American Government
Interest Groups
Interest Groups
• An interest group (also called an advocacy
group, lobbying group, pressure group or
special interest) is a group, however loosely
or tightly organized, that advocates for
public policy.
• An interest group can be described as an
organized group that does not put up
candidates for election, but seeks to
influence government policy or legislation
Interest Groups & American Politics
• Organized interests have long been a source of fascination for
students of American politics
• A. many scholars of interest groups have posited that they
play a crucial role in American democracy
• B. groups help to organize public opinion and participation
• -iron law of oligarchy -- leaders call the shots they are paid to be
attentive, active, etc.
• 1. this is critical because we know that, left to its own devices, the
public is uninformed, unconstrained
• 2. and that parties have weakened
• C. In short: attentive, active groups perform many of the
functions that traditional political theory says should be
performed by either the people or parties
• -makes pluralism possible!
Interest Groups in Context
• Interest groups are a ubiquitous part of
American politics:
• 7,000 represented in Washington, DC
• Represent virtually every economic, social,
ethnic, ideological, religious interest in the
nation
• Help with the articulation of these interests
Interest Groups vs. Parties
• Interest groups are often lumped together analytically with
political parties. But they are very different --- in at least 4
ways
• A. First, composition
• 1. parties include a wide variety of people, with different concerns
and beliefs
• -parties seek to aggregate interests
• 2. groups are composed of people with specialized concerns, who
focus on a few issues
• -groups seek to articulate (loudly)
• B. Second, function
• 1. parties seek, in a comprehensive fashion, to elect a slate of
officials and to organize government
• 2. groups seek to influence certain public policy decisions on their
narrow issues
I.G. v. Parties (con’t)
• C. Third, legal status
• 1. political parties are treated as parts of the legal
machinery of government
• -examples: given money for conventions, no "whites only"
primaries
• 2. groups are considered private associations, outside the
formal channels of government, largely protected by 1st
amendment
• -as we'll see, makes them hard to regulate
• D. fourth, status of members
• 1. parties treat individuals primarily as citizens
• -appeals are based on the common good
• 2. groups treat individuals as members
• -appeals are based on more limited (or selfish) grounds
Goals: Access & Influence
Principal goal of groups is to influence policy decisions
A. U.S. system is particularly amenable to groups
• 1. constitutional basis - 1st amendment right to redress
government
• 2. we are a nation of joiners -- organize ourselves into
voluntary groups
• 3. our federal system of separated powers guarantees
numerous access points
•
•
•
•
•
-state, local, federal marble cake
(if you lose at one level, move up/down)
-legislative, executive, judicial
(if you lose in one branch, go to others)
-Congress organized into committees/subcommittees - so groups
know where to focus
• -elections are generally not publicly funded - groups provide
money
• -weak state tradition -- bureaucrats are more subject to outside
pressures than in most other western democracies
Mancur Olson: Logic of Collective Action
• Olson focused on the logical basis of interest
group membership and participation.
• The reigning political theories of his day
granted groups an almost primordial status.
• Some appealed to a natural human instinct
for herding, others ascribed the formation of
groups that are rooted in kinship to the
process of modernization.
• Olson offered a radically different account of
the logical basis of organized collective
action.
The Logic of Collective Action
• The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of
Groups was first published in 1965. It develops a theory of
political science and economics of concentrated benefits verses
diffuse costs.
• LCA challenged accepted wisdom in Olson’s day that:
•
1) if everyone in a group has interests in common, then they will
act collectively to achieve them; and
• 2) in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will
tyrannize and exploit the minority.
• Olson argues that individuals in any group attempting
collective action will have incentives to “free ride” on the
efforts of others if the group is working to provide public
goods. Individuals will not “free ride” in groups which provide
benefits only to active participants.
Recall the Free Rider Problem
SOCIETY
Contribute
Contribute
Don’t
Contribute
1
5
2
-5
3
10
4
-1
PERSON A
Don’t
Contribute
Olson (con’t)
• In TLOCA, Olson theorized that “only a
separate and ‘selective’ incentive will
stimulate a rational individual in a latent
group to act in a group-oriented way”.
• That is, only a benefit reserved strictly for
group members will motivate one to join and
contribute to the group.
• This means that individuals will act
collectively to provide private goods, but not
to provide public goods.
Free Rider Problem: Interest Groups
LARGE INTEREST GROUP
Provide
Good
Don’t Provide
Good
Join
1
5
2
-5
Don’t Join
3
10
4
-1
PERSON A
Selective Incentives
• Three Types of Selective Incentives
• Material
• Solidary
• Purposive
Material Incentives
• Material Incentives: something of
tangible value (tote bag, coffee mug,
bumper sticker, monthly magazine,
discounts etc.)
• Ex. Senior Citizen discounts through the AARP.
• a. Best Ex. AAA (Triple A is an interest group
active on automobile safety issues). People join
the AAA b/c they want free towing.
• b. Ex. Labor Unions: Closed Shop. In order to
work that job, you have to be a member of the
union. You join the union (contribute to the
‘public good’), and you get the job. Unions want
closed shops because it creates a larger
membership and thus more influence.
Solidary Incentives
• Solidary Incentives: intangible rewards
from the act of association -- sociability,
status, identification – a social interaction
benefit.
• The reason why you join is because you
want to hang out with the folks who are
members of that organization.
