Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 23–43 | Cite as

Revisiting the ESA model: a historical test

  • Adam ChamberlainEmail author
  • Alixandra B. Yanus
  • Nicholas Pyeatt
Original Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

The energy–stability–area (ESA) model put forth by Lowery and Gray (Am J Polit Sci 39(1):1–29, 1995) focused scholarly attention on two factors critical to interest group mobilization: the density and diversity of groups within a population. Since that seminal publication, researchers have continued to refine the model and its applications. Yet, so far, these studies have been focused on modern interest groups. Here, we extend Lowery and Gray’s (1995) cross-sectional ESA model by studying the strength of state branches of three interest groups—the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Patrons of Husbandry (Grange), and the Grand Army of the Republic—in the mid-1910s. We find some support for the ESA model across all three groups, though density dependence, a key part of the Lowery and Gray story (1995), is not significant in our historical models. Our results further deviate from Lowery and Gray’s work by finding strong evidence for the role of government size on interest group mobilization. Ultimately, we conclude that the ESA model provides important insights on the development of membership associations during the early twentieth century, albeit with some important amendments for the period.

Keywords

ESA model Interest groups Density dependence Mobilization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank David Ebner for his insights on our work.

References

  1. Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banaszak, Lee Ann. 1996. Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture, and the Struggle for Woman Suffrage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 2001. Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Elections. Journal of Politics 63(4): 1191–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkman, Michael B. 2001. Legislative Professionalism and the Demand for Groups: The Institutional Context of Interest Population Density. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(4): 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehmke, Frederick J., and Daniel C. Bowen. 2010. Direct Democracy and Individual Interest Group Membership. Journal of Politics 72(3): 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broscheid, Andreas, and David Coen. 2007. Lobbying Activity and Fora Creation in the EU: Empirically Exploring the Nature of the Policy Good. Journal of European Public Policy 14: 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bureau of the Census. 1913. Annual Report of the Director of the Census to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of the Census. 1914. Thirteenth Census of the United States. Volume V: Agriculture, 1909 and 1910. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Bureau of the Census. 1915. Wealth, Debt, and Taxation 1913, vol. II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  10. Bureau of the Census. 1919. Religious Bodies 1916. Part II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Carroll, Glenn R., and Michael T. Hannan. 1989. Density Dependence in the Evolution of Populations of Newspaper Organizations. American Sociological Review 54(4): 524–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, Glenn, and Michael T. Hannan. 2000. The Demography of Corporations and Industries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chamberlain, Adam. 2009. Population Ecology and Niche Seeking in the Development of Gay and Lesbian Rights Groups. Social Science Journal 46(4): 656–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chamberlain, Adam, Alixandra B. Yanus, and Nicholas Pyeatt. 2016. The Connection Between the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party. Sage Open.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016684373.Google Scholar
  15. Chamberlain, Adam, Alixandra B. Yanus, and Nicholas Pyeatt. 2017. Reconstruction and Reform: The Interest Group State, 1875–1900. Social Science History 41(4): 705–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coughlin, Peter J., Dennis C. Mueller, and Peter Murrell. 1990. Electoral Politics, Interest Groups, and the Size of Government. Economic Inquiry 28(4): 682–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crowley, Jocelyn Elise, and Theda Skocpol. 2001. The Rush to Organize: Explaining Associational Formation in the United States, 1860s–1920s. American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 813–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davidson, James, and H.G. Andrewartha. 1948. The Influence of Rainfall, Evaporation and Atmospheric Temperature on Fluctuations in the Size of a Natural Population of Thrips Imaginis (Thysanoptera). The Journal of Animal Ecology 17(2): 200–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dearing, Mary. 1952. Veterans in Politics: The Story of the G.A.R. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Department of the Interior. 1916. Report of the Commissioner of Pensions to the Secretary of the Interior. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  21. Dubin, Michael J. 2013. United States Gubernatorial Elections, 19121931: The Official Results by State and County. McFarland & Company: Electronic edition.Google Scholar
  22. Dubin, Michael J. 2015. Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 17962006. McFarland & Company: Electronic edition.Google Scholar
  23. Dusso, Aaron. 2010. Legislation, Political Context, and Interest Group Behavior. Political Research Quarterly 63(1): 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gamm, Gerald, and Robert D. Putnam. 1999. The Growth of Voluntary Associations in America, 1840–1940. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29(4): 511–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glasson, William H. 1918. Federal Military Pensions in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 1996a. A Niche Theory of Interest Representation. Journal of Politics 58(1): 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 1996b. Environmental Limits on the Diversity of State Interest Organization Systems: A Population Ecology Interpretation. Political Research Quarterly 49(1): 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 2000. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 2001a. The Expression of Density Dependence in State Communities of Organized Interests. American Politics Research 29(4): 374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 2001b. The Institutionalization of State Communities of Organized Interests. Political Research Quarterly 54(2): 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gray, Virginia, David Lowery, Matthew Fellowes, and Jennifer L. Anderson. 