How can GR participate in the public debate to propose alternatives and solutions? Lobbying or Advocacy? What is the best way to act at this stage of the public policy cycle?

The series of articles in partnership with Andréa Gozetto* shows how institutional and government relations happen in practice in each stage of the public policy cycle. This is the third article and you will understand how to insert yourself into the debate, how to use evidence to propose solutions, the best tactic to act. Enjoy reading!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

After presenting the main characteristics of the first phase of the public policy cycle, in this article I will focus on the second phase, known as formulation of alternatives. 

Once the problem has been inserted into the agenda, the efforts of interest groups turn to presenting the solution that they believe is the most appropriate to address such problem. 

This phase of the cycle is marked by political discussions about the potential consequences of each alternative and takes place, mainly, within the scope of the Legislative Branch, in its three spheres of competence (municipal, state, and federal). These discussions involve the presentation of perceptions and the interests of each group interested in the theme and are normally permeated by articulations, negotiations, and conflicts. 

Therefore, a strong dispute among interest groups is inherent to this phase, since each one defends its point of view about resolving the problem. The way the problem and its consequent solution are presented to the decision-maker is fundamental to influence them.

This phase is fundamentally technical, as the decision adopted must be justified, having its objectives and legal, administrative, and financial framework made explicit.  Therefore, interest groups must make abundant use of evidence to compose their action strategy and arguments used in the debate.  

In the field of public policies, evidence figures as one of the basic instruments for information and evaluation. It is understood that evidence-based public policies are more effective. Therefore, when it comes to formulating alternatives, elaborating and presenting evidence-based proposals is mandatory.

Evidence can be obtained from different sources, including:

  • Internal sources: information gathered by members of the interest group
  • External sources: information gathered in traditional and digital media
  • Official government sources: information obtained from data from public research companies, ministries, secretariats, legislative houses, regulatory agencies, courts, etc.
  • Official non-government sources: information obtained from data from political parties, labor unions, associations, international organizations, civil society organizations, etc.
  • Documentary sources: information collected in academic articles and reports, dissertations, and doctoral theses

It is very important that after obtaining, systematizing, and analyzing the information from the evidence, the group communicates this information in a simple and easy way to understand, bringing its communication closer to the language of the decision-maker.

For this to be possible, it is necessary to take two precautions, in particular. The first concerns the definition of the target audience, that is, to whom the communication is addressed. The second precaution refers to the message that will be communicated to the target audience. For each target audience, a specific message must be elaborated.

At a time when capturing people's attention is so challenging, these precautions become central. 

Based on the arguments presented above, I believe it is already clear that, for this phase of formulating alternatives, the most recommended tactic is Advocacy. I make this recommendation because, according to specialized literature, Advocacy activities can be divided into four categories: media, information, mobilization, and protests and public demonstrations [1]. 

The media (traditional and digital) and information categories are especially important for this phase, as they involve activities related to knowledge production (evidence) and its dissemination. The media category involves communicating your point of view through individual and collective interviews with newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc., participating in podcasts, publishing press releases, writing and publishing opinion articles for newspapers, magazines, and blogs, and building advertising campaigns to publicize your positions. The information category, on the other hand, refers to the elaboration and publication of articles, books, research reports, and brochures/booklets. 

The presentation of evidence to decision-makers can occur directly, through formal or informal face-to-face contacts, direct [2] or indirect non-face-to-face contacts. This definition of the form of contact, however, depends on the resources available to the interest group.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] TRESCH, A.; FISCHER, M. In search of political influence: outside lobbying behaviour and media coverage of social movements, interest groups and political parties in sex Western European contries. In: International Political Science Review, published online 14 February 2014. 

[2]  MANCUSO, W. P. & GOZETTO, A. C. O. Lobby e Políticas Públicas no Brasil. In: LUKIC, Melina Rocha, TOMAZINI, Carla (coord). As ideias também importam. 1ª ed. Curitiba: Juruá, 2013.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Andréa Gozetto is Executive Director of Gozetto & Associados and creator of the Conexão RIG hub. Since 2015, she has dedicated herself to supporting GR areas to improve their strategic management and to base their political advocacy actions on scientific evidence. She is the creator of the MBA in “Economics and Management – Government Relations” and the short course “Advocacy and Public Policies: Theory and Practice” at FGV/IDE, being the academic coordinator in São Paulo. She holds a Post-doctorate in Public Administration and Government (FGV/EAESP), a Doctorate in Social Sciences (UNICAMP), a Master's in Political Sociology (Unesp-Araraquara), and a Bachelor's in Social Sciences (UFSCar). She acts as a career mentor in GR, guiding and advising professionals to maximize their results.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sigalei Blog | Government Relations Series in the Public Policy Cycle - Andréa Gozetto

Remember the first article of the series by clicking below:

1. Lobbying and Advocacy in the Public Policy Cycle

2. Public Policy Cycle: lobbying and advocacy in agenda setting