IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v91y2010i3p669-688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expanding the Scope of Conflict: Interest Groups and Interstate Compacts

Author

Listed:
  • Ann O'M. Bowman
  • Neal D. Woods

Abstract

This study looks at how the characteristics of states' interest group environments affect state participation in interstate compacts. Drawing on prominent theories of interest system characteristics, we hypothesize that interest group density and concentration will influence a state's propensity to join compacts. Method. Using pooled cross‐sectional time‐series event‐count models, we test our hypotheses for 48 states over a 30‐year period. Results. We find that states with denser interest group systems are more likely to join interstate compacts, but that greater concentration of organized interests in a few economic sectors impedes compact formation. Additional analyses show that the effects of state interest group systems vary across types of interest groups and compacts. In particular, the effects of interest group density appear to be driven primarily by not‐for‐profit groups generating increased state participation in noneconomic compacts. Conclusion. Interstate cooperation is influenced in important ways by characteristics of interest group environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann O'M. Bowman & Neal D. Woods, 2010. "Expanding the Scope of Conflict: Interest Groups and Interstate Compacts," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 669-688, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:91:y:2010:i:3:p:669-688
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00713.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00713.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00713.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Kincaid, 1998. "The devolution tortoise and the centralization hare," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue May, pages 13-40.
    2. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    3. Rorie Spill Solberg & Eric N. Waltenburg, 2006. "Why Do Interest Groups Engage the Judiciary? Policy Wishes and Structural Needs," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(3), pages 558-572, September.
    4. Dennis Mueller & Peter Murrell, 1986. "Interest groups and the size of government," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 125-145, January.
    5. Christopher Witko & Adam J. Newmark, 2005. "Business Mobilization and Public Policy in the U.S. States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 86(2), pages 356-367, June.
    6. Lowery, David & Gray, Virginia, 1997. "How Some Rules Just Don't Matter: The Regulation of Lobbyists," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 139-147, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Charles Davis & Katherine Hoffer, 2012. "Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(3), pages 221-241, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    2. William McEachern, 1987. "Federal advisory commissions in an economic model of representative democracy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, January.
    3. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    4. Rodrigo M. S. Moita & Claudio Paiva, 2013. "Political Price Cycles in Regulated Industries: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 94-121, February.
    5. Scott Gehlbach & Konstantin Sonin & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2010. "Businessman Candidates," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 718-736, July.
    6. Francesco Caselli & Nicola Gennaioli, 2008. "Economics and Politics of Alternative Institutional Reforms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 1197-1250.
    7. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    8. Bommer, Rolf, 1995. "Environmental policy and industrial competitiveness: The pollution haven hypothesis reconsidered," Discussion Papers, Series II 262, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    9. Kristien Werck & Bruno Heyndels & Benny Geys, 2008. "The impact of ‘central places’ on spatial spending patterns: evidence from Flemish local government cultural expenditures," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 32(1), pages 35-58, March.
    10. Thomas Wyrick & Roger Arnold, 1989. "Earmarking as a deterrent to rent-seeking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 283-291, March.
    11. Pavel Ciaian & Ján Pokrivčák & Dušan Drabik, 2008. "Prečo sú niektoré sektory v tranzitívnych ekonomikách menej reformované ako ostatné? prípad výskumu a vzdelávania v oblasti ekonómie [Why some sectors of transition economies are less reformed than," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(6), pages 819-836.
    12. Kris James Mitchener & Matthew Jaremski, 2014. "The Evolution of Bank Supervision: Evidence from U.S. States," NBER Working Papers 20603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Masciandaro, D. & Nieto, M. & Prast, H.M., 2007. "Financial Governance of Banking Supervision," Other publications TiSEM 65d7ff26-dca3-4da3-86ff-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Matthias Dahm & Nicolás Porteiro, 2008. "Informational lobbying under the shadow of political pressure," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(4), pages 531-559, May.
    15. J. Mark Ramseyer & Eric Rasmusen, 2013. "Lowering the Bar to Raise the Bar: Licensing Difficulty and Attorney Quality in Japan," Working Papers 2013-12, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    16. Grant H. Lewis, 2017. "Effects of federal socioeconomic contracting preferences," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 763-783, December.
    17. Nishida, Mitsukuni & Gil, Ricard, 2014. "Regulation, enforcement, and entry: Evidence from the Spanish local TV industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 11-23.
    18. Kwan, Simon H., 2003. "Impact of deposit rate deregulation in Hong Kong on the market value of commercial banks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(12), pages 2231-2248, December.
    19. Kevin J. Boudreau & Andrei Hagiu, 2009. "Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Maxwell, John W & Lyon, Thomas P & Hackett, Steven C, 2000. "Self-Regulation and Social Welfare: The Political Economy of Corporate Environmentalism," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 583-617, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:91:y:2010:i:3:p:669-688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.