Crandi

Interest Groups The Bureaucracy And Issue Prioritization

Leo Migdal
-
interest groups the bureaucracy and issue prioritization

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2020 Interest groups cannot advocate on every issue they might consider relevant. They must decide what issues to prioritise and which ones to leave to one side. In this article, we examine how groups seek to balance different internal and external considerations when prioritizing issues, and which factors might explain variation in the relative strength of these drivers. We integrate data of a survey of national interest groups in Australia with findings from interviews with a cross section of high-profile groups. While the literature often suggests a clash between external political considerations and internal membership demands, we find that groups view these drivers as largely compatible.

Our explanatory analysis points to the policy orientation and insider status of the group, its democratic character, and the extent to which it faces competition for membership contributions, as important factors shaping the relative... In their important work on the allocation of political attention, Jones and Baumgartner (Reference Jones and Baumgartner2005) explain that the political environment is especially information-rich and that political actors are faced with the challenge... They say: “…prioritization somehow means winnowing – dropping from consideration for the time being problems that can wait” (Jones and Baumgartner Reference Jones and Baumgartner2005, 11). In a similar fashion, Kingdon described an “agenda” as the inventory of subjects and problems that receive serious attention from political actors (Reference Kingdon1984, 3; see also Cobb and Elder Reference Cobb and Elder1983). As a result of a “bottleneck of attention,” which implies that “only one or a very few things can be attended to simultaneously” (Simon Reference Simon1985), priorities need to be set. Recent work has highlighted the importance of just such prioritization processes within political parties and bureaucracies (Gilad Reference Gilad2015; Öberg et al.

Reference Öberg, Lundin and Thelander2015; Froio et al. Reference Froio, Bevan and Jennings2016; Baekgaard et al. Reference Baekgaard, Mortensen and Bech Seeberg2018; Bark and Bell Reference Bark and Bell2019). In this article, we provide an important contribution to this literature by examining this process of issue prioritization among a specific category of political organizations, namely, interest groups. Specifically, we ask what explains variation in the relative strength of different internal and external drivers as groups decide which set of policy issues to prioritise. As argued by Bauer in his study of agenda-setting in the USA.

Senate: “the most important part of the legislative decision process was the decision about which decision to consider.” The representative’s major problem was “not how to vote, but what to do with his time,... Interest groups face a very similar challenge. We assume that set against all the possible issues a group might be considered to have a policy interest in, a group needs to settle on a sub-set of those matters to work on. By “policy work,” we do not refer narrowly to only active lobbying, but to the full range of policy preparation activities that groups engage in (see Jordan Reference Jordan, Flinders, Gamble, Hay and Kenny2009;... While recognised as important, the process of issue prioritization within groups remains opaque. Previous work on this theme conceptualised and empirically assessed five possible drivers of issue prioritization: internal responsiveness, policy capacity, niche seeking, political opportunity structure (POS) and issue salience (Halpin et al.

Reference Halpin, Fraussen and Nownes2018). The study indicated that most groups view each of these considerations as relevant to the prioritization process, hence the characterization of issue prioritization as a “balancing act.” What remains to be resolved, however, is... The previous study did not assess to what extent specific organizational features might affect the (relative) strength of a particular driver. For instance, to what extent are there systematic differences in the issue prioritization process between more generalist or specialist groups, and what are the possible implications of enjoying government access or facing strong competition... While these key organizational features are often linked to lobbying strategies in the literature (e.g. Dur and Mateo Reference Dur and Mateo2013; Binderkrantz et al.

Reference Binderkrantz, Christiansen and Pedersen2014), they have not yet been related to how groups might make trade-offs between different drivers of internal agenda setting. In this present article, we address some of these important questions and provide more insight into this balancing exercise, in particular focusing on why some groups put relatively more emphasis on particular internal or... In this way, our work also speaks to the larger literature that argues a combination of internal (organizational) and external (environmental) factors shape the organization and behaviour of interest groups (Schmitter and Streeck Reference... Reference Grote, Lang and Schneider2008; Berkhout Reference Berkhout2013). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 10, Article number: 565 (2023) Cite this article Government officers are key players in designing and implementing public policies.

Not surprisingly, a growing body of research approaches their connections with other stakeholders, such as ministers, elected officials, and political parties. Fewer studies, however, address the relationship between bureaucrats and interest organisations. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of recent publications regarding interest groups and the public bureaucracy. The paper introduces the findings of an extensive literature review with bibliometric techniques and qualitative content analysis. To map previous studies, I analysed 1978 abstracts with VOSviewer and R. The final collection included 415 papers which were read and coded through NVivo.

Based on this review, this paper exposes data on authors, countries, and research methods related to texts published between 2000 and 2022. In addition, it critically examines concepts and empirical evidence regarding the interactions between interest groups and government officers. This study advances the research agenda on interest groups by identifying gaps in previous studies and proposing new perspectives to analyse the political connections of the public bureaucracy. The findings indicate that most publications focus on interest group strategies, revolving doors, and venue choice. Fewer texts assess influence over political appointments and personal networks. Therefore, further research is required to address the causal mechanisms between access to the bureaucracy and interest group influence over public policies.

