Hearing, not heeding: procedural acknowledgment and substantive influence in rulemaking
研究了美国联邦规则制定中，机构引用公众评论更多是为了满足程序要求而非采纳意见，程序性回应常替代实质性政策改变，尤其对资源充足群体的评论引用后常不修改法规文本。
Abstract Public participation processes promise that citizens will be heard, but rarely guarantee they will be heeded. This distinction between procedural acknowledgment and substantive influence lies at the heart of bureaucratic responsiveness, yet these two forms of responsiveness are often conflated in empirical research. I demonstrate that in federal rulemaking, procedural acknowledgment (being heard) is empirically distinct from substantive policy influence (being heeded). Drawing on theories of bureaucratic responsiveness, I argue that agencies strategically cite commenters not primarily to signal agreement but to build defensible administrative records that satisfy procedural requirements while preserving their policy autonomy. Analyzing 854 federal rules from 2017 to 2023, I use semantic text analysis to track changes in binding regulatory provisions distinct from the explanatory preamble. I show that agencies systematically cite comments they ultimately reject, particularly from well-resourced groups. Roughly two-thirds of comment citations are not accompanied by any responsive change to the regulatory text. This reveals that procedural responsiveness can function as a strategic substitute for substantive policy change. These findings suggest that procedural engagement and substantive influence operate as distinct modes of bureaucratic responsiveness, with agencies often prioritizing legal defensibility over policy adaptation when facing potential judicial review.