To: Dr. Sheldon Gen
Fr: Steve Adami
Re: Love Canal Stakeholder Analysis
I. POLICY PROBLEM:
The lack of an environmental policy led to a crisis, which elicited public criticism over the
government’s inability to protect its citizens from an environmental tragedy, and its failure to provide
for citizens in their time of need. Intense media coverage exposed a link between a toxic dump site
once occupied by the Hooker Electrochemical Company, to health related problems of Love Canal
residents. Studies ensued confirming chromosome damage to the residents were caused by toxins that
were disposed of by Hooker. What started as a local matter between Hooker Electrochemical and local
officials turned into a national issue. After relentless reporting by Michael Brown of the Gazette,
fierce collective action by Lois Gibbs and the Love Canal Homeowners Association (LCHA), the state
and federal governments designated Love Canal a public health emergency. The battle that followed
was between the state and federal governments over resident relocation (temporary vs. permanent), as
well as who would pay for the clean-up and relocation. The numerous conflicts between government
agencies escalated as the formal, and informal, players were able to exert leverage and assert power.
The culmination of events that transpired through the interactions of the formal players, the
intergovernmental struggles, were derived from outside pressure beginning with the media, coupled by
collective action by the LCHA. The following stakeholder analysis identifies the key players, their
preferences, leverages, and explicit use of their power. Additionally, the analysis will exhibit the
conflicts and common ground among stakeholders, and a diagnosis of the eventual policy outcomes.
The policy issue to be resolved was over resident relocation (temporary vs. permanent), who would be
responsible for the costs of relocation, and whom would be held to account for the toxins disposed of
at Love Canal. The following table identifies the formal and informal players, which would eventually
lead to a resolution of a tragic environmental catastrophe, prompting the passage of a piece of
landmark federal legislation to deal with environmental disasters.
II. DESCRIPTION OF STAKEHOLDERS
The following table lists the key policy players, both formal and informal, and their perspectives.
Table 1.
Identification
Preferences
Policy Stage
Leverages
Use of Power
Federal:
Exec:
Carter Admin
-Temporary relocation.
-Cap spending at 5 mil
Primary (*):
*Adoption
*Formal Decision Maker
*Command of Bureaucracy
*Power of the pulpit
*Command of Public
Attention/Media
Based agenda from
Agency research.
Knew Gov.Carey
wanted help.
Media
Legislature:
Rep. LaFalce
Sen Javits
Sen Moynihan
-Permanent relocation.
-More Federal money.
-Pushed for legislation.
Primary (*):
*Formulation
*Adoption
*Formal Decision Maker
*Oversight of
Implementation
Bureaucracies/Agencies:
EPA, DOJ, HHS, HUD,
FEMA, CEQ
-Filed suit vs. Hooker.
-Capped Fed spending
at 5 million. -Legitimacy
via research. -Affect
legislation. -HHS :
relocation not based on
research
Primary (*):
*Evaluation
*Technical Expertise
*Rule making
*Discretion
Used media and
authority to affect
legislation and
State and Feds to
act. Passed
Superfund.
Based finding from
expertise,
research.
State:
Exec:
Gov. Carey
-Permanent relocation.
-Wanted Feds to share
costs.
Primary (*):
*Agenda Setting
-Adoption
Agencies:
DEC,
State Dept. of Health
-DEC no resources to
force corrective action.
-Directed City to
develop clean-up plan
Primary (*):
*Identified
Problem
*Formal Decision Maker
*Command of Bureaucracy
*Consolidated Power
*Command of Public
Attention/Media
*Rule making
*Discretion
*Technical Expertise
Used media to
embarrass Carter
Admin. Knew
Carter was under
pressure to act
Based finding from
expertise,
research. Linked
toxins to Hooker.
Local:
Mayor Michael O'Laughlin,
Niagara Dept Health,
Board of Ed.
-Initially ran for cover.
-Then requested use of
Air Force Apts.
-Local government not
responsible.
Primary (*):
Mayor:
*Adoption
Mayor:
*Formal Decision Maker
*Used authority in the end to
ask Feds for help.
Mayor used exec
authority to
request Air Force
Apts. for resident
relocation.
Media:
Niagara Gazette (Michael
Brown), NY Times, NBC,
CBS, ABC, 60 Minutes
Permanent relocation.
Restitution to Love
Canal residents. Hooker
held to account. State
and Federal action.
Primary (*):
*Agenda Setting
*Command of Public
Attention. They stayed on
the story, escalated their
leverage, used leaks.
Relentless
coverage, exposed
crisis, command of
public attention
forced change
Interest Groups:
Love Canal Homeowners
Assoc. (Lois Gibbs)
Permanent relocation,
paid by State or Feds.
The coalition was led by
Los Gibbs who was a
key player in affecting
change.
