Consensus-Building
#1Key Findings
The United States is one of three countries to share the SGI 2024’s top position (rank 1) in the category of consensus-building.
The federal government is well-resourced and employs scientists across agencies to inform policy. The Department of Energy oversees national laboratories and the Office of Science, which is the largest funder of science in the United States.
Both labor and business organizations employ full-time lobbyists to advocate for their members and interests. Federal agencies occasionally solicit input from labor and business groups during public consultations. Social welfare groups provide input to legislation during comment periods, and serve as informal advisers or even partners in the delivery of certain programs.
The influence wielded by environmental groups depends on the political inclinations of the administration in power. Such groups occasionally work directly with federal environmental agencies. The federal government and its agencies make a vast amount of data available online, accessible to the public.
The federal government is well-resourced and employs scientists across agencies to inform policy. The Department of Energy oversees national laboratories and the Office of Science, which is the largest funder of science in the United States.
Both labor and business organizations employ full-time lobbyists to advocate for their members and interests. Federal agencies occasionally solicit input from labor and business groups during public consultations. Social welfare groups provide input to legislation during comment periods, and serve as informal advisers or even partners in the delivery of certain programs.
The influence wielded by environmental groups depends on the political inclinations of the administration in power. Such groups occasionally work directly with federal environmental agencies. The federal government and its agencies make a vast amount of data available online, accessible to the public.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
The U.S. federal government is well-resourced and supports an impressive array of in-house scientists who help monitor federal programs and better inform federal policy (Jasanoff 1990).
One of the major sites of science in federal policymaking is the Department of Energy. With an annual budget of $30 billion and 10,000 employees – only 138 of whom are political appointees chosen by the president – the department has chief responsibility for energy production and research in the United States. It supports the National Laboratories System, which consists of 17 laboratories across the U.S., and the Office of Science, the largest funder of science in the United States (Lewis 2018).
The Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office provides $40 billion annually in loans for energy projects. It allocates special loans for advanced technology vehicles and Native American tribes. The Loan Program Office has supported many significant scientific achievements and made a substantial contribution to the United States economy. For instance, it financed Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California (Loris 2016).
The Department of Energy has ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), which models itself after the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (Bonvillian and van Atta 2011). With a $309 million budget, this program provides funding for risky but high-reward energy-related projects (Bonvillian 2018).
In 2022, the Biden administration signed into law the Chips and Science Act, a $280 billion bipartisan bill to boost domestic high-tech manufacturing and increase funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other research agencies, including the Department of Energy’s Office of Science and the National Institute of Science and Technology.
Citations:
Michael Lewis. 2018. The Fifth Risk. New York: Norton.
Sheila Jasanoff. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
William Bonvillain. 2011. “ARPA-E and DARPA: Applying the DARPA Model to Energy Innovation.” The Journal of Technology Transfer.
Nick Lorris. 2016. “Examining the Department of Energy’s Loan Portfolio.” Heritage Foundation.
One of the major sites of science in federal policymaking is the Department of Energy. With an annual budget of $30 billion and 10,000 employees – only 138 of whom are political appointees chosen by the president – the department has chief responsibility for energy production and research in the United States. It supports the National Laboratories System, which consists of 17 laboratories across the U.S., and the Office of Science, the largest funder of science in the United States (Lewis 2018).
The Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office provides $40 billion annually in loans for energy projects. It allocates special loans for advanced technology vehicles and Native American tribes. The Loan Program Office has supported many significant scientific achievements and made a substantial contribution to the United States economy. For instance, it financed Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California (Loris 2016).
The Department of Energy has ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), which models itself after the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (Bonvillian and van Atta 2011). With a $309 million budget, this program provides funding for risky but high-reward energy-related projects (Bonvillian 2018).
In 2022, the Biden administration signed into law the Chips and Science Act, a $280 billion bipartisan bill to boost domestic high-tech manufacturing and increase funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other research agencies, including the Department of Energy’s Office of Science and the National Institute of Science and Technology.
Citations:
Michael Lewis. 2018. The Fifth Risk. New York: Norton.
Sheila Jasanoff. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
William Bonvillain. 2011. “ARPA-E and DARPA: Applying the DARPA Model to Energy Innovation.” The Journal of Technology Transfer.
Nick Lorris. 2016. “Examining the Department of Energy’s Loan Portfolio.” Heritage Foundation.
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
There are many ways in which labor and businesses can influence government policymaking in the United States. The Department of Labor and the Department of Commerce operate as an institutional hub for contact between the federal government and labor and business, respectively (Bensman and Kesselman 2020).
