Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:37:31.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting Environments: Interest Group Response to Population Ecology Pressures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

Darren Halpin  and
Grant Jordan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Important articles in this Journal by Nownes in 2004 and Nownes and Lipinksi in 2005 demonstrate that ‘population ecology’ approaches are now central to interest group studies. Partly at least this move to study at population level is a consequence of the numbers of such organizations. Party scholars typically deal with far fewer cases and sui generis discussion is more defensible. Ecology seems to offer a ‘handle’ on the thousands of cases that exist in the interest group field. Nownes and Lipinski stressed the importance of environmental factors in determining group populations, and challenged group scholars to address the dynamics among interest group populations. This article argues that animal-based population ecology may be an imperfect analogy to use in making sense of group circumstances. It considers the way groups respond to opportunities and constraints.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 243 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Virginia Gray and David Lowery, ‘Life in a Niche: Mortality Anxiety Among Organized Interests in the Unites States’, Political Research Quarterly, 80 (1997), 25–47.

2 Douglas Imig, ‘Survival, Resource Mobilization and Survival Tactics of Poverty Advocacy Groups’, Western Political Quarterly, 45 (1992), 501–20.

3 David B. Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951).

4 Earl Latham, The Group Basis of Politics: A Study in Basing-Point Legislation (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1952).

5 Robert H. Salisbury, ‘Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions’, American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), 64–76, p. 66.

6 Kay L. Schlozman, ‘What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure Group System’, Journal of Politics, 46 (1984), 1006–32, p. 1007.

7 Samuel Beer, Britain Against Itself (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982). An example here was the Scottish Women’s Rural Institute that was initially run by the Ministry of Agriculture.

8 Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965).

9 Robert H. Salisbury, ‘An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13 (1969), 1–32; Jack L. Walker, Mobilizing Interest Groups in America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991).

10 The following are particularly relevant: David Lowery and Virginia Gray, ‘The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch, or the Natural Regulation of Interest Group Numbers in the American States’, American Journal of Political Science, 39 (1995), 1–29; David Lowery and Virginia Gray, ‘Bias in the Heavenly Chorus: Interests in Society and Before Government’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16 (2004), 5–30; Virginia Gray and David Lowery, The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, paperback edn, 2000 [1996]); Anthony J. Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation: Mobilizing Gay and Lesbian Rights Interest Groups in the Unites States, 1950–98’, British Journal of Political Science, 34 (2004), 49–67; Anthony J. Nownes and Daniel Lipinski, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death: Gay and Lesbian Rights Interest Groups in the Unites States, 1945–98’, British Journal of Political Science, 35 (2005), 303–19.

11 Gray and Lowery, The Population Ecology of Interest Representation, p. 20.

12 Lowery and Gray, ‘Bias in the Heavenly Chorus’, pp. 23–4.

13 Hannan quoted by Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 53.

14 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 54.

15 Lowery and Gray, ‘The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch’, p. 9.

16 Lowery and Gray, ‘The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch’, p. 3; Paul Colinvaux, Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare: An Ecologist’s Perspective (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 12.

17 Lowery and Gray,‘The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch’, p. 9.

18 Lowery and Gray,‘The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch’, p. 24.

19 Hannan and Freeman quoted by Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 52.

20 Aldrich, Organizations Evolving, p. 46.

21 Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 82.

22 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’.

23 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 66.

24 Nownes and Lipinski, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death’.

25 Nownes and Lipinski, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death’, p. 318.

26 See Howard Aldrich, Organizations Evolving (London: Sage, 2001), pp. 43–8.

27 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 32.

28 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 32.

29 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 32.

30 Aldrich, Organizations Evolving, p. 45, emphasis added.

31 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 67, emphasis added.

32 Nownes and Lipinski, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death’, p. 319.

33 See Grant Jordan and William Maloney, ‘Manipulating Membership: Supply Side Influences Over Group Size’, British Journal of Political Science, 28 (1998), 389–409; Terry Moe, The Organization of Interests (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

34 Darren Halpin, ‘Action Frames and Incentive Management in Farmer Interest Groups: Changing the Logic of Collective Action’, in George Crowder, Haydon Manning, David Mathieson, Andrew Parkin and Leonard Seabrooke, eds, Public Proceedings of the Australian Political Studies Association 1997 Conference (Adelaide: Flinders University of South Australia, 1997), pp.313–35.

35 See G. Jordan and W. Maloney (with Sara Davidson), ‘Making Interests: Creating Members’, in G. Jordan and W. Maloney, eds, Democracy and Interest Groups (Basingstoke, Hants.: Palgrave, 2007), chap. 3. With respect to general agricultural groups in Europe, Australia and North America, see Darren Halpin, ed., Surviving Global Change? Agricultural Interest Groups in Comparative Perspective (Aldershot, Surrey: Ashgate, 2005).