2005. Legislative Agendas and Interest Advocacy: Understanding the Demand Side of Lobbying. American Politics Research 33(3): 404–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gray, Virginia, John Cluverius, Jeffrey J. Harden, Boris Shor, and David Lowery. 2015. Party Competition, Party Polarization, and the Changing Demand for Lobbying in the American States. American Politics Research 43(2): 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hedström, Peter. 1994. Contagious Collectivities: On the Spatial Diffusion of Swedish Trade Unions, 1890–1940. American Journal of Sociology 99(5): 1157–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kattelman, Kyle T. 2015. Legislative Professionalism and Group Concentration: The ESA Model Revisited. Interest Groups and Advocacy 4(2): 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lecy, Jesse D., and David M. Van Slyke. 2013. Nonprofit Sector Growth and Density: Testing Theories of Government Support. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(1): 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leech, Beth L., Frank Baumgartner, Timothy M. La Pira, and Nicholas A. Semanko. 2005. Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Activity and the Demand for Advocacy. Political Research Quarterly 58(1): 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowery, David, and Virginia Gray. 1995. The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch, or the Natural Regulation of Interest Group Numbers in the American States. American Journal of Political Science 39(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lowery, David, and Virginia Gray. 1998. Representational Concentration and Interest Community Size: A Population Ecology Interpretation. Political Research Quarterly 51(4): 919–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lowery, David, Virginia Gray, Matthew Fellowes, and Jennifer Anderson. 2004. Living in the Moment: Lags, Leads, and the Link Between Legislative Agendas and Interest Advocacy. Social Science Quarterly 85(2): 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lowery, David, Virginia Gray, and Jamie Monogan. 2008. The Construction of Interest Communities: Distinguishing Bottom-Up and Top-Down Models. Journal of Politics 70(4): 1160–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowery, David, Virginia Gray, John Cluverius, and Jeffrey J. Harden. 2013. Explaining the Anomalous Growth of Public Sector Lobbying in the American States, 1997–2007. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43(4): 580–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lowery, David, Virginia Gray, and Matthew Fellowes. 2016. Sisyphus Meets the Borg: Economic Scale and Inequalities in Interest Representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics 17(1): 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marti, Donald B. 1991. Women of the Grange: Mutuality and Sisterhood in Rural America, 1866–1920. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  44. McConnell, Stuart. 1997. Glorious Contentment: The Grand Army of the Republic, 1865–1900. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  45. Messer, Anne, Joost Berkhout, and David Lowery. 2011. The Density of the EU Interest System: A Test of the ESA Model. British Journal of Political Science 41(1): 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Minkoff, Debra C. 1993. The Organization of Survival: Women’s and Racial-Ethnic Voluntarist and Activist Organizations, 1955–1985. Social Forces 71(4): 887–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitchell, William C., and Michael C. Munger. 1991. Economic Models of Interest Groups: An Introductory Survey. American Journal of Political Science 35(2): 512–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mueller, Dennis G., and Peter Murrell. 1986. Interest Groups and the Size of Government. Public Choice 48(2): 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nordin, Dennis Sven. 1974. Rich Harvest: A History of the Grange, 1867–1900. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nownes, Anthony. 2004. The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation: Mobilizing for Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States, 1950–98. British Journal of Political Science 34(1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nownes, Anthony, and Daniel Lipinski. 2005. The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death: Gay and Lesbian Rights Groups in the United States, 1945–98. British Journal of Political Science 35(2): 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Olson, Mancur. 1982. The Rise and Fall of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Olzak, Susan, and S.C. Noah Uhrig. 2001. The Ecology of Tactical Overlap. American Sociological Review 66(5): 694–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rasmussen, Anne, Brendan J. Carroll, and David Lowery. 2014. Representatives of the Public? Public Opinion and Interest Group Activity. European Journal of Political Research 53(2): 250–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skocpol, Theda, Marshall Ganz, and Ziad Munson. 2000. A Nation of Organizers: The Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States. American Political Science Review 94(3): 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  57. Squire, Peverill. 2012. The Evolution of American Legislatures: Colonies, Territories, and States, 1619–2009. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Squire, Peverill, and Keith E. Hamm. 2005. 101 Chambers: Congress, State Legislatures, and the Future of Legislative Studies. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Tandberg, David A. 2010. Politics, Interest Groups and State Funding of Public Higher Education. Research in Higher Education 51(5): 416–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teaford, Jon C. 2002. The Rise of the States: Evolution of American State Government. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Tichenor, Daniel J., and Richard A. Harris. 2002–2003. Organized Interests and American Political Development. Political Science Quarterly 117(4): 587–612.Google Scholar
  62. Tyler, Helen E. 1949. Where Prayer and Purpose Meet: The WCTU Story. Evanston, IL: The Signal Press.Google Scholar
  63. United States Brewers’ Association. 1915. The Yearbook of the United States Brewers’ Association. New York: J.J. Little & Ives Co.Google Scholar
  64. Wiebe, Robert H. 1967. The Search for Order, 1877–1920. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  65. Walker Jr., Jack L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wollebæk, Dag. 2010. Volatility and Growth in Populations of Rural Associations. Rural Sociology 75(1): 144–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Coastal Carolina UniversityConwayUSA
  2. 2.High Point UniversityHigh PointUSA
  3. 3.Pennsylvania State University—AltoonaAltoonaUSA

Personalised recommendations