Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Old and new data sources and methods for interest group research

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Interest Groups & Advocacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reviews the literature featuring quantitative interest group research at the national and subnational level in the United States. We direct scholars to existing resources and techniques. Additionally, we make recommendations on methods and discuss the limitations of prevailing measures. The appropriate measure is driven by the research question and data availability. However, since money is a central resource in politics, every attempt should be made to include organization or sector financial resources when investigating the relative strength of groups in policymaking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One such resources is CQ Press Library Database Collections. This collection offers researchers a toolkit to explore their questions of interest. For example, the Congress Collection analyzes members of Congress, their floor votes, and their interest group scores, organized by topic, since 1945. The Voting and Elections Collection explores the role of interest groups and the impact of money on election results. Both resources may prove helpful for interest group scholars.

  2. Use the search term “Interest Groups.”

References

  • Barclay, Scott, and Shauna Fisher. 2003. The states and the differing impetus for divergent paths on same-sex marriage, 1990–2001. Policy Studies Journal 31 (3): 331–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. http://choicereviews.org/review/10.5860/CHOICE.36-1204.

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, Shaun, Frank R. Baumgartner, Erik W. Johnson, John D. McCarthy. 2013. “Understanding selection bias, time-lags and measurement bias in secondary data sources: Putting the Encyclopedia of Associations database in broader context.” Social Science Research 42(6): 1750-1764 Volume 42, Issue 6.

  • Bonica, Adam. 2013. Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 294–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonica, Adam. 2016. Database on ideology, money in politics, and elections: Public Version 2.0. Stanford University Library. https://data.stanford.edu/dime.

  • Bonica, Adam, and Maya Sen. 2017. A common-space scaling of the American judiciary and legal profession. Political Analysis 25 (1): 114–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonica, Adam, and Michael J. Woodruff. 2015. A common-space measure of state supreme court ideology. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 31 (3): 472–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Dino P. Christenson, and Matthew P. Hitt. 2013. Quality over quantity: Amici influence and judicial decision making. American Political Science Review 107 (3): 446–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Christenson, Dino P., and Hitt, Matthew. 2013b. Replication Data for Quality Over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34838.v1 (Accessed on 08 July 2013).

  • Chamon, Marcos, and Ethan Kaplan. 2013. The iceberg theory of campaign contributions: Political threats and interest group behavior. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5 (1): 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamon, Marcos, and Kaplan, Ethan. 2013b. Replication data for: The iceberg theory of campaign contributions: Political threats and interest group behavior. Nashville, TN: American Economic Association. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/E114808V1.

  • Collins, Paul. 2004. Friends of the court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. supreme court litigation. Law and Society Review 38 (4): 807–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Paul, Pamela Corley, and Jesse Hamner. 2015. The influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. supreme court opinion content. Law and Society Review 49 (4): 917–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comparative Agendas Project. 2019. Comparative Agendas Project: United States, Datasets, Public Opinion & Interest Groups. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Austin. https://www.comparativeagendas.net/us.

  • Correlates of State Policy. 2019. Correlates of State Policy Datasets. Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, Michigan State University. http://ippsr.msu.edu/public-policy/correlates-state-policy.

  • Danielian, Lucig H., and Benjamin I. Page. 1994. The heavenly chorus: Interest group voices on TV news. American Journal of Political Science 38 (4): 1056–1078.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, Christine L. 1999. Grassroots involvement in interest group decision making. American Politics Quarterly 27 (2): 216–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Encyclopedia of Associations. 2019. Encyclopedia of associations. Farmington: Gale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Election Commission. 2019. Federal Election Commission: Portal Website. https://www.fec.gov/.

  • Garlick, Alex, and John Cluverius. 2019. Automated Estimates of Interest Group Populations by Sector. Harvard Dataverse. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId = doi:10.7910/DVN/WLYBSX.

  • Goelzhauser, Greg, and David M. Konisky. 2020. “The State of American Federalism 2019–2020: Polarized and Punitive Intergovernmental Relations.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Accessed: https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/50/3/311/5870265.

  • Gray, Virginia, et al. 2015. Party competition, party polarization, and the changing demand for lobbying in the American States. American Politics Research 43 (2): 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 1988. Interest group politics and economic growth in the U.S. States. The American Political Science Review 82 (1): 109–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 1996. The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossmann, Matthew. 2014. New Directions in Interest Group Politics. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1498727.

  • Haeder, Simon and Susan Yackee. 2015. Influence and the Administrative Process: Lobbying the U.S. President’s Office of Management and Budget. American Political Science Review 109(3): 507–522.

  • Haider-Markel, Donald P. 1999. Morality Policy and Individual-Level Political Behavior: The case of Legislative Voting on Lesbian and Gay Issues. Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 735–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2001. Policy Diffusion as a Geographical Expansion of the Scope of Political Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the 1990s. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1 (1): 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Richard L., and Frank W. Wayman. 1990. Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the. Mobilization of Bias on Congressional Committees. American Political. Science Review 84 (3): 797–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaney, Michael T. 2006. Brokering Health Policy: Coalitions, Parties, and Interest Group Influence. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 31 (5): 887–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O., Nelson, Robert L., and Salisbury, Robert H. Washington, DC, Representatives: Private Interests in National Policymaking, 1982-1983. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06040.v2 (Accessed on 07 April 2009).

