To what extent do political parties have an effect on the policy-related activity of interest groups? Drawing from ideas of conflict expansion and the structure of extended party networks, we argue that political parties are able to pull interest groups into more policy conflicts than they otherwise would be involved in. We posit that parties are able to draw interest groups to be active outside of established issue niches. We suggest that several mechanisms—shared partisan electoral incentives, reciprocity, identification with the means, and cue-taking behavior—lead groups to participate in more diverse political conflicts. By linking data on interest group bill positions and the policy content of legislation, we generate a novel measure of 158 interest groups’ alignment with political parties. We find that the more an interest group is ideologically aligned with a political party, the more diverse their issue agenda becomes.
BaumgartnerFrank R.BerryJeffrey M.HojnackiMarieKimballDavid C.LeechBeth L.2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. 1st ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.2009. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. 2nd ed.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
4.
BaumgartnerFrank R.LeechBeth L.2001. “Issue Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics.” Journal of Politics63:1191–1213.
5.
BawnKathleenCohenMartinKarolDavidMasketSethNoelHansZallerJohn. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics10 (3): 571–97.
6.
BernsteinJonathanDominguezCasey B. K.2003. “Candidates and Candidacies in the Expanded Party.” PS: Political Science & Politics36 (2): 165–69.
7.
BevanShaunBaumgartnerFrankJohnsonErikMcCarthyJohn. 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.
8.
BoydstunAmber E.BevanShaunThomasHerschel F.2014. “The Importance of Attention Diversity and How to Measure It.” Policy Studies Journal42 (2): 173–96.
9.
BrowneWilliam P.1990. “Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy Domain.” Journal of Politics52:477–509.
10.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D.1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DesmaraisBruce A.La RajaRaymond J.KowalMichael S.2015. “The Fates of Challengers in U.S. House Elections: The Role of Extended Party Networks in Supporting Candidates and Shaping Electoral Outcomes.” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 194–211.
13.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
14.
FennoRichard F.1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
15.
GrayVirginiaLoweryDavid. 1997. “Life in a Niche: Mortality Anxiety among Organized Interests in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly50 (1): 25–47.
16.
GrossmannMattDominguezCasey B. K.2009. “Party Coalitions and Interest Group Networks.” American Politics Research37 (5): 767–800.
17.
GrossmannMattHopkinsDavid A.2016. Asymmetric Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
HalpinDarren. 2015. “Interest Group ‘Policy Agendas’: What Are They? And How Might We Study Them?” In Interest Group Politics, edited by LoomisBurdett A.NownesAnthony J., 54–61. 9th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
19.
HalpinDarrenBinderkrantzAnne. 2011. “Explaining Breadth of Policy Engagement: Patterns of Interest Group Mobilization in Public Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy18 (2): 201–19.
20.
HalpinDarrenFraussenBertNownesAnthony. 2017. “The Balancing Act of Establishing a Policy Agenda: Conceptualizing and Measuring Drivers of Issue Prioritization within Interest Groups.” Governance31 (2): 215–37.
21.
HeaneyMichael T.2014. “Multiplex Networks and Interest Group Influence Reputation: An Exponential Random Graph Model.” Social Networks36 (1): 66–81.
22.
HojnackiMarie. 1997. “Interest Groups’ Decisions to Join Alliances or Work Alone.” American Journal of Political Science41 (1): 61–87.
23.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.2005. The Politics of Attention. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.BreunigChristianWlezienChristopherSorokaStuartFoucaultMartialFrançoisAbelet al. 2009. “A General Empirical Law of Public Budgets: A Comparative Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 855–73.
25.
JonesBryan D.Larsen-PriceHeatherWilkersonJohn. 2009. “Representation and American Governing Institutions.” Journal of Politics71 (1): 277–90.
KarolDavid. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KogerGregoryMasketSethNoelHans. 2009. “Partisan Webs: Information Exchange and Party Networks.” British Journal of Political Science39 (3): 633–53.
29.
KogerGregoryMasketSethNoelHans. 2010. “Cooperative Party Factions in American Politics.” American Politics Research38 (1): 33–53.
30.
LaymanGeoffreyCarseyThomas M.GreenJohn C.HerreraRichard. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review104 (2): 324–46.
31.
LeeFrances E.2016. Insecure Majorities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
LeechBeth L.BaumgartnerFrank R.LaPiraTimothy M.SemankoNicholas A.2005. “Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Activity and the Demand for Advocacy.” Political Research Quarterly58 (1): 19–30.
33.
LorenzGeoffrey M.2017. “Prioritized Interests: Why Congressional Committees Address Some Problems and Ignore Others.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
34.
OstromElinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35.
SchattschneiderE. E.1942. Party Government: American Government in Action. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
36.
SchattschneiderE. E.1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
37.
SchlozmanKay L.1984. “What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System.” Journal of Politics46 (4): 1006–32.
38.
SchlozmanKay L.2010. “Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus: The Shape of the Organized Interest System.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, edited by MaiselL. SandyBerryJeffrey M.EdwardsGeorge C.III, 425–450. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
SchlozmanKayBurchTraciJonesPhilip EdwardYouHye YoungVerbaSidneyBradyHenry E.2011. “Washington Representatives Study (Organized Interests in Washington Politics) - 1981, 1991, 2001, 2006, 2011.” ICPSR35309-v1. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2014-09-15. doi:10.3886/ICPSR35309.v1.
40.
SchlozmanKay L.VerbaSidneyBradyHenry E.2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
41.
SchwartzMildred A.1990. The Party Network: The Robust Organization of Illinois Republicans. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
42.
SchwartzThomas. 1989. Why Parties?Research Memorandum, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles.
43.
ShannonClaude E.1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal27:623–56.
44.
SimonHerbert A.1946. “The Proverbs of Administration.” Public Administration Review6 (1): 53–67.
45.
SkinnerRichard M.2004. “Interest Groups and the Party Networks: Views From Inside the Beltway.” Southern Political Science Association. http://works.bepress.com/richard_skinner/7/.
46.
ThomasHerschel F.2017. “Modeling Contagion in Policy Systems.” Cognitive Systems Research44:74–88.
47.
WilliamsonOliver E.1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: Free Press.
48.
WolbrechtChristina. 2002. “Explaining Women’s Rights Relalignment: Convention Delegates 1972-1992.” Political Behavior24 (3): 237–82.
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.
