IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10817.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Public Participation in Environmental Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Long, Rebecca J.
  • Beierle, Thomas C.

Abstract

This paper discusses the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and how it affects public participation in environmental decision-making. Passed in 1972 as one of the "openness in government" laws, FACA governs how the federal government seeks outside advice. It has had a profound influence on who participates in government decision-making, when they participate, how they participate, and what influence participation has on policy. FACA has had a number of notable successes. Primary among these has been its role in limiting the unbalanced influence of special interests, acting through advisory committees, on public policy-making. The advisory committees which the law governs have also achieved a number of the "social goals" of public participation, including: 1) educating the public, 2) bringing public values into government decision-making, 3) improving the substantive quality of decisions, 4) increasing trust in government institutions, and 5) reducing conflict. Often, advisory committees have given government relatively inexpensive access to experts and stakeholders in order to achieve these goals. However, FACA has also created--directly and indirectly--a number of "chilling effects" on public participation in environmental decision-making. First are procedural requirements which make it difficult for groups outside of government to become advisory committees, and thereby gain access to decision-making. Second are ambiguities in the law and its regulations which limit the willingness of public agencies to engage the public outside of FACA. And third are Clinton Administration policies which limit the number of advisory committees that agencies are allowed to establish. Taken together, these chilling effects create a paradox wherein agencies are reluctant to engage the public in decision-making outside of FACA but significant barriers keep groups (and agencies) from forming advisory committees under the Act. The paper concludes by recommending a streamlining of FACA's procedural requirements, a clarification of regulations and policies regarding what type of participation falls under FACA, and an elimination of administrative ceilings on advisory committee formation.

Suggested Citation

  • Long, Rebecca J. & Beierle, Thomas C., 1999. "The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Public Participation in Environmental Policy," Discussion Papers 10817, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10817
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10817/files/dp990017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10817?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Everingham, Jo-Anne & Rolfe, John & Lechner, Alex Mark & Kinnear, Susan & Akbar, Delwar, 2018. "A proposal for engaging a stakeholder panel in planning post-mining land uses in Australia’s coal-rich tropical savannahs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 397-406.
    2. Stuart Kasdin, 2018. "Creating comity amidst gridlock: a corporatist repair for a broken congress," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 117-130, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10817. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.