  • Heinz, John P., Edward O. Laumann, Robert L. Nelson, and Robert H. Salisbury. 1993. The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hojnacki, Marie, David Kimball, Frank Baumgartner, Jeffrey Berry, and Beth Leech. 2012. Studying organizational advocacy and influence: Reexamining interest group research. Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1): 379–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holyoke, Thomas T. 2019a. Dynamic state interest group systems: A new look with new data. Interest Groups & Advocacy. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-019-00058-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoke, Thomas T. 2019b. Data and Codebook for “Dynamic State Interest Group Systems: A New Look with New Data.” http://www.fresnostate.edu/socialsciences/polisci/fac-staff/full-time/holyoke.html.

  • Jordan, Marty P, and Matt Grossmann. 2017. “Correlates of U.S. State Public Policies: Announcing a New Database.” Michigan State University: 23.

  • Kollman, Ken. 1997. Inviting Friends to Lobby: Interest Groups, Ideological Bias, and Congressional Committees. American Journal of Political Science 41 (2): 519–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langbein, Laura. 1986. Money and access: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Politics 48 (4): 1052–1062.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lax, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. 2009. Gay rights in the states: Public opinion and policy responsiveness. The American Political Science Review 103 (3): 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Bertram. 2009. The art of lobbying. Washington DC: Sage/CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, Burdett, and Allan Cigler. 2007. “Introduction: The Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics.” In Interest Group Politics, eds. Allan Cigler and Burdett Loomis, 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1–33.

  • Lowery, David. 2007. Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity 39 (1): 29–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowery, David, Virginia Gray, and John Cluverius. 2015. Temporal change in the density of state interest communities: 1980 to 2007. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15 (2): 263–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrander, Barbara, and Clyde Wilcox. 1999. Public opinion and policymaking in the states: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy. Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 707–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nownes, Anthony J. 1995. Patronage and Citizen Groups: A Reevaluation. Political Behavior 17 (2): 203–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nownes, Anthony J. 2014. “Interest Groups and Transgender Politics: Opportunities and. Challenges.” In Transgender Rights and Politics: Groups, Issue Framing, and Policy. Adoption, edited by Jami Taylor and Donald Haider-Markel, 83–107. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

  • Nownes, Anthony J. 2019. Organizing for Transgender Rights: Collective Action, Group Development, and the Rise of a New Social Movement. Albany, UNITED STATES: State University of New York Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ku/detail.action?docID=5721180.

  • Nownes, Anthony J., and Patricia Freeman. 1998. Interest Group Activity in the States. Journal of Politics 60 (1): 86–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. 2019. Lobbying Disclosure: Public Disclosure Search. Washington, DC. Accessed: http://disclosures.house.gov/.

  • Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Open Secrets. 2019. Bulk Data. Open Secrets.Org. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/bulk-data.

  • Page, Benjamin I., Robert Y. Shapiro, and Glenn R. Dempset. 1987. What moves public opinion? The American Political Science Review 81 (1): 23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, Philip. 2009. The essentials of political analysis, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1994. ‘Reviewed Work: The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. by John P. Heinz, Edward O. Laumann, Robert L. Nelson, Robert H. Salisbury.’ The American Political Science Review 88(2): 475–76.

  • Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. (1993) Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. The American Political Science Review 87(2): 334-47.

  • Strickland, James. 2019a. A Paradox of Political Reform: Shadow Interests in the U.S. States. American Politics Research 47 (4): 887–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickland, James. 2019b. A Paradox of Political Reform: Shadow Interests in the U.S. States: Data. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/jamesstrickland/data/.

  • Taylor, Jami K., Daniel C. Lewis, and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2018. The remarkable rise of transgender rights. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Jami K., Donald P. Haider-Markel, and Benjamin Rogers. 2019. Toward a new measure of state-level LGBT interest group strength. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 19 (3): 334–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Clive S., and Ronald J. Hrebenar. 1992. Changing Patterns of Interest Group Activity: A Regional Perspective. In The Politics of Interests, ed. Mark P. Petracca. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com.

  • United States Senate. 2019. LDA Reports. Washington, DC. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/Public_Disclosure/LDA_reports.htm.

  • Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics. 2019. Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Organizations Business Master Files. Available from: https://nccs-data.urban.org.

  • Vanderbilt Television News Archive. 2019. Vanderbilt Television News Archive Portal. https://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/.

  • Walker, Jack L. 1983. The origins and maintenance of interest groups in America. The American Political Science Review 77 (2): 390–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Jack L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://www.press.umich.edu/12841/mobilizing_interest_groups_in_america.

  • Walker, Jack L. 2006. Activities and Maintenance Strategies of Interest Groups in the United States, 1980 and 1985: Version 1. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/9601/version/1.

  • Wawro, Gregory. 2001. A panel probit analysis of campaign contributions and roll-call votes. American Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 563–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, John R. 2003. Interest Groups and Congress: Lobbying, contributions, and influence. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler, L.H., and H. Van Dalen. 1976. “Interest Groups in the States.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

  • Zeller, Belle. 1954. American state legislatures. Thomas Y: Crowell and Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Abigail Vegter & Donald P. Haider-Markel

  2. University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA

    Jami K. Taylor

Authors
  1. Abigail Vegter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jami K. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donald P. Haider-Markel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail Vegter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vegter, A., Taylor, J.K. & Haider-Markel, D.P. Old and new data sources and methods for interest group research. Int Groups Adv 9, 436–450 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-020-00102-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-020-00102-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation