Why do interest groups prioritise some policy issues over others? Explaining variation in the drivers of policy agendas

Abstract

Interest groups cannot advocate on every issue they might consider relevant. They must decide what issues to prioritise and which ones to leave to one side. In this article, we examine how groups seek to balance different internal and external considerations when prioritizing issues, and which factors might explain variation in the relative strength of these drivers. We integrate data of a survey of national interest groups in Australia with findings from interviews with a cross section of high-profile groups. While the literature often suggests a clash between external political considerations and internal membership demands, we find that groups view these drivers as largely compatible. Our explanatory analysis points to the policy orientation and insider status of the group, its democratic character, and the extent to which it faces competition for membership contributions, as important factors shaping the relative strength of distinct drivers of internal agenda setting.

Mind the housing inclusion gap: The voice of people with disabilities in German housing politics

“…873–874, 888–889). Though, it is rather issue prioritization than the refusal of accessible housing itself, preventing older people or tenants from engaging in accessible housing politics (Fraussen et al, 2021, pp. 553–555; Grødem & Hippe, 2019; Slavici, 2022, pp.…”

Adapted to Climate Change? Issue Portfolios of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in the Americas

“…Building on pertinent research on interest group behavior (Fraussen et al, 2021;Halpin et al, 2018) and organizational change (Hannan et al, 2003;Pólos et al, 2002), we postulate and show that generalist ENGOs have a higher likelihood of indicating climate change as a focus or priority area of their work. We also find that the issue areas of the specialist ENGOs explain variation across ENGOs.…”

“…Johnson & Prakash, 2007; Sell & Prakash, 2004). If we conceive of NGOs as advocacy organizations, their main strategic goal is to maximize their policy influence through political agenda-setting (Baumgartner & Leech, 2001; Fraussen et al, 2021; Halpin et al, 2018; E. W. Johnson, 2006, 2008; Lowery et al, 2012).…”

“…Currently, there is minimal literature on the process of internal agenda-setting and the selection of issues to which advocacy groups dedicate their time and resources. An exception to this are the studies of Halpin et al (2018) and Fraussen et al (2021), as they offer a comprehensive conceptual model that identifies five internal and external drivers of issues which policy advocacy organizations prioritize. The alignment of the member and/or donor preferences with a given issue (internal responsiveness) and the resources and skills an organization has to advance an issue (policy capacity) are the two internal drivers.…”

“…This is an important question for both theoretical and practical reasons. From a theoretical perspective, agenda-setting research has compellingly argued that there exist more issues than policy actors can attend to given their resource constraints (Baumgartner et al, 2006;Boscarino, 2015;Fraussen et al, 2021;Halpin et al, 2018). Consequently, they must be selective with the issues they address (E. W. Johnson, 2006), and the more we learn about the choices that different types of policy actors make, the more this will expand our cumulative knowledge on agenda-setting.…”