CEPEL

Methodology

The empirical data presented in the database are drawn from the OPERA research program (Operationalizing Programmatic Elites Research in America, 1988–2010). This study, conducted by William Genieys, was funded by the French National Research Agency (250,000 euros) and took place from 2008 to 2012 (OPERA: ANR-08-BLAN-0032). The empirical survey examines the transformation of the highest levels of U.S. governing structures in the health and defense sectors.

The fieldwork was conducted by a team of senior and junior researchers. The senior team consisted of Jean Joana (Professor, University of Montpellier 1), Saïd Darviche, Marc Smyrl (Associate Professor, University of Montpellier 1), Sébastien Guignier (IEP Bordeaux), and William Genieys (Research Professor, CNRS). The junior team consisted, on the one hand, of two post-docs hired by CEPEL-UM1, Ben Jensen (American University) and Catherine Hoeffler (Sciences Po Paris), and, on the other hand, of two Ph.D. students, Anne-Laure Beaussier and Ulrike Lepont.
The empirical data on U.S. elites collected through this fieldwork are of two different but complementary types. On the one hand, they consist of a socio-biographic database on the positional elites studied, and, on the other hand, of a large number of interviews conducted in Washington, D.C., for the most part by the junior researchers.

The production and synthesis of empirical data should be viewed in the context of the development of the programmatic approach. This method was developed to analyze the role of actor groups or elites in shaping public policy reforms in Europe (Genieys and Smyrl, 2008; Genieys 2010). First developed to study the transformation of the highest levels of the French welfare state, it was recently revised by Genieys and Hassenteufel (2012) to apply it to other cases. It has been adapted here to the U.S. system of “checks and balances” (i.e., the legislative and executive branches) with the aim of assessing the elite configurations involved in decision-making for health and defense policies.

The programmatic approach is based on two distinct but convergent empirical research paradigms (see the characteristics of the programmatic approach in the table below):

1) A quantitative paradigm: a longitudinal sociographic study (i.e., spanning more than 20 years) of a sample of actors who held positions of power during that period;

2) A qualitative approach: in-depth interviews conducted through a “snowball effect” with key informants—individuals known for playing a significant role in decision-making or in shaping reforms within a specific area of public policy—who, in turn, recommend a list of stakeholders to interview from among the remaining decision-making positions relevant to our research.

The first step of the programmatic approach is devoted to a longitudinal sociographic study spanning a period of ten to twenty years, during which “positional elites” will be examined. For the OPERA study on the U.S. case, we selected the period from 1988 to 2010. This timeframe aims to cover a significant period to assess the continuity of elite careers in senior executive and congressional positions, while accounting for the impact of shifting majorities. We have therefore analyzed three Republican and three Democratic administrations. This covers the period from the 100th to the 111th Congresses—twelve legislative sessions in all—during five of which the president held a majority in both houses: Clinton during the 103rd, Bush Jr. during the 107th, 108th, and 109th, and Obama during the 111th.

Based on this, we first identified a group of more than 3,000 individuals in the highest positions of power (i.e., senior executive appointees and congressional staff members from 1988 to 2010 in the health and defense sectors). Subsequently, we deliberately narrowed the scope of our study to two major areas of public policy, focusing on decision-making roles within two political spheres: the expansion of health policies (i.e., from Clinton to Obama) and the “revolution in military affairs”—in other words, Rumsfeld’s reforms regarding the structure of the U.S. military.

The first list of positions has been compiled using the Congressional Directories, available in the LexisNexis database

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=CDIR):

(i) For the legislative branch: staff members have been selected from the defense and health committees and subcommittees.

(ii) For the executive branch, we have considered, in each sector: cabinet members responsible for defense and health policy, secretaries up to five hierarchical levels below them, agency directors, and relevant military staff. Among our executive staff, the Senate must confirm the following nominees: (a) the 15 secretaries of cabinet agencies, deputy secretaries, and general counsels of agencies; (b) directors of regulatory agencies; and (c) military staff.

We subsequently reduced our initial sample of 2,263 “positional” actors by introducing a control variable: in our sociographic study, we selected only those individuals who had held the identified position for at least six years between 1988 and 2010. In this way, we obtained a reduced sample of 399 individuals (funnel effect).

Within this new group of 399 people, we conducted socio-biographical research on each individual to create the OPERA Database, on which we then performed a sociographic analysis (see Chapter 2 above). Thus, we compiled a biography by combining information found on: institutional websites (White House, DOD, DHHS, Congress), *Who’s Who in America?*, Leadership Library, First Street, Revolving Doors, Source Watch, Wikipedia, LegiStorm, LinkedIn, the Federal Election Commission, WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post, the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, Project Vote Smart, GovTrack.us, OpenCongress.org, OnTheIssues.org, and OpenSecrets.org.

We have subsequently provided some answers to the following questions in a series of brief notes: To what extent has the population become feminized? For individuals, what is their level of education, which university did they attend, and what was their first job? What distinguishes their careers within government institutions? What is the average length of their careers? Are they subject to specific flexible working arrangements? What kind of jobs do they take on after leaving government service? Can we develop a typology of their institutional careers?

The second empirical component of the programmatic approach follows a qualitative logic. This study aims to capture the role played in practice by some of the elites under study in the formulation of sectoral reforms in public policy. This allows for a reconstruction of the trajectories of individual elites and the policy-relevant ideas they bring to bear across the selected policy sectors. The purpose of this is to assess their degree of involvement in the reform process under study. In-depth interviews allow for an assessment of the empirical reality of this phenomenon.
To avoid reproducing the shortcomings of the “positional” approach to elites (i.e., we know that they occupy positions of power but we do not know if, how, or to what end they use them), the programmatic approach recommends limiting the sample of elites to those who are reputed to be influential in political reforms. We tested this approach through exploratory interviews, assessing the relevance of the positions held by selected elites and the power and influence of those who occupied them. Interviews were conducted with “key informants” selected in the public and private sectors based on their reputation.
This first series of in-depth interviews with selected elites—based on criteria of reputation rather than their inclusion in our initial sample—allowed us to test our interview framework (see below). Furthermore, the use of the “snowball effect”—which involves asking people to suggest other individuals they consider important—enabled us to gradually compile a complementary list of elites regarded by their peers as influential in the sector reforms under study. From this point on, the pursuit of the qualitative dimension of the programmatic approach enabled us to incorporate, among the sector’s elite population, actors who could not be part of our reduced sample of “long-timers” (those who remained in positions of power for more than six years).

These semi-structured interviews were conducted using a standardized script adopted by all researchers. It comprised three sets of questions: (i) social background; (ii) the degree of involvement in public decision-making processes regarding public policies; and (iii) aspects of reform around which they have mobilized (ideas and tools advocated). The objective was to collect data on their personal and professional trajectories, thereby enriching the existing sociographic profiles in order to better reconstruct the reform options around which specific elites mobilized. Taking into account the historical context of professional trajectories allows us to determine whether and to what extent these elite individuals change and adapt their views on the fate of certain reforms as a result of evolving collective understanding of them.