Interest Group Activity in the States

Nownes, Anthony J.; Freeman, Patricia K.

doi:10.2307/2648002

Cited by 104 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that testifying before a legislative committee is the tactic most frequently used by interest groups to inform and influence policy-makers. Their findings were confirmed by numerous other studies of federal interest group activity and among state level lobbyists and organizations (11,12). Testifying at committee hearings was the most frequent way interest groups interacted with state legislators (12).…”

Section: Implications For Policy Makerssupporting

confidence: 72%

"Hearing from all sides" How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States

Moreland-Russell

Barbero

Andersen

et al. 2015

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This paper investigates whether state legislators find testimony influential, to what extent testimony influences policy-makers' decisions, and defines the features of testimony important in affecting policy-makers' decisions. Methods: We used a mixed method approach to analyze responses from 862 state-level legislators in the United States (U.S.). Data were collected via a phone survey from January-October, 2012. Qualitative data were analyzed using a general inductive approach and codes were designed to capture the most prevalent themes. Descriptive statistics and cross tabulations were also completed on thematic and demographic data to identify additional themes. Results: Most legislators, regardless of political party and other common demographics, find testimony influential, albeit with various definitions of influence. While legislators reported that testimony influenced their awareness or encouraged them to take action like conducting additional research, only 6% reported that testimony changes their vote. Among those legislators who found testimony influential, characteristics of the presenter (e.g., credibility, knowledge of the subject) were the most important aspects of testimony. Legislators also noted several characteristics of testimony content as important, including use of credible, unbiased information and data. Conclusion: Findings from this study can be used by health advocates, researchers, and individuals to fine tune the delivery of materials and messages to influence policy-makers during legislative testimony. Increasing the likelihood that information from scholars will be used by policy-makers may lead to the adoption of more health policies that are informed by scientific and practice-based evidence.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Policy Makerssupporting

confidence: 72%

"Hearing from all sides" How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States

Moreland-Russell

Barbero

Andersen

et al. 2015

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, most interest groups do not spend the majority of their efforts on the "offense," actively seeking ways to change government policy (Heinz et al 1993;Nownes and Freeman 1998). Rather, much of lobbyists' efforts are devoted to monitoring the political environment.…”

Section: The Nature Of Strategic Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chubb (1984) and Nownes and Freeman (1998) study only the choice between the legislature and the bureaucracy. Nownes and Freeman (1998) focus on the characteristics of lobbyists rather than organizations, and they find that few characteristics are related to the extent of legislative or bureaucratic lobbying. Schepple and Walker (1991) We test our models of group venue choice with Jack Walker's 1985 Study of Voluntary Membership Organizations (ICPSR #9601).…”

Section: The Nature Of Strategic Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chubb (1984) focused on the groups' financial resources and membership characteristics as the key variables affecting venue choice. Membership characteristics can include whether the group has citizens or institutions (profit or non-profit) as members and whether it relies on patrons (Nownes and Freeman 1998;Schepple and Walker 1991). Others also have noted that groups can expand their resources to participate in more venues by participating in coalitions (Hula 1995;Hojnacki 1997;Scheppele and Walker 1991).…”

Section: The Nature Of Strategic Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…By maintaining stable, low-profile relationships with both relevant congressional committees and executive agencies, and by excluding participation by public officials and interest groups opposing them, these groups can make policy favorable to their interests without regard for a larger public interest or majority opinion (McConnell 1966;Ripley and Franklin 1991). Although surveys of interest groups confirm broad involvement (e.g., Nownes and Freeman 1998;Schlozman and Tierney 1986;, these facts tell us little about how and why groups make the venue choices they do.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Pluralism, corporatism and perception of corruption

Kanol

2014

J. Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people know who is influencing the elected politicians and they may 'put the rascals out' in case they feel that the incumbents are corrupt, ceteris paribus, their perception of the level of corruption should not be affected by lobbying. If on the other hand people are not sure which or how many actors are influencing public policy and they are not able to hold the government truly accountable as interest group influence is constant with different governments, people will be more likely to perceive the government as corrupted. The former system is a characteristic of corporatism and the latter of pluralism. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that interest groups with resources such as business groups or firms in pluralist systems are more influential than groups with few resources. Thus, people may perceive pluralist policy-making system as more corrupt than corporatist policy-making system where fewer visible actors have more or less equal weight in the policy-making process.

show abstract

Interest Group Activity in the States

Cited by 104 publications

References 15 publications

"Hearing from all sides" How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States

"Hearing from all sides" How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States

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

Pluralism, corporatism and perception of corruption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About