Policy Debates, Interest Groups, and the Structure of Conflict

2013 ◽  
pp. 131-153
Author(s):  
Heike Klüver
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Policy Debates

Agricultural policy debates: Examining the alternative and conventional perspectives

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 98-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis E. Beus ◽  
Riley E. Dunlap
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Alternative Agriculture ◽  
Conventional Agriculture ◽  
Considerable Similarity ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Wide Range

AbstractControl of agricultural policymaking by the “agricultural establishment” has been challenged by a wide range of interests concerned with the externalities of modern industrialized agriculture. An “externalities/alternatives” or “ex/al” coalition appears to be an emerging force in agricultural policy debates. We surveyed three alternative agriculture groups, three conventional agriculture groups, and a statewide sample of farmers to learn whether each category forms a distinct, unified interest group whose perspectives on agricultural policy diverge substantially from the others'. There is considerable similarity among the alternative agriculture groups and among the conventional agriculture groups, the differences between them being much greater than the differences within each category. The statewide farmer sample is generally intermediate between the two sets of interest groups, but is closer to the conventional perspective on most issues.

Leaders' Communications in Public-interest and Material-interest Groups

1991 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-540
Author(s):  
R. A. Young ◽  
Shirley M. Forsyth
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Group Leaders ◽  
Material Interest ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Public Interest Groups ◽  
Internal Communications ◽  
Insight Into

AbstractThis article analyzes the internal communications between interest group leaders and their memberships. The case is Bill C-22, which increased patent protection for Pharmaceuticals in Canada. The object was to test for differences between “material” groups seeking benefits for their members and “purposive” groups pursuing policies which will benefit others. Significant differences were found in the kinds of appeals made by group leaders. This implies that it can be realistic and useful to distinguish between types of group according to their purposes and the motivations of their members. The findings also provide some insight into the language of policy debates and allow some speculation about the perennial question of why people adhere to large public-interest groups.

Experimental Evidence on the Relationship Between Candidate Funding Sources and Voter Evaluations

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conor M. Dowling ◽  
Michael G. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Private Sector ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Campaign Strategy ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
American Elections ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractMoney comes from a variety of sources in American elections. It is unclear however whether voters’ knowledge about a candidate's funding portfolio influences how that candidate is evaluated. We present the results of two survey experiments in which we randomly assigned the composition of donors from various categories to a hypothetical candidate. We find that on average a candidate described as having received a majority of his contributions from individuals is evaluated more highly than one who received a majority of his contributions from interest groups. We also find that when it comes to self-financing a campaign, using private sector money is more beneficial to candidates than using inherited money, but only when the candidate is a member of the same party as the voter. Our results have implications for campaign strategy, academic debates concerning the effect of money on elections, and policy debates concerning the effects of increased campaign finance disclosure.

Money and Politics in the Current Contemporary Congress

2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Gilligan
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
Financial Resources ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
Campaign Finance Reform ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
The Subject

Campaign finance reform is the subject of ongoing public policy debates in many modern democratic societies. In the United States, individuals and interest groups from across the ideological spectrum have proposed or embraced a variety of campaign finance reforms in attempts to alter the electoral landscape. At least one recent presidential candidate highlighted the issue of campaign finance reform which appear to resonate with voters, as part of a broader strategy to secure his party's nomination. Many of these reforms propose to alter the sources and uses of financial resources in Congressional elections.

Measuring interest group framing strategies in public policy debates

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heike Klüver ◽  
Christine Mahoney
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Group Position ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Framing Strategies ◽  
Quantitative Text Analysis ◽  
A New Technique

AbstractFraming plays an important role in lobbying, as interest groups strategically highlight some aspects of policy proposals while ignoring others to shape policy debates in their favour. However, due to methodological difficulties, we have remarkably little systematic data about the framing strategies of interest groups. This article therefore proposes a new technique for measuring interest group framing that is based on a quantitative text analysis of interest group position papers and official policy documents. We test this novel methodological approach on the basis of two case studies in the areas of environmental and transport policy in the European Union. We are able to identify the frames employed by all interest groups mobilised in a debate and assess their effectiveness by studying to what extent decision-makers move closer to their policy positions over the course of the policy debate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document