Constituency Bias in a Federal Resource Management Agency: a Confirmatory Analysis

Abstract

In a 1989 article, Ben Twight and Fremont Lyden compared the attitudes of national forest managers in the United States in 1981 with those of its major constituents to assess the extent to which the U.S. Forest Service was biased: were the beliefs and values of agency employees concerning resource management more representative of one of two major constituent groups, environmentalists and forest utilizers? The research tested Culhane's ( Public Lands Politics: Interest Group Influence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press. 1981) theory that the Forest Service occupies a middle ground in its attitudes relative to those of its environmental and utilization constituencies. They concluded that the agency did not; ideologically, district rangers were quite close to the Forest Service's utilizer constituency and relatively far from its environmentalist constituency. Given recent changes in the attitudes of Forest Services managers, the present study sought to answer the question: what do these changes reveal about the ideological position of the agency in 1981 vis a vis its position in 1990, and what are their implications for continuing concerns over the agency's representation of all interest groups? The response to survey questions of four groups—1990 district rangers and district rangers, environmentalists and forest utilizers in 1981—were combined for statistical comparison. Discriminant analyses were conducted to clarify the differences in the groups. Although the hypothesized bias of the Forest Service toward the traditional utilizer position was confirmed, the results also suggested that managers' values and attitudes had changed over the decade. The major issue underlying this bias—preservation versus utilization of resources—no longer adequately represented the agency's position, which has been fragmented into concerns with multiple issues.