Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics. By Kevin W. Hula. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000. 208p. $55.00 cloth, $23.95 paper.

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 475-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Ainsworth
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Institutional Structure ◽  
Legislative Politics ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Iron Triangle ◽  
Institutional Structures ◽  
Georgetown University

Many political scientists like institutions, in particular exog- enous institutions, which guide and constrain actions and allow scholars to concentrate more narrowly on behaviors within well-defined settings. For the interest groups subfield, institutions tend to be more mercurial than those in other areas of American politics. For instance, fundamental aspects of Congress may be institutionalized, but groups and lobby- ists come and go. The environment of interests is ever changing. Characterizing the interactions between legislators and lobbyists is made more difficult because of the lack of clear institutional structures that guide or constrain behav- iors. The iron triangle concept was powerful and meaningful because it provided at the least a loose framework for the analysis of legislator-lobbyist interactions. Kevin Hula's new book follows the reasoning of Hugh Heclo and William Browne, who argue that the iron triangle concept is outdated and inappropriate. That convenient metaphor suggested an informal institutional structure that is simply no longer appropriate. Without the iron triangle, what can fill the void?

The interest group analogy: international non-governmental advocacy organisations in international politics

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELIZABETH A. BLOODGOOD
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Common Good ◽  
American Politics ◽  
New Approach ◽  
American Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact

AbstractWhat can models of interest group behaviour from American politics tell us about the existence, activities, and influence of international non-governmental advocacy organisations (advocacy INGOs) in International Relations? In this article I detail an analogy between traditional American interest groups and advocacy INGOs in order to suggest a new approach to theorising INGOs. American politics theories of interest groups provide insights to questions which International Relations has been unable to answer satisfactorily, including where INGOs are likely to be found; how INGOs will grow in the future; the organisational structure of INGOs; the impact of competing groups on the quality and content of foreign policy and international agreements; and the roles of INGOs in different stages of the policy process. Viewing INGOs as interest groups provides a curative to the tendency to view them as self-sacrificing knights in shining armour. Competing INGOs representing narrow interests can nevertheless contribute to the common good in the form of effective, efficient policy.

Fenced Off: The Suburbanization of American Politics. By Juliet F. Gainsborough. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001. 191p. $70.00 cloth, $24.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 823-824
Author(s):  
Gerry Riposa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Urban Politics ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Georgetown University ◽  
Voter Choice

By the 1970s—and, some might argue, a decade earlier—America had shed its urban persona and had metamorphosed into a suburban nation. Yet in comparison with research done on cities and urban politics, little work had focused on this transition and ensuing suburban politics. Juliet Gainsborough's work seeks to reduce this deficiency by examining the suburban movement, its motivations, and their linkage to political behavior. Thankfully moving beyond previous discussions of mortgages and work commutes, the author narrows the focus of this short monograph to how living in the suburbs affects voter choice and policy preferences by altering the decision-making calculus (p. 8).

Public Policy Making and Interest Groups Politics in the U.S: An Analysis of IRCA

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang-Soo Choe
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Policy Formation ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Traditional Group ◽  
American Society ◽  
The U.S

Several theories have been introduced to explain American politics along the historical development of American society. It has been told that any one theory tends to prevail in explaining American politics at any given period. Is it possible then to describe the structure of American politics by any one theory? Which theory or theoretical perspective is valid to understand the U.S. policy making system in 1980s? The purpose of this paper is to show that American politics in any given period cannot be explained by any one prevalent theoretical framework. Despite the arguments between interest group stasis and “countervailing forces,” (McFarland 1992) some policy area can still be explained only by the traditional group theory framework. The Imigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 is a case in point. In the following, theoretical frameworks concerning policy formation will be presented first. Second, the process of IRCA formation will be briefly reviewed with special reference to the role of interest groups. Finally, by summarizing the gain and loss of each interest group, the characteristics of IRCA formation will be suggested.

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ROUND TABLE ON LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS 1994: EDUCATIONAL LINGUISTICS, CROSSCULTURAL COMMUNICATION, AND GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE.James E. Alatis (Ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994. Pp. 402. $35.00 paper.

1997 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-118
Author(s):  
Joan Kelly Hall
Keyword(s):  
Language Teaching ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Educational Linguistics ◽  
Language Classroom ◽  
Georgetown University ◽  
Crosscultural Communication

This collection of 28 papers was first presented at the 1994 GURT. The theme of the conference was educational linguistics, crosscultural communication, and global interdependence. The vastness of the theme is reflected in the diversity of the chapter topics. Twelve of 28 deal with curricular issues. Of these, those by Kachru, Nyikos, D. Freeman, van Lier, Loew, and Richards discuss issues and concerns broadly related to the preparation of language teachers. D. Freeman's chapter is worthy of note because it offers an interesting discussion on the various strands of scholarship, which he suggests comprise the knowledge base of language teaching. Six of the 12 chapters center on curricular issues for the language classroom. Matters relating to the teaching of culture are dealt with by Oxford and Bamgbose. Brown discusses “responsive language teaching.” Citkina reports on innovative foreign language methods recently introduced in the Ukraine. A good discussion on computer-mediated communication and its usefulness to the language classroom is offered by Stauffer. Pica provides an excellent overview of the research on task-related learning and an equally useful discussion of its pedagogical implications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document