Voters are increasingly concerned that special interests control the policy process. Yet, the literature on representation is more optimistic: elected officials face strong incentives to listen to voters—not just lobby groups—and this makes for more responsive policies. Building on recent work, we argue a more nuanced point: different types of groups have different effects on responsiveness. We show empirically that lobbying from “cause” groups—representing diffuse interests like climate change—strengthens responsiveness, while lobbying from “sectional” groups—representing industry and professional associations—has no observable effect. Our project uses a novel data set of Canadian lobbying registrations spanning fifteen policy areas from 1990 to 2009. Using a dynamic panel model, we test how interest group lobbying moderates the effect of voter issue attention on government spending. Our findings contribute to contemporary debates over the influence of organized groups, suggesting some interest groups may improve representation.
AinsworthScott H.1993. “Regulating Lobbyists and Interest Group Influence.” The Journal of Politics55 (1): 41–56.
2.
AinsworthScott H.1997. “The Role of Legislators in the Determination of Interest Group Influence.” Legislative Studies Quarterly22 (4): 517–33.
3.
AinsworthScott H.SenedItai. 1993. “The Role of Lobbyists: Entrepreneurs with Two Audiences.” American Journal of Political Science37 (3): 834–66.
4.
AllenNicholasBirchSarah. 2015. “Process Preferences and British Public Opinion: Citizens’ Judgements about Government in an Era of anti-Politics.” Political Studies63 (2): 390–411.
5.
AlmondGabriel A.1958. “A Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the Political Process.” American Political Science Review52 (1): 270–82.
6.
AndrewsKenneth T.2001. “Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971.” American Sociological Review66:71–95.
7.
AndrewsKenneth T.EdwardsBob. 2004. “Advocacy Organizations in the U.S. Political Process.” Annual Review of Sociology30:479–506.
8.
AtkinsonMichael M.2013. “Policy, Politics and Political Science.” Canadian Journal of Political Science46 (4): 751–72.
9.
Austen-SmithDavid. 1993. “Information and Influence: Lobbying for Agendas and Votes.” American Journal of Political Science37 (3): 799–833.
10.
Austen-SmithDavidWrightJohn R.1994. “Counteractive Lobbying.” American Journal of Political Science38 (1): 25–44.
11.
BaltagiBadi H.2005. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
12.
BaroniLauraCarrollBrendan J.William ChalmersAdamMaria Muñoz MarquezLuzRasmussenAnne. 2014. “Defining and Classifying Interest Groups.” Interest Groups & Advocacy3 (2): 141–59.
13.
BauerRaymond AugustinePoolIthiel de SolaDexterLewis Anthony. 1963. American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade. New York, NY: Atherton Press.
14.
BaumgartnerFrank R.BerryJeffrey M.HojnackiMarieLeechBeth L.KimballDavid C.2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
BaumgartnerFrank R.GrayVirginiaLoweryDavid. 2009. “Federal Policy Activity and the Mobilization of State Lobbying Organizations.” Political Research Quarterly62 (3): 552–67.
16.
BaumgartnerFrank R.Green-PedersenChristofferJonesBryan D.2006. “Comparative Studies of Policy Agendas.” Journal of European Public Policy13 (7): 959–74.
17.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.2015. The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
18.
BaumgartnerFrank R.LeechBeth L.1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19.
BernhagenPatrick. 2012. “Who Gets What in British Politics—And How? An Analysis of Media Reports on Lobbying around Government Policies, 2001–7.” Political Studies60 (3): 557–77.
20.
BerryJeffrey M.1977. Lobbying for the People: The Political Behavior of Public Interest Groups. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
21.
BevanShaunBaumgartnerFrank R.JohnsonErik W.McCarthyJohn D.2013. “Understanding Selection Bias, Time-Lags and Measurement Bias in Secondary Data Sources: Putting the Encyclopedia of Associations Database in Broader Context.” Social Science Research42 (6): 1750–64.
