Emerging Problems
Despite these impressive accomplishments, the
growth of the public interest movement has been
paralleled by several disquieting trends with
implications for administrators at every level of
government. For purposes of simplicity and order,
we may group into a few broad categories most of
the problems of public participation as it is
currently developing: the potential shortsightedness
of political responses to the citizen
participation movement; problems of representation
and legitimacy; problems associated with
the style and tactics of public interest groups and
their spokesmen; and the absence of sophisticated
cost-benefit analysis of citizen group policies and
programs.
One of the major perils posed by the citizen
participation movement is the potential that it
offers for overenthusiastic and shortsighted administrative
responses to the demands of public
interest groups and citizen organizations. As
administrators receive the emergence of new and
powerful interests in their program areas, they are
generally quick to recognize the advantages to be
gained by responding, or appearing to respond, to
the demands being made by these new forces. An
agency's ability both to recognize and to react to
new constituencies in its environment is one
measure of its political sophistication and,
ultimately, of its long-run ability to survive in a
highly competitive political arena. Problems arise,
however, as administrators seek to demonstrate
that they are open and receptive to the public
interest movement and sympathetic to the views
and interests of its spokesmen. Citizen groups,
environmentalists, and consumers often seem to
pressure agencies to act in behalf of the public
before the consequences of such action can be
fully assessed by the agency or by others likely to
be affected by the action. In several cases the
Consumer Product Safety Commission has been
accused of moving precipitously to warn the
public about safety defects in certain products, or
to completely prohibit the continued marketing of
others, only to reverse itself a short time later on
the basis of new test data or additional
information on the product.6 Unfortunately for
the companies involved, the damaging publicity
and resulting loss of sales and trust in the
companies' products cannot be so easily reversed.
Another side of this same coin is the pressure
brought to bear on administrators and public
officials to cling to existing environmental and
consumer policies despite mounting evidence that
these policies are either misguided or unworkable.
Because they do not wish to be accused of
abandoning their public interest responsibilities,
administrators are tempted to perpetuate existing
policies at least in part to maintain their credibility
with public interest representatives. Often the
result is to make it more difficult for an agency to
react dispassionately to the realities of the
situation it faces. This is not to suggest that
administrators hold not weigh very carefully the
cost to consumers and the environment of changes
in policy. But it is one thing to err on the side of
safety - or the environment, or the "public" - in
complex, ill-defined conflict situations; it is quite
another to cling stubbornly to a position favored
by public interest and citizen groups long after
data is developed which seriously compromises the
intended effect of the policy in question.7
An overly enthusiastic reaction to public and
citizen group concerns can also lead political and
administrative officials to concentrate their efforts
on the most dramatic, highly publicized and
politicized issues and problems. Longer-range,e SS
visible problems, though perhaps of greater
potential significance, tend to be pushed into the
background, given lower priority, or ignored.8 It is
very difficult, in the context of public interest
controversies, for agencies to draw finely honed
and subtle distinctions between short-term and
long-range alternatives, or what one might call the
trade-offs between "short-term pains and long term
gains." The explosive issues in the nuclear
power debate, for instance, revolve around
environmental impact, plant siting, and safety
considerations,w hole a longer-range concern - the
enormous cost differential between nuclear fuel
and traditional fossil fuels such as coal and oil -
rarely receives as much attention. Similarly,
deregulating he price of natural as might result in
an immediate increase in the price of gas, but it
might eventually stimulate exploration and production
which could lead to additional supplies
and lower prices. Whatever the ultimate effect,
however, the initial reaction of the citizenry and
public interest spokesmen to higher prices makes it
difficult for public officials to propound the
long-range viewpoint.