The Rise of Citizen Groups? The Mobilization and Representation of Danish Interest Groups, 1975–2010

Abstract

Over the last several decades, a number of societal changes can be expected to have led to the increased mobilization of interest groups representing citizen interests. For this mobilization to be effective, citizen groups need to win access to relevant political arenas. This article investigates the development of the Danish interest group system and the representation of interest groups in political arenas. While replicating findings of increasing citizen mobilization from other countries is expected, it is argued here that the development of groups’ political representation as a consequence of this mobilization depends on the dynamics of resource exchange in different political arenas. This argument is tested on a unique dataset of Danish interest groups in 1975 and 2010 which includes data on group populations and group access to the administration and the media. The analysis demonstrates that citizen groups must overcome not only the challenge of organizing, but also persistent logics guiding the inclusion of, interest groups in different political arenas. Citizen groups have been more successful in increasing their representation in the media than in the administrative arena.

How Political Parties Use Group-Based Appeals: Evidence from Britain 1964–2015

“…Modernization processes and the rise of “new politics” (Franklin et al, 1992) have spurred many new, often narrower, groups of people seeking recognition. As the emergence of numerous social movements and advocacy groups attests (Binderkrantz et al, 2016; Kriesi et al, 1995), such groups may find alternative forms of interest aggregation if parties are not successful in framing themselves as their representatives. Political parties must act on this changing demand to remain competitive and relevant.…”

The costs of interest representation – a resource perspective on informational lobbying

“…By showing a relationship between resources and information provision, it supports research that argues that information is costly and can be used strategically (Austen-Smith and Wright, 1992;Wright, 1996) but adds that the costs and resources may vary depending on the type of information. Moreover, it suggests that if groups do not spend economic resources on lobbying activities (Dür and Mateo, 2013;Rasmussen, 2015;Binderkrantz et al, 2016;De Bruycker, 2016), they may have the potential to create a more level-playing field by making strategic use of other resources.…”

The logics of digital advocacy: Between acts of political influence and presence

“…Interest group studies and research on social media have several traits in common, but few attempts have been made to combine these two areas. Interest group studies have played an important role in advancing the debate on advocacy strategies as scholars concentrate on how, why and with what effects groups (generally defined as membership organisations seeking political influence without running candidates for election) use strategies for political influence (Binderkrantz et al, 2016). Strategies are understood as a collection or a combination of activities and tactics to reach a certain goal, usually understood as the ambition to obtain political influence (Grant, 2000).…”

“…We argue that while political influence served as a key heuristic device to analyse advocacy (e.g. Beyers, 2004; Binderkrantz et al, 2016), we need to conceptualise digital advocacy as an act of seeking and claiming political presence.…”