36 Imig, Survival, Resource Mobilization and Survival Tactics of Poverty Advocacy Groups, p. 517.

37 Imig, Survival, Resource Mobilization and Survival Tactics of Poverty Advocacy Groups.

38 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 50.

39 Michael T. Hannan and Glenn R. Carroll, ‘An Introduction to Organizational Ecology’, in Glenn R. Carroll and Michael T. Hannan, eds, Organizations in Industry: Strategy, Structure, and Selection (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 17–31; cited by Nownes and Lipinski, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death’, p. 304.

40 Gray and Lowery, The Population Ecology of Interest Representation, p. 250.

41 Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’.

42 Graham Cox, Philip Lowe and Michael Winter, ‘Agriculture and Conservation in Britain: A Policy Community Under Siege’, in Graham Cox, Philip Lowe and Michael Winter, eds, Agriculture: People and Policies (London: Allen and Unwin, 1986), chap. 11, at p. 181; Martin J. Smith, ‘The Annual Review: The Emergence of a Corporatist Institution?’ Political Studies, 37 (1989), 81–96; Martin J. Smith, Pressure, Power and Policy: State Autonomy and Policy Networks in Britain and the United States (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993); Wyn Grant, ‘The National Farmers Union: The Classic Case of Incorporation?’ in David Marsh, ed., Pressure Politics: Interest Groups in Britain (London: Junction, 1983), pp. 129–43; Wyn Grant, ‘Is Agricultural Policy Still Exceptional?’ Political Quarterly, 66 (1995), 156–69; David Marsh and Martin Smith, ‘Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach’, Political Studies, 48 (2000), 4–21. But see Grant Jordan, William Maloney and Andrew McLaughlin, ‘Characterizing Agricultural Policy-Making’, Public Administration, 72 (1994), 505–26.

43 Glenn R. Carroll, ‘Organizational Ecology in Theoretical Perspective’, in Glenn R. Carroll, ed., Ecological Models of Organizations (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1988), pp. 1–6, cited by Nownes, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation’, p. 52.

44 Gray and Lowery, The Population Ecology of Interest Representation, p. 250.

45 Interviews were conducted in early 2002 with the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FAWG), Scottish Agricultural Organization Society (SAOS), National Farmers’ Union of Scotland (NFUS), the Scottish Countryside Alliance (SCA), Women’s Farming Union (WFU), People First and the Scottish Landowners Federation (SLF). The only group omitted was the Scottish Crofting Foundation. Follow-up interviews were conducted with the Countryside Alliance and the NFUS in 2005. In the views of respondents these groups constituted the main groups organizing the general farming sector.

46 Where it has not been possible to attribute comments directly to organizations, quotes are simply attributed to respondents generally.

47 Interviews were conducted with SEERAD staff in 2002 and 2005. In total, six interviews with staff from the Rural Development, Environment and Agriculture Policy Divisions were undertaken.

48 Wayne Moyer and Tim Josling, Agricultural Policy Reform (Aldershot, Surrey: Ashgate, 2002), pp. 34–6.

49 Alan Swinbank, ‘EU Agriculture: Agenda 2000 and the WTO Commitments’, World Economy, 22 (1999), 41–54.

50 However, closer inspection reveals, as is often the case in administrative ‘reform’, the integration of the components of SEERAD appears limited. ‘Headed notepaper (only)’ reforms are commonplace.

51 Scottish Executive, Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture (Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2001), p. 2.

52 Scottish Executive, Rural Scotland: A New Approach (Edinburgh: Rural Affairs Department, 2001), p. 3.

53 See Alan Greer, Agricultural Policy in Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005).

54 Comprehensive discussion in Bill Slee, Andrew Barnes, Ken Thomson, Deb Roberts and Iain Wright, Agriculture’s Contribution to Scottish Society, Economy and Environment: A Literature Review, Produced for the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department and CRU (Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen and Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, 2001).

55 But the changes started before devolution because ‘rural’ policy discussion pre-dates devolution: Europeanization has been as important as ‘Scottish-ization’.

56 Grant Jordan and William Maloney, The Protest Business (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997).

57 NFUS, ‘President: Road Ahead for NFUS’ (2007, 62/07).

58 Dundee Courier, 10 February 2003.

59 NFUS, ‘First Minister Told of Rural Reform Priorities’ (2003, 108/03).

60 NFUS, ‘Welcome Move Towards Land Management Contracts’ (2004, 115/04).

61 Dundee Courier, 10 February 2003.

62 NFUS, ‘Biodiversity Advocates Recognised by NFUS and RSPB Scotland’ (2005, 36/05).

63 NFUS, ‘Environmental Funding Campaign Pays Dividend’ (2003, 170/03).

64 NFUS, ‘Improvement of Rural Development Funding Crucial’ (2003, 252/03).

65 ‘Angus Gives NFUS Full Backing over Restructuring’, Scotsman, 17 July 1998, p. 30.

