SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF POLICY ADVOCACY IN GEORGIA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO CASE STUDIES

IVANE JAVAKHISHVILI TBILISI STATE UNIVERSITY

Nani Macharashvili, Ekaterine Basilaia, Nodar Tangiashvili

Aim of the research The purpose of the paper is to study what factors influence success

and failure of policy advocacy in Georgia applying comparative analysis of two case studies: Setting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (2007-2010) and Registering Religious Minority Groups as Legal Entities of Public Law (2002-2011).

The criteria for selection of these pilot cases were the following: transformation from no policy change to significant policy change, as well as the presence of mediatization and internationalization of the issues.

These variables were tested in the frame of the juxtaposition of the “punctuated equilibrium theory” and “Departing Change Model”. Along with these theories, framing theory is used to determine the content of the media coverage.

The method applied is comparative analysis of two case studies and media framing analysis, from where the major findings were obtained.

Research questions The research questions that the present paper

tries to answer are the following: What are the factors influencing success of policy

advocacy of non-state actors in Georgia? Namely, what is the role of the media, and

specifically, what is the groups’ media coverage? And what frames of groups are resonated in the media?

Does the existence of external international actors such as international governmental or nongovernmental organizations in the policy advocate groups affect the policy change and how?

Terms used in the study the policy advocacy success and failure is analyzed from the

perspective of non-state actor’s influence on public policy making and reformulation possibilities.

Non-state actors, as defined in the research, are on the one hand, interest groups, advocacy coalitions and individual NGOs (“groups”) and on the other – the media as an actor and the public.

It has to be clarified that policy advocacy success is understood as not just the ability to promote desired policy change but also the ability to thwart (or stop) unwanted change.

Such understanding privileged into the policy advocacy literature determines the terms used for the advocacy sides/groups during the process of advocacy

The policy challenger, the one advocating for the status quo change and

The policy supporter, the one advocating for the defending the status quo.

Policy change In this paper policy change is identified by the extent of the

policy reframing possibilities from policy advocate’s views. Thus, Significant Change - in cases of “significant” change,

advocates of policy change tend to get most or all of what they wanted. This kind of change is connected to the dramatic policy change;

Modest/incremental Change - the policy change that occurred is relatively small and usually represented only a portion of what the advocates for policy change wanted. Thus, issues that we code as “modest” change tend to be cases of incremental changes in policy that result from some type of negotiation and compromise;

No Change - finally, issues where no policy change occurred were coded accordingly.

Internationalization and Mediatization We explore the impact of internationalization and mediatization on

the success and failure of policy advocacy based on the analysis of two case-studies - Setting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility and Registration of Religious Minority Groups as L.E.P.L.

Internationalization refers to the intensity of engagement of the international actors, as well as relevance of the issue to the government’s international commitment and existence of “sharing the best practices” in framing of the policy supporter/challenger’s argumentation.

Mediatization is defined as the intensity of the coverage of the policy supporter/challenger’s representation and argumentation of the issue by the media.

These independent variables are explored as the factors having impact on the policy success and failure which is coded by the level of policy change – (1) no change; (2) modest (partial) change; and (3) significant (full) change

Assumptions We juxtapose the “punctuated equilibrium”

theory and “departing change model” to explain the logic of significant policy change in Georgia examining the relevance of the modest/incremental policy change phase.

We assume that the intensity of the internationalization of the policy advocacy has an influence on significant policy change.

We assume that the intensity of the media coverage (mediatization) of the policy advocacy has an influence on significant policy change

The juxtaposition of the “punctuated equilibrium theory” and “Departing Change Model” In the literature, “policy change” has been defined differently. But there exist

two dominant opinions about what policy change is and how it comes about. According to the Baumgartner and Jones’s (1993) theory of “punctuated

equilibrium” a long period of policy stability is punctuated by a radical policy change at a time of critical junctures. Baumgartner et al. (2011) accentuate “the enduring power of the status quo” and the fact that status quo actors have inherently more power than policy challengers. They argue that for a long period of time advocates of change push hard which in the end results in a radical departure from the status quo. The research on Lobbying and Policy Change: who wins, who loses, and why observes that “incrementalism fails to explain” the 98 cases of the study. So, this model underestimates significance of incremental policy change.