• Best ex. VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) – open
to anyone who fought overseas, and is primarily
a social organization. Veterans wanted to hang
out with other veterans. Frats can also be
classified as interest groups and they primarily
provide social benefits.
Purposive Incentives
• Purposive incentives: intangible rewards
related to the goals of the organization --e.g., working on an election of a supported
candidate
• A person joins a group for ‘purposive’
reasons because they so strongly identify
with that group’s mission—they want to be a
part of the cause—even when they know
their actual contribution is irrelevant to the
success of the group.
• a. Best ex. Ideologically committed interest
groups. Abortion groups (pro-choice, prolife)
Membership & Stability
• Interest groups that offer material benefits tend to be:
• The largest groups
• Are the longest lasting
• Solidary groups tend not to be long lasting and tend to fall
apart.
• The VFW thing was mostly a WWII thing, and thus as that
generation dies out and are not replaced by new blood…they die
out.
• Purposive IG’s tend to be the smallest…and they tend to be
short-lived.
• People burn-out on the effort needed to keep it going. Or the
issue looses saliency…or they win (or loose) on their issue.
• Of course, interest groups can offer a mix of benefits. The
NRA doesn’t just rely on material incentives (solidary and
purposive benefits are a part of it too).
Do I.G. Leaders Represent Members?
Depends on the selective incentives provided
by the IG’s
• In IG’s that rely on material incentives,
there tends to be a low correlation b/w the
leaders and the members (leaders don’t tend
to represent the attitudes of the members).
• If you’ve joined for the towing service, it doesn’t
mean you agree with their political objectives…in
fact you probably don’t even know what their
political agenda is.
• Big reason why Labor Union leadership are
Liberal Democrats and the Rank & File Union
membership is much more diverse (many more
conservative Republicans).
Leadership vs. Members
• In IG’s that rely primarily on solidary
incentives, the leadership is better reflective
of membership. Though they may have
divergent interests, usually they are from
the same social groups (i.e. the leaders of
the VFW were veterans).
• In IG’s that rely on purposive incentives,
there is the highest correlation between
leadership and membership views.
• If the leadership is supporting political objectives
you don’t agree with, then you’ll quit  since the
only reason you joined was because of its political
objectives. Membership keeps leadership on a
‘short lease’ in these cases.
Membership Organizations
• Peak Business Associations: made up of business
associations from a variety of industries
• Trade Associations: made up of business
associations from a single industry
• Labor Unions: Made up of either other labor unions
or workers
• Professional Associations
Groups in the Federal System:
Traditional View
• The traditional view of groups and their
role in the federal system concerns
their interrelationships between 2
other key parts of the governmental
system:
• -committee/subcommittee
• -bureaucratic agency
• -interest group
Groups in the Federal System:
Iron Triangle
Iron Triangles: Problems in Democracy
• Many people have suggested that numerous policies
are made in the U.S. in these tight triangles
• Notice how stable they are and how each of the
"points" benefits the others and is benefited by
them
• The preferred position of interest groups in these
iron triangles bothers some people:
• 1. the interest groups involved are almost always producer
groups
• 2. they are often not counter-balanced by consumer groups
• 3. some fear that this endangers the public interest
• -tantamount to having Col. Sanders babysit your chicken
Interest Group Bias
• All of this points up a general fact
about interest group democracy --some interests are better organized
than others
• We need to consider why that is so,
and
• How this organizational bias affects
public policy
Recall the Free Rider Problem
• The free rider problem is integral to
the formation and organization of
groups.
• Governments do so by the use of
compulsory taxation schemes
• Interest groups do not have such
means at their disposal – rely on
selective incentives
• Recall: defined as benefits that you get
only if you join the group
Group Formation Biases
• Upshot = some groups are more likely to form than others
• Essentially--those that are best able to identify and deliver
selective incentives to their members
• Small, concentrated groups easier to organize than large,
diffuse groups
• -little solidary reward in large groups
• -harder in a large group to see the impact of your efforts
• Homogenous groups easier to organize than heterogeneous
ones
• -in homogenous groups, it is easier to develop consensus about
what the collective interest is and what it is worth
• -easier to provide attractive selective incentives to homogenous
groups (e.g., NRA versus anti-gun groups)
• Producer groups more likely to form than consumer groups
• -producers are fewer in number, more homogenous, more
concentrated interest
• -consumers are greater in number, heterogeneous, diffused
interest
Some Groups More Equal than Others
• E. E. Schattschneider has a view similar to Olson's (The SemiSovereign People, 1960).
• Organized groups are not equally representative of all interests
in society
• 1. business groups predominate
• Gives group politics a strong upper class bias
• “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings
with a strong upper class accent”
• This suggests that we cannot count on groups to balance each
other out
• 1. in private disputes, business interests will prevail
• 2. the disorganized, poorly organized will usually lose
• Government's role is to help restore the balance
• 1. government is place where private interests do not always
prevail
• 2. place where losers in private battles seek redress
• 3. counter-acts some of the upper class bias of group politics
Beyond Iron Triangles
• Scholars suggest that there are more actors
involved now who upset the coziness of the triangle
• 1. iron rectangles -- now federal courts get into the
act
• -often represent less powerful interests
• 2. issue networks -- broader participation
• acknowledges that other interest groups have formed to try
to offset the producer interests
• -PIRGs
• -environmental groups
• -consumer groups
• Media: harder to keep decisions within the small group