The visible hand of the state : on the organizational development of interest groups

To understand dynamics within communities of organized interests, researchers have primarily studied organizational births and deaths. The organizational development of established interest organizations has received far less attention. This article claims that the evolution of interest groups' organizational features is strongly affected by evolving resource dependencies with the state. A life-history case study of an environmental interest organization is used to substantiate this argument empirically. The findings demonstrate that resource dependence relations with state actors critically shape organizational development, but that this dependence affects an organization's mission, structure, and strategy in different ways. This conclusion highlights the vital role of government patronage in the survival and maintenance of interest organizations.The politics and administration of institutional chang

Uitgelezen: Lobbyen in de Wetstraat

The politics and administration of institutional chang

The balancing act of establishing a policy agenda: Conceptualizing and measuring drivers of issue prioritization within interest groups

Interest groups are important intermediaries in Western democracies, with the potential to offer political linkage and form a bridge between the concerns of citizens and the agendas of political elites. While we know an increasing amount about the issue-based activity of groups, we only have a limited understanding about how they selected these issues to work on. In this article, we examine the process of agenda setting within groups. In particular, we address challenges of conceptualization and measurement. Through a thorough review of the group literature, we identify five main factors that are hypothesized to drive issue prioritization. We operationalize items to tap these factors and then empirically assess this theoretical model relying on data from a survey of national interest groups in Australia. Our findings, from a confirmatory factor analysis, provide support for the multidimensional nature of agenda setting. We discuss how this provides a firm conceptual and methodological foundation for future work examining how groups establish their policy agenda.The politics and administration of institutional chang

Interest Group Politics: Change and Continuity

The politics and administration of institutional chang

Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems

Think tanks have proliferated in most Western democracies over the past three decades and are often considered to be increasingly important actors in public policy. Still, their precise contribution to public policy remains contested. This paper takes the existing literature in a new direction by focusing on the capacity of think tanks to contribute to strategic policy-making and assessing their particular role within policy advisory systems. We propose that strategic policy-making capacity requires three critical features: high levels of research capacity, substantial organizational autonomy and a long-term policy horizon. Subsequently, we assess the potential of think tanks to play this particular role in policy-making, using empirical evidence from structured interviews with a set of prominent Australian think tanks.The politics and administration of institutional chang

Interest groups, the bureaucracy and issue prioritization

Interest groups—collective voluntary organizations for which political advocacy is a primary task such as business associations and citizen groups—are key agents engaging with the bureaucracy. While understudied, research on the relations between interest groups and civil servants highlights the importance of the bureaucratic arena. Recent studies present different perspectives on the interactions between these two actors and also highlight the process of issue prioritization, an important aspect of (internal) agenda setting within groups. This is a key process to study as it provides insight into why groups allocate their attention and resources to a specific set of policy issues, and in this way it clarifies how interest groups put representation into practice. Issue prioritization within groups can be conceptualized as being guided by five drivers: internal responsiveness, policy capacities, niche seeking, political opportunity structure, and issue salience. Recent scholarship has highlighted how rather than privileging one driver over another, this process is first and foremost a balancing exercise in which groups take on board various internal and external considerations. Similar processes are at work within bureaucracies. The intersection of prioritization processes of civil servants and interest groups is an important area for future research. The politics and administration of institutional chang

Laying the Groundwork: Linking Internal Agenda-Setting Processes Of Interest Groups to Their Role in Policy Making

Although scholarship has highlighted the role of stakeholders in policy making, less is known about the preparations they make that lay the groundwork for their lobbying activities. This article links ideas on collaborative governance with the study of agenda setting within interest groups. We outline an orthodox mode of agenda setting that anticipates groups possess a proactive policy mode, an institutionalized policy platform, and a pyramid-like agenda structure. Subsequently, we use this orthodox mode as a heuristic device for examining agenda structures and processes, combining survey data on the practices of groups in Australia with illustrative qualitative evidence.The politics and administration of institutional chang

How do interest groups legitimate their policy advocacy? Reconsidering linkage and internal democracy in times of digital disruption

The ongoing embrace of interest groups as agents capable of addressing democratic deficits in governing institutions is in large part because they are assumed to contribute democratic legitimacy to policy processes. Nonetheless, they face the challenge of legitimating their policy advocacy in democratic terms, clarifying what makes them legitimate partners in governance. In this article we suggest that digital innovations have disrupted the established mechanisms of legitimation. While the impact of this disruption is most easily demonstrated in the rise of a small number of ‘digital natives’, we argue that the most substantive impact has been on more conventional groups, which typically follow legitimation logics of either representation or solidarity. While several legacy groups are experimenting with new legitimation approaches, the opportunities provided by technology seem to offer more organizational benefits to groups employing the logic of solidarity, and appear less compatible with the more traditional logic of representation.The politics and administration of institutional chang

‘De lobby’ aan banden? Over het ongelijk speelveld en de regulering van belangenvertegenwoordiging

De vraag of lobbyregulering zinnig en effectief is, is niet gemakkelijk te beantwoorden. Enerzijds is belangenvertegenwoordiging een cruciale levensader voor elk democratisch politiek systeem, anderzijds leidt het regelmatig tot uitwassen die juist indruisen tegen de principes van een representatieve democratie. Een antwoord op de vraag of regulering van het lobbyproces zinnig is, moet dus zowel rekening houden met de essentie van het proces voor democratische besluitvorming als de onmiskenbaar negatieve externaliteiten. In dit stuk ontwikkelen wij een evaluatiekader gericht op drie belangrijke potentiële neveneffecten van belangenvertegenwoordiging: een ongelijk speelveld, ontoegankelijke en ondoorzichtige besluitvorming, en beleidsuitkomsten die belangenverstrengeling impliceren. In dit artikel nemen we de voorgestelde maatregelen in de initiatiefnota Lobby in Daglicht, alsook de daaropvolgende kabinetsreactie en genomen maatregelen nader onder de loep. We werpen hierbij de vraag op of dit pakket aan maatregelen en regelgeving een gepast antwoord vormt op de geïdentificeerde problemen, en meer fundamenteel of door de sterke focus op meer transparantie een aantal andere belangrijke aspecten van belangenvertegenwoordiging over het hoofd worden gezien. Onze belangrijkste conclusie is dat de huidige set aan maatregelen een blinde vlek heeft voor het meest fundamentele probleem met betrekking tot belangenvertegenwoordiging dat op alle vlakken doorwerkt, namelijk een ongelijk speelveld tussen verschillende maatschappelijke groepen.The politics and administration of institutional chang

Conceptualising the policy engagement of interest groups: Involvement, access and prominence

While much progress has been made in empirically mapping and analysing a variety of interest group activities in the last decade, less attention has been devoted to conceptual work that clearly defines and distinguishes different forms of policy engagement. This article contributes to this endeavour by developing a theoretical framework that explicitly links currently available measures of the policy engagement of groups to the distinct concepts of group involvement, access and prominence. It argues that greater conceptual clarity will lead to better accumulation of knowledge in the sub-field and a better understanding of the role of interest groups in political systems.The politics and administration of institutional chang