Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America

Abstract

The rise of liberal citizen groups that began in the 1960s has had a strong impact on the evolution of interest group advocacy. The success of these liberal organizations was critical in catalyzing the broader explosion in the numbers of interest groups and in causing the collapse of many subgovernments. New means of resolving policy conflicts had to be established to allow for the participation of broader, more diverse policy communities. Citizen groups have been particularly important in pushing policymakers to create new means of structuring negotiations between large numbers of interest group actors. The greater participation of citizen groups, the increased numbers of all kinds of interest groups, and change in the way policy is made may be making the policymaking process more democratic.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Michael W. McCann , Taking Reform Seriously (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).

2. Jack L. Walker, Jr. , Mobilizing Interest Groups in America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991).

3. Kay Lehman Schlozman and John T. Tierney , Organized Interests and American Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1986), pp. 75-76.

4. Jeffrey M. Berry , The Interest Group Society, 2d ed. (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown, 1989), pp. 16-43.

5. David Plotke , “The Political Mobilization of Business,” in The Politics of Interests, ed. Mark P. Petracca (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), pp. 175-198.

6. Michael S. Greve , “Why Defunding the Left Failed,” Public Interest, 89:91 (Fall 1987).

7. James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo , Destroying Democracy (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1985).

8. Barry Wellman , “Structural Analysis: From Metaphor to Substance,” in Social Structures, ed. Barry Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 37.

9. This argument is outlined in Jeffrey M. Berry , “Subgovernments, Issue Networks, and Political Conflict,” in Remaking American Politics, ed. Richard A. Harris and Sidney M. Milkis (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), pp. 239-260.

10.

10. Margaret E. Kriz , “Nuclear Wind-Down,” National Journal, 31 Aug. 1991, pp. 2081-2085.

11.

11. Bruce Stokes , “Greens Talk Trade,” National Journal, 13 Apr. 1991, pp. 862-866.

12.

12. Robert Pear , “Conflicting Aims in Booming Health Care Field,” New York Times, 18 Mar. 1992.

13.

13. Lawrence D. Longley and Walter J. Oleszek , Bicameral Politics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 67.

14.

14. Margaret E.

Kriz, “Swamp Fighting,”

National Journal, 3 Aug. 1991, pp. 1919-1923.

15.

15. David W. Rohde , Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).

16.

16. Pub. L. 101-648.

17.

18.

18. Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1989, 101st Cong., 1st sess., 1989, S. Rept. 101-97, p. 16.

19.

See also, Thomas R. Rochon and Daniel A. Mazmanian , “Social Movements and the Policy Process,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

20.

20. Michael Weisskopf , “Cleaner Gasoline for Smoggy Cities,” San Francisco Chronicle, 16 Aug. 1991.

21.

21. Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1989, p. 6.

22.

22. Christopher J. Bosso , Pesticides and Politics (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1987), pp. 225-232.

23.

23. Andrew S. McFarland , “Groups without Government: The Politics of Mediation,” in Interest Group Politics, 2d ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1986), pp. 289-302.

24.

24. Timothy Noah , “Lawsuits by Women, Disabled Are Likely to Be the Main Result of Compromise Civil Rights Bill,” Wall Street Journal, 28 Oct. 1991.