Assessing the Composition and Diversity of the Australian Interest Group System

Fraussen, Bert; Halpin, Darren

doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12188

Cited by 37 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The study population is composed of a list of interest groups compiled by the authors (see Fraussen and Halpin 2016). We define an interest group as any voluntary association for which policy advocacy is a major function (Jordan et al, 2004).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Does group engagement with members constitute a “beneficial inefficiency”?

Grömping

Halpin

2019

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the role of variations in organizational form in explaining levels of group access. Specifically, we test whether group forms incorporating more extensive engagement with members receive policy advantages. We develop and test a account of beneficial inefficiencies. Our account reasons that the costs of inefficient intraorganizational processes and practices associated with enhanced engagement with members are beneficial as they generate crucial “access goods”—specifically encompassing positions—that in turn receive enhanced policy benefits. The costs of intraorganizational practices allowing members to engage more thoroughly in decision making are thus beneficial inefficiencies. We test this proposition using data on the Australian interest group system. Using the tools of cluster analysis, we identify three forms, each varying in respect of the inefficiencies they embody. Our multivariate analysis finds strong support for the account of beneficial inefficiencies: groups with the most inefficient organizational model receiving the greatest policy access.

show abstract

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Does group engagement with members constitute a “beneficial inefficiency”?

Grömping

Halpin

2019

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reflecting the diversity of society, the voices of the public in the ENRM governance represent pluralistic values and argue for a range of land use priorities (Lane 2003;Fraussen and Halpin 2016). This means that disagreement about the best course of action for any given land use change is likely, both between decision-makers and the public, and between different sectors of the public.…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interest groups, often without a geographical connection to the landscape of concern, will mobilise around land use change (Hutton and Connors 1999;Herath 2002;Shmueli and Ben Gal 2005;Holmes 2012;Wheeler et al 2014;Vromen 2015). Interest groups are formal social organisations which engage in actions in order to pursue achievement of the group's interests (Fraussen and Halpin 2016). Interest groups may take the form of a range of organisations, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), business associations, workers' unions, lobby groups, political organisations, and think tanks (Kahane et al 2013;Fraussen and Halpin 2016).…”

Section: Interest Groups Lobbying and Agenda Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interest groups are formal social organisations which engage in actions in order to pursue achievement of the group's interests (Fraussen and Halpin 2016). Interest groups may take the form of a range of organisations, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), business associations, workers' unions, lobby groups, political organisations, and think tanks (Kahane et al 2013;Fraussen and Halpin 2016). ENRMrelated interest groups include groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), which take actions to promote favourable land use outcomes for their interests (APPEA 2013;ACF n.d.).…”

Section: Interest Groups Lobbying and Agenda Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dandy et al (2013, p.2) describe the purpose of agenda setting as to "…define the problems, options and choices available for discussion, along with the framework of values and practices within which they are discussed", demonstrating that it is not just the issues for consideration which are shaped, but also the way in which they are addressed. Interest groups with adequate power to influence the political and policy making discourse aim to achieve dominance of their agenda over others' (Greider and Garkovich 1994;Zammit et al 2000;Lane 2003;Shmuli and Ben Gal 2003;Howard 2012;Dandy et al 2013;Fraussen and Halpin 2016).…”

Section: Interest Groups Lobbying and Agenda Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The social identity approach to understanding stakeholder conflict in environmental and natural resources management

Colvin¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict between stakeholders about environmental and natural resources management (ENRM) issues is a significant challenge for achieving sustainable outcomes for people and the environment.Although conflict can be a constructive and important part of deliberative processes, ENRM routinely experiences dysfunctional conflict, where people involved focus on their perceived incompatibilities rather than finding solutions for the problem. This form of dysfunctional conflict leads to decision-making stagnation and exacerbation of issues which require timely management.The self-perpetuating nature of conflict means that relationships between people and groups become strained, and the potential for cooperation and compromise is undermined. In ENRM, conflict is addressed, often implicitly, through the practice of stakeholder engagement. Although advancements have been made on stakeholder engagement processes through both research and practice, conflict continues to manifest in ENRM issues.This thesis investigates ENRM conflict through analysing the contribution of ENRM stakeholder engagement practice to the prevalence of dysfunctional conflict. In order to understand the hidden complexities and drivers of conflict, the social identity approach has been applied as a theoretical lens. The social identity approach is a theoretical perspective from social psychology which explains how people become members of groups, and how groups interact. As such it is well suited to a study of ENRM conflict, where the heart of the conflict is how groups of people -stakeholders -interact with each other.First, the thesis outlines the theoretical basis for the interest in ENRM conflict, and makes a case for both why stakeholder engagement processes are a critical aspect of conflict which are worthy of investigation, and why the social identity approach is a useful theoretical lens. Following this, a theory building approach to integration of the literature across disciplines is used to present a way of understanding the human dimension of ENRM conflict, and the argument is made for the use of the social identity approach. As a result, a clear distinction is made between 'stakeholders' and 'the citizenry', where stakeholders are formalised groups with a defined interest, and the citizenry is everyone else. An integrative conceptual model for ENRM conflict is created, and is analysed with the application of the social identity approach.Next, the thesis examines the processes taken by ENRM practitioners to identify stakeholders, thereby filling a recognised gap in the literature. This is undertaken with the use of semi-structured interviews with experienced ENRM practitioners, analysed qualitatively. As a result, a typology of approaches to identification of stakeholders is presented, and the previously proposed distinction iii between stakeholders and the citizenry is shown to be reflective of how practitioners categorise people in the context of ENRM issues.The thesis then investigates a case study of a large-scale wind energy d...

show abstract

Interest Groups and Agenda-Setting

Or¹

2021

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Interest Groups, Lobbying and Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agenda-setting can be defined as the process in which the policy agenda of policymakers is set. Policy agendas reflect how policymakers pay serious attention to and prioritize a portfolio of policy issues such as the economy, health, social welfare, and foreign policy. While having the attention of the policymakers is not a sufficient condition for policy change, it is not possible to change a policy without attention. Agenda-setting thus has substantial implications for policy outcomes. It is therefore also a crucial policy stage for interest groups to lobby in to eventually attain favorable policy outcomes for themselves and for the interests they represent.Agenda-setting research generally builds on the key assumption that policymakers are boundedly rational. According to this perspective, policymakers have short attention spans and policy agendas and therefore have limited carrying capacity. To get their agenda heard by policymakers, interest groups thus have to mobilize interests, create conflicts on the policy issue, reframe the policy problem, gain access to a policy arena, form a strong policy coalition with others, and fend off challenges by other competitors on the same policy issues.This chapter discusses why the agenda-setting process is crucial for interest groups, explains its theoretical foundations and dynamics, and discusses the roles of interest groups in shaping policy agendas and the implication to democratic representation. The chapter concludes with highlighting some future research opportunities.

show abstract

Assessing the Composition and Diversity of the Australian Interest Group System

Cited by 37 publications

References 54 publications

Does group engagement with members constitute a “beneficial inefficiency”?

Does group engagement with members constitute a “beneficial inefficiency”?

The social identity approach to understanding stakeholder conflict in environmental and natural resources management

Interest Groups and Agenda-Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About