Interest Group Theory

Abstract

This article considers the four steps of interest group theory as it applies to American politics: group theory; Robert Dahl's pluralism; multiple elitist theory; and neopluralism. Participation in interest groups is seen to be one of four standard modes of participation in American politics. The interest group in niche theory is viewed in the context of other similar interest groups and its competition with them for resources of money and membership for group maintenance. It also pertains to group resource mobilization and group maintenance. The theory of internal democracy is also elaborated upon. Political scientists should keep remembering that attention must be paid to the role of interest groups in the theory and practice of democracy in America.

Conceptualizing Organizational Advocacy Across the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector: Goals, Tactics, and Motivation

“…We then move on to three dimensions of advocacy practice that we argue should be seen as continuums rather than dichotomies: what organizational advocates are trying to achieve (their goals), how organizations carry out advocacy (their tactics), and why organizations are involved in advocacy (their motivations). We do not claim that all advocacy research reproduces these silos or false dichotomies and we are not the first to point out they can lead research to miss important overlaps that occur in ground-level advocacy practice (Andrews & Edwards, 2004; Davis et al, 2005; McFarland, 2010; Pekkanen et al, 2014; Sandfort, 2014). A likely cause is simply disciplinary convention—within each literature, different terms get reproduced, even though the phenomenon in question is empirically part of the same process.…”

Interest groups and policy volatility

“…Economic theories of interest group mobilization suggest that more groups will flock to policy areas that produce greater rewards (Mitchell & Munger, ; Moe, ; Olson, ). Neopluralism (McFarland, ) and interest group ecology (Gray & Lowery, 1996a, 1996b, 2001; Lowery & Gray, ) inform our expectations of group behaviors in influencing public policy. This literature suggests that memberships of interest groups and their relations (competition and cooperation) to other groups within a policy domain influence policy outcomes.…”

A Mixed Methods Approach for Identifying Influence on Public Policy

“…A major subfield of political science and policy sociology has been the study of interest groups, particularly their formation and influence. As McFarland’s (2010) review argues, over the last century interest group studies has gone through four distinct phases of theory. The first, group theory , most prominent in the early 20th century, held that a small group of elites controlled policy and governance.…”

“…In multiple-elitism specific interest groups control distinct areas of public policy, as opposed to group theory’s singular set of elites. McFarland (2010) terms the fourth and currently dominant view of interest group theory neopluralism . Grappling with why some large social groups persist despite Olson’s logic of collective action, neopluralists have shown deep complexity in how interest and influence work across various policy areas.…”