AMERICAN INTEREST GROUPS’ INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT
POLICY-MAKING
— A CASE STUDY OF THE PL HCP
BY
Zhang Juan
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate School and College of English
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Master of Arts
Under the Supervision of Professor Wang Enming
Shanghai International Studies University
November 2007
上海外国语大学
英语语言文学专业
英美文化方向
学号：05143
姓名：张娟
导师：王恩铭
英文标题：
American Interest Groups’ Influence on Government Policy-Making
— A Case Study of the PL HCP
中文标题：
美国利益集团对政府决策的影响
— 以太平洋木材公司栖息地保护计划为例
Acknowledgements
I owe profound debt of gratitude to many people who have greatly contributed to or
have helped with the development of this thesis in their special ways. I am especially
grateful to my supervisor, Professor Wang Enming, who generously spent his precious
time reading this thesis several times and the thesis has been significantly improved for
his advice and constructive criticism. I would also like to thank him for measuring my
thesis by his standard. The standard has certainly served him well and I hope it will bring
me the same success.
I want to thank my parents for their unselfish and unconditional support throughout
my postgraduate career. Without their support and encouragement, I could never have
had the opportunity to engage in higher education. Thanks Mom and Dad for all you
have done for me. Special thanks go to my one-year-old nephew, Tiger, who brought a lot
of laughter to my life during the tough course of this thesis.
I
Abstract
As political parties have declined in influence in the past thirty years, interest groups
have blossomed and proliferated and are now occupying a position of unprecedented
power and influence in American politics. To a certain degree, American politics is
interest group politics, in which interest groups compete to influence government
decision to their favor. This profound change of American politics requires that we
examine interest groups and their influence on policy-making at some length.
Interest groups attempt to influence policy in a direction favorable to their
community. This thesis analyzes what competing interest groups do to influence the
government policy-making. It illustrated that to influence and orient the public decision
to their favor, groups will choose those strategies and tactics with which they are most
skilled and practiced and which are most congruent with their resources base, which were
not merely defined in terms of budgets.
As a way of illustration, the Pacific Lumber Habitat Conservation Plan is selected as
a case study to demonstrate the way interest group actually operates in the policy-making
process. The issue embodies two major countervailing participators, notably,
environmental groups and business groups. The HCP finally proscribed timber harvesting
in Headwaters Grove and other 12 groves to provide wildlife protection for 50 years. The
case has demonstrated that it is not necessarily true that the most economically powerful
interest groups have the greatest impact on the formation of American public policy.
Other factors such as group resources, strategies and tactics to a certain degree modify
and affect the influence of interest groups on government policy-making.
Policy-making is not simply a game among elected and appointed officials, played
without an active audience. Interested individuals carefully watch and react to the actions
of elected and appointed officials. Interest groups, when exercising their influences and
resources in public interest, can be quite positive.
Key Words: interest group; resource; strategy; tactic; Habitat Conservation Plan
II
内容摘要
在过去的 30 多年中，随着政党影响力的逐渐下降，利益集团对美
国政治的影响取得了重要地位。从某种意义上来说，美国政治就是利益
政治，即不同的利益群体通过寻求和保护自己的利益，在相互竞争中产
生政府的政策。美国政治现象的这一重大变化, 要求我们详尽地研究利
益集团以及它们对政府决策的影响力。
利益集团影响政策的目的是为了实现有利于自己的利益分配。本文
分析了相互竞争的利益集团如何影响政府决策，指出不同的利益集团为
达成其利益目的，往往通过选择与其资源相协调的战略或策略，来赢得
集团对政策的影响，但在此资源却并不仅仅只有金钱等方面。本文以太
平洋木材栖息地保护计划为案例来进一步阐述这种影响。该案例中，虽
然两大对立的利益集团，环境保护集团和商业集团，其在金钱、影响力
等方面自然不可同日而语，但最终的保护计划却规定，为了保护野生生
物，此后 50 年间禁止在水源林和其他 12 个树林地区进行木材采伐。
通过案例分析表明，经济上强大的利益集团也不一定对公共政策形
成更强大的影响力，其他因素：如集团资源、采用的战略和战术等也在
一定程度上影响着政府决策，同时，也说明了如果利益集团所寻求的利
益在符合公众利益时，其对政府决策的制定，也将会起到正面的重要的
影响。
III
Contents
Acknowledgements
Ⅰ
Abstract
Ⅱ
内容摘要 (中文)
