Who Works with Whom? Interest Group Alliances and Opposition

Abstract

Interest-group interactions may be examined in ways comparable to the analysis of conflict and coalition in other areas of political science. We seek to measure and compare the structure of interest-group participation and conflict in four domains of U.S. domestic policy: agriculture, energy, health, and labor. Data are drawn from a survey of 806 representatives of organizations with interests in federal policy, supplemented by interviews with 301 government officials in the same four domains. Several types of data are adduced regarding the intensity and partisanship of group conflict in each domain and the range and variety of group participation. Coalitional patterns are described and the mutual positioning of different kinds of organization—peak-association groups versus more specialized trade, professional, or commodity groups, for example—are examined.

Assessing business advantage in Washington lobbying

“…Nearly three decades ago, Salisbury et al (1987) argued that answering the simple question 'who works with whom?' was essential to understanding both the patterns of conflict that existed among actors who took an interest in different policy areas, and the types of policy outcomes that were likely to emerge.…”

“…A number of recent studies do in fact suggest that policy outcomes may be shaped by the characteristics of advocates who take an interest in a given policy issue; also significant is whether and to what extent those participants oppose or support one another's objectives (Baumgartner et al, 2009;McKay, 2012;Nelson and Yackee, 2012;Heaney and Lorenz, 2013;Gilens and Page, 2014). Relatedly, Salisbury et al (1987) show that the alliance and adversarial patterns that emerge in policy domains often are driven by the types of organized advocates involved in policy debates. Recent work also recognizes that organizations are not the only players relevant for interest representation; public officials also engage in issue advocacy and contribute to the representation of interests (Martin, 1994;Lowery and Gray, 2004;Baumgartner et al, 2009).…”

Party Coalitions and Interest Group Networks

“…The results suggest that many coalitions are built to provide signals of broad support, rather than to mobilize resources for lobbying. Salisbury et al (1987) use surveys to find out who interest group leaders and lobbyists view as allies and adversaries in four policy domains. They analyze the coalitions in each area, as seen by participants, but do not seek to connect them to the general conflict between parties or within the universe of policy conflicts before Congress.…”

Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence

“…As argued, these proxies are related to the 6I See Rubin (1978, 1979b), and Stratmann (1991Stratmann ( , 1992b. 62 See, e.g., Masters and Zardkoohi (1988), Salisbury et al (1987). 63 Lupia (1994) and Rapoport et al (1991) also find that interest group endorsements may affect voters.…”