Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Frank R. Baumgartner is Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University. He is the author of Conflict and Rhetoric in French Policymaking and coauthor (with Bryan Jones) of Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Beth L. Leech is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at Texas A&M.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

BASIC INTERESTS

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

Contents

List of Illustrations.........................................................................................................ixPreface.......................................................................................................................xiIntroduction..................................................................................................................xvChapter One. Progress and Confusion...........................................................................................3Chapter Two. Barriers to Accumulation.........................................................................................22Chapter Three. The Rise and Decline of the Group Approach.....................................................................44Chapter Four. Collective Action and the New Literature on Interest Groups.....................................................64Chapter Five. Bias and Diversity in the Interest-Group System.................................................................83Chapter Six. The Dynamics of Bias.............................................................................................100Chapter Seven. Building a Literature on Lobbying, OneCase Study at a Time.....................................................120Chapter Eight. Surveys of Interest-Group Activities...........................................................................147Chapter Nine. Learning from Experience........................................................................................168Appendix. Articles on Interest Groups Published in the American Political Science Review, 1950–1995.....................189References....................................................................................................................197Index.........................................................................................................................217

Chapter One

Scholars working in the area of organized interests in politics have made tremendous strides in the past two generations. Comparing the state of our knowledge in 1998 with that in 1948, for example, makes clear that our collective understanding of the roles of groups in politics has become considerably more complete, sophisticated, and accurate. We know more about the nature of political mobilization, about the political activities of organized interests, and about the contours of the group system, to mention a few areas of advance. Probably the most prominent example of progress is how far we have come in understanding the biases in mobilization that benefit certain types of groups, especially occupational ones, and discourage other types of potential groups from forming. Groups were once thought to spring naturally from society in response to disturbances, with little reference to any factors that might facilitate this process in some segments of society or inhibit it in others. David Truman's 1951 Governmental Process was rightly criticized for paying little attention to these issues, but his work represented the state of the art at the time. Today, two generations later, these issues are well recognized. The biases of mobilization contribute to a bias in the Washington interest-group community that has been amply and repeatedly documented over the past several decades. No understanding of the group system would even be attempted today that did not pay serious attention to these obstacles, but these were glossed over in the most prominent study of the topic in the early postwar period.

In this and other areas, scholars have made substantial progress in elaborating more complete, sophisticated, and nuanced views of the roles of groups in the political system. At the same time, however, serious gaps in our knowledge remain. While dramatic progress has been made in some areas of research on interest groups, other topics have either been ignored or have been the subject of inconclusive studies. We are not the first observers to note this unevenness. In this chapter, in fact, we rely heavily on the works of previous scholars who have reviewed the state of the interest-group literature in order to summarize our collective progress. We first look at areas that have proved quite fruitful, then turn to other areas of the literature that have either been avoided or have been investigated by many scholars while producing few conclusive results. The chapter concludes by drawing the lessons from these patterns of progress and confusion.

THE STATE OF THE LITERATURE

Virtually all those who have attempted to summarize the state of the literature in interest-group studies have noted certain areas where an accumulation of studies has led to real and important progress. A few of the most prominent areas of advance have included studies of the biases of mobilization; the collective-action dilemma; the occupational basis of most interest groups; the choice of direct and indirect lobbying tactics; the importance of long-term lobbying relations; the roles of groups in promoting new understandings of issues over the long run; the links between new social movements and the interest-group system; the effects of contextual factors such as laws, government subsidies, institutions, and patrons of group activities on group mobilization; and the roles of groups in elections, campaign finance, and the courts. On the other hand, most reviewers have paid closer attention to a series of problems. Published reviews have noted a long series of difficulties ranging from the choice of research topics to the theories and methods used to investigate them. In this section, we review the range of conclusions that other scholars have drawn in their efforts to state just what we do and do not know about the nature, activities, and effects of interest groups in American politics (for recent reviews, see Greenstone 1975; Salisbury 1975; Garson 1978; Knoke 1986; Schlozman and Tierney 1986; Walker 1991; Cigler 1991; Petracca 1992b; Heinz et al. 1993; Crotty, Schwartz, and Green 1994; Smith 1995; Baumgartner and Leech 1996a; Berry 1997).

