class 8 - interest groups and social movements Flashcards
interest groups
= organizations that defend the interests of a particular group of people
protective groups = concerned with material benefits (regulation, subsidies) for members
promotional groups = concerned with distinct political causes
- e.g. AIPAC= pro-israel interest group in America
- e.g. National Rifle Association US
- e.g. trade union movements
!!little correspondence between how many groups we have and how many participants we have : we have more groups, but less individuals involved
!!more members/participants does NOT mean more influence
functions of interest groups
- increase representation and participation - represents/integrates groups that would otherwise not be represented (e.g. Roma)
- public awareness (e.g. lack of gov. funding in education)
- agenda setting (e.g. through strikes)
- monitoring of government (e.g. national riffle association blocked San Francisco’s gun restrictions (was labeled as terrorist organization)
- lobbying
corporatism
= institutionalized cooperation between key interest groups, political parties and the state in formulation of public policies
interest groups (‘‘social partners’’) are:
- integrated in a set of institutional arrangements facilitating permanent bargaining
- centralized and concentrated in ‘peak associations’ (tripartite agreements)
- willing to compromise
usually associated with wealth and prosperity + mostly in small European countries (e.g. Benelux, Scandinavian countries)
!has come under pressure:
- globalization undermine national policymaking capacity (if power of the state is undermined, internal interest groups arrangements are as well)
- economies have changed (post-industrial societies)
- ideological resistance to forms of corporatism coming with neoliberal politics (starting 80s, Thatcher): started questioning the use of them
pluralism
= a competition between interest groups for influence on public policies in which the state plays a neutral role
interest groups are:
- dispersed across different institutional arenas
- fragmented into a number of groups
- competing with each other
*mirror opposite of corporatism
Anglosaksen world: Britain, US
critique:
- pluralism was always a kind of idealistic type of interest group politics, there have always been some interest groups that were more powerful than others (see: iron triangle in the book, is used to criticise the concept of pluralism)
social movements
= dense organizational networks of people sharing some common identity, who engage in a sustained series of non-institutionalized action
Kriesi - three important elements
- common sense of identity
- sustained action (can’t just be a protest, has to be sustained)
- non-institutionalized channels of operation (not a choice: when they emerge they are not incorporated)
*in practice: some social movements also do conventional operation, the longer it exists, the broader its actions will be
*interest groups can transform to political parties (e.g. green parties)
points:
- diverse social movements (in time and place, but also in ideology)
most progressive politics are result of social movements, but not all social movements are democratic and progressive - social movements share: claim on gov. (grievance/demand) + always raise awareness + employ unconventional tactics
to understand how they operate, we need to look at how they relate to the state, this differs per state
conclusions
- interest groups, social movements and political parties share certain characteristics, but they DO DIFFER in several key aspects:
- political systems differ in the way they incorporate interest groups in policy-making
- does the same as under point 2 apply to social movement?
*yes: mostly difference between in democratic regimes and authoritarian regimes and totalitarian regimes, but also within democracies (different political opportunity structures)
Lobbying
!lobbying doesn’t have to be corrupt: not always about exchanging money, it can also be trying to persuade etc.
- lobbying has grown in importance as political practice (esp. in US) = increase of money sent on lobbying
- e.g. House of Cards tv show (Remi Denton?): money for political campaign in exchange for favorable legislation
- most countries have lobbying legislation: want to control/know what is going on
two things:
- lobbying is not always successful: e.g. google spends a lot of money on lobbying, but does not win (in courts)
- lobbying very often doesn’t target politicians: often targets other important state actors (bureaucrats, sometimes even judges)
trade unity density
% of working population that are members of trade unions
comparison political parties and interest groups
interest groups are similar to political parties (in goal and what they ask), es. as they operate conventionally (contact with M or gov member)
main differences
- they hardly ever want to become member of gov.
- focus on one or two issues (parties focus on more)
how to understand the relative position of interest groups in political systems? = how important they are depends on:
- how do they relate to the state?
- how do interest groups relate to one another?
- how are interest groups organized?
corporatism vs pluralism
authoritarian corporatism
prominent in the 1970s-80s in Latin America
associated with underdevelopment and poverty
still age of corporatism or pluralism?
they are ideal types of how interest groups can be incorporated into the political system, they are useful tools, but
- categorical vs continuous classification: continuous is more fitting: countries are more corporist or more pluralist
policy (issue) networks
- many people argue that in contemporary systems it resembles policy/issue networks (= somewhere in between corporatism and pluralism)
policy (issue) networks
= a heterogeneous group of persons and organizations, including interest groups, that are part of a relatively loose but enduring social structure
how does this differ from pluralism and corporatism?
4 key differences
- policy networks include state as interested actor (different from pluralism)
- policy networks also include non-gov. organizations, including individual economic firms and think-thanks (diff from corporatism: they have select groups of interest groups that are included, others are excluded)
- policy networks also include individual experts of all sorts
- policy networks lack hierarchy (diff. from corporatism)
e.g. Health Care Issue Network in the US: government (ministry, president, congress) + important interest groups (american medical association) + companies like pfizer
main difference social movemens
= in tactics:
- social movements are unconventional
- political parties and interest groups are conventional
= in organization:
- social movements are organized horizontically
- interest groups and pol. parties are usually more professional/hierarchical/vertical
!they operate from outside the gov.
(e.g. social movements)
- e.g. hippie movement in the 1960s and 70s UK and US
- e.g. greenpeace
- e.g. Madres de plaza de mayo (Argentina): opposing dictatorships
- e.g. solidarnosc Poland (trade union movement for solidarity / working rights)
- e.g. sept 2011: occupy wallstreet against eco. inequalities and the role of money in politics
- e.g. pegida against islamification of the west
