Autonomy from Government & Parties

1. Autonomy from Government & Parties INTEREST GROUPS

2. What Are Interest Groups? • Interest groups are organized associations that promote their interest by attempting to influence government; they seek to: • influence the creation and implementation of policy in the legislative and executive branches. • Influence the interpretation of policy in the courts • Shape public opinion by developing media strategies and advertising and by mobilizing citizens at the grassroots. • Influence the outcomes of elections through money contribution to candidates and delivery of volunteers and votes to campaigns.

3. Government & Interest Groups • Three patterns in democracies • Group pluralism • Democratic corporatism • State autonomy • Non-democratic patterns • Informal & limited feedback • State corporatism

4. Interest Group Pluralism • Multiple, competing interest groups jockey to influence the government is a fairly open and dynamic system • Groups operate outside of government in a competitive environment, providing citizens with multiple avenues to affect public policy. • Government often responds to this interest group pressure. • Controversy arises if groups are seen as too involved in policy making. *Examples: the U.S., Canada and New Zealand.

5. Democratic Corporatism • A system where the major interest groups of society are explicitly integrated into the government decision-making and policy process. • Economic interest groups are formally involved in the government decision-making process, acting as partners in setting policy. Those groups include labor unions, businesses, health professionals, & educators. *Examples: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands

6. Democratic Pluralism • Multiple, competing interest groups jockey to influence the government is a fairly open and dynamic system. • Groups operate outside of government in a competitive environment, providing citizens with multiple avenues to affect public policy. • Government often responds to this interest group pressure. • Controversy arises if groups are seen as too involved in policy making. *Examples: the U.S., Canada and New Zealand.

8. Models of Interest-Group Pluralism & Corporatism Pluralism Corporatism Legislative Executive Executive Business Firm Groups Other Interest Groups Business (PAR) Labor (PAR) Labor Unions Legislative Ranking & File Ranking & File PAR—Peak Association Representatives

9. Comparing Pluralism with Corporatism • Freewheeling style vs. orderly & regularized process (bilateral & tripartite negotiations among business, labor, & government are an ongoing process). • Open vs. closed process (negotiations behind closed doors & centered in the executive branch of government. • High competitive vs. low competitive negotiating procedures (negotiating procedures generally are not as competitive as in the U.S., where competing interest groups seek to influence public opinion, legislators, & media). • Low cohesive vs. high cohesive interest groups (the main peak associations tend to have exclusive negotiating rights for their representative segment.

10. Argument of Interest Group Pluralism • Represent many diverse interests in society. • Provide expert information and perspectives that improve policy making. • Contribute to civil society because they play an important role in conveying the needs of the population to the state and linking the society and the state.

11. Critique of Interest Group Pluralism • Interest group politics is grossly uneven well-financed: privileged interests hold the advantage and over-represent the wealthy in society. • Provide self-serving and biased information that warp policy-making. • Interest group influence displaces the influence of the general public. • It gives short shrift to those who are not organized. • It seems to leave no room for consideration of transcendent national interests.

12. State Autonomy • State has the power to dominate and shape private groups. • Democratic policy makers do not consider interest group pressure, when they feel confident of their expertise and judgment. *Examples: East Asian democracies, some British economic policies

13. Interest Groups in Non-democratic Regimes • Interest groups still exist but their strategies differ: letter writing campaigns, work stoppages or soliciting support from other countries (a risky strategy). • Government may formally include groups through state corporatism. Group participation is not independent, however. They are expected to promote the government’s agenda & ensure acceptance of their rank-and-file members. *Examples: Thailand

14. Array of Interest Groups • Protective/sectional/functional groups • Founded to influence government for economic interests and seek selective benefits for members. • Groups with occupational interests and with strong ability to invoke sanctions because of rich resources and access. • Promotional groups • Established to advocate ideas, identities, policies and values rather than material interests. • Lack both the resources and the access. • The groups’ target is society as much as government, Hence, they typically use publicity to pursue goals. • Their membership is large but often passive and unstable.

15. Interest Groups vs. Political Parties • Political parties contest elections and aim to come to power, while interest groups am to pressure and influence governments. • Interest groups are focused on a limited number of issues, while political parties must take an interest in many issues. • Interest groups represent the interests of their members, while parties must convert the interest into policies. Political parties cannot only represent their own members’ or voters’ interests.

16. Lobbying (direct techniques) Private meetings Testifying Drafting legislation Social occasions Providing political information Supplying nomination suggestions Generating public pressure (indirect techniques) Groundswell of public pressure Use constituents as lobbyists Building alliances with other groups Tactics/Techniques of Interest Groups

17. “Interest Groups & Social Movements” Bashevkin, 1996 • Protest groups that mobilize their adherents in more system-challenging ways than do other interest groups or parties. • Protest groups are less formal and more heterogeneity of views typically within social movements than other interest groups because social movements are more willing to use extra-political and even illegal means. • Models in interest group politics

18. “Interest Groups & Social Movements” Bashevkin, 1996 • Bashevkin claims that business groups are generally most influential in most systems. • Most of work confirms importance of internal characteristics of groups to their success. • Groups adapt rapidly to their institutional circumstances (pragmatism) • Democratic group competition does not emerge simply from establishment of rules allowing it. • Pre-transition traditions are key. • Pre-transition group organization is also central.