Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can the Red Queen help? A new approach to explaining the formation of interest groups in the USA

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

Abstract

This article uses the theory of Red Queen competition to predict patterns in the founding of nationally active interest groups in the USA. The theory of Red Queen competition holds that competition among groups in a population is history-dependent such that each organization’s competitiveness is a function of its historical experience. The theory predicts that: (1) a population relatively full of recently experienced incumbent organizations is extremely uninviting for newcomers; and (2) a population relatively devoid of recently experienced competitors (and thusly full of incumbents whose competitive experiences are either minimal or concentrated in the distant past) is relatively inviting for newcomers. We test these predictions against data from two group populations. Ultimately, we find strong support for the theory of Red Queen competition and its substantive predictions.

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

Fig. 1

Source: Data from Nownes (2004)

Fig. 2

Source: Data from Minkoff (1997)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There was one group included in the original dataset, a group called Exodus, which did not belong. The group is actually an anti-gay, “ex-gay” group. We eliminated it from the dataset before conducting our analyses.

  2. Our approach here begs the following question: Why test the theory of Red Queen competition against data on these two populations? Unfortunately, the number of comprehensive, over time population studies of politically active organizations is vanishingly small. Thus, the primary reason we chose these two populations was practical; most of the data needed to test the theory of Red Queen competition—especially counts of foundings, death, and density—existed and was attainable from these two sources. Collecting population-level data is no small task, so practical concerns are non-trivial. All the data necessary to replicate this study are available at the author’s website at http://anownes.wixsite.com/anownes/research.

  3. We calculated all predicted values using CLARIFY software (see Tomz et al. 2003).

  4. Of course, one weakness of this study (and others like it) is that it does not and cannot provide direct evidence of organizational learning. This raises the possibility that our results reflect processes other than learning. The most obvious alternative explanation for our findings is that selection processes weed out weak organizations, which makes existing organizations stronger competitors. There is probably some truth in this explanation. Even though we attempt to control for selection processes, they probably account for some of the competitive effects we uncover. But we believe they do not account for all of them.

References

  • Barnett, W.P. 2008. The Red Queen Among Organizations; How Competitiveness Evolves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W.P., and M.T. Hansen. 1996. The red queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal 17(S1): 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W.P., and O. Sorenson. 2002. The red queen in organizational creation and development. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(2): 289–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benz, J., J.H. Kirkland, V. Gray, D. Lowery, J. Sykes, and M. Deason. 2011. Mediated density: The indirect relationship between public policy and PACs. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 11(4): 440–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout, J., B.J. Carroll, C. Braun, A.W. Chalmers, T. Destrooper, D. Lowery, S. Otjes, and A. Rasmussen. 2015. Interest organizations across economic sectors: Explaining interest group density in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 462–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G.R., and M.T. Hannan. 1995. Density-dependent evolution. In Organizations in Industry, ed. G.R. Carroll and M.T. Hannan. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G.R., and M.T. Hannan. 2000. The Demography of Corporations and Industries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cigler, A.J. 1991. Interest groups: A subfield in search of an identity. In Political Science: Looking to the Future, Volume 4, American Institutions, ed. W. Crotty. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisker, H. 2013. Density dependence in corporate systems: Development of the population of Danish patient groups (1901–2011). Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(2): 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V., and D. Lowery. 1995. The demography of interest organization communities: Institutions, associations, and membership groups. American Politics Quarterly 23(1): 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V., and D. Lowery. 1996a. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V., and D. Lowery. 1996b. A niche theory of interest representation. Journal of Politics 58(1): 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V., and D. Lowery. 1997. Life in a niche: Mortality anxiety among organized interests in the American states. Political Research Quarterly 50(1): 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V., and D. Lowery. 2001. The expression of density dependence in state communities of organized interests. American Politics Research 29(4): 374–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, D.R. 2014. The Organization of Political Interest Groups: Designing Advocacy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, D., and G. Jordan. 2009. Interpreting environments: Interest group response to population ecology pressures. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M.T. 1995. Labor unions. In Organizations in Industry, ed. G.R. Carroll and M.T. Hannan. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M.T., and J. Freeman. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review 49(2): 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. 1982. Collective Action. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hojnacki, M., D.C. Kimball, F.R. Baumgartner, J.M. Berry, and B.L. Leech. 2012. Studying organizational advocacy and influence: Reexamining interest group research. Annual Review of Political Science 15: 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hojnacki, M. 1997. Interest groups’ decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 61–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hula, K. 1999. Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, G.E. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia; or, why are there so many kinds of animals? The American Naturalist 93(870): 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizzi, R., and A. Pritoni. 2017. The size and shape of the Italian interest system between the 1980s and the present day. Italian Political Science Review 47(3): 291–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowery, D., and V. Gray. 1993. The density of state interest group systems. Journal of Politics 55(1): 191–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowery, D., V. Gray, J. Kirkland, and J.J. Harden. 2012. Generalist interest organizations and interest system density: A test of the competitive exclusion hypothesis. Social Science Quarterly 93(1): 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 1988. Decisions and Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., and H.A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkoff, D.C. 1997. The sequencing of social movements. American Sociological Review 62(5): 779–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T.M. 1980. A calculus of group membership. American Journal of Political Science 24(4): 593–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nownes, A.J. 2004. The Population ecology of interest group formation: Mobilizing for gay and lesbian rights in the United States, 1950–1998. British Journal of Political Science 34(1): 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nownes, A.J. 2010. Density dependent dynamics in the population of transgender interest groups in the United States, 1964–2005. Social Science Quarterly 91(3): 689–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nownes, A.J., and G. Neeley. 1996. Public interest group entrepreneurship and theories of group mobilization. Political Research Quarterly 49(1): 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, R.H. 1969. An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science 13(1): 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A.L. 1965. Social structure and organizations. In Handbook of Organizations, ed. J. March. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stretesky, P.B., S. Huss, M.J. Lynch, S. Zahran, and B. Childs. 2011. The founding of environmental justice organizations across U.S. counties during the 1990s and 2000s: Civil rights and environmental cross-movement effects. Social Problems 58(3): 330–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomz, M., J. Wittenberg, and G. King. 2003. CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Journal of Statistical Software 8(1). http://j.mp/k3k0rx. Accessed 24 July 2016.

  • Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1(1): 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J.L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wollebaek, D. 2009. Age, size and change in local voluntary associations. Acta Sociologica 52(4): 365–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. 2010. Developing Interests: Organizational Change and the Politics of Advocacy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, 1001 McClung Tower, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    Anthony J. Nownes

  2. One Earth Future, 525 Zang Street, Broomfield, CO, 80021, USA

    Curtis Bell

Authors
  1. Anthony J. Nownes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Curtis Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. Nownes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nownes, A.J., Bell, C. Can the Red Queen help? A new approach to explaining the formation of interest groups in the USA. Int Groups Adv 7, 61–81 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-018-0030-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-018-0030-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation