Of these 107 participants, 4 were
individual policy actors not affiliated with any particular interest group or policymaking body at the national level, and were therefore excluded from the study.
Not exact matches
«Imagine, for example, tailored advertisements created for
individual «swing voters» (selected automatically through profiling), pointing out a party's positive steps in the
policy areas that are most likely to interest them (also selected automatically), omitting those areas where party
policy doesn't fit, and couching it in a language appropriate to the
individual's ethnic, educational, cultural and linguistic background, illustrated with a few appropriate news TV clips, and playing background music exactly to the
individual's taste and voiced over by an
actor that profiling reveals that
individual likes?
The main topics covered were: 1) the respondent «s perceptions of the major state - level
policy initiatives of importance over the last few years (allowing the respondent to determine the starting year /
policy); 2) specific
policy initiatives in two arenas: accountability and promoting school leadership; 3) a discussion of the
policy initiators and
actors, and their stakes and stands on major
policy initiatives; and 4) their comments about the way in which groups and
individuals work together or separately to exercise influence over educational
policy.
The category of «interest groups» is defined for our study as including membership organizations, advocacy organizations not accepting members, businesses, other organizations or institutions, or any association of
individuals,
policy actors or groups, whether formally organized or not, that tries to influence public
policy (Baumgartner & Leech, 1998; Hrebenar, 1997; Kollman, 1998; Sipple et al., 1997; Thomas & Hrebenar, 1991).
Therefore, those working to improve government and
individual responses to climate change should adjust their tactics to respond to the insights of sociologists that have concluded that citizens need to understand how the cultural understanding of climate change has been shaped by powerful
actors who have used sophisticated tactics to achieve support for their position that climate change
policies should be opposed on the basis of scientific uncertainty and unacceptable costs to the economy.
This approach may avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court's observation that, «[a] s a general rule, decisions concerning budgetary allotments for departments or government agencies will be classified as
policy decisions,» because funding (or not funding)
individual services may not implicate larger budgetary decisions if the «operational decisions» are made by «lower level»
actors within the parameters — including ultimate financial constraints — of the
policy.