The organization of interests

POLI 352A

Policy making through institutions

Public opinion

Policy choice

Interest groups

Rules of the game

Interest groups

An organization that seeks to influence state action, but does not seek to occupy public office

• Not a political party

• Not just a group of people– Must be organized and active

• Not all interests are represented by interest groups

Why politicians care about interest groups

Interest groups can

• Mobilize voters

• Generate coordinated expression and protest

• Finance campaigns

• Disrupt economic activity and policy implementation

Back to the puzzle

Why do different countries adopt different policies?

Hyp. 1: Differences in what the public wants?

Hyp. 2: Differences in the rules of the game (institutions)?

Hyp. 3: Differences in how and how well relevant interests are organized

Logic of collective action

• I choose whether to participate based on self-interest– What do I gain or lose?

• My participation won’t affect outcome

• My participation won’t affect your participation

• The collective good is a public good– Non-excludable– Non-rival

Logic of collective action

Rationally, I should free-ride

BUT

Aggregate outcome = no participation

Paradox: What’s in the group’s interest isn’t in its members’ individual interests.

Logic of collective action

BUT sometimes groups do form.

So, how?

• Coercion

• Selective incentives– Only get it if you participate

• Small groups privileged

Varieties of organization:Neo-corporatism

• Monopolistic representation– One peak association per interest– Formally recognized by state

• Compulsory membership

• Formal role in policy making– Routines of bargaining

• Discipline– Association can bind members to deal

• Examples: Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, (recently) Ireland

Varieties of organization:Pluralism

• Competing groups– Lots of organizations per interest

• Voluntary membership

• Lobbying, informal consultation– No formal role in policy process

• Weak discipline

• Examples: Canada, U.S., U.K.

How did they get neo-corporatism?

• Historical development– e.g., medieval guilds, traditions of cooperation

• State coercion

• Necessity and small size– Small states in world markets

Regime clusters• Parliamentary-PR-neo-corporatist

– Continental Europe• Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium

– Policymaking inclusive

• Parliamentary-majoritarian-pluralist– British-influenced countries

• UK, Canada, Australia– Policymaking adversarial

• Presidential-pluralist– U.S.– Policy making fragmented

Consequences:Neo-corporatism vs. pluralism

The more corporatism, the more:

• Representation of broad interests– Especially labor

• Capacity for social bargains– e.g., Wage moderation for welfare-state growth

• Policy rigidity?– Or flexibility?

Lindblom: Market as prison

• Market economy depends on voluntary business investment

Automatic punishment mechanism– Policies that hurt business slow investment

• Business doesn’t even have to mobilize for influence

Business in privileged position??

Interest organization: Summary

What explains policy differences between countries?

• Could be differences in how well opposing groups are organized– Org. influence– Corporatism v. pluralism

• Amd why differing levels of organization?– Differing ability to solve collective action problems