Both labor and business employ full-time lobbyists to advocate for their members and interests. They also have their own campaign organizations and participate in elections through fundraising, advertising, and donations. Labor and business are well-integrated into the party culture of both the Democratic and Republican parties, although labor has historically had, and continues to have, much closer links with the Democrats (Milkman 2019).
Federal agencies occasionally solicit input from labor and business groups during public consultations. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks comments from various advocacy groups, including unions and businesses, on potential environmental regulations or standards. During the public comment period, unions and business organizations contribute to this process (Hertel-Fernandez 2019).
Various federal agencies also invite unions and business leaders to sit on advisory committees, task forces, and in behind-the-scenes meetings. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regularly invites representatives from labor and business to sit on its advisory committees concerning workplace health and safety (Schickler and Caughey 2011).
Citations:
Ruth Milkman. 2019. “The World We Have Lost: US Labor in the Obama Years.” In Looking Back on President Barack Obama’s Legacy, ed. W. Rich. Palgrave.
Alexander Hertel-Fernandez. 2019. “Asymmetric Partisan Polarization, Labor Policy, and Cross-State Political-Power Building.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
David Bensman and Donald Kesselman. 2020. “The Obama Administration’s Labor and Employment Legacy.” In Obama’s Fractured Legacy, ed. F. Verginolle de Chantal. Edinburgh.
Dorian Warren. 2014. “The Politics of Labor Policy Reform.” In The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America, eds. J. Jenkins and S. Milkis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eric Schickler and Devin Caughey. 2011. “Public Opinion, Organized Labor, and the Limits of New Deal Liberalism.” Studies in American Political Development.
Both labor and business employ full-time lobbyists to advocate for their members and interests. They also have their own campaign organizations and participate in elections through fundraising, advertising, and donations. Labor and business are well-integrated into the party culture of both the Democratic and Republican parties, although labor has historically had, and continues to have, much closer links with the Democrats (Milkman 2019).
Federal agencies occasionally solicit input from labor and business groups during public consultations. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks comments from various advocacy groups, including unions and businesses, on potential environmental regulations or standards. During the public comment period, unions and business organizations contribute to this process (Hertel-Fernandez 2019).
Various federal agencies also invite unions and business leaders to sit on advisory committees, task forces, and in behind-the-scenes meetings. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regularly invites representatives from labor and business to sit on its advisory committees concerning workplace health and safety (Schickler and Caughey 2011).
Citations:
Ruth Milkman. 2019. “The World We Have Lost: US Labor in the Obama Years.” In Looking Back on President Barack Obama’s Legacy, ed. W. Rich. Palgrave.
Alexander Hertel-Fernandez. 2019. “Asymmetric Partisan Polarization, Labor Policy, and Cross-State Political-Power Building.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
David Bensman and Donald Kesselman. 2020. “The Obama Administration’s Labor and Employment Legacy.” In Obama’s Fractured Legacy, ed. F. Verginolle de Chantal. Edinburgh.
Dorian Warren. 2014. “The Politics of Labor Policy Reform.” In The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America, eds. J. Jenkins and S. Milkis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eric Schickler and Devin Caughey. 2011. “Public Opinion, Organized Labor, and the Limits of New Deal Liberalism.” Studies in American Political Development.
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
The extent to which the U.S. federal government facilitates the participation of leading social welfare civil society organizations is contingent on a variety of factors, including the political affiliation of the presidential administration, the type of policy area, and the differing structures and reputations of the CSOs.
Federal agencies welcome input during public comment periods as they revise rules and practices. This process provides opportunities for civil society organizations (CSOs) to contribute. For example, a housing charity or campaign group might participate in a public comment period initiated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In some cases, CSOs might be welcomed by the federal government to become formal or informal advisers or even partners in the delivery of certain programs. For example, Feeding America is the largest hunger relief charity in the United States. It runs over 200 food banks across the country and collaborates with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in several areas (Handforth et al. 2013). Feeding America’s food banks are used by the USDA’s TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance Program) to distribute federally funded food packages to those in need (Levedahl et al. 1994). Equally, Feeding America works with FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) to provide food packages to individuals who might be affected by short-term loss of resources due to a disaster, such as a hurricane or tornado.
The federal government also provides a range of grants to support the work of social welfare CSOs (Balio 2023). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds social welfare CSOs involved in alleviating poverty (Spar 2008). This support might include job training, childcare, counseling, and housing assistance.
Citations:
Karen Spar. 2008. “Community Services Block Grants: Funding and Reauthorization.” Congressional Research Service.
Casey Balio, Stephanie Mathis, Margaret Francisco, Michael Meit, and Kate Beatty. 2023. “State Priorities and Needs: The Role of Block Grants.” Public Health Reports.
William Levedahl, Nicole Ballenger, and Courtney Harold. 1994. “Comparing the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Stamp Program: Recipient Characteristics, Market Effects, and Benefit-Cost Ratios.” Agricultural Economic Report.
Becky Handforth, Monique Hennink, and Marlene Schwartz. 2013. “A Qualitative Study of Nutrition-Based Initiatives at Selected Food Banks in the Feeding America Network.”
Federal agencies welcome input during public comment periods as they revise rules and practices. This process provides opportunities for civil society organizations (CSOs) to contribute. For example, a housing charity or campaign group might participate in a public comment period initiated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In some cases, CSOs might be welcomed by the federal government to become formal or informal advisers or even partners in the delivery of certain programs. For example, Feeding America is the largest hunger relief charity in the United States. It runs over 200 food banks across the country and collaborates with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in several areas (Handforth et al. 2013). Feeding America’s food banks are used by the USDA’s TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance Program) to distribute federally funded food packages to those in need (Levedahl et al. 1994). Equally, Feeding America works with FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) to provide food packages to individuals who might be affected by short-term loss of resources due to a disaster, such as a hurricane or tornado.
The federal government also provides a range of grants to support the work of social welfare CSOs (Balio 2023). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds social welfare CSOs involved in alleviating poverty (Spar 2008). This support might include job training, childcare, counseling, and housing assistance.
Citations:
Karen Spar. 2008. “Community Services Block Grants: Funding and Reauthorization.” Congressional Research Service.
Casey Balio, Stephanie Mathis, Margaret Francisco, Michael Meit, and Kate Beatty. 2023. “State Priorities and Needs: The Role of Block Grants.” Public Health Reports.
William Levedahl, Nicole Ballenger, and Courtney Harold. 1994. “Comparing the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Stamp Program: Recipient Characteristics, Market Effects, and Benefit-Cost Ratios.” Agricultural Economic Report.
Becky Handforth, Monique Hennink, and Marlene Schwartz. 2013. “A Qualitative Study of Nutrition-Based Initiatives at Selected Food Banks in the Feeding America Network.”
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
The ability of environmental CSOs to engage with federal government policymakers largely depends on the political inclinations of the administration in power. Democratic administrations tend to be favorable to environmental groups, whereas Republican ones, especially in recent times, tend to be relatively hostile or neutral (Turner, 2018). This partisan divide on environmental issues was not always the case; one of the greatest environmentalists in the White House was Republican Richard Nixon, founder of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (McCright et al. 2014).
During the development of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration invited environmental CSOs, such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), to participate in crafting these regulations and to provide recommendations on how to best reduce carbon emissions from power plants (Gonzalez 2019).
In some cases, CSOs are integrated into the infrastructure of the environmental agencies in the federal government. For example, the EPA’s Clean Air Advisory Committee includes representatives from environmental CSOs. This committee advises the EPA on air quality standards and accompanying regulations (Reversz and Lienke 2016).
The Department of the Interior, responsible for managing federal lands and relations with Native American tribal communities, frequently consults with environmental CSOs on its conservation initiatives. For example, representatives from the Wilderness Society provide guidance on national park management plans. Experts from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) serve on the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee and advise the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on marine conservation strategies.
Citations:
James Turner. 2018. The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
George Gonzalez. 2019. “The Obama Administration’s Global Warming Legacy: Going With the Flow and the Politics of Failure.” In Looking Back on President Obama’s Legacy, ed. W. Rich. Palgrave.
Aaron McCright, Chenyang Xiao, and Riley Dunlap. 2014. “Political Polarization on Support for Government Spending on Environmental Protection in the USA, 1974-2012.” Social Science Research.
Christopher Bailey. 2018. “Environmental Policy.” In G Peele et al., eds., Developments in American Politics 8. Palgrave.
Christopher Klyza and David Sousa. 2013. American Environmental Policy: Beyond Gridlock. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Frank Thompson, Kenneth Wong, and Barry Rabe. 2020. Trump, the Administrative Presidency, and Federalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Richard Reversz and Jack Lienke. 2016. Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the War on Coal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
During the development of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration invited environmental CSOs, such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), to participate in crafting these regulations and to provide recommendations on how to best reduce carbon emissions from power plants (Gonzalez 2019).
