Resource Exchange in Urban Governance

Abstract

An explanatory framework based on the classic resource dependency perspective is used to explain a broad variety of urban government-interest group interactions that are not fully explained by current urban governance theories. A case study of Dutch urban immigrant integration shows that one must combine considerations of information and intermediation capacity to explain why Dutch urban governments interact with immigrant organizations, in addition to common findings about institutional heritage. Their information and intermediation capacity allows local governments to get in touch quickly with immigrant groups during periods that potentially threaten the social order and public safety and creates incentives to maintain grants and keep in touch, whereas contributions of such groups to effective implementation are at least doubted.

Ties that count: explaining interest group access to policymakers

“…Still, our findings correspond with other recent research on the different motives of non-elected versus elected policymakers to provide interest group access (Poppelaars 2009b;Braun 2012) and earlier research on how different types of expertise are needed in order to obtain access to different EU officials (Beyers 2002;Bouwen 2002;Eising 2004Eising , 2007Beyers and Kerremans 2012). Therefore, one needs to be careful with the interpretation of the findings, especially regarding the precise direction of the relationship.…”

“…Biased samples -that is, samples with interest groups that are relatively active and more ''visible'' -present a challenge to interest group research in political systems with no reliable population data, such as the Netherlands (Poppelaars 2009b). The data for the network analysis were collected via an elite survey, which was conducted between May 2003 and February 2006 within the area of external trade policy of the EU.…”

The Visible Hand of the State: On the Organizational Development of Interest Groups

“…In recent years, scholars have frequently applied resource dependence theory in order to conceptualize relations between organized interests and public authorities, demonstrating, for instance, that policymakers grant access to organized interests in return for expertise and the legitimization of policy proposals (Bouwen ; Beyers and Kerremans ; Eising ; Poppelaars ; Braun ). However, such exchanges have implications that go beyond the gaining and granting of access.…”

“…To facilitate the representation of particular interests and mitigate the ‘upper‐class accent’, public authorities often support organized interests that represent constituencies or causes which would otherwise remain unheard (Walker ; Baumgartner and Leech ). Policymakers may actively seek support from a visible and well‐organized constituency, as such backing can be critical to policy development and coherence, especially in emerging or less salient policy domains (May et al ; Jordan and Halpin ; Poppelaars ; Halpin et al ). By supporting particular interest organizations, governments seek to increase their legitimacy and to build a more vibrant civil society (Mahoney and Beckstrand ).…”

The Captive or the Broker? Explaining Public Agency–Interest Group Interactions

“…While these studies of bureaucratic behavior vis‐à‐vis societal stakeholders do not constitute a coherent subset of the literature on bureaucratic politics (Hill 1991), the implicit assumption running through these individual studies reflects a public choice notion of bureaucratic entrepreneurship benefiting the agency or the bureaucrat's individual position within the agency. Studies reveal the strategic decisions that govern interactions with interest groups (Aberbach, Putnam, and Rockman 1981; Carpenter and Ting 2007; Peters 2001) and show that bureaucrats interact with a given set of interest groups to, for instance, maintain the agency's autonomy (Carpenter 2001), co‐opt potentially subversive groups within society (Selznick 1953), ensure political support for policy proposals (La Palombara 1964; Suleiman 1974), or have the ability to quickly react in times of contingencies by being in touch with specific target populations (Poppelaars 2007; Thompson 2005).…”