Whither Deliberation? Mass E-Mail Campaigns and U.S. Regulatory Rulemaking

Abstract Mass e-mail campaigns are the organizational tool of choice for environmental activists seeking to inform and mobilize their constituencies. Some democratic theorists and reformers pin their hopes for more responsive and informed government policy on Internet-enhanced dialogue and debate. Electronic advocacy campaigns and action alerts are changing the nature and scope of public deliberation in contentious federal rulemaking. This paper examines the new digital landscape of electronic rulemaking through a case study of the recent mercury rulemaking at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Results are presented from an effort to code a sample of 1,000 e-mails selected at random from a dataset of approximately half a million. Particular attention is paid to the unique additions made to form letters.

[1]  Elias Levy,et al.  Worst-Case Scenario , 2006, IEEE Security & Privacy.

[2]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[3]  Alexander von Eye,et al.  Analyzing Rater Agreement: Manifest Variable Methods , 2004 .

[4]  Peter M. Shane,et al.  Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet , 2004 .

[5]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[6]  Stuart W. Shulman.  An experiment in digital government at the United States National Organic Program , 2003 .

[7]  Stuart W. Shulman.  The Internet Still Might (But Probably Won't) Change Everything , 2005 .

[8]  宇賀 克也.  パブリック・コメントにおけるインターネットの利用 Stephen M.Johnson,The Internet Changes Everything:Revolutionizing Public Participation and Access to Government Information Through the Internet , 2000 .

[9]  Lincoln Dahlberg,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[10]  Stuart W. Shulman,et al.  Electronic rulemaking: a public participation research agenda for the social sciences , 2003 .

[11]  Stephen Coleman,et al.  Realising Democracy Online: A Civic Commons in Cyberspace , 2001 .

[12]  Bruce Bimber.  Information and American Democracy: Contents , 2003 .

[13]  Robert D Carlitz,et al.  Online rulemaking: a step toward E-governance , 2002, Gov. Inf. Q..

[14]  Hoi K. Suen,et al.  Analyzing Quantitative Behavioral Observation Data , 1989 .

[15]  A. Michael Froomkin.  Technologies for Democracy , 2004 .

[16]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  On the Usage of Kappa to Evaluate Agreement on Coding Tasks , 2000, LREC.

[17]  Robert M. Deiters.  Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). , 1968 .

[18]  Beth Simone Noveck,et al.  The Electronic Revolution in Rulemaking , 2004 .

[19]  Bruce Bimber.  Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power , 2003 .

[20]  S. Coleman,et al.  Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation , 2001 .

[21]  James P. Callan,et al.  Language processing technologies for electronic rulemaking: a project highlight , 2005, DG.O.

[22]  Cornelius M. Kerwin,et al.  Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy , 2019 .

[23]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[24]  Ted Nordhaus,et al.  The Death of Environmentalism Global warming politics in a post-environmental world , 2005 .

[25]  J. Sim,et al.  The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. , 2005, Physical therapy.

[26]  P. Shane.  Turning Gold into Epg: Lessons from Low-Tech Democratic Experimentalism for Electronic Rulemaking and Other Ventures in Cyberdemocracy , 2005 .