In some cases, CSOs are integrated into the infrastructure of the environmental agencies in the federal government. For example, the EPA’s Clean Air Advisory Committee includes representatives from environmental CSOs. This committee advises the EPA on air quality standards and accompanying regulations (Reversz and Lienke 2016).
The Department of the Interior, responsible for managing federal lands and relations with Native American tribal communities, frequently consults with environmental CSOs on its conservation initiatives. For example, representatives from the Wilderness Society provide guidance on national park management plans. Experts from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) serve on the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee and advise the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on marine conservation strategies.
Citations:
James Turner. 2018. The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
George Gonzalez. 2019. “The Obama Administration’s Global Warming Legacy: Going With the Flow and the Politics of Failure.” In Looking Back on President Obama’s Legacy, ed. W. Rich. Palgrave.
Aaron McCright, Chenyang Xiao, and Riley Dunlap. 2014. “Political Polarization on Support for Government Spending on Environmental Protection in the USA, 1974-2012.” Social Science Research.
Christopher Bailey. 2018. “Environmental Policy.” In G Peele et al., eds., Developments in American Politics 8. Palgrave.
Christopher Klyza and David Sousa. 2013. American Environmental Policy: Beyond Gridlock. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Frank Thompson, Kenneth Wong, and Barry Rabe. 2020. Trump, the Administrative Presidency, and Federalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Richard Reversz and Jack Lienke. 2016. Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the War on Coal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
The U.S. federal government has various mechanisms to share data and other information with the public, which citizens can use to hold the government accountable (Joyce 2011).
The federal government makes a vast amount of data available online, accessible to the public (Birchall 2015). Data.gov is a major platform where a wide array of government datasets can be found (Krishnamurthy and Awazu 2016). USAspending.gov offers extensive information about federal spending, including grants, loans, contracts, and other government transactions. This information helps citizens track federal spending and understand where their tax dollars go. Regulations.gov is a portal where citizens can find and comment on proposed federal regulations. Performance.gov provides information about the goals, strategic plans, and progress of various government agencies, enabling citizens to hold these agencies accountable for their performance (Bryer 2013).
Most federal agencies have substantial data available for public sharing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, is one of the world’s foremost repositories of historical and current employment information, as well as other data related to workers, such as union density.
Inspector general reports are another way citizens can be informed about the workings of federal agencies. Inspectors general conduct audits, investigations, and other evaluations regarding the behavior of government officials (Brass 2012).
Citations:
Philip Joyce. 2011. “The Obama Administration and PBB: Building on the Legacy of Federal Performance-Informed Budgeting?” Public Administration Review.
Clinton Brass. 2012. “CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Changes to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Overview of the New Framework of Products and Processes.” Congressional Research Service.
Thomas Bryer. 2013. “Public Participation in Regulatory Decision-Making.” Public Performance and Management Review.
Rashmi Krishnamurthy and Yukika Awazu. 2016. “Liberating Data for Public Value: The Case of Data.gov.” International Journal of Information Management.
Claire Birchall. 2015. “Data.gov-in-a-box: Delimiting Transparency.” European Journal of Social Theory.
The federal government makes a vast amount of data available online, accessible to the public (Birchall 2015). Data.gov is a major platform where a wide array of government datasets can be found (Krishnamurthy and Awazu 2016). USAspending.gov offers extensive information about federal spending, including grants, loans, contracts, and other government transactions. This information helps citizens track federal spending and understand where their tax dollars go. Regulations.gov is a portal where citizens can find and comment on proposed federal regulations. Performance.gov provides information about the goals, strategic plans, and progress of various government agencies, enabling citizens to hold these agencies accountable for their performance (Bryer 2013).
Most federal agencies have substantial data available for public sharing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, is one of the world’s foremost repositories of historical and current employment information, as well as other data related to workers, such as union density.
Inspector general reports are another way citizens can be informed about the workings of federal agencies. Inspectors general conduct audits, investigations, and other evaluations regarding the behavior of government officials (Brass 2012).
Citations:
Philip Joyce. 2011. “The Obama Administration and PBB: Building on the Legacy of Federal Performance-Informed Budgeting?” Public Administration Review.
Clinton Brass. 2012. “CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Changes to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Overview of the New Framework of Products and Processes.” Congressional Research Service.
Thomas Bryer. 2013. “Public Participation in Regulatory Decision-Making.” Public Performance and Management Review.
Rashmi Krishnamurthy and Yukika Awazu. 2016. “Liberating Data for Public Value: The Case of Data.gov.” International Journal of Information Management.
Claire Birchall. 2015. “Data.gov-in-a-box: Delimiting Transparency.” European Journal of Social Theory.