Party Competition, Party Polarization, and the Changing Demand for Lobbying in the American States

Abstract

Interest system density influences internal dynamics within interest organizations, how they lobby, and policy conditions. But how do political conditions influence interest system density? How does politics create demand for interest representation? We examine these questions by assessing how legislative party competition and ideological distance between parties in state legislatures affect the number of lobby groups. After stating our theoretical expectations, we examine 1997 and 2007 data on legislative competition and party polarization to assess their influence on system density. We find mixed results: Whereas politics slightly influenced the structuring of nonprofit interest communities, they seem to have not affected the structuring of for-profit interest communities or interest communities as a whole.

Interest Group and Political Party Influence on Growth in State Spending and Debt

“…We obtained interest group data from the National Institute for Money in State Politics for 2006 through 2015, a source used in other research (e.g., Gray, Cluverius, Harden, Shor, & Lowery, 2015; Witko & Newmark, 2005). 7 These data include traditional member-based groups, as well as businesses and nonprofits lobbying state government, representing different sections of business and society.…”

State Higher Education Interest Group Densities: An Application of the Energy-Stability-Area Model to Higher Education

“…Earlier research meant to predict or explain state interest group density or composition focused entirely on state economic and demographic factors, however, more recently, political scientists (e.g., Gray, Cluverius, Harden, Shor, & Lowery, 2015) have begun considering political factors and how they might relate to a state's interest group ecology. This more recent research has shown that energy fueling a state's interest group system not only came from governmental outputs but also certain political characteristics of the state.…”

“…This more recent research has shown that energy fueling a state's interest group system not only came from governmental outputs but also certain political characteristics of the state. These have been shown to include such characteristics as electoral competition and the presence of a divided government (Boehmke, 2002(Boehmke, , 2008Gray et al, 2015;Smith & Tolbert, 2004). Additional political considerations that do not fall easily within the ESA framework have also been tested.…”

“…Additional political considerations that do not fall easily within the ESA framework have also been tested. Among these include state political ideology and legislative professionalism (Berkman, 2001;Boehmke, 2002Boehmke, , 2008Gray et al, 2015;Kattelman, 2015) and whether lobbying regulations impact interest group ecologies (Flavin, 2015;Newmark, 2005;Ozymy, 2010;Strickland, 2014).…”

Paygo for punctuality

“…Party polarization has been a definitive trend over the last several decades, with several scholars noting it as well as the impacts it has had on the legislative process (for more detail on party polarization, see Stonecash, Brewer, & Mariani, 2003;Theriault, 2006Theriault, , 2008Theriault & Rohde, 2011;Sorensen, 2014;Gray et al, 2015). Scholars have measured these divisions in numerous ways including party votes (Coleman, 1997;Stonecash, Brewer, & Mariani, 2003), party unity scores, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) scores (Brewer, Mariani, & Stonecash, 2002;Stonecash, Brewer, & Mariani, 2003), and American Conservative Union (ACU) scores (Collie and Mason, 2000).…”