Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nt87m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T04:47:21.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Jack L. Walker
Jack L. Walker*
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rather than striving to measure the influence of groups in the policy-making process this article concentrates instead on the ways in which interest groups are created and the means by which they remain in existence. A survey by mail was conducted during 1980-1981 of all voluntary associations that are open to membership and concerned with some aspects of public policy at the national level. The sample of groups was chosen from the Congressional Quarterly's Washington Information Directory. Questionnaires were delivered to 913 interest groups, and usable responses were received from 564, yielding a response rate of 64.8%.

Most studies of groups have concerned the tactics employed by group leaders in attracting and holding their members. This study demonstrates that the origins and maintenance of groups depends even more upon the success of group leaders in securing funds from outside their membership which are needed to keep their groups in operation. Estimates of patronage from different sources are provided as well as data on the congruence between the policy goals of groups and their patrons.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 390 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adelson, A.SDS. New York: Scribner's 1972.Google Scholar
Babcock, C. R.Policies of education grants becomes issue. The Washington Post, 08 14, 1982, p. 5.Google Scholar
Barbrook, A., & Bolt, C.Power and protest in American life. New York: St. Martin's, 1980.Google Scholar
Berry, J.Lobbying for the people. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Boles, J. K.The politics of the equal rights amendment. New York: Longman, 1970.Google Scholar
Broder, D. S.Changing of the guard: power and leadership in America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1980.Google Scholar
Carden, M. L.The new feminist movement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1974.Google Scholar
Carter, J. E.Farewell address. The Washington Post, 01 15, 1981, p. A4.Google Scholar
Clayborne, C.In struggle: SNCC and the black awakening of the 1960's. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Commission on Foundations and Private Philanthropy. Foundations, private giving and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Edelman, M.The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Elkins, S. L.Markets and politics in liberal democracy. Ethics, 1982, 92, 720–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, S.John Muir and his legacy: the American conservation movement. Boston: Little, Brown, 1981.Google Scholar
Freeman, J.The politics of women's liberation. New York: David McKay, 1975.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. L.The political process: executive bureau—legislative committee relations (Rev. ed.). New York: Random House, 1969.Google Scholar
Gamson, W.Power and discontent. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Gamson, W.The strategy of social protest. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Gelb, J., & Palley, M. L.Women and public policies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Goldstone, J. A.The weakness of organizations: A new look at Gamson's The strategy of social protest. American Journal of Sociology, 1980, 84, 1017–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulden, J. C.The money givers. New York: Random House, 1971.Google Scholar
Greenstone, J.Labor in American national politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969.Google Scholar
Greenstone, J. D. (Ed.). Public values and private power in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Gunther, J.Moralists and managers: public interest movements in America. New York: Anchor Books, 1976.Google Scholar
Hayes, M. T.Lobbyists and legislators. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Heclo, H.Issue networks and the executive establishment. In King, A. (Ed.), The new American political system. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1978.Google Scholar
Herring, E.Group representation before Congress. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1929.Google Scholar
Hrebenar, R. J., & Scott, R. K.Interest group politics in America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. C., & Perrow, C.Insurgency of the power-less: farm worker movements: 1946-72. American Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 248–268.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E.Politics and markets. New York: Basic Books, 1977.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M.Protest in city politics. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. J.American business, public policy: case studies and political theory. World Politics, 1964, 16, 677–715.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, A.When auditors turn editors: the IRA and the nonprofit press. Columbia Journalism Review, 1981, 20, 29–34.Google Scholar
Marris, P., & Rein, M.Dilemmas of social reform (2nd ed.). Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
Marx, G. T.External efforts to damage or facilitate social movements. In Zald, M. N. & McCarthy, J. D. (Eds.), The dynamics of social movements. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1979.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N.Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 1978, 52, 1212–1241.Google Scholar
McFarland, A.Public interest lobbies: decision making on energy. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1976.Google Scholar
McKean, D. D.Party and pressure politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1949, p. 489.Google Scholar
Meyer, C.Facing reality. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.Google Scholar
Moe, T. M.The organization of interests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Moe, T. M.Toward a broader view of interest groups. Journal of Politics, 1981, 43, 531–543.Google Scholar
Newfield, J.A prophetic minority. New York: Signet Books, 1966, pp. 83–108.Google Scholar
Nielsen, W. A.The big foundations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, E. A.On the autonomy of the democratic state. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Oberschall, A.Social conflict and social movements. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.Google Scholar
Olson, M. Jr.The logic of collective action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Ornstein, N. J., & Elder, S.Interest groups, lobbying and policymaking. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Peterson, B.Coalition pushes block grants to “defund” the left. The Washington Post, 07 2, 1981, p. 6.Google Scholar
Pratt, H.The gray lobby. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Presthus, R.Elites in the policy process. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Richman, T.Can the U.S. chamber learn to think small? Inc., 1982, 4, 81–86.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. V.An angry young congressman criticizes special interest groups. The New York Times, 01 10, 1980, p. 1.Google Scholar
Rossellini, L.How conservatives view the U.S. posts. The New York Times, 06 21, 1982, p. 12.Google Scholar
Salisbury, R. H.An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 1969, 5, 1–32.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E.The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.Google Scholar
Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T.More of the same: Washington pressure group activity in a decade of change. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, 09 3, 1982.Google Scholar
Seaberry, J.The mailed fist: nonprofit groups hit by postage jump. The Washington Post, 01 7, 1982, pp. 1; 14.Google Scholar
Shabecoff, P.Big business on the offensive. The New York Times Magazine, 12 9, 1979, pp. 134–146.Google Scholar
Smith, C. E., & Freedman, A.Voluntary associations: perspectives on the literature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Stanfield, R.“Defunding” the left. National Journal, 08 1, 1981, pp. 1374–1378.Google Scholar
Truman, D. B.The governmental process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951.Google Scholar
Walker, J. L.Setting the agenda in the U.S. Senate: a theory of problem selection. British Journal of Political Science, 1977, 7, 423–445.Google Scholar
Washington Information Directory, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Washington Representatives: 1981. Washington, D.C.: Columbia Books, 1981.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. K.Interest groups in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. K.Unions in American national politics. London: Macmillan, 1977.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q.Political organizations. New York: Basic Books, 1973.Google Scholar
Wines, M.Should groups that set standards be subjected to federal standards? National Journal, 09 26, 1981, pp. 1717–1719.Google Scholar
Ziegler, H. L., & Peak, W. G.Interest groups in American politics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.