arena shopping strategies by policy entrepreneurs and their support groups likelier to take place? Proposition 3: Administrative or legislative (electoral) turnover Code 3a. has a greater impact on venue shopping and dictates the success Legislative of policy entrepreneurs and their support groups in their venue Turnover and/or arena shopping strategies more so than either public Code 3b. opinion or political forces. Organized Political Groups Code 3c. Public Opinion 197

PAGE 210

APPENDIXB Interview Questions for Representative Berceau 1. What prompted you to introduce legislation (AB 455 in 2005) to increase the beer tax? Why a beer tax specifically? 2. Which, if any, advocacy groups supported you when you first introduced the beer tax in 2005? What type of support and from whom? Do those original supporting groups continue their support? 3. I've heard you mention that you're gaining more support here at the Capitol, is that from fellow legislators or additional supporting groups, or both? What do you perceive to be the factors behind the growing support for a beer tax increase (for both advocacy groups and fellow legislators)? 4. What have been some of the biggest challenges you have faced since you first introduced AB 455 over the last five years? 5. What have been the more recent challenges? 6. What political strategies have you adopted to help you shop the beer tax in Wisconsin? That is, what are some of the things you have been doing and are doing to get AB 287 placed on the legislative agenda? Have any of these strategies been more successful at addressing your challenges and in selling AB 287 than others? (How has the beer industry and their advocates in the state shaped your venue shopping strategies)? 7. For a slightly different take on the last question, how do you go about keeping AB 287 in the minds of, or salient, in the public and amongst your fellow policymakers? Do you have any thoughts or plans about how you would increase this saliency across the state? (strategies to keep AB 287 on the legislative agenda). 198

PAGE 211

8. What factors do you feel helped AB 287 obtain an assembly hearing in front of the committee on public safety? What pieces do you feel fell into place last Fall? 9. Have you changed strategies, regarding how you shop AB 287, since the public hearing? If so, how so? What are you doing differently and why? 10. Have you noticed a change in public opinion concerning the beer tax since the hearing? A change amongst your legislative colleagues? 11. What role has the media played in your venue shopping endeavors? (How have you utilized the media in terms of shopping AB 287)? Are you satisfied with how the media has portrayed AB 287 to Wisconsin citizens? Has the tone of the media's messages about the beer tax changed since you first introduced AB 455? How about after the public hearing? 12. Of the following political factors-public opinion, organized political forces (interest or advocacy groups) and administrative or legislative turnover-from your experience working on a beer tax increase, which do you think has more of an effect on your ability to obtain access to the key decision-making agenda of the Wisconsin state legislature? Why do you think so? 13. What is the current status of AB 287? Where does it go next? Where and how will you shop it from here? What do you think it is going to take to get Wisconsin to pass a beer tax increase? 199

PAGE 212

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbasi, D.R. (2006). Americans and climate change: Closing the gap between science and action. New Haven, CT.: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Appleton Post Crescent. Editorial Staff. December 22, 2008. "Raise Wisconsin's alcohol tax to help address issue." Arthur, Isaac. Stevens Point Daily Journal. Thursday, October 30, 1969). "Med school beer tax ready for signature." Asmussen, K.J. and John W. Creswell. (1995). "Campus response to a student gunman." Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 66: 575-591. Badger Herald. Editorial Staff. October 15, 2009. "Beer tax makes cents." Bardach, E. (1977). The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes a Law. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bauer, Scott. Appleton Post Crescent. (Associated Press). April 30, 2009. "Wisconsin beer tax revised." Bauer, Scott The La Crosse Tribune. (Associated Press). "Wisconsin legislature to focus on economy again in 2010", January 4, 2010:A1 and A6. Baumgartner, Frank R. (1989). Conflict and Rhetoric in French Policymaking. Pittsburgh, P A.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL.: Chicago Press. ________ (Eds.). (2002). Policy Dynamics. Chicago, IL.: Chicago Press. Beer. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.Retrieved December 1, 200

PAGE 213

2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beer. Berger, Dale E. and John R. Snortum. (1985). "Alcoholic beverage preferences of drinking-driving violators." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 46: 23239. Bernard, Russell H. and Gery W. Ryan. (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE. Birkland, Thomas A. (1998). "Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting." Journal of Public Policy, Vol.18 (1): 53-74. _______ (2007). "Agenda Setting in Public Policy." In Fischer, Frank, Miller, Gerald J. and MaraS. Sidney (Eds.) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods, pp.63-78. NY: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Borkan, J.M. (2004). "Mixed methods studies in primary care." Annals of Family Medicine, Vol.2 (1): 4-6. Bosso, C. (1987). Pesticides and Politics: The Life-Cycle of a Public Issue. Pittsburgh, PA.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Brewer, Garry D., and Peter deLeon. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Homewood, IL.: The Dorsey Press. Burnett, M. and C. Davis. (2002). "Getting out the cut: Politics and national forest timber harvests, 1960-1995." Administration and Society, Vol. 34 (2): 202-28. Carley, K. ( 1993). "Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis." Sociological Methodology, Vol. 23: 75-126. Chaloupka, Frank J. (2002). "The effects of price on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems." Alcohol Research and Health (Jan.) Vol.26 (1): 22-35. Charmaz, Kathy. (200 1 ). "Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory 201

PAGE 214

analysis." In Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A. Holstein (Eds.) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, pp. 675-694. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE. Cobb, R.W. and C.D. Elder. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-buildings. Baltimore, PA.: John Hopkins University Press. Cobb, R.W. and Marc Howard Ross (Eds.). (1997). Cultural Strategies of Agenda Denial: Avoidance, attack and redefinition. Lawrence, KS.: University Press of Kansas. Cohen, Michael, March, James and Johan Olsen. (1972). "A garbage can model of organizational choice." Administrative Science Quarterly 17(March): 1-25. Conant, James K. (2006). Wisconsin's Politics and Government: America's Laboratory of Democracy. Lincoln, NA.: University of Nebraska Press. Cook, P.J., and Moore, M.J. (2002). "The economics of alcohol abuse and alcohol control policies." Health Affairs, Vol. 21: 120-133. Cook, P.J. (2007). Paying the tab. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press. Creswell, John W. ( 1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE. _______ (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE. Crow, Deserai A. (2010). "Policy punctuations in Colorado water law: The breakdown of a monopoly." Review of Policy Research, Vol.27 (2): 147166. Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March. (1992). Behavioral Theory ofthe Firm (2"d ed.). Malden, MA.: Blackwell Publisher Inc. Denzin, Norman K. (1989). The Research Act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall. 202

PAGE 215

Derthick, Martha. (2005, 2"d Edition). Up In Smoke: From legislation to litigation in tobacco politics. Washington, D.C: CQ Press. Downs, A. (1972). "Up and down with ecology: The 'issue-attention' cycle." The Public Interest, Vol.28 (summer): 38-50. Dudley, Geoffrey, and Jeremy Richardson. (1998). "Arenas without rules and the policy change process: outsider groups and British roads policy." Political Studies, Vol. 46 (4): 727-47. Edelman, Murray. (1988). Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (2002). "Building Theories From Case Study Research." In Huberman Michael A. and Matthew B. Miles (Eds.) The Qualitative Researcher's Companion, pp.5-35. London: Sage Publications. Festinger, Leon. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press. Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Applications. London: SAGE. Foley, Ray. CNBC.com (Associated Press). May 18, 2009. "Brewers big and small oppose beer tax increase." Foley, Ray. Eau Claire Leader (Associated Press). October 14, 2009. "Beer tax backers go on offensive." Fontana, Andrea and James H. Frey. (2005). "The Interview: From neutral stance to political involvement." In Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edition), pp.695727. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE. Flyvbjerg, Bent. (200 1 ). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. London: Cambridge University Press. Gant, Paula A. and Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. (1997). "Excise taxes, social costs, and 203

PAGE 216

the conswnption of wine." In William F. Shughart II (Ed.), Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination, pp. 247-270. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers. Gais, Thomas L. and Jack L. Walker. (1991). "Pathways to influence in American politics." In Jack L. Walker (Ed.), Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. George, Alexander L., and Richard Smoke. (1974). Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice. NY: Columbia University Press. George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Glaser, B.G. and A.M. Strauss. (1967). The Discovery ofGrounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL.: Aldine. Glesne, C. and Peshkin A. (1992). Becoming a Qualitative Researcher: An Introduction. NY: Longman. Godwin, M. and J. Schroedel. (2000). "Policy diffusion and strategies for promoting policy change: Evidence from California local gun control ordinances." Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 28 (4): 760-776. Goetz, J.P. and M.D. LeCompte. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. NY: Academic Press. Green Bay Press Gazette. Editorial Staff. October 14, 2009. "They care about beer: Beer tax believers speak out." Greenfield, T.K. and J.D. Rogers. (1999). "Beer drinking accounts for most ofthe hazardous alcohol consumption reported in the United States." Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Nov.) Vol.60 (6): 732-9. Gross, N ., Bernstein, M., and J .B. Giacquinta. ( 1971 ). Implementing organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Basic Books. Guber, D. (2003). The grassroots of a green revolution. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. 204

PAGE 217

Hacker, Jacob S. (1997). The Road to Nowhere: The Genesis of President Clinton's Planfor Health Care Security. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press Haefer, Todd. (2009). Beer Man's Wisconsin. Appleton, WI.: Gannett Wisconsin Media. Hall, P. and R. Taylor ( 1996). "Political Science and the three new institutionalisms." Political Studies Vol. 44: 936-57. Hansen, K. and D. Krejci. (2000). "Rethinking neoinstitutional interaction: Municipal arena specific strategies and the base closure process." Administration and Society, Vol. 32 (2): 166-182. Hardie, Chris. The La Crosse Tribune. (Associated Press). "Huebsch: Deficit to dominate next session", July 13, 2010: Bl. Hilgartner, Stephen and Charles L. Bosk. (1988). "The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model." American Journal of Sociology Vol. 94: 53-78. Hirschman, Albert 0. (1982). Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hubboch, Chris, and Scott Bauer. The La Crosse Tribune. (Associated Press). "Doyle vetoes raw milk bill", Thursday, May 20,2010: AI and AIO. International Center for Alcohol Policies. (2006). Alcohol taxation. ICAP Reports 18. Washington, D.C.: Manoj Sharma. Jones, Ben. Appleton Post Crescent. October 14, 2009. "Fox Valley tavern owners join Wisconsin's debate on proposed $10 per barrel beer tax." Jones, Bryan D. (2001). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press. Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. Baumgartner. (2005a). "A model of choice for public policy." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol.l5 (3): 325-351. 205

PAGE 218

_____ (2005b ). The Politics of Attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press. Jordan, Meagan M. (2002). "Punctuated-Equilibrium: An agenda-based theory of budgeting." In Khan, Ahman and W Bartley Hildreth (Eds.) Budget Theory in the Public Sector. Westport, CT.: Quorum Books. Karp, D.A. (1985). "Gender, academic careers, and the social psychology of aging." Qualitative Sociology, Vol.8: 9-28. King, David C. (1994). "The nature of congressional committee jurisdictions." American Political Science Review, Vol. 88 (1): 48-62. King, Gary, Keohane, Robert 0. and Sidney Verba. (20 1 0). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press. Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston, MA.: Little Brown. _____ (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. NY: Addison Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. Kollman, Ken. (1998). Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press. Kuzel, A.J. (1992). "Sampling in qualitative inquiry." In B.F. Crabtree and W.L. Miller (Eds.) Doing Qualitative Research, pp. 31-44. Newbury Park, CA.: SAGE. Lasswell, Harold D. (1936; 1958). Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. NY: Whittlesey House: McGraw-Hill book company, inc. _______ (1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. NY: American Elsevier. Leech, Beth L., Baumgartner, Frank R., Berry, Jeffrey M., Hojnacki Marie and 206

PAGE 219

David C. Kimball. (2002). "Organized Interests and Issue Definition in Policy Debates." In Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis (Eds.) Interest Group Politics (61h ed.), pp.275-292. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA.: SAGE. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). "The Science of 'muddling' through." Public Administration Review Vol.19: 79-88. _______ (1968). The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Lindblom, Charles E. and David K. Cohen. (1979). Usable Knowledge. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press. Lorenzi, Peter. (20 1 0). "Taxing antisocial behavior for the common good." Society, Vol. 47: 328-332. Maxwell, Joseph A. (2002). "Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research." In Huberman Michael A. and Matthew B. Miles (Eds.) The Qualitative Researcher's Companion, pp.37-64. London: Sage Publications. Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Morse, J.M. (1995). "The significance of saturation." Qualitative Health Research, Vol.5: 147-149. Namenwirth, J. and R.P. Weber. (1987). Dynamics ofCulture. Winchester, MA.: Allen and Unwin. Okrent, Daniel. (20 1 0). Last call: The rise and fall of Prohibition. NY: Scribner. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA.: SAGE. Peters, B. Guy. (2010). American Public Policy: Promise and Performance (81h Ed). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 207

PAGE 220

Piven, F. and R. Cloward. (1979). Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. NY: Vintage Books. Ponicki, W.R., P.J. Gruenewald, and E.A. LaScala. (2007). "Joint impacts of minimum legal drinking age and beer taxes on US youth traffic fatalities, 1975-2001." Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, Vol.31 (5): 804-13. Pralle, Sarah B. (2003). "Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: The internationalization of Canadian forest advocacy." Journal of Public Policy Vol.23 (3): 233-260. _____ (2006a). Branching Out, Digging In: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting. Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University Press. _____ (2006b ). "Timing and sequence in agenda setting and policy change: A comparative study of lawn care pesticide politics in Canada and the U.S." Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.l3 (7): 987-1005 _____ (2009). "Agenda-setting and climate change." Environmental Politics, Vol.l8 (5): 781-799. _____ (20 1 0). "Shopping around: Environmental organizations and the search for policy venues." In Prakash, Aseem and Mary Kay Gugerty (Eds.) Advocacy Organizations and Collective Action, pp. 177-201. Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press. Priest, Susanna Hornig. (20 1 0). Doing Media Research: An Introduction (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE. Realbeer.com. (October 12, 2009). "Wisconsin brewers face beer tax boost." Rochefort, David A., and Roger W. Cobb. (1994 ). The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Rogers, J.D. and T.K. Greenfield. (1999). "Who drinks most ofthe alcohol in the U.S.?: The policy implications." Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Jan.) Vol.60 (1): 78. 208

PAGE 221

Rose, R. (1976). "Models ofChange." In R. Rose (Ed.) The Dynamics of Public Policy: A Comparative Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Ruhm, Christopher J. (1996). "Alcohol policies and highway vehicle fatalities." Journal of Health Economics (Aug.) Vol. 15(4): 435-54. Saffer, Henry, Frank J. Chaloupka, and Dave Dhaval. (2001). "State drug control spending and illicit drug participation." Contemporary Economic Policy (Apr) Vol.l9(2): 150-161. Salanie, Bernard. (2003). The Economics ofTaxation. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press. Schattschneider, E.E. ( 1960/1975). The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Schneider, Anne Larason and Helen Ingram. ( 1993 ). "Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy." American Political Science Review (June) Vol. 87(2): 334-58. ________ (2005). Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public Policy. Albany, NY.: State University of New York. Schon, Donald A. and Martin Rein. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. NY: Basic Books. Schutt, R.K. (2004). Investigating the Social World. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Pine Forge. Sharma, Manoj. (2009). "Taxation on alcohol: Implications for health promotion." Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, Vol. 53 (2): 3-6. Shughart II, William F. (Ed.). (1997). Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers. Simon, Herbert A. ( 194 7). Administrative Behavior. NY: Macmillan. ______ (1977). Models of Discovery. Boston, MA.: D. Reidel. 209

PAGE 222

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: SAGE. Srivastava, Lina. (2009). "Preaching to the converted: Engaging your audience and combating issue fatigue." Online Blog at: http:/ /linasrivastava. blogspot.com/2009/0 1 /Summary-preaching-to converted-engaging.html. Stake, Robert E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE. Stake, Robert E. (2005). Multiple Case Study Analysis. NY: Guilford Press. State of Wisconsin Blue Book 2009-2010. Compiled by the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau. Steinbruner, John D. (1974). The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press. Stone, Deborah. (1988). Policy Paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foresman, and Company. ______ (1989). "Causal stories and the formation ofpolicy agendas." Political Science Quarterly Vol.1 04: 281-300. ______ (1997). Policy Paradox and Political Reason. NY: Norton. _____ (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Revised Edition). NY.: Norton & Company. The Beer Institute, Press Releases, September 25, 2009 www.beerinstitute.org. The La Crosse Tribune. (Associated Press). "Thirst for cash brings push to tax free drinks", Sunday, May 23,2010: AI. Thomas A. (2007). "Agenda Setting in Public Policy." In Fischer, Frank, Miller, Gerald J. and Mara S. Sidney (Eds.) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods, pp.63-78. NY: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 210

PAGE 223

Timmermans, Arco. (200 1 ). "Arenas as institutional sites for policymaking: Patterns and effects in comparative perspective." Journal ofComparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, Vol. 3: 311-337. Tremblay, Victor J. and Carol Horton Tremblay. (2005). The US. Brewing Industry: Data and Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. University of Wisconsin Health, The Mellman Group, Inc, "Wisconsin's Beer Tax Survey Report", April 8, 2009. www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asm76/news/PDF Files/2009 PDFs/april.09.UW Health.MELLMAN GROUP poll.pdf Wagenaar, A.C., Salois, M.J., and K.A. Komro. (2009). "Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: A meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction, Vol. 104(2): 179-90. Warren, Carol A.B. and Tracy X. Kamer. (2005). Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews and Analysis. Los Angeles, CA.: Roxbury Publishing Co. Wausau Daily Herald. Starck, Jeff. May 2007. "Proposed tax would tap beer drinkers." Weiss, Carol H. (1989). "Congressional committees as users of analysis." Journal of Policy Analysis & Management (Summer) Vol.8: 411-31. Wildavsky, Aaron. (1964). Politics ofthe Budgetary Process. Boston, MA: Little Brown. ______ (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: the Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston, MA.: Little Brown. Wisconsin State Journal (UPI, Milwaukee, Friday, November 7, 1969). "Beer price raised by Pabst, Schlitz." 211

PAGE 224

Wood, D. and A. Vedlitz. (2007). "Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51 (3): 552-568. www.huffingtonpost.com Russell Contreras, "Sam Adams Utopia: Rare $150 beer is 27 percent alcohol, November 30, 2009. www.legis.state. wi.us/lfb/2007-09budget/071807WI Leg. pdf Informational paper #8: Alcohol and Tobacco Taxes, July 18, 2007 www.nhtsa.dot. gov/ .. ./staticfiles/DOT /NHTSAIN CSA/Content/TSF /2005/81 0998 .pdf-www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFacts/EconomicData/def ault.htm www.rirt.com/legal/taxBeerWine.asp www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/02/dui-ignition-interlock-law takes-effect-colorado/. www.samhsa.gov/SHIN/e-Network.archives, 2007. www.scaoda.state. wi.us Yin, R.K. (2009).Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Fourth Edition, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol.5). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Young, Douglas J. and Agnieszka Bielinska-Kwapisz. (2002). "Alcohol taxes and beverage prices." National Tax Journal 55 (1): 57-74. Zahariadis, N. (1999). "Ambiguity, time, and multiple streams." In P. Sabatier (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, pp. 73-93. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press. _____ (2007). "The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects." In P. Sabatier (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process (2"d Ed.), pp.65-92. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press. 212

PAGE 225

GRANT OF PERMISSIONS In reference to the following title(s): Arney, Jeremy. Cheap beer: venue and arena shopping a Wisconsin sin tax. Denver, CO : University of Colorado Denver, 2010. I, :r'c.