Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T12:18:54.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Setting the Party Agenda: Interest Groups, Voters and Issue Attention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2018

Heike Klüver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do political parties respond to interest group mobilization? While party responsiveness to voters has received widespread attention, little is known about how interest groups affect parties’ policy agendas. I argue that political parties respond to interest groups as lobbyists offer valuable information, campaign contributions, electoral support and personal rewards, but that party responsiveness is conditioned by voter preferences. Based on a novel longitudinal analysis studying the responsiveness of German parties to interest groups across eleven issue areas and seven elections from 1987 until 2009, it is shown that parties adjust their policy agendas in response to interest group mobilization and that interest groups are more successful in shaping party policy when their priorities coincide with those of the electorate.

Keywords

interest groupsissue attentionpolitical partiesresponsiveness
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 979 - 1000
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (E-mail: [email protected]). I thank Elisabeth Zeidler, Emanuel Deutschmann, Elisabeth Glück, Marcus Carlsen Häggrot, Svenja Krauss, Jens Olesen, Lara Panning, Jochen Rehmert, Jonas Reißmann and David Schmuck for valuable research assistance. I am moreover grateful to the Fritz Thyssen Foundation (Grant Az. 10.13.2.109) and the British Academy (Grant SG111433) which generously funded research for this article. Finally, I am grateful for valuable comments and suggestions from Tarik Abou-Chadi, Iskander de Bruycker and participants at the 2016 ECPR Joint Sessions Workshop ‘Public Opinion and Public Policy – Analyzing Feedback Effects in Comparative Politics’ at Pisa. The data, replication instructions, and the data’s codebook can be found in Harvard Dataverse at https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/VVDOUK and online appendices at: 10.1017/S0007123418000078.

