IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v11y2023i1p50-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Representative Potential of Interest Groups: Internal Voice in Post-Communist and Western European Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Joost Berkhout

    (Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Jan Beyers

    (Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Marcel Hanegraaff

    (Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Why do some interest group systems provide group members with more elaborate voice opportunities than other systems? We argue that evaluating membership voice is important for understanding the representative potential of interest group systems. An adequate understanding of “voice” forms the basis of “context”-embedded assessments of benchmarks such as interest group bias, interest group representational distortion, and interest group-driven policy overload. We examine two competing hypotheses on the differences in internal voice in Eastern and Western Europe. Primarily, case-specific arguments lead us to expect a weaker internal voice in post-communist Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe. Conversely, some theoretical approaches, such as population ecological organisational theory, lead us to expect a relatively weak membership voice in the organisationally saturated Western European systems. We assess these two hypotheses on the basis of an international survey of interest group leaders and observe, in line with the population ecological hypothesis, that members of Western European interest groups, compared to those in post-communist countries, are perceived as having less influential voices in internal decisions on policy positions. We conclude, neither optimistically nor pessimistically, that there is a meaningful representative potential of interest group systems supporting democratic societies, also, or even especially, in the post-communist countries studied.

Suggested Citation

  • Joost Berkhout & Jan Beyers & Marcel Hanegraaff, 2023. "The Representative Potential of Interest Groups: Internal Voice in Post-Communist and Western European Countries," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 50-64.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v11:y:2023:i:1:p:50-64
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v11i1.5899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/5899
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v11i1.5899?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. Borbáth, Endre & Hutter, Swen, 2021. "Protesting Parties in Europe: A comparative analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 27(5), pages 896-908.
    2. Iskander De Bruycker & Anne Rasmussen, 2021. "Blessing or Curse for Congruence? How Interest Mobilization Affects Congruence between Citizens and Elected Representatives," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 909-928, July.
    3. Warren, Mark E., 2011. "Voting with Your Feet: Exit-based Empowerment in Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(4), pages 683-701, November.
    4. Almond, Gabriel A., 1958. "A Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the Political Process," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 270-282, March.
    5. Jordan, Grant & Maloney, William A., 1998. "Manipulating Membership: Supply-Side Influences on Group Size," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 389-409, April.
    6. Salisbury, Robert H., 1984. "Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 64-76, March.
    7. Bert Fraussen & Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun, 2020. "Conceptualizing consultation approaches: identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 473-493, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Joost Berkhout & Jan Beyers & Marcel Hanegraaff, 2023. "The Representative Potential of Interest Groups: Internal Voice in Post-Communist and Western European Countries," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 50-64.
    2. Weisskircher, Manès & Hutter, Swen & Borbáth, Endre, 2022. "Protest and Electoral Breakthrough: Challenger Party-Movement Interactions in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue (Latest A, pages 1-1.
    3. Simon Fink & Eva Ruffing & Tobias Burst & Sara Katharina Chinnow, 2023. "Emotional citizens, detached interest groups? The use of emotional language in public policy consultations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 469-497, September.
    4. Marcel Hanegraaff & Arlo Poletti, 2021. "The Rise of Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: An Agenda for Future Research," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 839-855, July.
    5. David Wiens, 2015. "Natural resources and government responsiveness," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(1), pages 84-105, February.
    6. Silve, Arthur & Verdier, Thierry, 2023. "The Dynastic Transmission of Power, Exit Options and the Coevolution of Rent-seeking Elites," CEPR Discussion Papers 18165, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun & Bert Fraussen, 2023. "Explaining why public officials perceive interest groups as influential: on the role of policy capacities and policy insiderness," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 191-209, June.
    8. Paul Johnson, 1988. "On the theory of political competition: Comparative statics from a general allocative perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 217-235, September.
    9. David Lowery & Virginia Gray & Matthew Fellowes, 2005. "Sisyphus Meets the Borg," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 41-74, January.
    10. Revkin, Mara Redlich & Ahram, Ariel I., 2020. "Perspectives on the rebel social contract: Exit, voice, and loyalty in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    11. Brad R. Taylor, 2017. "The Lack of Competition in Governance as an Impediment to Regional Development in Australia," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 21-30.
    12. Brad R. Taylor, 2016. "Exit and the Epistemic Quality of Voice," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 133-144, June.
    13. Eva Sørensen & Jacob Torfing, 2021. "Accountable Government through Collaborative Governance?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Matt Grossmann, 2006. "The Organization of Factions: Interest Mobilization and the Group Theory of Politics," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 107-124, June.
    15. Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & James Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2015. "Scientific advocacy, environmental interest groups, and climate change: are climate skeptic portrayals of climate scientists as biased accurate?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 607-619, December.
    16. Jonathan Craft & Reut Marciano, 2024. "Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 83-99, March.
    17. David Coen & Alexander Katsaitis, 2021. "Lobbying Brexit Negotiations: Who Lobbies Michel Barnier?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 37-47.
    18. David Lowery & Virginia Gray, 2004. "Bias in the Heavenly Chorus," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 5-29, January.
    19. Nguyen, Sun V. & Langston, Nancy & Wellstead, Adam & Howlett, Michael, 2020. "Mining the evidence: Public comments and evidence-based policymaking in the controversial Minnesota PolyMet mining project," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    20. Schmid, A. Allan & Soroko, David, 1997. "Interest groups, selective incentives, cleverness, history and emotion: The case of the American Soybean Association," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 267-285, February.

    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:cog:poango:v11:y:2023:i:1:p:50-64. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    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.