Denied liability. No
payments. Claimed they
warned Board of Ed,
Inconclusive Evidence
Primary (*):
*Agenda Setting
*Formulation
*Media
*Mobilization
*Public Voice
*Direct Action
*Protesting
Primary (*):
*Agenda Setting
-Formulation
*Money
*Symbolism
Used Media, Took
Hostages , Voice of
the People,
Mobilized, Citizen
discontent to
affect change
Offered money for
more research
Commercial/Elites:
Hooker Chemicals
III. ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDERS
Conflicts:
As the details of the Love Canal disaster unraveled, conflicts between stakeholders arose. The
controversy ensued as to who would act, how they would yield their power and influence to affect
change, and who should take the lead. The battle between the state and federal governments over their
roles to rectify the problems concerned monetary commitments toward relief, and whether relocation
of the residents should be permanent or temporary. The state wanted the feds to share in the costs,
meanwhile the feds claimed there was no statutory mandate to purchase the property (Linsky, p.27).
This represents the division of power delegated by the Constitution in which authority not delegated to
the United States are reserved to the States (Anderson, p.38). With the local government running for
cover, the inability for consensus between the state and federal governments signifies that cooperative
federalism was in dismay (Anderson, p.39). Both Governor Carey and the Carted Administration were
able to exert leverage. “The federal leverage was that the state desperately wanted help,” whereas
Gov. Carey’s leverage centered on the “pressure” surrounding President Carter to act (Linsky, p.27).
Next, the leaked EPA test results caused a major scuffle within the federal government. Their
need to respond was eminent, yet disagreements existed between HHS/EPA and the Carter
Administration, as to the validity of the tests due to the lack of a control group. Conflicts persisted
between the LCHA and government due to governments inactions. The turning point in this tragedy
occurred when the LCHA took EPA employees hostage. Although many of their tactics were
effective, this one caused a conflict with one of their strongest allies, Congressman LaFalce. LaFalce
frustrations were elicited as he told Lois Gibbs the “incident was going to work against her” (Linsky,
p.24).
Hooker’s lack of accepting responsibility caused them conflict with local and state
governments, and a lawsuit by the federal government. The lawsuit was an example of the federal
government leveraging its power to protect citizens from externalities as the HHS, through expertise
and research, linked Hooker to the health problems of the residents (Gosling, p.12).
Common Ground and Coalitions:
Although there eventually was common ground between the formal players, state and federal
governments, the strongest coalitions were among the informal players. Lois Gibbs and the LCHA,
through the use of the media and collective action, citizen discontent was determined to affect change.
As a non-institutional actor, the LCHA, a coalition of individual stakeholders, were able to mobilize
and exert leverage and assert power (Cahn, p.203). The most influential coalition was the media. The
aggressive media tenacity to affect resolution and advance accountability, exerting leverage over the
formal players, brought national attention to this tragic situation. Media coverage engages the
populous and is an effective way to shape policy through all phases of the policy cycle as it “define(s)
social reality” (Cahn, p.203). The CBS and NBC nightly news, as well as the televised 60 Minutes
coverage, forced the government to act. Iyengar & Kinder (1987) contend that television news has the
capacity to shape public opinion, therefore eliciting a response from government, requiring them to act,
in a responsible manner as public opinion “influene(s) the governmental political agenda” (p.279).
Diagnosis:
The internal struggles between the formal players (state and federal governments), the tireless
action of the informal players (media and LCHA), gave way to an eventual favorable outcome to the
Love Canal residents. Although the residents received permanent relocation, it was the actions of the
informal players that eventually led to a resolution amongst the formal players. The press used its
command of public attention, making Love Canal a household story. The external pressure from the
informal players highlighted the inadequacies of the the state and the federal governments. As they
eventually were able to agree on permanent relocation, FEMA signed a relocation agreement with
Governor Carey, the federal government lent the state of NY $15 million to buy 550 homes in the
Love Canal area, and Congress passed the landmark Superfund Legislation. The most influential
player was the media as they brought the issue to national attention, but the actions of the LCHA
worked in concert with the media for the eventual required change.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J (2011). Public Policymaking. An introduction. Seventh Edition. Wadsworth Cengage
Learning: Boston, MA.
Cahn, M (2013). Institutional and Noninstitutional Actors in the Policy Process. In Theodoulou, S
& Cahn, M (2013) (Ed.), Public Policy. The Essential Readings. Second Edition. (p.199-206).
Pearson Education, Inc.: New York
Gosling, J (2004). Enduring Political Questions and Public Policy. In Theodoulou, S & Cahn, M
(2013) (Ed.), Public Policy. The Essential Readings. Second Edition. (p.12-18). Pearson
Education, Inc.: New York
Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D (1987). News that Matters. In Theodoulou, S & Cahn, M (2013) (Ed.),
Public Policy. The Essential Readings. Second Edition. (p.274-281). Pearson Education, Inc.:
New York
Linsky, M (1985). Shrinking the Policy Process: The Press and the 1980 Love Canal Relocation
Boston: Massachusetts. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Case
Study downloaded from iLearn.