By contrast, in Departing Change model Beland and Waddan, based on Hacker (2004), Mahony and Thelen (2009), argue that many policies often transform incrementally and the incremental phase often leads to significant changes. “The line between incremental and path-departing change is blurred in the sense that seemingly minor changes can have transformative consequences over time” (Beland and Waddan 2012:6).

Three types of incremental/moderate change “Policy Layering” involves adding new elements

to the institutional rules which still remain stable. “Policy Conversion” means different

interpretation or lax implementation of the institutional rules without however changing them.

“Policy drift” is a longer-term process whereby the new social and economic trends transform the existing policies without the factual, major reforms.

We ignore to concentrate here on displacement and exhaustion because of the radical change character of change.

Methodology Case-study methodology Media Framing Analysis - the study examined framing of the two

cases in the newspaper coverage of Resonance, Alia, Sakartvelos Respublika, 24 saati, Akhali Taoba, Kviris Palitra and Versia. To determine the frames used by the media outlets quantitative framing analysis was used, which looked at the presence/absence of the frames, main tendencies in media coverage and the intensity of the coverage. Newspapers have been selected from the Georgian media. The analysis of leading media in the country should contribute significantly to knowledge about media framing, and media influence on public policy events. Likewise, the influence, daily coverage and penetration of the media in wider Georgian regions were taken into consideration while selecting them. All of the papers cover main political, economic and socio-culture events, and offer in-depth analysis.

In-depth interviewing of the status-quo challenger/defender representatives for each case

Media Framing Analysis For each of the cases 5 sets of frames were identified each

composed of 3 or more sub-frames. There are several common frames shared by both; however issue-specific frames were different depending on the issues and themes highlighted in the media coverage. The common sets of frames are: Status-quo Supporter/ Status-quo Challenger Frames, Internationalization Frames and Reasoning Frames.

Issue-specific sets of frames for Registering Religious Minorities as L.E.P.L were the following: Politics of Religion, Politics of Ignorance. For Setting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility, the issue-specific sets of frames were Responsibility Frames and Government Frames. Even though a set of Internationalization frames were included in both, some of the sub-frames were topic-specific.

Frames List of the sets of frames with sub-frames common for the both cases: Status-quo supporter/challenger frame: Conflict-reinforcing/ status quo

supporter frame and Conflict-displacing/ promoter of policy change. Reasoning frames: diagnostic and prognostic frames. Internationalization Frames: International Dimension, International Commitment, Looking for Best Practices.

Frames and sub-frames for Setting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: Government Frames: imperfections in Justice System, Education, Institutional

Support, Appropriate Punishment measures, Morality Frame; Responsibility Frames: Parental responsibility, Personal responsibility, School’s responsibility, Societal responsibility, Government responsibility.

Frames and sub-frames for Registering Religious Minority Groups as L.E.P.L.: Politics of Religion: ethnic/religious Conflict, Government frame, National

Sovereignty frame, Secularism frame, special rights of Orthodox Church, Traditional/Non-traditional religious minorities, National Interest frame. Politics of Ignorance: Abandoned, Lack of Operationality, Low Civic Awareness, Fear frame. Armenian Church Domination: Georgian-Armenian Bilateral Relations, Fear toward the Domination of Armenian Church.

Case-study selection criteria - the Mill's method of difference

Internationalization

Mediatization Advocate’s potion

Case 1 - Setting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (2007-2010) Transformation period- 3 years

High Actors’ involvement – 19,3%Internationalization frame – 7,6%

LawNumber of the articles and claims– 45-144policy challenger/supporter coverage – 45-55%

The policy supporter

Case 2 - Registering Religious Minority Groups as Legal Entities of Public Law (2002-2011). Transformation period- 9 years

LawActors’ involvement – o,6 %Internationalization frame – 4,5%

High Number of the articles and claims – 120-1122Policy challenger/supporter coverage – 66-44%

The policy challenger

Case 1 - Juvenile Justice Policy: The Case of Setting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

2006-2007: no policy change. According to the amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia passed on 23 May 2007, the minimum age of criminal responsibility for juveniles was lowered from 14 to 12 for a certain category of grave crimes. This change was enacted in defiance of the resistance by local and international human rights organizations since 2006.

