The organization of interests POLI 352A

Policy making through institutions Public opinion Policy choice Interest groups Rules of the game

Interest groups An organization that seeks to influence state action, but does not seek to occupy public office Not a political party Not just a group of people –Must be organized and active Not all interests are represented by interest groups

Why politicians care about interest groups Interest groups can Mobilize voters Generate coordinated expression and protest Finance campaigns Disrupt economic activity and policy implementation

Back to the puzzle Why do different countries adopt different policies? Hyp. 1: Differences in what the public wants? Hyp. 2: Differences in the rules of the game (institutions)? Hyp. 3: Differences in how and how well relevant interests are organized

Logic of collective action I choose whether to participate based on self-interest –What do I gain or lose? My participation won’t affect outcome My participation won’t affect your participation The collective good is a public good –Non-excludable –Non-rival

Logic of collective action  Rationally, I should free-ride BUT  Aggregate outcome = no participation Paradox: What’s in the group’s interest isn’t in its members’ individual interests.

Logic of collective action BUT sometimes groups do form. So, how? Coercion Selective incentives –Only get it if you participate Small groups privileged

Varieties of organization: Neo-corporatism Monopolistic representation –One peak association per interest –Formally recognized by state Compulsory membership Formal role in policy making –Routines of bargaining Discipline –Association can bind members to deal Examples: Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, (recently) Ireland

Varieties of organization: Pluralism Competing groups –Lots of organizations per interest Voluntary membership Lobbying, informal consultation –No formal role in policy process Weak discipline Examples: Canada, U.S., U.K.

How did they get neo-corporatism? Historical development –e.g., medieval guilds, traditions of cooperation State coercion Necessity and small size –Small states in world markets

Regime clusters Parliamentary-PR-neo-corporatist –Continental Europe Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium –Policymaking inclusive Parliamentary-majoritarian-pluralist –British-influenced countries UK, Canada, Australia –Policymaking adversarial Presidential-pluralist –U.S. –Policy making fragmented

Consequences: Neo-corporatism vs. pluralism The more corporatism, the more: Representation of broad interests –Especially labor Capacity for social bargains –e.g., Wage moderation for welfare-state growth Policy rigidity? –Or flexibility?

Lindblom: Market as prison Market economy depends on voluntary business investment  Automatic punishment mechanism –Policies that hurt business  slow investment Business doesn’t even have to mobilize for influence  Business in privileged position??

Interest organization: Summary What explains policy differences between countries? Could be differences in how well opposing groups are organized –Org.  influence –Corporatism v. pluralism Amd why differing levels of organization? –Differing ability to solve collective action problems