THE CHANGING ROLE OF PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY GROUPS

There are several key factors to consider. Firstly, the internal transparency of an organization is very important, and public policy advocates generally understand that. Secondly, the impact of the issues at hand on a Parliamentarian’s constituency  is very important. Thirdly, it is important to develop strong and enduring relationships with Parliamentarians and other policy-makers in getting one’s point across: becoming a trusted and reliable ‘insider’ is crucial. Fourthly, the overall aim of the organisation is slightly less important to than these other factors. The fact that an organisation is working on behalf of public rather than private interests seem to figure less in the minds of decision-makers.

Transparency and accountability are not the only keys to the legitimacy of an organisation but also to the effectiveness of that organisation. To be effective an organisation whether from the public private, or voluntary sector must be open in its aims, considered trustworthy, and accountable in some way for its actions.  Different groups may advocate at different rates and over different issues but successful advocacy requires the adoption of certain practices which stretch across sectors. The increased professionalisation of in-house advocacy teams in businesses, interest groups, NGOs, charities, and trade associations has resulted in a kind of shared ‘best practice’ among these organisations. The techniques they use to communicate with Parliament and government are largely the same and those techniques that work tend to work for all organisations. There is a paradox however.  On the one hand, many NGOs and other non-corporate organisations claim that politicians are sympathetic to business, and all too susceptible to the pressure that the business community can bring to bear on MPs and government. On the other hand, however, public policy advocates working for businesses say that non-corporate organisations often get their own way because they are able to provide arguments more appealing to hearts and minds. Businesses can often make quite powerful economic arguments about job losses or slowed growth. NGOs can appeal to other arguments which invoke specific sympathies or moral concerns. Both sides, claim that their efforts will be largely wasted because the other side has a monopoly on the kind of arguments most favoured by politicians, government, and the wider public. However, both sides feel that it is crucial to engage in this process.

At the beginning we talked about the crucial role of being an ‘Insider’. Public Policy Advocacy largely represents the process by which organisations seek ‘Insider’ status in the policy-making system, in order that their views might input as directly as possible into the process of policy development and decision-making. ‘Insider’ groups as those groups which are firstly recognised by government as legitimate spokespersons for particular interests or causes proven partly through their ability to talk the language of the government and civil servants, secondly allowed to engage in a dialogue on issues of concern to them through formal and informal consultation processes and thirdly those that agreed to abide by certain rules of the game. Outsider groups on the other hand represent a disparate and heterogeneous category of organisations not subject to the disciplines imposed by acceptance of the informal rules of the game either because they lacked the necessary skills or resources to gain recognition or because they were ideological protest groups that did not want to be drawn into the embrace of government. On the whole, advocacy groups (including companies) want to be insiders – they want to be consulted regularly by government rather than one of those organisations which merely shout rom the sidelines; they want to be so embedded within the policy-making process that, as far as possible, it would be unthinkable that they would not be consulted on issues of policy in their area.

There are clear advantages to being an insider group, which is why most groups tend to veer toward an insider strategy. To have the government come to you, rather than wait for you to approach it, is a powerful position for an organisation to be in. However, there are potential disadvantages to being an insider. Insider status often comes at the expense of radicalism. To become an insider and remain an insider an organisation or company must play by the rules of the game. They must speak to government in its own language and approach Parliament using the approved channels. In a sense, insider groups are required to divest themselves of their more radical and controversial aspects and communicate in a more measured way.

In 1989 Wyn Grant identified three types of insider groups, high profile insiders, low profile insiders and prisoner groups, and three types of outsider groups, potential insiders, outsiders by necessity and ideological outsiders. However, he still strongly defended the basic distinction between insider and outsider groups arguing that a limited number of insider groups are members of high status policy committees and are regularly consulted by, and have influence over, government. Outsider groups, on the other hand, are either unable or unwilling to become: ‘enmeshed in a consultative relationship with officials.’ In particular, he argues that there will always be ‘ideological’ outsider groups, committed to campaigning for radical policy change, which cannot be accommodated within existing policy paradigms . Nevertheless, the key point for Grant is that the more influential groups don’t use outsider tactics and, conversely, that many of those groups who do use these tactics wouldn’t do so if they could achieve insider status. Admittedly the distinction between insider and outsider groups may be problematic as groups can be outsiders on some issues and insiders on others.