Different Groups, Different Strategies: How Interest Groups Pursue Their Political Ambitions

Abstract

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.

Customizing strategy: Policy goals and interest group strategies

“…Group type has a demonstrated impact on strategic choices. Public interest groups have thus been found to be more engaged in media-directed activities, whereas sectional groups -in particular those organizing labor market interests -focus more on approaching the bureaucracy (Binderkrantz, 2008). Although the distinction between sectional and public interest groups operates at the group level, there is also reason to expect variation in the type of interests pursued by a given group under different circumstances (Beyers, 2008).…”

Why interest organizations do what they do: Assessing the explanatory potential of ‘exchange’ approaches

“…Exchange relations in the news media environment are consequently more important for citizen groups with diffuse interests than for other interest organizations. As pointed out by Gais and Walker (1991, p. 106), they rely on 'an outside strategy of public persuasion and political mobilization' (also see Binderkrantz, 2008). Offe and Wiesenthal (1980, p. 79) present this argument in a more abstract manner when they argue that 'the relatively powerless', such as most citizen groups, require public discourse to 'simultaneously define and express interests', whereas the 'powerful' only need the media to (strategically) express their interests.…”

Diversity in the News? A Study of Interest Groups in the Media in the UK, Spain and Denmark

“…This 6 concern may be particularly pressing for public interest groups who find their supporters among the public at large rather than in specific groups related to for example the labor market (Binderkrantz, 2008;Dunleavy, 1991).…”