References

Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2004. Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results? British Journal of Political Science 34 (4):589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allern, Elin Haugsgjerd. 2010. Political Parties and Interest Groups in Norway. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Allern, Elin Haugsjerd, and Bale, Tim. 2012. Political Parties and Interest Groups: Disentangling Complex Relationships. Party Politics 18 (1):7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allern, Elin Haugsgjerd, Aylott, Nicholas, and Christiansen, Flemming Juul. 2007. Social Democrats and Trade Unions in Scandinavia: The Decline and Persistence of Institutional Relationships. European Journal of Political Research 46 (5):607–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1994. Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (3):335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 1993. Information and Influence: Lobbying for Agendas and Votes. American Journal of Political Science 37 (4):799–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäck, Hanna, Debus, Marc, and Dumont, Patrick. 2011. Who Gets What in Coalition Governments? Predictors of Portfolio Allocation in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 50 (4):441–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., Berry, Jeffrey M., Hojnacki, Marie, Kimball, David C., and Leech, Beth. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N. 1995. What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89 (3):634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N. 1996. Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models. Political Analysis 6 (1):1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N. 2011. Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series-Cross-Section Political Economy Data. Annual Review of Political Science 14:331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, Éric, and Meguid, Bonnie M. 2008. Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice. Electoral Studies 27 (3):477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkhout, Joost, Hanegraaff, Marcel, and Braun, Caelesta. 2017. Is the EU Different? Comparing the Diversity of National and EU-Level Systems of Interest Organisations. West European Politics 40 (5):1109–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhagen, Patrick. 2013. When do Politicians Listen to Lobbyists (and Who Benefits When they Do)? European Journal of Political Research 52 (1):20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, Jan, De Bruycker, Iskander, and Baller, Inger. 2015. The Alignment of Parties and Interest Groups in EU Legislative Politics. A Tale of Two Different Worlds? Journal of European Public Policy 22 (4):534–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwen, Pieter. 2004. Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Union Institutions. European Journal of Political Research 43 (3):337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambour, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analysis. Political Analysis 14 (1):63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breunig, Christian. 2013. German Policy Agendas Codebook v2.0. Konstanz: Publisher.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1993. Issues, Dimensions, and Agenda Change in Postwar Democracies: Long-Term Trends in Party Election Programs and Newspaper Reports in Twenty-Three Democracies. Pp 41–80 in Agenda Formation, edited by William H. Riker. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1999. Estimating Party Policy Preferences: From Ad Hoc Measures to Theoretically Validated Standards. Essex Papers in Politics and Government, 139. Colchester: Department of Government, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A. 1986. On the Structure and Sequence of Issue Evolution. American Political Science Review 80 (3):901–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Flemming Juul. 2012. Organizational De-integration of Political Parties and Interest Groups in Denmark. Party Politics 18 (1):27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 1985. Political Parties and Political Representation. Comparative Political Studies 18 (3):267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., Farrell, David M., and McAllister, Ian. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Däubler, Thomas. 2012. The Preparation and Use of Election Manifestos: Learning from the Irish Case. Irish Political Studies 27:51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag, ■. 2014. Geschäftsordnung des Deutschen Bundestages und Geschäftsordnung des Vermittlungsausschusses. Berlin: Deutscher Bundestag.Google Scholar
Dür, Andreas, and Mateo, Gemma. 2013. Gaining Access or Going Public? Interest Group Strategies in Five European Countries. European Journal of Political Research 52 (5):660–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Hainmüller, Jens. 2009. MPs for Sale? Returns to Office in Postwar British Politics. American Political Science Review 103 (4):513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2010. Linking Citizens and Parties: How Electoral Systems Matter for Political Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, De Vries, Catherine, Steenbergen, Marco, and Edwards, Erica. 2011. Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position or to their Supporters? Party Politics 17 (3):275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellowes, Matthew C., and Wolf, Patrick J. 2004. Funding Mechanisms and Policy Instruments: How Business Campaign Contributions Influence Congressional Votes. Political Research Quarterly 57 (2):315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giger, Nathalie, and Klüver, Heike. 2016. Voting Against your Constituents? How Lobbying Affects Representation. American Journal of Political Science 60 (1):190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Stacy B. 2001. All Votes are Not Created Equal: Campaign Contributions and Critical Votes. Journal of Politics 63:249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jane, and Hobolt, Sara B. 2008. Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections. Electoral Studies 27 (3):460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Mortensen, Peter B. 2010. Who Sets the Agenda and Who Responds to it in the Danish Parliament? A New Model of Issue Competition and Agenda-Setting. European Journal of Political Research 49 (2):257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Mortensen, Peter B. 2015. Avoidance and Engagement: Issue Competition in Multiparty Systems. Political Studies 63 (4):747–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Deardorff, Alan V.. 2006. Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy. American Political Science Review 100 (1):69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr. 1977. Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy. American Political Science Review 71:1467–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and de Vries, Catherine E. 2015. Issue Entrepreneurship and Multiparty Competition. Comparative Political Studies 48 (9):1159–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara, and Klemmensen, Robert. 2008. Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies 41 (3):309–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 72:469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchheimer, Otto. 1966. The Transformation of Western European Party Systems. Pp. 177–200 in Political Parties and Political Development, edited by Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weisner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike, 2018. “Replication Data for: Setting the party agenda: Interest groups, voters and issue attention”, doi: 10.7910/DVN/VVDOUK, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike, and Sagarzazu, Iñaki. 2016. Setting the Agenda or Responding to Voters? Political Parties, Voters and Issue Attention. West European Politics 39 (2):380–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike, and Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2016. Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention. British Journal of Political Science 46 (3):633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, Walter. 1991. Political and Economic Explanations for Unemployment: A Cross-National and Long-Term Analysis. British Journal of Political Science 21 (3):315–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Beth L., Baumgartner, Frank R., Pira, Timothy M. La, and Semanko, Nicholas A. 2005. Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Activity and the Demand for Advocacy. Political Research Quarterly 58 (1):19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Stegmaier, Mary. 2000. Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science 3 (1):183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne. 1993. A Signaling Model of Informative and Manipulative Political Action. American Review of Political Science 87 (2):319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, David, and Gray, Virginia. 1995. The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch, or the Natural Regulation of Interest Group Numbers in the American States. American Journal of Political Science 39 (1):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, David, Baumgartner, Frank R., Berkhout, Joost, Berry, Jeffrey M., Halpin, Darren, Hojnacki, Marie, Klüver, Heike, Kohler-Koch, Beate, Richardson, Jeremy, and Lehman Schlozman, Kay. 2015. Images of an Unbiased Interest Group System. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (8):1212–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, David. 2015. Explaining Interest Group Interactions with Party Group Members in the European Parliament: Dominant Party Groups and Coalition Formation. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 53 (2):311–329.Google Scholar
Meguid, Bonnie M. 2005. Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 99 (3):347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meguid, Bonnie M. 2008. Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Thomas M. 2013. Constraints on Party Policy Change. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Thomas, and Wagner, Markus. 2016. Issue Engagement in Election Campaigns: The Impact of Electoral Incentives and Organizational Constraints. Political Science Research and Methods 4 (3):555–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57 (1):45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naurin, Elin. 2011. Election Promises, Party Behaviour and Voter Perception. Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Otjes, Simon, and Rasmussen, Anne. 2017. The Collaboration between Interest Groups and Political Parties in Multi-Party Democracies: Party System Dynamics and the Effect of Power and Ideology. Party Politics 23 (2):96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3):825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Bingham G. Jr. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Anne. 2012. Interest Group-Party Interaction in EU Politics. Party Politics 18 (1):81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Anne. 2015. Participation in Written Government Consultations in Denmark and the United Kingdom: System and Actor-Level Effects. Government and Opposition 50 (2):271–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Anne, and Carroll, Brendan J. 2014. Determinants of Upper-Class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from Online Consultations. British Journal of Political Science 44 (2):445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Anne, and Lindeboom, Gert-Jan. 2013. Interest Group-Party Linkage in the Twenty-First Century: Evidence from Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research 52 (2):264–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William. 1996. The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William Harrison. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Nancy C., and King, Paula J. 1991. Policy Entrepreneurs: Their Activity Structure and Function in the Policy Process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1 (2):147–175.Google Scholar
Schermann, Katrin, and Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurenz. 2014. Coalition Policy Making under Constraints: Examining the Role of Preferences and Institutions. West European Politics 37 (3):564–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebaldt, Martin. 1997. Organisierter Pluralismus: Kräftefeld, Selbstverständnis und politische Arbeit deutscher Interessengruppen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Siaroff, Alan. 1999. Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement. European Journal of Political Research 36 (2):175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvia, Stephen J. 2013. Holding the Shop Together: German Industrial Relations in the Postwar Era. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2002. Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Klüver, Heike. 2014. Do Parties Respond? How Electoral Context Influences Party Responsiveness. Electoral Studies 35:48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Klüver, Heike. 2015. Voter Polarization and Party Responsiveness: Why Parties Emphasize Divided Issues, But Remain Silent on Unified Issues. European Journal of Political Research 54 (2):343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco R., and Scott, David J. 2004. Contesting Europe? The Salience of European Integration as a Party Issue. Pp. 165–194 in European Integration and Political Conflict, edited by Gary Marky and Marco R. Steenbergen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas. 1991. What do Campaign Contributions Buy? Deciphering Causal Effects of Money and Votes. Southern Economic Journal 57:543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare, and Müller, Wolfgang C. 1999. Political Parties and Hard Choices. Pp. 1–35 in Policy, Office or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Clive S. 2001. Studying the Political Party-Interest Group Relationship. Pp. 1–26 in Political Parties and Interest Groups: Shaping Democratic Governance, edited by Clive S. Thomas. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Thomson, Robert. 2001. The Programme to Policy Linkage: The Fulfilment of Election Pledges on Socio-Economic Policy in the Netherlands, 1986–1998. European Journal of Political Research 40 (2):171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toshkov, Dimiter, Lowery, David, Carroll, Brendan, and Berkhout, Joost. 2013. Timing is Everything? Organized Interests and Timing of Legislative Activity. Interest Groups and Advocacy 2 (1):48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Lehmann, Pola, Matthieß, Theres, Merz, Nicolas, Regel, Sven, and Werner, Annika. 2015. The Manifesto Data Collection Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2015a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Wagner, Markus, and Meyer, Thomas M. 2014. Which Issues do Parties Emphasise? Salience Strategies and Party Organisation in Multiparty Systems. West European Politics 37 (5):1019–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Carolyn M. 2000. Confessions of an Interest Group: The Catholic Church and Political Parties in Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, Paul V. 2001. Coalition Policy in Parliamentary Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 34 (10):1212–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witko, Christopher. 2006. PACs, Issue Context, and Congressional Decisionmaking. Political Research Quarterly 59 (2):283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witko, Christopher. 2009. The Ecology of Party–Organized Interest Relationships. Polity 41 (2):211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science 39 (4):981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonka, Arndt, Baumgartner, Frank R., Mahoney, Christine, and Berkhout, Joost. 2010. Measuring the Size of the EU Interest Group Population. European Union Politics 11 (3):463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Klüver supplementary material

Klüver supplementary material
Download Klüver supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 197.7 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Klüver Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VVDOUK
Link