Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

The influence of organizations on policy: theories, findings, conclusions

  • Paul BursteinEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This article analyzes recent research on the impact of non-party organizations on policy, describing its theoretical coherence, operationalization of key concepts, views of different types of organizations, hypothesis testing, efforts to generalize from its findings, and proposals for improving future research. The analysis shows that few relevant articles in major journals in political science and sociology test theory; researchers seldom explicitly define key concepts; though researchers regularly study interest groups and social movement organizations, much of their work focuses on other types of organizations; researchers regularly make no predictions about organizations’ impact on policy, and when they do, a majority of their predictions are wrong. Researchers rarely generalize; they seldom claim that their conclusions have implications for theory; and their suggestions for future work are mostly generic. The analysis points to weaknesses in current research and proposes ways to overcome them.

Keywords

Policy Interest groups Social movement organization Organizations Theory Research synthesis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest statement

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

References

Note: articles coded are designated *

  1. *Agnone, Jon. 2007. Amplifying public opinion: the policy impact of the U.S. environmental movement. Social Forces 85(4): 1593–1620.Google Scholar
  2. Amenta, Edwin, Neal Caren, Elizabeth Chiarello, and Su Yang. 2010. The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 287–307.Google Scholar
  3. *Bailey, David J. 2015. Resistance is futile? The impact of disruptive protest in the ‘silver age of permanent austerity’. Socio-Economic Review 13(1): 5–32.Google Scholar
  4. Baroni, Laura, Brendan J. Carroll, Adam William Chalmers, Luz Maria Munoz Marquez, and Anne Rasmussen. 2014. Defining and classifying interest groups. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3: 141–159.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, Frank R., Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 2015. The politics of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 1998. Basic interests. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. *Bernhagen, Patrick, Andreas Dur, and David Marshall. 2014. Measuring lobbying success spatially. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3(2): 202–218.Google Scholar
  9. *Best, Rachel Kahn. 2012. Disease politics and medical research funding. American Sociological Review 77: 780–803.Google Scholar
  10. Beyers, Jan, Andreas Dur, David Marshall, and Arndt Wonka. 2014. Policy-centered sampling in interest group research: lessons from the INTEREURO project. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3: 160–173.Google Scholar
  11. *Boyle, Elizabeth H., Minzee Kim, and Wesley Longhofer. 2015. Abortion liberalization in world society, 1960–2009. American Journal of Sociology 121(3): 882–913.Google Scholar
  12. *Budros, Art. 2011. Explaining the first emancipation: social movements and abolition in the U.S. north, 1776-1804. Mobilization 16(4): 439–454.Google Scholar
  13. Bunea, Adriana, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2014. The state of the discipline: authorship, research designs, and citation patterns in studies of EU interest groups and lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy 21(10): 1412–1434.Google Scholar
  14. Burstein, Paul. 1998. Interest organizations, political parties, and the study of democratic politics. In Social movements and American political institutions, ed. Anne Costain and Andrew McFarland, 39–56. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham.Google Scholar
  15. Burstein, Paul. 1999. Social movements and public policy. In How social movements matter, ed. Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, 3–21. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Burstein, Paul. 2003. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56: 29–40.Google Scholar
  17. Burstein, Paul. 2014. American public opinion, advocacy, and policy in congress: what the public wants and what it gets. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Burstein, Paul, and April Linton. 2002. The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy. Social Forces 81: 380–408.Google Scholar
  19. Bushman, Brad J., and Morgan C. Wang. 2009. Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed, ed. Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine, 207–220. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. *Chen, Anthony S. 2007. The party of Lincoln and the politics of state fair employment practices legislation in the north, 1945–1964. American Journal of Sociology 112: 1713–1774.Google Scholar
  21. Clemens, Elisabeth S. 1997. The people’s lobby. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cooper, Harris, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine. 2009. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. *Cornwall, Marie, Brayden G. King, Elizabeth M. Legerski, Eric C. Dahlin, and Kendra S. Schiffman. 2007. Signals or mixed signals: why opportunities for mobilization are opportunities for policy reform. Mobilization 12(3): 239–254.Google Scholar
  24. Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Davis, James A. 1994. What’s wrong with sociology? Sociological Forum 9(2): 179–197.Google Scholar
  26. *Dixon, Marc. 2008. Movements, countermovements, and policy adoption: the case of right-to-work activism. Social Forces 87(1): 473–500.Google Scholar
  27. Dynamics of Collective Action Project. Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/group/collectiveaction/cgi-bin/drupal.
  28. Fassiotto, Magali, and Sarah A. Soule. 2017. Loud and clear: the effect of protest signals on congressional attention. Mobilization 22(1): 17–38.Google Scholar
  29. Firebaugh, Glenn. 2008. Seven rules for social research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. *Frank, David J., Bayliss J. Camp, and Steven A. Boutcher. 2010. Worldwide trends in the criminal regulation of sex, 1945 to 2005. American Sociological Review 75: 867–893.Google Scholar
  31. Fraussen, Bert, and Darren R. Halpin. 2018. Political parties and interest organizations at the crossroads: perspectives on the transformation of political organizations. Policy Studies Review 16(1): 25–37.Google Scholar
  32. *Gawande, Kishore, and Bernard Hoekman. 2006. Lobbying and agricultural trade policy in the united states. International Organization 60(2): 527–561.Google Scholar
  33. *Gifford, Brian. 2006. Why no trade-off between ‘guns and butter’? Armed forces and social spending in the advanced industrial democracies, 1960–1993. American Journal of Sociology 112: 473–509.Google Scholar
  34. *Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.Google Scholar
  35. *Giugni, Marco. 2007. Useless protest? A time-series analysis of the policy outcomes of ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in the united states, 1977–1995. Mobilization 12(1): 53–77.Google Scholar
  36. *Gordon, Joshua C. 2015. Protecting the unemployed: varieties of unionism and the evolution of unemployment benefits and active labor market policy in the rich democracies. Socio-Economic Review 13(1): 79–99.Google Scholar
  37. *Grossmann, Matt, and Kurt Pyle. 2013. Lobbying and congressional bill advancement. Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(1): 91–111.Google Scholar
  38. *Haeder, Simon F., and Susan Webb Yackee. 2015. Influence and administrative process: lobbying the U.S. President’s Office of Management and Budget. American Political Science Review 109(3): 507–522.Google Scholar
  39. *Halebsky, Stephen. 2006. Explaining the outcomes of antisuperstore movements. Mobilization 11(4): 443–460.Google Scholar
  40. Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining access: congress and the farm lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. *Hecock, R.D. 2006. Electoral competition, globalization, and subnational education spending in Mexico, 1999–2004. American Journal of Political Science 50: 950–961.Google Scholar
  42. Hojnacki, Marie, David C. Kimball, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Beth L. Leech. 2012. Studying organizational advocacy and influence. Annual Review of Political Science 15: 379–399.Google Scholar
  43. *Hojnacki, Marie, Kathleen M. Marchetti, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech. 2015. Assessing business advantage in Washington lobbying. Interest Groups and Advocacy 4(3): 205–224.Google Scholar
  44. Imbeau, Louis M., Francois Petry, and Moktar Lamari. 2001. Left-right party ideology and government policies: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Research 40(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
  45. *Jenkins, J.Craig, Kevin T. Leicht, and Heather Wendt. 2006. Class forces, political institutions, and state intervention: subnational economic development policy in the United States, 1971–1990. American Journal of Sociology 111: 1122–1180.Google Scholar
  46. *Jensen, Carsten. 2012. Two sides of the same coin? Left-wing governments and labour unions as determinants of public spending. Socio-Economic Review 10(2): 217–240.Google Scholar
  47. *Johnson, Erik W. 2008. Social movement size, organizational diversity and the making of federal law. Social Forces 86(3): 1–28.Google Scholar
  48. *Johnson, Erik W., Jon Agnone, and John D. McCarthy. 2010. Movement organizations, synergistic tactics, and environmental public policy. Social Forces 88(4): 2267–2292.Google Scholar
  49. Jones, Michael D., Holly L. Peterson, Jonathan J. Pierce, Nicole Herweg, Amiel Bernal, Holly Lamberta Raney, and Nikolaos Zahariadis. 2016. A river runs through it: a multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal 44(1): 13–36.Google Scholar
  50. Jordan, Grant, Darren Halpin, and William A. Maloney. 2004. Defining interests: disambiguation and the need for new distinctions. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2): 1–18.Google Scholar
  51. *Koo, Jeong-Woo, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 2009. National incorporation of global human rights: worldwide expansion of national human rights institutions, 1966–2004. Social Forces 87(3): 1321–1353.Google Scholar
  52. *Lax, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. 2009. Gay rights in the states: public opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science Review 103: 367.Google Scholar
  53. *Lax, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. 2012. The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science 56: 148–166.Google Scholar
  54. Learning, Cengage. 2017. Encyclopedia of associations. Detroit: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  55. Leech, Beth. 2010. Lobbying and influence. In The Oxford handbook of American political parties and interest groups, ed. Sandy L. Maisel, Jeffrey M. Berry, and George C. Edwards, 696–719. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. *Lewis, Daniel C. 2013. Advocacy and influence: lobbying and legislative outcomes in Wisconsin. Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(2): 206–226.Google Scholar