Ⅲ
Introduction
1
Chapter One Interest Groups in Political Process
5
1.1 Defining Interest Groups
5
1.2 Organizational Formation, Maintenance and Incentive
6
1.3 Group Classification
6
Chapter Two Group Resources
10
2.1 Physical Resources
11
2.2 Organizational Resources
14
2.3 Political Resources
16
2.4 Other Resources
17
Chapter Three Efforts to Influence Government Decision
18
3.1 Strategies and Tactics
18
3.2 Lobbying the Legislative Branch
19
3.3 Lobbying the Executive Branch
25
Chapter Four A Case Study of the Pacific Lumber HCP
33
4.1 The Pacific Lumber Habitat Conservation Plan
34
4.2 Organized Interests: Who Did What and Why?
36
Conclusion
44
Bibliography
50
IV
Introduction
Despite the prevalence of groups in America, there has always been a deep
suspicion and ambivalence toward interest groups on the part of the populace. In the US
there have always been two fundamentally different views on interest groups. To many,
interest groups are an evil force with the potential to corrupt the political process and
distort policy away from the popular will. To others，interest groups express the best
features of democracy. They are both necessary and useful in translating opinions and
interests in the society into representative policy. And academic studies focusing on
group politics have lasted for centuries.
From the eighteenth century onward, observers of America have been impressed by
its strong group orientations. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that “In no country in the world
has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater
multitude of objects than in America.”1 He was impressed by the organization of such
groups and their power on formal institutions of government. Of all American founding
fathers, James Madison was the first prominent American to emphasize the function of
groups in American politics. In the Federalist Papers Madison discussed the importance
of groups，which he called “factions.”2 Madison felt that factions or interest groups were
inherently bad. They worked against the right of others or even the whole community
sometimes. He maintained that the “mischiefs of faction” must be constrained by setting
the “ambition” of one faction against the selfish tendencies of other factions. Thus,
Madison expressed the concept of checks and balances that underlies the American
governmental structure.
Before the turn of the century, political science of nineteenth century focused on the
formal branches of government and ignored the role of groups. But Arthur F. Bentley
shifted the focus. “Groups”, argued Bentley, “are the raw materials of politics.” Bentley
was scornful of the concept of an overall public interest. To him, government and policy
were merely the result of the interactions of groups within and outside government. In
1
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. by Philips Bradley, New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., 1945, Vol. 1, p. 191.
2
The Federalist Papers, No. 10, New York: New American Library, 1961, pp. 77-84.
1
Bentley’s view, the society is “nothing other than the complex of the groups that
compose it.” However, for some twenty years thereafter, his major work - The Process of
Government - went almost unnoticed by political scientists.1 Things got changed when
Bentley's analysis stimulated an expansion of group theory presented in1951 by David B.
Truman whose book was not ignored. It was considered by political scientists an
important breakthrough. Truman described the institutions of government as
aggregations of groups，interacting with one another and with the variety of outside
groups. He pointed out that an individual is normally a member of several groups and
that this overlapping membership helps control the “mischiefs of factions.”2 A major
study of lobbyists following Truman’s analysis was Lester Milbrath’s The Washington
Lobbyists. Milbrath suggested that the influence of groups and their lobbyist
representatives was greatly constrained by the multitudes of other forces pressing on
public officials.3
But as political research moved toward the conception of “groups as benign” or
“groups as beneficial,” critics began to question these assertions. One of the most
prominent was E. E. Schattschneider whose theories about groups appear in two classic
books - Politics, Pressures and the Tariff and the Semisovereign People. In his study of
the tariff，Schattschneider observed that groups able to afford experienced lobbyists in
Washington had great advantages in influencing Congress. He noted that groups achieved
access through campaign contributions and “inside” connections, not because of the size
of their memberships. To Schattschneider, the operation of groups in the American
political process is based on a profound upper class bias and a distortion of the “public
interest.” He felt that not only was business far better organized than other segments of
the American population, but that other groups in the society would also “reflect an
upper-class tendency” because participation in these groups would be much greater
among upper-income，educated，and high-status individuals.4 In the Semisovereign
People, Schattschneider states: “The central political fact in a free society is the
tremendous contagiousness of conflict.” Every fight consists of two parts: (1) the few
1
Arthur F. Bentley, The Process of Government, Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1967.
David B. Truman, The Government Process, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1951.
3
Lester Milbrath, The Washington Lobbyists, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963, p. 342.
4
E. E. Schattschneider, Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935.
2
2
individuals who are actively engaged at the center and (2) the audience that is irresistibly
attracted to the scene. As likely as not，the audience determines the outcome of the fight.
Conflicts are frequently won or lost by the success that the contestants have in getting the
audience involved in the fight or in excluding it.1 However, in The End of Liberalism,
Theodore Lowi took the criticism of interest groups in yet another direction. Lowi
suggested that the prevailing ideology of “interest groups as legitimate and good” - what
he called “interest group liberalism” - had, over time，resulted in a very dangerous
situation in American society, in which government had lost its basic sense of legitimacy
and authority.2
Political observers present different theories concerning the group politics. They
have studied the political interest group for several reasons: (1) It is argued that such
groups can act as a major link between the citizen and his government. (2) The political
interest group is viewed as a bargaining agent in the public allocation of material and
human resources. (3) Some scholars believe that the interest group can orient the
individual to a highly complex society.
As political parties have declined in influence in the past thirty years, interest groups
have blossomed and proliferated and are now occupying a position of unprecedented
power and influence in American politics. This change, and it may be a profound one,
requires that we examine interest groups and lobbying at some length. And this thesis
will try to settle three questions: (1) Are interest groups good or bad forces in American
politics and society? (2) Do groups, in the sum of their actions and interactions, provide
some approximation of the public interest (3) Do interest groups reflect a bias in favor of
moneyed, upper-class or business oriented segments of the society, or are they a fair
section of all interests in the society?
All these three questions will be discussed and settled to some extent as the research
goes on. Chapter One offers some basic knowledge about interest group politics, like
definitions and organizations for better understanding and analyzing it. Chapter Two
discusses the types of resources that are available to the interest group community at
large, pointing out that a group’s resources will affect the kinds of benefits it seeks and
1
E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960, p.2.
Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism, New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1969, pp.
288-291.
2
3
will also limit the strategies and tactics available. Chapter Three analyzes strategies and
tactics adopted by interest groups to influence the public policy, arguing that a group’s
choice of strategies and tactics is congruent with its resources base. Chapter Five uses the
Pacific Lumber Habitat Conservation Plan as a case study to examine and demonstrate
how interest groups actually operate to influence the public policy-making. It investigates
how the characteristics and the unique resources of interest groups involved, namely, the
environmental groups and the business group, shape the strategies and tactics groups
adopted with the respect to the plan. Finally, based on the previous discussion,
particularly the analysis of the Pacific Lumber case, the thesis concludes it is not
necessarily that the most economically powerful interest groups have the greatest impact
on the formation of American public policy. Other factors such as group characteristics,
resources, strategies and tactics and so forth to a certain degree modify and affect the
influence of interest groups on public policy. The policy-making is not simply a game
among elected and appointed officials, played without an active audience. Interested
individuals carefully watch and react to the actions of elected and appointed officials.
The impact of interest groups is significant in American politics. They play a role as a
watchdog for democracy in American politics.
4
Chapter One Interest Groups in Political Process
1.1 Defining Interest Groups
What is an interest group, the unit of analysis for this study? Scholars use terms
such as associations, pressure groups, organized interests, special interests and
non-governmental organizations to describe similar entities. This thesis does not intend
to give a brand new definition of an interest group. However, clarifying the term within
this project is a necessary precondition to analyze it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, “an
association unites into one channel the efforts of divergent minds and urges them
vigorously towards the one end which it clearly points out”.1 Thus, a group consists of
multiple parts, with a divergent individual interest, and also a collective goal which the
group actively pursues. Neither the private citizen nor the corporation is an interest group
because they are not organized as such. Both the corporation and the private citizen
individually contact and try to influence political decisions, but they are doing so as
individual entities, not as organized groups. Often these interests are represented at an
organized level, or as a collective entity, such as a trade association or a public interest
group, that acts to influence governmental decisions on behalf of its membership. Nearly
a century ago, Arthur Bentley argued for a definition of an interest group that is closely
tied to what they do. Likewise, Heinz and his colleagues point out that, “The profit
motive, religious beliefs, desires to achieve some public end, or views on any social issue,
then, are not in themselves ‘interest,’ but become so only when those who share them
make demands on governments.”2 Having an interest in governmental decisions is not
sufficient to be considered an interest group. Acting on those interests as a group to
secure the benefits for the organization makes it an interest group. Thus, a recreational
organization, such as the mountaineers, has an interest not only in hiking and climbing,
but also in preserving open space. When it acts on those interests as an organization to
affect the public policy, it becomes an interest group. For the purpose of this thesis then,
1
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. by Philips Bradley, New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., 1945, Vol. 1, p.199.
2
John P. Heinz, Edward O. Laumann, Robert L. Nelson, and Robert H. Salisbury, The Hollow Core:
Private Interests in National Policymaking, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.
5
an interest group is an association, formally organized, that has some desire or interest to
influence a public policy. Its membership can consist of individuals, organizations,
citizens or some combination. Examples of interest groups in this thesis include
grassroots organizations such as Earth First!, the Sierra Club and the Environmental
Protection Information Center.
1.2 Organizational Formation, Maintenance and Incentives
The array of groups in the United States is dizzying. Handbooks of associations alone
list over 10,000 separate groups.1 Due to such enormous diversity, any attempt to
understand their behavior should, first and foremost, begin with a clear-cut distinction
between the types of groups that exist and operate in the United States. Similarly, in
order to classify interest groups in the process of differentiation, it is advisable to first of
all make clear why these interest groups got organized and managed to remain organized.
Whatever else organizations might seek, they seek to survive. In order to survive, they
provide benefits that can be withheld from nonmembers. Robert Salisbury in 1969 noted
that three types of benefits are available. First there are material benefits which are the
tangible rewards of participation such as income or services that have monetary values.
Second, there are social incentives which are intangible rewards created by the act of
association, such as fun, status or prestige. Finally, there are purposive, also known as
expressive, rewards which are derived from advancing a particular cause of ideology. All
in all, groups came into being in order to survive. For only in this way, can they in large
part advance the well-being of its members.2
1.3 Group Classification
Classifying groups can be a useful step toward understanding them. Groups can be
classified according to their primary functions, type of membership, subject area and in
many other ways. The interest group community has typically been divided into such
1
Charles S. Mack, The Executive’s Handbook of Trade and Business Associations, Greenwood Press.
1990, p. 7.
2
Robert H. Salisbury, “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups”, Midwest Journal of Political Science,
vol. 1969, pp. 1-32.
6
sectors as business, labor, agriculture, the profession, and others. Another basis for
classifying groups lies in the distinction between tangible interests and intangible
interests. The distinction between economic and noneconomic interest groups is quite
broad and general. But under each of these general categories further distinctions can be
made in terms of socioeconomic factors. Therefore, the classification based on
socioeconomic factors probably is the most common one.
Organizations formed around the economic and occupational interests of their
members by no means the most politically active actors in the United States. But it
appears that noneconomic interest groups are becoming increasingly important political
actors, making up about one-third of all groups.1 The growing activities of religious
groups，ideological organizations, single issue interest groups, and environmental groups
demonstrate the increasing importance of noneconomic associations in the political
process. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to infer that all organizations in this category are
not for economic interests. But what distinguish such organizations from the purely
economic ones are the goals and values that put their members together. The category of
noneconomic groups includes such traditional organizations as religious groups, ethnic
groups, racial groups, women’s groups，and ideological organizations. Also included
under this category would be “public interest” groups. While there has been considerable
confusion and debate over what a “public interest” group is，several writers have
attempted to provide a useful definition. Jeffrey Berry，while recognizing that “the public
interest” is a much abused and ambiguous expression, offered the following operational
definition:
“A public interest group is one that seeks a collective good, the achievement of
which will not selectively and materially benefit the membership or activists of the
organization.”2
Public interest groups are distinguished from others primarily by the absence of
self-referring cause. Public interest groups are those whose members have nothing in
particular to gain from the policies they follow. No selective，specific，tangible rewards
are expected. They may be classified under the general heading of noneconomic interest
1
Charles S. Mack, The Executive’s Handbook of Trade and Business Associations, Greenwood Press.
1990, p. 9.
2
Jeffery H. Berry, Lobbying for the People, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.
7
groups. Under this definition such groups as Common Cause，the Nader organizations,
the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Defense Fund and so on may be
considered public interest groups. They are
supporting such public goods as honesty
and openness in government，consumer and preservation of the environment. On the
other hand, the terminology of public interest versus special interests can be misleading.
The economic and noneconomic distinction is more valid.
Economic Interest Groups represent particular industries or occupations. Labor,
business，agriculture, and the professions comprise the more or less conventional sectors
of interest group activity. Their presence in the American political system has a
longstanding tradition and many of the existing organizations were established in the late
1800s and early 1900s. The business community is by far the most highly organized
segment of society. There may be as many business groups as there are groups of all
other types combined.1 The business association universe is extremely diverse and ranges
from the general business associations to trade associations to small business associations.
Many firms or corporations belong to a trade association and possibly to umbrella groups
like the National Association of Manufacturers. Business groups generally focus their
lobbying activity as much toward regulatory agencies and the federal bureaucracy as
toward Congress. Among the largest of the business in Washington are: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, The National Association of Manufacturers, and certain trade
associations such as The American Petroleum Institute. Even though major corporations
and “big business” generally tend to dominate and define business interests in
Washington, small business can also have a considerable amount of clout. Compared
with the large scale of business groups, labor unions today are fewer than there were and
they comprise a significantly smaller fraction of the total work force. Labor invests
substantial resources in its Washington representation and the AFL-CIO has been
regarded as one of the best lobbies in Washington. Also，labor has allied with business on
issues of mutual concern like the declining of American steel and automobiles industries.
Acting on its own, labor has been successful in defending hostile legislation but has been
less successful in initiating new legislation except when it has been part of a larger
1
Charles S. Mack, The Executive’s Handbook of Trade and Business Associations, Greenwood Press.
1990, p. 10.
8
coalition. Moreover, labor has not successfully explored new methods to counterbalance
its loss of numbers and political influence.1 And the professions provide another diverse
sector for analysis. In fact，this sector is so diverse that it may be impossible to speak of
in general terms. These differences not only exist between professions but within
professions. For instance, the concerns and values of criminal defense lawyers are quite
different from those of securities lawyers or specialists in tax law. While professional
associations devote most of their effort to matters that directly affect their membership’s
ability to successfully practice their occupations, they do on occasion become active on
national issues, particularly those with a direct bearing on their membership. When they
do become involved in national issues, frequently the prestige of many of their leading
members will give these associations added political leverage.
Summary
This Chapter discussed different types of interest groups that exist in the United
States. It was also noted that in order to classified groups it is useful to understand why
they organize and persist. In this regard, there was a brief treatment of the role of
selective benefits in group formation and maintenance. The classification of groups in
this chapter was between economic and noneconomic interest groups. However, attention
was also given to “public interest” groups, labor, business and professional groups. This
distinction will be employed in the case study analysis that follows later. And the next
chapter will discuss about unique resources possessed by different interest groups which
they utilize to achieve political success.
1
Robert H. Salisbury, “Interest Groups: Toward A New Understanding,” In Interest Groups Politics,
eds., Allen J. Cigler and Burdell A. Loomis, Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1983.
9
Chapter Two Group Resources
Every interest group has an allocation of personnel and financial resources to
particular issues, and the choice of new issues must be made with available resources.
The issues and subissues on which interest groups would like to work are always more
than which they are able to become involved. Each interest group is faced with the
decision of how to commit its limited resources. The groups must not only decide on
which issues to become active, but they must also determine how much of their resources
to allocate and how these resources are to be expended. The types and amounts of
resources at their disposal will play a central role in this decision-making process.
Clearly one cannot ignore the fact that the types of resources at interest groups’ disposal
cause the inequalities in political competitions. But these inequalities may be somewhat
counterbalanced. While one particular group may have a distinct advantage in terms of
one type of resource, such as money, another group may have an advantage in terms of
the resource like membership size. Nevertheless, while recognizing that each group has
its own particular mix of resources, the purpose of this section is to provide a general
discussion of the types of resources that are available to the interest group community at
large.
Group resources fall into several categories: physical resources, particularly money
and membership size; organizational resources, including leadership skills, and
substantive expertise; political resources such as political process knowledge;
motivational resources, such as ideological commitment; and overall prestige or status.
The combination of a group’s goals, level of activity, motivation, mix of resources, and
skill at using them in conjunction with the nature of the government institutions and the
motivations, values, and viewpoints of the government decision-makers determine the
political influence of the group.1 This supply of resources will, in turn, determine the
level of demands that a group is able to make with regard to a particular desired reward.
This means that group leaders will engage in a cost-benefit calculation. They weigh the
1
Norman J. Ornstein and Shirley Elder, Interest Groups, Lobbying and Policymaking, Washington:
Congressional Quarterly Press, 1978, pp. 69-70.
10