In his review of the distribution of scholarly resources in political science in the early 1980s, Douglas Arnold singled out interest-group studies by noting: "Interest groups also seem to have attracted relatively little scholarly attention given their presumed importance. Here, surprisingly, the field is theory rich and data poor...." In spite of a wealth of available theories, he continues, "there are relatively few empirical studies of how various groups operate politically" (Arnold 1982, 97). Arnold attributes some of these problems to the difficulties and expense of data collection: Whereas scholars in some areas can rely on the secondary analysis of large-scale data sets collected by others, interest-group studies require expensive, difficult, and time-consuming field work or original data collection (101). In the years since Arnold wrote, a vast outpouring of scholarly energy has transformed the field. Hundreds of studies have collected data on interest groups and their lobbying activities. The 1980s saw both a resurgence of large-scale surveys of interest-group behavior (see Schlozman and Tierney 1986; Knoke 1990a; Walker 1991; Heinz et al. 1993; Gray and Lowery 1996) and a tremendous number of smaller-scale investigations of the lobbying efforts of particular groups surrounding one or a few political decisions (see the works reviewed in Smith 1995; his bibliography lists 257 entries, and he focuses only on legislative lobbying). Since a lull during the 1960s and 1970s, a resurgence has occurred in the study of interest groups, transforming the topic from one that was theory-rich but data-poor into one that is now rich on both counts. The 1980s constituted a period of rapid advance, at least in terms of the collection of vast amounts of new data on group activities.

Arnold was right to point out that scholars studying interest groups do not benefit from the large-scale and institutionally financed collection of data, as compared with other areas of political science, such as electoral behavior or international-conflict studies. Comparing how group scholars organize their research projects with how those in electoral behavior often do theirs is to compare an artisan working alone with a large corporation benefiting from a huge infrastructure. Even though we can note a great resurgence in data collection and empirical research into the roles of groups in politics, these projects have typically been of the scope that a single researcher could accomplish in a year with a modest budget. Exceptions include the studies by Walker, Knoke, Heinz and colleagues, Gray and Lowery, and a few others, as we will review in detail in chapter 8. Even Schlozman and Tierney's survey of groups was accomplished on a shoestring budget. One of the most prominent elements of empirical work on groups in the past few decades has been the modest scope of the projects.

Some of the largest collections of systematic data on groups come from the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, or from congressional sources such as roll-call votes, interest-group rankings of members of Congress, and lists of witnesses at public hearings. These publicly available sources of information have led to massive literatures, to be reviewed in later chapters. This new and quantitative literature on groups shows that Arnold is right to point to the subsidization of research costs as an important determinant of scholarly agendas. The work that has stemmed from these studies has not been as coherent in its findings or as clear in its theoretical groundings as in other areas of political science because the data were not collected for a theoretical purpose, but rather constitute isolated bits of information without a set of complementary variables that would allow the systematic test of any particular theory. Contrast the collection of data on PAC contributions, to which the analyst must add a wide range of other bits of information, if possible, with the National Election Study, which is designed not to meet public demands of disclosure of a single piece of information but rather as a complete analytical tool in itself. In sum, interest-group scholars have not benefited from the collection of large, theoretically inspired data sets that would allow the field to base its research on a firm empirical foundation. Those data that have been collected, as in the areas of campaign contributions and roll-call votes, are simply not enough to test a complete theory of how groups behave. The burgeoning literature attempting to take advantage of these sources shows that scholars are willing to take advantage of publicly available sources of information and would likely make good use of more complete sets of information, were they available. In any case, Arnold is right to point to the importance of subsidies and infrastructure in determining the growth of a field. Interest-group researchers typically work alone with little institutional support.

How much further advanced are interest-group studies in the 1990s than they were when Arnold wrote? Unfortunately, the consensus seems to be that the addition of vast amounts of new observational data has not led to a comparable increase in our understandings of the roles and impacts of groups in politics. The large-scale surveys of groups have led to a number of important and consistent findings about the mobilization strategies, lobbying tactics, and Washington activities of interest groups. On the other hand, there have been only a half-dozen such projects in recent decades. The more numerous small studies often are conducted in such a way as to hinder if not preclude comparison of results from one study to those of the next. A mixture of theoretical problems, measurement difficulties, the prevalence of the case study as the research design of choice, and other analytic shortcomings has rendered the development of a cumulative body of evidence an elusive goal.

One of the strengths of the literature on groups has always been the artisanal structure of the field. Scores of scholars have produced a great range of studies on important topics, sometimes from innovative theoretical perspectives. We will note in some detail below how research on the roles of groups in politics benefits from a methodological and theoretical eclecticism. The great diversity of research approaches has led to a number of insights. At the same time that we recognize the value of this methodological pluralism, it is important to see the potential for inefficiencies. With few shared data sources and with a diversity of research and theoretical approaches, scholars working alone often organize research projects that make an interesting new point but that cannot be compared directly with studies done by others because of subtle differences in measurement, theoretical questions, and empirical context. Diversity of approach must be balanced with some degree of shared theoretical perspective in order to produce a literature endowed with coherence and comparability.

In reviews of the literature conducted since Arnold's, scholars have been more likely to note the resurgence in data collection on groups than to complain about the paucity of data. Concern now focuses on the disparity between the degree of effort being expended and the scientific payoffs. In a substantial review of the political science and sociology literatures on interest groups published in the mid-1980s, David Knoke points to the beginnings of the resurgence of data collection. He concludes his review of the state of the literature in these terms:

This brief review of the past decade's major research on American associations and interest groups reveals a diverse specialty that has continued to uncover interesting findings about these forms of social organization. The volume of factual knowledge at all levels of analysis has grown significantly. But association research as a field failed to achieve a sustained take-off into scientific maturity. Lacking consensus about the central issues and appropriate ways to study them, it remains a fragmented and unfocused enterprise at the margins of its parent disciplines. Sorely missing is an overarching paradigm that could crystallize attention and confer cachet upon the specialty. A fundamental theoretical goal must be to create coherence among the myriad empirical findings, particularly those bridging multiple levels of analysis from the individual, to the organizational, to the societal. (Knoke 1986, 17)

Knoke's assessment is echoed by virtually every political scientist who has attempted a significant review of this literature, as we will explain in some detail below. The literature may be divided into three areas: advance, avoidance, and confusion.

AREAS OF ADVANCE

In his review of the state of the literature on interest-group studies, Allan Cigler divided the literature into two parts: "demand aggregation" and "group impact" (1991, 100). The first set of studies cover those topics concerning how groups mobilize, how group leaders relate to their memberships, and how they recruit their members or otherwise maintain themselves financially. The second category covers what groups do, and to what effect, in the political arena. Cigler notes that almost all the areas of strength and progress can be put in the first category rather than in the second: We collectively know a great deal now about how many groups there are, how the diversity and bias of the Washington group system has changed over time, who joins groups and why, and how groups maintain themselves financially than we do about what groups do once they exist. In a later review, Cigler writes:

I think it is fair to say that research on demand aggregation represents some of the most analytically and theoretically elegant scholarly work in all of political science. For example, the loosely integrated body of literature often referred to as incentive theory, ranging from formal models of the public choice theorists to the empirical tests of why and under what conditions individuals join groups, provides much insight into understanding collective action issues. (Cigler 1994, 32)

Among those who have reviewed the state of the literature, there seems a consensus that several areas deserve mention for significant advance. Within the broad area of what Cigler calls demand aggregation, we can note tremendous progress in elucidating the various processes of group mobilization, including work focusing on the individual's decision to join, the efforts of group leaders to attract members, and the impact of social and institutional environment in facilitating the mobilization of some types of groups more than others. Within the broad area of group impact, there has also been considerable progress in documenting the structures of the Washington group system, noting the techniques of influence and access, and noting the different structures of relations among groups within various policy domains, issue-networks, and policy subsystems. Comparative studies of the relations between groups and government have led to many important findings, as have longitudinal studies of the efforts of groups to maintain access and generate favorable public policies over time.

There is no shortage of areas of advance; in this section we mention a few of the most prominent. We begin with those associated with the topic of mobilization and then consider some of those related to lobbying. Our choice of topics here should not be taken to indicate that any studies not mentioned are somehow not substantial. We focus here on broad bodies of research, not individual studies; many excellent individual studies are not mentioned merely for lack of space. Our notation of areas of advance certainly does not imply that all the important questions in these areas have been laid to rest. In subsequent chapters we will note some ambiguities even in the broad areas where advances have been substantial. Likewise, in our review of areas of contradiction below, we do not seek to be exhaustive, but rather to point to some general patterns.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from BASIC INTERESTSby Frank R. Baumgartner Beth L. Leech Copyright © 1998 by Princeton University Press. Excerpted by permission of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.