An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups

Salisbury, Robert H.

doi:10.2307/2110212

Cited by 643 publications

(306 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

281

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Group leaders make strategic choices regarding how to maintain and how to advance the interests of their organization (Berry 1977;Salisbury 1969;Wilson 1995). Ideally, a group would be actively involved in all three branches simultaneously.…”

Section: The Nature Of Strategic Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Finding the Weak Link: The Choice of Institutional Venues by Interest Groups

Greene¹,

Heberlig²

2002

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze venue choices by interest groups-the extent to which a group lobbies the Congress, executive branch agencies, and the judiciary-and develop two types of models tested with Jack Walker’s 1985 Study of Voluntary Membership Organizations. The first explains the degree to which a group is involved in each venue separately. The second examines a group’s level of institutional involvement in comparison to the other branches. What explains a groups’ greater utilization of Congress than the courts, of Congress than executive agencies, and of executive agencies than the courts?

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of Strategic Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Finding the Weak Link: The Choice of Institutional Venues by Interest Groups

Greene¹,

Heberlig²

2002

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only problem with this exchange is the existence of "free riders", who let other people join the group and reap the legislative benefits without the costs. According to Mancur Olson, the only way to alleviate the free rider is to make benefits "selective", that is, only available to members [23][24][25].…”

Section: Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religious Groups as Interest Groups: The United States Catholic Bishops in the Welfare Reform Debate of 1995–1996 and the Health Care Reform Debate of 2009–20101

Cammisa

Manuel

2016

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The United States has a long history of religious influence on public policy: the anti-slavery movement, progressivism, prohibition, civil rights, abortion, school vouchers, school prayer and nuclear disarmament are all issues that have involved religion and religious groups in policymaking. In recent decades, the number of religious interest groups (as well as interest groups in general) has greatly expanded, but the role that the religious organizations play as interest groups in the policy arena has received relatively little attention. How are they similar to and different from other interest groups? What tactics do they use? How successful are they? Under what conditions is success or failure more likely? This article examines Roman Catholic religious groups as interest groups in the congressional policymaking process. First, it places Catholic interest groups in the context of the interest group literature, and second, it examines Catholic interest groups' activity in the passage of welfare reform in 1996 and in the passage of health care reform in 2010. In both cases, they played a greater role in context-setting than in actually changing provisions.

show abstract

“…Is there a critical mass of those members who are highly engaged and well endowed with resources for the formation of a PFOA? (H4) According to Salisbury's (1969) exchange theory, in order to be successful a PFOA has to meet the clients' needs by supplying appropriate services. Finally, much depends on the forest policy decision makers whether they are prepared to promote the formation of PFOAs.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%