Scholars utilize a variety of research methods in studies of interest group formation, presence and influence. From aggregate counts of interest group populations to in-depth participant observation, scholars have used a variety of methods in studies of interest groups' role(s) in the policy process. The application of survey research has proven to be a successful method for obtaining group-specific information across a variety of group types and settings. Though organizational sampling and methods of survey dissemination can differ dramatically across studies, the subfield lacks a comprehensive review of the use of surveys within interest group research. This paucity leaves unanswered several questions regarding the frequency and efficacy of survey research within the subfield. What types of questions have been answered via surveys of organizations? What benefits are provided by this methodological approach? What challenges emerge when surveying interest groups and how have scholars overcome these obstacles? These questions are pertinent to scholars of interest groups and survey researchers alike, and this review provides guidance for the construction and dissemination of future interest group surveys.Scholars utilize an extensive array of research methods in the exploration of interest group formation, presence and influence. From aggregate counts of interest group populations to in-depth participant observation, the question of how interest groups function in the policy process has been, and continues to be, explored from myriad angles. Of these many approaches, survey research has proven to be one successful method for obtaining group-specific information across a variety of organizational types and settings. Though organizational sampling and methods of survey dissemination can differ dramatically across studies, the subfield lacks a comprehensive review of the use of surveys within interest group research. This review 1 provides information about the use of surveys in studies of interest groups with a focus on research questions that have been answered via survey methods, the unique challenge of identifying
Executive Summary Most recent work on the politics of interest representation assumes that lobbyists represent their clients' interests with fidelity. As a check on the validity of this assumption, we examine the potential for principal-agent problems to emerge in the relationship between lobbyists and clients. We first consider the nature of agency problems in lobbying, emphasizing problems of outcomes, interests and monitoring. Next, we examine market, hierarchical and social controls of agency problems in lobbying. We then discuss the implications of our analysis for studies of interest organization mobilization, tactics and strategies, and influence. And finally, we argue that renewed attention must be paid to the internal operation of interest organizations, a subject that has been given scant attention in recent research on interest representation.In 2006, lobbyist Jack Abramoff was convicted -along with two White House officials, US Representative Robert Ney, and nine other lobbyists and Congressional aides -of a range of crimes, including mail fraud and conspiracy. The Washington Post summarized one of the core elements of the case against Abramoff as follows:Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff and public relations consultant Michael Scanlon quietly worked with conservative religious activist Ralph Reed to help the state of Texas shut down an Indian tribe's casino in 2002, then the two quickly persuaded the tribe to pay $4.2 million to try to get Congress to reopen it. Dozens of e-mails written by the three men and obtained by The Washington Post show how they built public r
This paper is motivated by current research in political science and women's studies on interest groups, representation, and intersectional disadvantage. Using original survey data from over 200 advocacy groups (women's rights; socio-economic justice; racial-minority rights; disability rights; and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender rights) in 14 states across the USA, this study examines whether groups disproportionately advocate on behalf of some intersectional identities over others. Descriptive analysis of the correspondence between the demographics of organizations' supporter networks and their issue agendas revealed that groups consistently over-represent class-based issues and under-represent gender-based issues relative to the proportions of low-income and female individuals contained within their constituencies.
Although political scientists have increasingly focused on the role of gender in the policy process and the characteristics of individual lobbyists, little is known about the gender politics of the government relations profession. We extend the study of professional women to the unique political context of Washington, DC, lobbying, an important form of political participation that is understudied in terms of gender. Using data from more than 25,000 individuals registered to lobby the federal government from 2008 to 2015, we show that women account for 37% of the lobbyist population in Washington, that female lobbyists are more likely to work as in-house employees than for contract lobbying firms, and that the largest Washington lobbying firms are strongly biased towards employing men. We add to these findings qualitative data from in-depth interviews with 23 lobbyists to reveal how the professional experiences of women often depend on the idiosyncrasies of lobbying employment and the political nature of their work. We conclude that the underrepresentation of women in the professional lobbying community is an underappreciated problem with broader implications for gender equality in elite political participation.
R esearchers commonly employ multinomial logit (MNL) models to explain individual-level vote choice while treating "abstention" as the baseline category. Though many view abstainers as a homogeneous group, we argue that these respondents emerge from two distinct sources. Some nonvoters are likely to be "occasional voters" who abstained from a given election owing to temporary factors, such as a distaste for all candidates running in a particular election, poor weather conditions, or other temporary circumstances. On the other hand, many nonvoters are unlikely to vote regardless of the current political climate. This latter population of "routine nonvoters" is consistently disengaged from the political process in a way that is distinct from that of occasional voters. Including both sets of nonvoters within an MNL model can lead to faulty inferences. As a solution, we propose a baseline-inflated MNL estimator that models heterogeneous populations of nonvoters probabilistically, thus accounting for the presence of routine nonvoters within models of vote choice. We demonstrate the utility of this model using replications of existing political behavior research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.