Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence (original) (raw)

The efficacy and efforts of interest groups in post elections policy formation

Economics of Governance, 2012

This paper presents a new model of interest groups and policy formation in the legislature. In our setting, the already given party ideological predispositions and power distribution determine the expected policy outcome. Our analysis applies to the case of un-enforced or enforced party discipline as well as to two-party and multi-party (proportional representation) electoral systems. The interest groups' objective is to influence the outcome in their favor by engaging in a contest that determines the final decision in the legislature. Our first result clarifies how the success of an interest group hinges on the dominance of its ideologically closer party and, in general, the coalition/opposition blocks of parties under un-enforced party or coalition/opposition discipline. Such dominance is defined in terms of ideological inclination weighted by power. Our second result clarifies how the success of an interest group hinges on the dominance of its ideology in the ruling coalition (party) in a majoritarian system with enforced coalition (party) discipline. We then clarify under what condition an interest group prefers to direct its lobbying efforts to two parties or the two coalition and opposition blocks of parties under un-enforced discipline rather than to the members of the ruling coalition (party) under enforced discipline. The lobbying efforts under un-enforced and enforced party discipline are also compared. Finally, we clarify the effect of ideological predispositions and power on the efforts of the interest groups.

Interest Group Influence on U.S. Policy Change: An Assessment Based on Policy History

How often and in what circumstances do interest groups influence U.S. national policy outcomes? In this article, I introduce a new method of assessing influence based on the judgments of policy historians. I aggregate information from 268 sources that review the history of domestic policymaking across 14 domestic policy issue areas from 1945-2004. Policy historians collectively credit factors related to interest groups in 385 of the 790 significant policy enactments that they identify. This reported influence Interest Group Influence on U.S. Policy Change

Interest Group Influence and the Two Faces of Power

American Politics Research, 2018

This study revives the "two faces of power" conceptualization to consider whether common interest group measures are valid proxies for interest group strength. The "two faces of power" model proposes that power enables not just influence on decisions, but also influence from controlling the agenda. Using the case of state-level teachers' unions, I test whether measures of a group's ability to set the agenda (the second face of power) have a stronger relationship with policy outcomes and stakeholder perceptions of influence than do measures of a group's engagement with legislators (the first face of power). I find support for this proposition. The second face, operationalized with union membership rates, is associated with policy proposal, policy passage, and stakeholder perceptions of influence, while open contestation, operationalized with campaign contributions, is not. This suggests that operationalizations of power based on surface-level measures such as campaign contributions may not accurately capture interest group influence.

Predicting Interest Groups Strategies: A Study of Interest Groups and Bills

2002

This paper contributes to our understanding of the puzzle of how interest groups choose their legislative strategies. Literature on interest groups suggests that the resources available to the group limit a group's strategies (see Berry 1977). In addition, later research suggests that the context of legislation also influences the strategies in which groups engage (see Baumgartner and

Different groups, different strategies: How interest groups pursue their political ambitions

Scandinavian Political Studies, 2008

The article compares the political activities of different types of interest groups. Drawing on data from a survey of all Danish national interest groups, it demonstrates significant variation in the strategic choices of different types of groups. Groups with corporative resources direct much attention towards influencing the bureaucracy. They possess resources valued by officials and therefore have good options for utilizing a strategy targeting the administration and seeking corporatist integration. By contrast, public interest groups are more likely to use publicly visible strategies in which affecting the media agenda plays a central role. By engaging in such strategies, public interest groups can demonstrate a high level of engagement to their diffuse membership. Furthermore, the goals of public interest groups are typically conducive to pursuit through public strategies. A third category of other groups is incorporated in the analyses as a point of reference to establish patterns of strategy use. While there are clear differences between groups with regard to most strategies of influence, different types of groups are equally engaged in a parliamentary strategy. Interacting with Parliament seems to be important for groups integrated in corporatist structures as well as for those relying more on public strategies.

Interest Groups and Public Opinion

Annals of the International Communication Association, 1988

ROFESSOR Edelstein's essay offers observations and insights about the relationships between interest groups and public opinion. For obvious reasons, his emphases are on the traditions and innovations of the communications perspective. In our commentary, therefore, we shall draw on the theoretical and case study literature to adumbrate, discuss, illustrate, and, of necessity, speculate about interest groups and public opinion in the United States. Starting with the nature of interest groups themselves, we then look at their relations with the public at large, the media, and government. To conclude, we raise the larger, disturbing issue that emerges from our discussion and analysis. INTEREST GROUPS Interest group is a slippery term, requiring definition. David Truman's (1951) is useful: "any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes" (p. 33). Explicitly or implicitly excluded by this definition are government agencies, even though they often strive mightily to influence public opinion, and unorganized political participation. So defined, interest groups abound. They can be variously categorized in terms of subjects of interest (agriculture, women's rights, business, morality, environment), types of people represented (dairy farmers, Vietnam veterans,

Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics

The Journal of Politics, 2001

Using data from more than 19,000 reports filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, we analyze the distribution of lobbying on a random sample of 137 issues and find a tremendous skewness. The median issue involved only 15 interest groups, whereas 8 of the issues involved more than 300 interest groups. The top 5% of the issues accounted for more than 45% of the lobbying, whereas the bottom 50% of the issues accounted for less than 3% of the total. This distribution makes generalizations about interest group conflict difficult and helps explain why many scholars have disagreed about the abilities of lobbyists to get what they want. We also confirm and expand upon previous findings regarding the tremendous predominance of business firms in the Washington lobbying population. Political scientists writing since the turn of the century have repeatedly noted the vast proliferation of interest groups in Washington, DC, and in recent decades it has become common to refer to the interest group "explosion" of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Berry 1997; Schlozman and Tierney 1986; Walker 1991). The expansion of the group system is significant to interest group schol