  57. Lieberson, Stanley. 1992. Einstein, Renoir, and Greeley: some thoughts about evidence in sociology. American Sociological Review 57: 1–15.Google Scholar
  58. Lohmann, Susanne. 1993. A signaling model of informative and manipulative political action. American Political Science Review 87: 319–333.Google Scholar
  59. Lohmann, Susanne. 1998. An information rationale for the power of special interests. American Political Science Review 92: 809–828.Google Scholar
  60. Mahoney, Christine, and Frank Baumgartner. 2008. Converging perspectives on interest group research in Europe and America. West European Politics 31(6): 1253–1273.Google Scholar
  61. *Mallinson, Daniel J. 2014. Upstream influence: the positive impact of PAC contributions on Marcellus shale roll call votes in Pennsylvania. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3(3): 293–314.Google Scholar
  62. *Martin, Isaac William. 2010. Redistributing toward the rich: strategic policy crafting in the campaign to repeal the sixteenth amendment, 1938–1958. American Journal of Sociology 116: 1–52.Google Scholar
  63. McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 1996. To map contentious politics. Mobilization 1: 17–34.Google Scholar
  64. *McCammon, Holly. 2009. Beyond frame resonance: the argumentative structure and persuasive capacity of twentieth-century U.S. women’s jury-rights frames. Mobilization 14(1): 45–64.Google Scholar
  65. *McCammon, Holly J., Soma Chaudhuri, Lyndi Hewitt, Courtney Sanders Muse, and Harmony D. Newman. 2008. Becoming full citizens: the U.S. women’s jury rights campaigns, the pace of reform, and strategic adaptation. American Journal of Sociology 113: 1104–1147.Google Scholar
  66. *McCammon, Holly J., Courtney S. Muse, Harmony D. Newman, and Teresa M. Terrell. 2007. Movement framing and discursive opportunity structures. American Sociological Review 72: 725–749.Google Scholar
  67. Merton, Robert K. 1987. Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebooks. Annual Review of Sociology 13: 1–28.Google Scholar
  68. Miller, Edward Alan. 2005. State health policy making determinants, theory, and methods: A synthesis. Social Science & Medicine 61:2639–2657.Google Scholar
  69. *Negro, Giacomo, Fabrizio Perretti, and Glenn R. Carroll. 2013. Challenger Groups, commercial organizations, and policy enactment: local lesbian/gay rights ordinances in the United States from 1972 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology 119(3): 790–832.Google Scholar
  70. Olson, Mancur. 1971. The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. *Olzak, Susan, and Emily Ryo. 2007. Organizational diversity, vitality, and outcomes in the civil rights movement. Social Forces 85(4): 1561–1591.Google Scholar
  72. *Olzak, Susan, and Sarah A. Soule. 2009. Cross-cutting influences of environmental protest and legislation. Social Forces 88(1): 201–226.Google Scholar
  73. *Santoro, Wayne A. 2008. The civil rights movement and the right to vote. Social Forces 86: 1391–1414.Google Scholar
  74. *Scheitle, Christopher P., and Bryanna B. Hahn. 2011. From pews to policy: specifying evangelical Protestantism’s influence on states’ sexual orientation policies. Social Forces 89(3): 913–934.Google Scholar
  75. *Shipan, Charles R., and Craig Volden. 2006. Bottom-up federalism: the diffusion of antismoking policies from U.S. cities to states. American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 825–843.Google Scholar
  76. *Shipan, Charles R., and Craig Volden. 2008. The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 840–857.Google Scholar
  77. *Soule, Sarah A., and Brayden G. King. 2006. The stages of the policy process and the equal rights amendment, 1972–1982. American Journal of Sociology 111: 1871–1909.Google Scholar
  78. *Steil, Justin Peter, and Ion Bogdan Vasi. 2014. The new immigration contestation: social movements and local immigration policy making in the United States, 2000–2011. American Journal of Sociology 119(4): 1104–1155.Google Scholar
  79. *Studlar, Donley T., Kyle Christensen, and Arnita Sitasari. 2011. Tobacco control in the EU-15: the role of member states and the european union. Journal of European Public Policy 18(5): 728–745.Google Scholar
  80. *Sutton, John R. 2013. The transformation of prison regimes in late capitalist societies. American Journal of Sociology 119(3): 715–746.Google Scholar
  81. *Taghizadeh, Jonas Larsson. 2014. Quality over quantity? Technical information, interest advocacy and school closures in Sweden. Interest Groups and Advocacy 4(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
  82. Tilly, Charles. 1976. Major forms of collective action in Western Europe, 1500–1975. Theory and Society 3: 365–375.Google Scholar
  83. Tilly, Charles. 1997. Parliamentarization of popular contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Theory and Society 26: 245–273.Google Scholar
  84. Uba, Katrin. 2009. The contextual dependence of movement outcomes. Mobilization 14: 433–448.Google Scholar
  85. *Vasi, Ion Bogdan. 2007. Thinking globally, planning nationally, and acting locally. Social Forces 86(1): 113–136.Google Scholar
  86. *Vasi, Ion Bogdan, and David Strang. 2009. Civil liberty in America: the diffusion of municipal bill of rights resolutions after the passage of the USA PATRIOT act. American Journal of Sociology 114: 1716–1764.Google Scholar
  87. *Yamasaki, Sakura. 2009. A boolean analysis of movement impact on nuclear energy policy. Mobilization 14(4): 485–504.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations