Frames of Influence: U.S. Environmental Rulemaking Case Studies

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 231-246

  Rinfret, Sara R ^a  

^a HARTWICK COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental rules; Frames; Interest groups; Pre proposal stage; Regulation; Rulemaking; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HABITAT MANAGEMENT; NATURAL RESOURCE; POLICY APPROACH; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; REGULATORY APPROACH; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

UNITED STATES;

CANIS LUPUS; CICINDELIDAE; VICIA;

EID: 79956117945     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: 15411338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00493.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Baird, J. (2004). Two conservation groups sue over wildflower habitat. Retrieved from:
2. Boothe, K., & Harrison, K. (2009). The influence of institutions on issue definition: Children's environmental health policy in the United States and Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(3), 287-307.
3. Duffy, R. J. (2003). The green agenda in American politics: New strategies for the twenty-first century. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
4. Federal Register. (2006a). Proposed rule: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Designation of critical habitat for Shivwits and Holmgren milk vetch. Vol. 71, no. 2.
5. Federal Register. (2006b). Proposed rule: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Designation of critical habitat for Shivwits and Holmgren milk vetch. Vol. 71, no. 60.
6. Federal Register. (2007). Proposed rule: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat for the salt creek tiger beetle. Vol. 72, no. 238.
7. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Fritschler, L. (1975). Smoking and politics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Furlong, S. R. (1993). Interest group influence on regulatory policy. PhD dissertation: American University. (microfilm).
10. Gehrke, R. (2005). Federal agency will try to shield plans in path of St. George growth. Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from .
11. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
12. Golden, M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245-270.
13. Gray, B. (2003). Framing of environmental disputes. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliot (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts (pp. 11-34). Washington, DC: Island Press.
14. Greenwald, C. S. (1977). Group power: Lobbying and public policy. New York: Praeger Publishers.
15. Hautzinger, M. (2002). Protection of salt creek tiger beetle topic of discussion. Retrieved from
16. Heclo, H. (1978). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
17. Hoefer, R., & Ferguson, K. (2007). Controlling the levers of power: How advocacy organizations affect the regulation writing process. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 34(2), 83-108.
18. Jewell, C., & Bero, L. (2006). Public participation and claimsmaking: Evidence utilization and divergent policy frames in California's ergonomics rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 625-650.
19. Journal Star. (2008). Endangered listing sought for tiger beetle. February 2. Retrieved from (accessed 25 September 2008).
20. Kamieniecki, S. (2006). Corporate America and environmental policy: How often does business get its way? Stanford, CA: Stanford Law and Politics.
21. Kargman, S. T. (1986). OMB intervention in agency rulemaking. The Yale Law Journal, 95(8), 1789-1910.
22. Kaufman, H. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
23. Kerwin, C. (2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
24. Kerwin, C., & Furlong, S. R. (2011). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
25. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.
26. Klyza, C. M., & Sousa, D. (2008). American environmental policy, 1990-2006. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Kraft, M., & Kamieniecki, S. (2007). Business and environmental policy: Corporate interests in the American political system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
29. Lavertu, S., & Yackee, S. W. (2010). Regulatory uncertainty and rulemaking deadlines. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management, Boston, Massachusetts.
30. Leedy, P. D. (1993). Practical research planning and design. New York: MacMillan.
31. Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making sense of environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press.
32. Lu, C. J., & Shulman, S. W. (2008). Rigor and flexibility in computer-based qualitative research: Introducing the coding analysis toolkit. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 2, 105-117.
33. Magat, W., Krupnick, A., & Harrington, W. (1986). Rules in the making: A statistical analysis of regulatory agency behavior. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.
34. McCubbins, M. D. (1984). Abdication or delegation? Congress, the bureaucracy, and the delegation dilemma. Regulation, 22(2), 30-37.
35. McKay, A., & Yackee, S. W. (2007). Interest group competition on federal agency rules. American Politics Research, 35, 336-357.
36. Naughton, K., Schmid, C., & Yackee, S. W. (2009). Understanding commenter influence during rule development. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(2), 258-277.
37. Public Broadcasting Service. (2006). Interview: A rancher's view. Retrieved from
38. Perkins, N. (2008). U.S. plan would protect milk-vetch plants in Utah. Retrieved from .
39. Rein, M., & Schon, D. (1993). Reframing policy discourse. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 145-167). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
40. Rinfret, S. R. (2011). Behind the shadows: Interest groups and the U.S. fish and wildlife service. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal, 16(1), 1-14.
41. Rinfret, S. R., & Furlong, S. (2011). Defining environmental rulemaking chapter. In M. E. Kraft & S. Kamieniecki (Eds.), Oxford handbook of U.S. environmental policy. New York: Oxford Press.
42. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Kansas City: University Press of Kansas.
43. U.S. Department of Interior. (2009). Interior withdraws legally flawed plan for Oregon forests, presses for sustainable timber harvests. Retrieved from
44. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008). Mountain prairie region endangered species program. Retrieved from
45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species. (2008). The endangered species listing program. Retrieved from
46. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program. (2008). Salt Creek Tiger Beetle. Retrieved from
47. Vig, N., & Kraft, M. (2010). Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
48. West, W. (2005). Administrative rulemaking: An old and emerging literature. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 655-668.
49. West, W. (2009). Inside the black box: The development of proposed rules and the limits of procedural controls. Administration and Society, 41(5), 576-599.
50. Yackee, S. W. (2008). The hidden politics of regulation: Interest group influence during agency rule development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Expertise Association, Chicago, Illinois.
51. Zavestoski, S., Agnello, K., Mignano, F., & Darroch, F. (2004). Issue framing and citizen apathy toward local environmental contamination. Sociological Forum, 19(2), 255-355.