 2007-2010: incremental to significant change. When the law lowering the age of criminal responsibility was adopted, the Parliament ruled that it would enter into force after one year, on 1 July 2008. De jure the amended law went into force in July 2008, but it was never implemented or applied in practice. The Ministry of Justice announced it was introducing a moratorium over the application of this article up until a time a separate juvenile justice system was to be set up, the absence of which was one of the arguments of the non-state actors opposing the amendments (modest/incremental change). The moratorium lasted for the entire 2009 and then, on 9 February 2010, the amendments to the Criminal Code were repelled and the age of criminal responsibility of juveniles was moved from 12 back to 14. Therefore, even though there was no policy change from 2006 until 2007 in the sense of the fulfilling demands of the non-state actors, after 2007 there was in fact a period of modest success which soon transformed into the period of significant policy change in 2010.

“Policy Conversion” means different interpretation or lax implementation of the institutional rules without however changing them.

Case 2 - Minority Rights Policy: The Case of Registration of Religious Minority Groups as Legal Entities of Public Law

Based on the change of decision on the legal status of religious minority groups the case breaks down into the following three periods:

no change period (before 2002); modest change period (2002-2005); significant change period (2005-2011).

We have observed that from the phase of little success the policy advocacy reached the point of full success going through the intermediary phase of modest change, this cycle taking 9 years in total, compared with 3 years in the previous case. For the period until 2002, religious minority groups were deprived of the right to register, this being a great disadvantage with the dominant Georgian Orthodox Church which further signed a privilege-granting Concordat with the State in October 2002; In April 2005 and then in December 2006, the policy changed slightly as law amendments allowed religious groups to register but only under private law as if they were mere “associations”, “foundations” or “not-for-profit organizations” rather than “religious organizations”, a title they strongly desired. After April 2005, the Public Defender and religious minority groups continued to vociferously criticize the government. It was only in July 2011 that policy changed dramatically for traditional minority religious groups.

 “Policy Layering” involves adding new elements to the institutional rules which still remain stable. +“Policy Conversion” means different interpretation or lax implementation of the institutional rules without however changing them. The Council of Religious Minorities at the Public Defender’s Office played a significant role in policy advocacy as an institution supporting the Status Quo Challengers.

Findings of the research The results show the relevance of “Departing

Change Model”. By looking at internationalization and mediatization

of the cases, the findings demonstrate that none of these had determined the policy advocacy outcome.

However, internationalization in one case proved to have the ability to speed up the shift from no-change to significant change, while mediatization did not confirm any correlation either with the timing or the outcome of successful policy advocacy.

1. We juxtapose the “punctuated equilibrium” theory and “departing change model” to explain the logic of significant policy change in Georgia examining the relevance of the modest/incremental policy change phase.

Analysis of the two cases revealed that Departing Change Model has more relevance to explain the logic of policy advocacy success in Georgia. Both cases confirmed that shift from no-change to significant change phase is not characterized by critical junctures but rather is driven by incremental, modest change. The case of Registering Religious Minority Groups as LEPL demonstrated that incrementalism has influence on the connection of no-change and significant change phases. Furthermore, framing analysis of media showed vast volume of media coverage during the incremental change. This at the same time guaranteed to a certain degree the switch to significant change.

The power of incrementalism relevant to the Departing Change Model rather than friction (critical juncture) relevant to the Punctuated Equilibrium was evidenced by the second case – Lowering the Age of Criminal Responsibility where mediatization of the issue increased from 36.1% during no-change phase to 56.9% during modest change phase. There is drastic disparity between the figures when the percentages of modest change phase (56.9%) are compared with the significant change phase (6.9%).

Similar indicators are observed in the engagement of policy advocates in media as well as media frames pertaining to the issues and themes of this policy debate. This is especially visible in the case of non-state actors advocating restoration of the status quo existent before the no-change phase when the supporter of the retention of 14 years as a threshold for criminal responsibility lost the debate (2007).

In both cases incrementalism proved to play a decisive role in successful policy advocacy. Still, the analysis of the two cases demonstrated that different types of the incrementalism are observed in each case.

2. We assume that the intensity of the internationalization of the policy advocacy has the influence on the significant policy change

With regards to internationalization, the assumption was confirmed partially. The results of the framing analysis showed high internationalization figures in the case of Lowering Criminal Responsibility Age (7.6%) as opposed to the low internationalization figures (4.5%) in the case of Registering Religious Minority Groups as LEPL. The figures are based on the set of Internationalization Frames coded (view method for frames). At the level of actor’s engagement, the highest percentage was accrued by international actors (19.3%) out of the coded 26 actors. Whereas, in the second case the foreign actors’ engagement was almost missing from the coverage (0.6%). These figures allow for the following interpretation: the higher the internationalization the faster is the shift from no-change phase to significant change phase.

3. We assume that the intensity of the media coverage (mediatization) of the policy advocacy has the influence on the significant policy change

The assumption was not validated. The correlation between the intensity of media coverage and its influence on significant policy change is not recognized. Nonetheless, the mediatization, unlike the concept of high level of internationalization and its direct impact on the swift switch from no-change to significant change, did not resemble the similarity in terms of the quickness of the shift from one stage to another. In the two analyzed cases, the results showed that there was a significant discrepancy in the amount of the media coverage, 45 articles (144 paragraphs) in the instance of Lowering the Age of Criminal Responsibility and 120 articles (978 paragraphs) in the case of Registering Religious Minorities as L.E.P.L. In fact, in the first case the coverage coincides with all three phases of policy debate (non-change, modest change and significant change). While the analysis of media resources pertaining to the second case demonstrated that only the second and third phases of policy debate (moderate and significant change) were covered. Despite these differences, high mediatization of the event did not guarantee prompt shift from no-change phase to significant change phase.

Conclusions Success and failure of policy advocacy in Georgia on the basis of

comparative analysis of two case studies demonstrated the relevance of Departing Change Model. The phenomenon of critical juncture in the process of policy advocacy was proved less relevant. Instead, the power of incrementalism in policy change was confirmed.

The findings represent strong basis for the further analysis of policy-making in Georgia. The relevance of independent variables of mediatization and internationalization showed positive correlation with the success and failure of policy advocacy, not as catalysts of the policy making but as contributor to the success.

Internationalization proved to have an effect on the speed of the shift from no-change to significant change phase. In a broader sense, this correlation between internationalization and the speed of policy advocacy success can be ascribed to the government’s aspiration to align with the international and EU arena.

Further research Low resonance of the policy advocacy of the two cases, even

though did not confirm the assumption proposed by us does not neglect media’s role in policy change debate. Along the lines of the major academic literature, we consider that media bears the role of the conduit and/or the contributor of the policy advocacy, which will be examined further by the research.

Policy success and failure largely depends on the variables of the structure of policy advocacy groups, advocacy strategy and policy argumentation, as well as the political, economic and cultural aspects of policy sub-system. All these will be further analyzed in the discussion of these 2 cases and 6 other cases envisaged under the larger project on The Role and Limitations of Non State Actors in Influencing Public Policy in Georgia: Groups, the Media and the Public in Agenda-setting

Further research In-depth interviewing of the representatives of the policy advocacy

sides/groups (status quo challenger/status-quo supporter for each case) Policy advocacy Structure, Strategy and Argumentation: POLICY ADVOCACY STRUCTURE Promoter of policy change, Defender of status quo, Number of actors within the side,

Status of the actors: non-governmental organizations, citizen groups, trade and business associations, business corporations, professional associations, issue specific coalitions, unions, foundations, think-tanks, international organizations, international foundations and think thanks; Dimensionality: one dimensionality/multidimensionality; Presence of international policy actors, Number of international policy actors; Presence of neutral policy actors; Number of neutral policy actors

ADVOCACY STRATEGY Attendance on committee hearings, Mobilizing the members, Mobilizing the media,

Mobilizing the social movements and activities, Meeting with legislators, Meeting with the executive agencies, Continuity of advocacy

ADVOCACY ARGUMENTATION Number of testimonies presented at the legislature, Position of testimonies: in

favor/neutral or unclear/opposed ; Level of information: systematic research/comparison to similar instances/anecdotes.

Thank you for your attention !nana.macharashvili@tsu.ge ekaterine.basilaia@tsu.gentangiashvili@yahoo.co.uk