Moreover, the bibliometric analysis revealed that research networks have been located in the United States and Europe and publications tend to focus on the ‘global North’. In this sense, more regional diversity might be beneficial for the development of theoretical and methodological structures able to ‘travel’ to other cases. The political domain encompasses a varied range of individuals and groups: citizens, politicians, political parties, bureaucrats, social movements, and interest groups, among others. Government officers are responsible for designing and implementing public policies and play a key role in executing political decisions. On the input side of political exchanges, interest groups voice needs from society to the State. Not surprisingly, there is a growing body of research addressing the role of these actors in decision-making processes.

Nevertheless, frew studies approach the relationship between interest groups and non-elected officials (Boehmke, et al., 2013; Boehmke, 2018; Dwidar, 2022). Although the political functions of public employees is undeniable, assessing their political connections is challenging as it often involves contested concepts and subjective variables, such as power, motivation, and influence. Not Surprisingly, terms such as ‘politicisation of the bureaucracy’ or ‘patronage’ frequently have pejorative connotations. This paper aims to advance the research agenda on interest groups and the public bureaucracy by mapping previous studies to identify their topics, gaps, and research strategies. I start from the proposition that the research literature on interest groups and bureaucrats is still underdeveloped, as cited by previous studies (Boehmke, et al., 2013; Boehmke, 2018; Dwidar, 2022). Accordingly, the paper introduces the findings of an original study aiming to identify the overlaps between these two research topics: public bureaucracy and pressure politics (lobbying and interest groups).

In this sense, the search focused on publications on politicisation, patronage, and lobbying since these concepts are related to bureaucrats’ political connections. By employing bibliometric techniques, I identified themes, authors, and organisations to provide an overview of this field. The general collection included 1978 texts analysed through VOSviewer and R Studio. In addition, I read and coded 415 texts with NVivo to identify the concepts, theoretical frameworks, and methods employed in these studies. Through qualitative content analysis, I discuss concepts and empirical evidence regarding the interactions between bureaucrats and interest groups. The study innovates by combining different research topics in political science and analysing an unprecedented large volume of publications.

This paper introduces its finding through an integrative literature review highlighting the similarities and divergences between studies on interest groups and the public bureaucracy. The research questions guiding this project were: The proliferation of Think tanks and interest groups in western democracies over the past decades is due to the consideration that they are important actors in public policy. Their contribution to policy is demonstrated in different ways; testifying congressional hearings, framing public debates, building coalitions on policy issues, and nurturing close relationships with politicians. Still, their explicit contribution, policy commitment is challenged by undue influence rather than responding to citizen needs because of avert ideological bias, compromised academic neutrality and objectivity, coercion, and persuasion from foreign funders. Policy commitment is becoming challenging for Thinks tanks and interest groups because of ideological bias where politicians influence the groups or specific individuals in the groups to advance their interests.

Bias occurs because the Think tanks will be forced to favor the politicians and not the citizens. Fraussen & Halpin (2020) hypothesize that bias results in specific policy prioritization while critical issues are left. Consequently, the needs of citizens are not actualized. Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest. Think tanks present themselves as neutral academics when in a real sense, they are only advancing their credibility and independence and not of the citizens. This aspect is compromised in most states, while its results present policies of undue influence that are spearheaded by Think Tanks, who have little consideration of citizen needs.

Limited funding for Think tanks and interest groups exposes them to seek funding for their activities. Most Think tanks fall victims to undue influence in policy commitments due to significant foreign funding meant to advance specific interests of the funders in particular groups (Fraussen & Halpin 2020). Therefore, Think tanks will act as a lobbyist in favoring the demands of such funders while pretending to have the citizens’ interest at work.

People Also Search

Published Online By Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2020 Interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2020 Interest groups cannot advocate on every issue they might consider relevant. They must decide what issues to prioritise and which ones to leave to one side. In this article, we examine how groups seek to balance different internal and external considerations when prioritizing issues, and which factors might explain variation in the relat...

Our Explanatory Analysis Points To The Policy Orientation And Insider

Our explanatory analysis points to the policy orientation and insider status of the group, its democratic character, and the extent to which it faces competition for membership contributions, as important factors shaping the relative... In their important work on the allocation of political attention, Jones and Baumgartner (Reference Jones and Baumgartner2005) explain that the political environmen...

Reference Öberg, Lundin And Thelander2015; Froio Et Al. Reference Froio,

Reference Öberg, Lundin and Thelander2015; Froio et al. Reference Froio, Bevan and Jennings2016; Baekgaard et al. Reference Baekgaard, Mortensen and Bech Seeberg2018; Bark and Bell Reference Bark and Bell2019). In this article, we provide an important contribution to this literature by examining this process of issue prioritization among a specific category of political organizations, namely, inte...

Senate: “the Most Important Part Of The Legislative Decision Process

Senate: “the most important part of the legislative decision process was the decision about which decision to consider.” The representative’s major problem was “not how to vote, but what to do with his time,... Interest groups face a very similar challenge. We assume that set against all the possible issues a group might be considered to have a policy interest in, a group needs to settle on a sub-...

Reference Halpin, Fraussen And Nownes2018). The Study Indicated That Most

Reference Halpin, Fraussen and Nownes2018). The study indicated that most groups view each of these considerations as relevant to the prioritization process, hence the characterization of issue prioritization as a “balancing act.” What remains to be resolved, however, is... The previous study did not assess to what extent specific organizational features might affect the (relative) strength of a p...