|
Title
|
|
|
|
Walking a tightrope between representing organizational constituencies and the general public : analyzing interest groups functioning as intermediaries between citizens and public policymaking
| |
|
Author
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
| How and the extent to which interest groups impact public policy is a core controversy in political science. On the one hand, interest groups hold the potential to function as intermediaries between citizens and policymakers thereby advancing policies closely connected to societal concerns. On the other hand, many groups are considered to bias public policy in favor of the happy few and to detract from the public interest. Lobbying scandals making news headlines invigorate concerns on the negative impact of interest group involvement in public policymaking. This dissertation addressed this controversy by examining when and how interest groups connect the policy preferences of the general public with the policymaking process in each step of the influence production process. Specifically, I analyze the extent to which interest groups incorporate the citizen preferences in their positions (mobilization stage), how groups’ alignment with public opinion affects access to advisory councils, news media prominence (advocacy activities and access stage) and advocacy success (influence stage). Results, based on comprehensive news and policy content analyses of 110 specific issues and a representative survey with Belgian interest groups, indicate that interest groups constantly walk a tightrope between, on the one hand, acting on their members and supporters’ preferences and, on the other hand, trying to influence public policy through the strategic alignment with public opinion. While broad public support helps interest groups to influence public policy, securing ties with members and supporters is vital for interest group maintenance and survival. This dissertation demonstrates that close constituency involvement often results in defending positions with scant public support and consequently can hamper groups’ access to advisory councils, limits the benefits of media prominence, and decreases the chances of advocacy success. These constraining effects of close constituency engagement in advocacy activities are especially pronounced on politicized issues; on salient and conflictual issues on which many interest groups mobilize. Hence, the active engagement of members and supporters is especially an asset to gain policy access and exert influence when policy issues are decided upon out of the public spotlight and when the scope of conflict remains limited. Interest groups that do enjoy broad public support, in contrast, can more easily put pressure on policymakers in a politicized context. Politicization elevates electoral and legitimacy concerns among policymakers and thus heightens their demand of broad societal support. In sum, politicization and the strong involvement of constituencies can put interest groups’ intermediary function between the general public and policymakers under strain, but when interest groups enjoy broad public support it can also help them influence policy. |
| |
|
Language
|
|
|
|
English
| |
|
Publication
|
|
|
|
Antwerpen
:
Universiteit Antwerpen, Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen, Departement Politieke Wetenschappen
,
2021
| |
|
Volume/pages
|
|
|
|
280 p.
| |
|
Note
|
|
|
|
:
Beyers, Jan [Supervisor]
:
De Bruycker, Iskander [Supervisor]
| |
|
Full text (open access)
|
|
|
|
| |
|