Public Choice

, Volume 125, Issue 3–4, pp 271–303 | Cite as

Interest group size dynamics and policymaking

  • Vjollca Sadiraj
  • Jan Tuinstra
  • Frans Van Winden


We present a dynamic model of endogenous interest group sizes and policymaking. The model integrates ‘top-down' (policy) and `bottom-up' (individual and social-structural) influences on the development of interest groups. Comparative statics results show that the standard assumption of fixed-sized interest groups can be misleading. Furthermore, dynamic analysis of the model demonstrates that reliance on equilibrium results can also be misleading since equilibria may be unstable. Complicated dynamics may then emerge naturally, leading to erratic time patterns for policy and interest group sizes. Our model can endogenously generate the types of spurts and declines in organizational density reported in empirical studies.


Empirical Study Group Size Static Result Dynamic Analysis Public Finance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aidt, T. S. (2002). Strategic political participation and redistribution. Economics and Politics, 14, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baik, K. H., & Lee, S. (1997). Collective rent seeking with endogenous group sizes. European Journal of Political Economy, 13, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, D. P. (1994). Electoral competition with informed and uninformed voters. American Political Science Review, 88, 33–47.Google Scholar
  4. Bischoff, I. (2003). Determinants of the increase in the number of interest groups in western democracies: Theoretical considerations and evidence from 21 OECD countries. Public Choice, 114, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosman, R., Hennig-Schmidt, H., & van Winden, F. (2002). Exploring group behavior in a power-to-take video experiment. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  6. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cassing, J. H., & Hillman, A. L. (1986). Shifting comparative advantage and senescent industry collapse. American Economic Review, 76, 516–523.Google Scholar
  8. Dixit, A., Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1997). Common agency and coordination: General theory and application to government policy making. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 752–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. The Economist (1999). The non-governmental order. Will NGOs democratize, or merely disrupt, global governance? December 11, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  10. Freeman, R. B. (1988). Contraction and expansion: The divergence of private and public sector unionism in the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 63–68.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, R. B. (1997). Spurts in union growth: Defining moments and social processes. NBER working paper No.W 6012.Google Scholar
  12. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2001). Reaction to price changes and aspiration level adjustments. Review of Economic Design, 6, 215–223.Google Scholar
  13. Goeree, J. K., & Holt, C. A. (2000). An explanation of anomalous behavior in binary-choice games: Entry, voting, public goods, and the volunteers’ dilemma. Working Paper, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  14. Grandmont, J. M. (1985). On endogenous competitive business cycles. Econometrica, 53, 995–1045.Google Scholar
  15. Hausken, K. (1995). The dynamics of within-group and between-group interaction. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 24, 655–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hausken, K. (2000). Cooperation and between-group competition. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42, 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hillman, A. L. (1989). The political economy of protection. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Kuznetsov, Yu. A. (1995). Elements of applied bifurcation theory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental results. In: J. H. Kagel, & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (1992). Socioeconomic class bias in turnout, 1964–1988: The voters remain the same. American Political Science Review, 86, 725–736.Google Scholar
  21. Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy's unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91, 1–14.Google Scholar
  22. Marx, G., & McAdam, D. (1994). Collective behavior and social movements: Process and structure. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 681–712.Google Scholar
  24. Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Neumann, G. R., & Rissman E. R. (1984). Where have all the union members gone? Journal of Labor Economics, 2(2), 175–191.Google Scholar
  26. Nitzan, S. (1994). Modelling rent-seeking contests. European Journal of Political Economy, 10, 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92, 1–22.Google Scholar
  30. Paldam, N. (1997). Political business cycles. In: D. C. Mueller (Ed.), Perspectives on public choice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Potters, J., & Sloof, R. (1996). Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence. European Journal of Political Economy, 12, 403–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Radcliff, B. (1992). The welfare state, turnout, and the economy: A comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 86, 444–454.Google Scholar
  33. Richardson, J. J. (Ed.) (1994). Pressure groups. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rothenberg, L. S. (1988). Organizational maintenance and the retention decision in groups. American Political Science Review, 82, 1129–1152.Google Scholar
  35. Schram, A. (1991). Voting behavior in economic perspective. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Schram, A., & Sonnemans, J. (1996). Voter turnout as a participation game: An experimental investigation. International Journal of Game Theory, 25, 385–406.Google Scholar
  37. Selten, R. (1998). Features of experimentally observed bounded rationality. European Economic Review, 42, 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49, 253–283.Google Scholar
  39. Tuinstra, J. (2000). Emergence of political business cycles in a two-sector general equilibrium model. European Journal of Political Economy, 16, 509–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. de Vilder, R. (1996). Complicated endogenous business cycles under gross substitutability. Journal of Economic Theory, 71, 416–442.Google Scholar
  41. Whritenour, A. (2003). Do interest groups compete? An application to endangered species. Public Choice, 114, 137–159.Google Scholar
  42. van Winden, F. (2002). Experimental investigation of collective action. In S. L. Winer, & H. Shibata (Eds.), Political economy and public finance: The role of political economy in the theory and practice of public economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  43. van Winden, F. (2003). Interest group behavior and influence. In C. K. Rowley, & F. Schneider (Eds.), Encyclopedia of public choice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Wolfinger, R., & Rosenstone, S. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vjollca Sadiraj
    • 1
  • Jan Tuinstra
    • 2
  • Frans Van Winden
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.CeNDEF and Department of Quantitative EconomicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.CREED and Department of EconomicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations