The Diversity of Policy Conflict: Insights from the Oil and Gas Policy Domain

• In Event: Advances in Theories of the Policy Process

Abstract

Conflicts over public policy decisions are ubiquitous, especially in environmental policy domains, such as oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”). Conflict is often evidenced by divergent views that various actors and interest groups express over proposed policies, along with the political strategies these groups use to influence policy outcomes. However, not all policies or policy issues spark conflict, even in a contentious domain such as oil and gas development. Despite growing attention by public policy scholars to policy conflicts in the oil and gas and fracking domain, we lack both empirical and theoretical insights on the range and diversity of policy conflicts, and how conflict intensity varies across policies or issues. That is, conflicts are often classified generically (e.g., “fracking is a high conflict issue”), but policy conflicts around specific policy issues range from low to high intensity even within generally high conflict policy domains. This range of conflict, and factors that influence conflict intensity, are not well understood.

This paper explores the differences in policy conflict intensities associated with specific policy issues that fall under the broader issue of oil and gas development. It offers novel empirical evidence of how policy conflicts vary in their intensity within a single policy domain, as well as builds theoretical insights that can be extended beyond the domain of oil and gas development. We draw upon the Policy Conflict Framework (PCF) to guide our inquiry. The PCF acknowledges that certain types of policy issues are likely to spark more intense conflicts, although it calls for more empirical evidence to understand which types of issues matter in particular policy contexts. Along these lines, we consider how conflict varies by policy focus, such as whether conflicts center on questions of “whether,” “how,” or “where,” oil and gas is produced; who should regulate oil and gas activities; how benefits and burdens are distributed (e.g., taxing oil and gas); and how to mitigate risks and manage environmental externalities. Moreover, because the PCF emphasizes that policy actors often have varying perceptions of policy conflict intensity, this paper also considers how policy actor characteristics matter in understanding why certain policy issues are more conflictual than others. Thus, this paper asks: 1) how do oil and gas policy issues vary in their level of conflict intensity; and 2) how do the characteristics of policy actors relate to perceived levels of conflict intensity around different oil and gas policy issues?

To examine these questions, we use two complementary data sources. First, we use data from a 2020 survey of 263 policy actors involved in oil and gas development across 15 states, which explores the degree to which respondents perceive conflict across a range of oil and gas policy issues, such as whether the practice should be banned, where it should occur, who has authority to regulate, how to regulate, how to tax, and how to manage the risks and benefits. We describe the differences in the reported policy conflict intensity around these issues, as well as the variance in these data. We also assess how survey respondent characteristics, including their organizational affiliation, risk and benefit perceptions around oil and gas, and core policy beliefs, are tied to their perceptions of policy conflict intensity across different policy issues. To complement these data, we draw upon 50 in-depth interviews across the same 15 states, conducted between 2018 and 2020, of state regulatory officials, oil and gas industry professionals, and representatives of environmental nonprofits with expertise in oil and gas issues. Interviewees were asked to describe recent policy issues where there was substantial conflict, as well as policy issues where there was substantial concord. Using thematic coding in NVIVO, we group responses according to the categories of policy issue in the survey, as well as explore more nuanced descriptions of the underlying characteristics that are associated with issues that spark more intense conflict (versus more concord).

This paper contributes to theory building around policy conflicts, while also unpacking some of the particularities of recent debates around oil and gas development and fracking that scholars have overlooked. We also speak directly to APSA’s 2021 theme of promoting pluralism by using multiple methods to extend our knowledge of environmental policy conflicts and the diversity of views they encompass.

Authors

• Tanya Heikkila, University of Colorado-Denver

• Jennifer Kagan, University of Hawaii at Manoa

• Ramiro Berardo, The Ohio State University

• Jill Yordy, University of Colorado Denver

• Chris Weible, University of Colorado-Denver

• Hongtao Yi, The Ohio State University

• Catherine Chen, The Ohio State University

• Federico Holm, The Ohio State University