22.
BevanShaunJenningsWill. 2014. “Representation, Agendas and Institutions.” European Journal of Political Research53 (1): 37–56.
23.
BinderkrantzAnne Skorkjær. 2005. “Interest Group Strategies: Navigating between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure.” Political Studies53 (4): 694–715.
24.
BinderkrantzAnne Skorkjær. 2012. “Interest Groups in the Media: Bias and Diversity over Time.” European Journal of Political Research51 (1): 117–39.
25.
BonafontLaura ChaquésPalauAnna M.2011. “Assessing the Responsiveness of Spanish Policymakers to the Priorities of Their Citizens.” West European Politics34 (4): 706–30.
26.
BouwenPieter. 2004. “Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Union Institutions.” European Journal of Political Research43 (3): 337–69.
27.
BursteinPaul. 2014. American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress: What the Public Wants and What It Gets. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Canes-WroneBrandice. 2015. “From Mass Preferences to Policy.” Annual Review of Political Science18:147–65.
29.
DürAndreasBernhagenPatrickMarshallDavid. 2015. “Interest Group Success in the European Union: When (and Why) Does Business Lose?” Comparative Political Studies48 (8): 951–83.
30.
DuvergerMaurice. 1972. Party Politics and Pressure Groups: A Comparative Introduction. New York, NY: Crowell.
31.
DyckJoshua J.LascherEdward L.Jr.2009. “Direct Democracy and Political Efficacy Reconsidered.” Political Behavior31 (3): 401–27.
32.
GaisThomas L.WalkerJack L.Jr.1991. “Pathways to Influence in American Politics.” In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements, edited by WalkerJack L.Jr., 103–22. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33.
GigerNathalieKlüverHeike. 2016. “Voting against Your Constituents? How Lobbying Affects Representation.” American Journal of Political Science60 (1): 190–205.
34.
GilensMartinPageBenjamin I.2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics12 (3): 564–81.
35.
GrayVirginiaLoweryDavidFellowesMatthewMcAteeAndrea. 2004. “Public Opinion, Public Policy, and Organized Interests in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly57 (3): 411–20.
36.
GrossmannMattDominguezCasey B. K.2009. “Party Coalitions and Interest Group Networks.” American Politics Research37 (5): 767–800.
37.
HakhverdianArmen. 2010. “Political Representation and Its Mechanisms: A Dynamic Left–right Approach for the United Kingdom, 1976–2006.” British Journal of Political Science40 (4): 835–56.
38.
HallRichard L.DeardorffAlan V.2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy.” American Political Science Review100 (1): 69–84.
39.
HansenJohn Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919-1981. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
40.
HerbstSusan. 1998. Reading Public Opinion: How Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 2001. “Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be.” American Political Science Review95 (1): 145–54.
42.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
HoboltSara BinzerKlemmensenRobert. 2008. “Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies41 (3): 309–37.
44.
JacobsAlanMatthewsScott. 2015. “Policy Attitudes in Institutional Context: Rules, Uncertainty, and the Mass Politics of Public Investment.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 194–207.
45.
JacobyWilliam G.SchneiderSaundra K.2009. “A New Measure of Policy Spending Priorities in the American States.” Political Analysis17 (1): 1–24.
46.
JenningsWillJohnPeter. 2009. “The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 838–54.
47.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
48.
JudisJohn B.2001. The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests, and the Betrayal of the Public Trust. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
49.
KingdonJohn W.1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Vol. 45. Boston: Little, Brown.
50.
KingdonJohn W.1989. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
51.
KlüverHeike. 2012. “Biasing Politics? Interest Group Participation in EU Policy-Making.” West European Politics35 (5): 1114–33.
52.
KlüverHeike. 2013. Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
53.
KlüverHeike. 2015. “Interest Groups in the German Bundestag: Exploring the Issue Linkage between Citizens and Interest Groups.” German Politics24 (2): 137–53.
