ADMINISTRATIVE LOBBYING OF THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE (SOUTHERN, TRANSPORTATION, EDUCATION, WELFARE)

This dissertation is an investigation of the lobbying of the Georgia General Assembly by state administrative departments, with a focus on the policy bills of interest to six departments during the 1982 legislative session. Fifty-four interviews were conducted with legislators and administrators. The methodology was exploratory; an attempt was made to avoid forcing the data into any preconceived theoretical framework.; Administrative lobbying was found to be of two types: reactive and proactive. In the former, administrators react to bills submitted by legislators. In the latter, administrators sponsor legislation that is separate and distinct from the legislation sponsored by the Governor. The motivations of administrators are generally similar for both kinds of administrative lobbying.; Each of the six departments had its own procedures for the development and drafting of legislation, for tracking and evaluation of bills introduced in the General Assembly, and for organizing the department's legislative liaison. A typology is presented of four styles of administrative lobbying.; Administrators utilize both direct and indirect means of attempting to influence the behavior of legislators. The direct lobbying of administrators relies very heavily upon channeling communication through committee chairpersons. The most important communication takes place face-to-face in private, not in committee meetings or other formal settings. The indirect methods include the grass-roots approach, and seeking assistance from the governor, interest groups, or the media.; Legislators cooperate with administrative agencies for much the same reasons they cooperate with private interest groups: such behavior is profitable. The political resources utilized by administrators to obtain this cooperation include legislative casework, administrative discretion in service delivery, substantive and administrative expertise, and lobbying itself.; Administrative lobbying is effective. The departments were more successful in getting their own bills passed in 1982 than either the Governor or legislators with their own respective packages. Four variables appear to relate to lobbying efficacy: the lobbying role of the department head, skill in legislative liaison, intradepartment harmony, and the nature of the services provided by a department.