66 Moe, The Organization of Interests.

67 ‘Closer union links urged’, Aberdeen Press and Journal, 13 May 1998, p. 18.

68 NFUS interview, March 2002.

69 ‘No vote for 20 NFU branches’, Scotsman, 24 February 2001, p. 10.

70 NFUS interview, March 2002.

71 Scotsman, 6 March 2007, p. 43.

72 Courier and Advertiser, 27 January 2003.

73 ‘Former top civil servant relishes union challenge’, Aberdeen Press and Journal, 29 November 2003, p. 21.

74 ‘Rivals bid for leadership of NFUS’, Scotsman, 22 December 2006, p. 43.

75 NFUS, ‘Learning the Lessons of the Supply Chain’ (2005, 158/05).

76 A change in organizational form for us does not mean the end of a specific species of group (i.e. general agricultural group or trade association) but emerging qualitative differences within these species (such as changing membership criteria, name or overall influence strategy).

77 ‘Name change for NFUS’, Scotsman, 19 May 2001, p. 15.

78 Those listed as responding under farming and land management included NFU Scotland (NFUS), Scottish Crofting Foundation (SCF), Scottish Landowners Federation (SLF), Scottish Organic Producers Association (SOPA), National Sheep Association, North West Cattle Producers Association, National Beef Association Scotland, Scottish Dairy Association, Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group. Other agricultural industry groups (those working for actors further up the supply chain than farming) included Scottish Agricultural Associations Society (SOAS) and Quality Meat Scotland (QMS).

79 NFUS, ‘Industry Challenges Agri-Environment Payment Proposals’ (2005, 99/05).

80 NFUS, ‘Rural Organisations Co-operate for Future of Tenanted Sector’ (2007, 36/07).

81 NFUS interview, 2005.

82 ‘Rural voices keep up the pressure’, Courier and Advertiser, 10 December 2001, p. 13.

83 Lowery and Gray, ‘Bias in the Heavenly Chorus’, p. 19.

84 Lowery and Gray, ‘Bias in the Heavenly Chorus’, refer to ‘Tails and Peaks’. They suggest that the relative under- or over-mobilization of groups in issue areas occurs because interests hostile to public opinion are harder to organize (and vice versa). This suggests that as tail issues – those with less political salience – become peak issues, then population should likewise shift. Thus, as rural issues gain saliency, and individuals come to see themselves as part of a rural rather than farming constituency, groups would have more chance of organizing as a rural group. The population ecology literature foreshadows this type of shift, but group counting methods make it hard to pick up.

85 For instance, its recent initiative to sponsor rural youth to experience fishing activities – combating social exclusion – highlights the type of strategy SCA takes to popularize ‘countryside pursuits’ as part of a rural development vision.

86 Editorial, ‘Is rural lobby prepared to compromise?’ Scotsman, 17 December 2001.

87 Mark Macaskill, ‘NFU urged to expel rebels’, Sunday Times, 10 February 2002, p. 10.

88 Peter J. May, Bryan D. Jones, Betsi E. Beem, Emily A. Neff-Sharum and Melissa K. Poague, ‘Policy Coherence and Component-Driven Policymaking: Arctic Policy in Canada and the United States’, Policy Studies Journal, 33 (2005), 37–63.

89 Andrew Arbuckle, ‘Time to consider campaigning cost stripping?’ Courier and Advertiser, 15 October 2001, p.13.

90 ‘Hustings call for NFUS merger’, Scotsman, 8 February 2003, p. 24.

91 Nownes and Lipinski’s, ‘The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death’, p. 309, data on gay and lesbian rights groups reports that of the ninety-eight groups, twenty-five died. However, this is qualified in a footnote as follows ‘Actually, one of the twenty-five merged with another group. Though there is some evidence that mergers are qualitatively different phenomena from disbandings, in this article we treat as ending events the same (primarily because only one group “died” by merging)’.

92 A similar point is made by Page, who reports: ‘A representative of a social welfare group suggested that the insider/outsider distinction was inaccurate in part because groups can act in a concerted manner, so that some pursue outsider tactics of mobilising public support as part of a broader strategy which involves other groups pursuing insider approaches of calm, factual and reasoned argument, a “good cop/bad cop” strategy.’ (See Ed Page, ‘The Insider/Outsider Distinction: An Empirical Investigation’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1 (1999), 205–14, p. 211.)

93 Michael T. Heaney, ‘Identity Crisis; How Interest Groups Struggle to Define Themselves in Washington’, in A. Cigler and B. Loomis, eds, Interest Group Politics (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007), pp. 278–300.