54.
KogerGregoryMasketSethNoelHans. 2009. “Partisan Webs: Information Exchange and Party Networks.” British Journal of Political Science39 (3): 633–53.
55.
KollmanKen. 1998. Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
56.
LancasterTony. 2002. “Orthogonal Parameters and Panel Data.” The Review of Economic Studies69 (3): 647–66.
57.
LeechBeth L.2004. “Lobbying and Influence.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, edited by MaiselL. SandyBerryJeffrey M., 266–90. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
LeechBeth L.BaumgartnerFrank R.La PiraTimothy M.SemankoNicholas A.2005. “Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Activity and the Demand for Advocacy.” Political Research Quarterly58 (1): 19–30.
59.
LijphartArend. 2012. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
LoweryDavidGrayVirginia. 1995. “The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch, or the Natural Regulation of Interest Group Numbers in the American States.” American Journal of Political Science39 (1): 1–29.
62.
LowiTheodore J.1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
63.
MahoneyChristine. 2008. Brussels versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
64.
MesserAnneBerkhoutJoostLoweryDavid. 2011. “The Density of the EU Interest System: A Test of the ESA Model.” British Journal of Political Science41 (1): 161–90.
65.
MillerWakken E.StokesDonald E.1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review57 (1): 45–56.
66.
OlsonMancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
OlsonMancur. 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
68.
PetrocikJohn R.1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science40 (3): 825–50.
69.
PickupMark. 2014. Introduction to Time Series Analysis. Vol. 174. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
70.
PickupMarkHoboltSara B.2015. “The Conditionality of the Trade-off between Government Responsiveness and Effectiveness: The Impact of Minority Status and Polls in the Canadian House of Commons.” Electoral Studies40:517–30.
71.
PowellG. Bingham. 2004. “Political Representation in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science7 (1): 273–96.
72.
PresthusRobert. 1973. Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
73.
Rabe-HeskethS.SkrondalA.2012. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata: Volume I: Continuous Responses. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
74.
RounceAndrea. 2006. “How Ottawa Spends on Public Opinion Polling.” In How Ottawa Spends 2006-2007, edited by DoernBruce, 138–61. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
75.
SchattschneiderElmer E.1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
76.
SchnakenbergKeith E.2017. “Informational Lobbying and Legislative Voting.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 129–45.
77.
ScottAndrew MacKayHuntMargaret A.1966. Congress and Lobbies: Image and Reality. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
78.
SorokaStuart N.WlezienChristopher. 2004. “Opinion Representation and Policy Feedback: Canada in Comparative Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Political Science37 (3): 531–59.
79.
SorokaStuart N.WlezienChristopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
80.
StewartJohn. 1958. British Pressure Groups: Their Role in Relation to the House of Commons. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
81.
StimsonJames A.MacKuenMichael B.EriksonRobert S.1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review89 (3): 543–65.
82.
WalkerJack L.Jr.1991. “The Mobilization of Political Interests in America.” In Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements, edited by WalkerJack L.Jr., 19–40. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
83.
WebbPaul. 2013. “Who Is Willing to Participate? Dissatisfied Democrats, Stealth Democrats and Populists in the United Kingdom.” European Journal of Political Research52 (6): 747–72.
84.
WlezienChristopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science39 (4): 981–1000.
85.
WlezienChristopher. 1996. “Dynamics of Representation: The Case of Us Spending on Defence.” British Journal of Political Science26 (1): 81–103.
86.
WlezienChristopherSorokaStuart N.2012. “Political Institutions and the Opinion–Policy Link.” West European Politics35 (6): 1407–32.
87.
YackeeJason WebbYackeeSusan Webb. 2006. “A Bias towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy.” The Journal of Politics68 (1): 128–39.
88.
YoungLisaEverittJoanna. 2011. Advocacy Groups. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
