5 - Citizens' Participation at Government Expense

Abstract

Within the past few years, scholarly journals and the media have paid marked attention to alternative measures for promoting participation in regulatory decision making as a step toward regulatory reform.' Notwithstanding the limited success of these measures in bringing previously unrepresented points of view to the formulation of regulatory decisions, a common theme emerges: How can interested citizen groups gain sufficient technical expertise and professional knowledge to compete successfully with industry representatives? The question becomes more critical when one considers that the public hearing-the administrative proceeding at which the record is compiled ... policy is refined and conflicting interests are ultimately resolved2 -is the customary entree for citizen input and feedback in the regulatory process. Yet Schuck points out: It is at this point that public interest groups are at their most conspicuous disadvantage.3 Even if citizen groups have sufficient access to participate in an agency's decision-making process, they still need technical and legal information, time and resources to participate effectively. Despite agreement by many observers that a possible solution would be to compensate citizen groups for their use of legal and technical consultants, there has been little optimism on this score. Paglin and Shor found that federal regulatory bodies had made conspicuously inconsistent responses in providing direct financial assistance to citizen groups that intervened in agency proceedings; that the agencies which dealt with complex technical issues were less apt to be receptive than agencies with consumer-protection responsibilities.4 Moreover, the two authors were not sanguine about the possibility of gaining a more positive reception for the practice, foreseeing protracted debate and indefinite delays prior to the adoption of financial aid programs. Nevertheless, signs of change are visible in all sectors of the governmental arena. With the advent of the Carter administration, a new group of administrators and regulatory commissioners, with different perspectives from those who were displaced, have taken office. Their