Interest Groups: Their impact on public policy

Ways in which interest groups are linked to government Through informal contacts Via advisory boards Through issue networks Via policy communities In some, but not all countries, via corporatist channels

Policy communities and issue networks: Policy community: –A close-knit community of those most closely involved -- snug and cozy Government officials Key interest groups, including firms, interest groups, and employee or professional associations –E.g. organization of health or social welfare sectors in Germany Issue network: a looser and more open network of those involved or interested

Why do government officials consult with interest groups? Consultation sometimes required -- via advisory or consultative boards In addition: Groups often provide valuable information and expertise Groups can be used to explain government policy to their members Groups can be used to persuade their members to accept what the government wants

Pluralism v. corporatism Terms used to denote: patterns of interest intermediation (interest group-government interaction) For some, desirable patterns of group- government interaction

Pluralism: Characterized by: Large number of organized interests (multiple groups in competition with each other) –Groups tend to be organized on a narrow or functional basis Relatively open pattern of access – an open political marketplace –No single group monopolizes or dominates access to policy-makers –New groups can form with relative ease

Corporatism Fewer interest groups involved in policy Regular interaction between peak associations representing capital and labour –Trade Union Federations and Employers Associations involved in both: The formulation of government policy The implementation of government policy Originally associated with fascism and authoritarianism but present in liberal democracies

‘Democratic’ Corporatism Social Partnership: typically characteristic of –Smaller democracies –Open economies (countries dependent on trade) Examples: –Austria since World War II –The Netherlands –Sweden –Germany

Corporatism vs. pluralism Corporatism Trade unions and employers associations can take a broader view: –pursue the public interest rather than sectoral interest –Can persuade members to go along Pluralism Broad representation: no one group dominates or monopolizes Excluded interests can organize Interests balance each other out

Disadvantages: Corporatism Groups may neglect or even sell out their members’ interests Undemocratic: –elected officials can be excluded –Other interest groups are excluded Policy-making can be slow Pluralism Not necessarily balanced: –Business groups often occupy a privileged position –More radical groups are excluded Can also be slow

UK: More pluralist Interest group contacts primarily with ureaucracy (‘backstairs network’) Trade Union access via the Labour Party Germany - corporatist Special position for capital and labour policy-communities linking fed & prov gov’ts US: Pluralist competition among multiple interest groups Privileged position of business France: uneven pluralism Close relationship between big business and the state

More corporatist Austria Belgium Netherlands Germany Britain France Canada United States Less corporatist