In this article, I present an exchange theory of interest group activity that specifies the incentives and constraints on interest group activity to explain the degree to which some interest groups try to influence bureaucratic activity on hate crime, the types of tactics groups use, and to assess their influence on police procedures. I test several related propositions from this theory using original survey and demographic data from a sample of anti-violence groups in the 250 largest American cities. The results of my analysis suggest that interest group attempts to influence bureaucratic action on hate crime are constrained by the group characteristics, their sources and use of financial resources, and the characteristics of the communities in which they operate.
Banks, J. S., & Weingast, B. R. (1992). The political control of bureaucracies under asymmetric information. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 509-524.
2.
Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Berry, J. M. (1984). Feeding hungry people: Rulemaking in the food stamp program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
4.
Bradley, M. B., Green, N. M., Johnson, D. E., Lynn, M., & McNeil, L. (1992). Churches and church membership in the United States, 1990. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center.
5.
Furlong, S. R. (1997). Interest group influence on rule making. Administration & Society, 29, 325-347.
6.
Gais, T. L., & Walker, J. L., Jr. (1991). Pathways to influence in American politics. In J. L. Walker, Jr. (Ed.), Mobilizing interest groups in America (pp. 103-121). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Golden, M. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 245-270.
8.
Gormley, W. T. (1983). Politics, policy, and public utility regulation. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 86-105.
9.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
Greene, S., & Heberlig, E. S. (2002). Finding the weak link: The choice of institutional venues by interest groups. The American Review of Politics, 23, 19-38.
11.
Gusfield, J. R. (1963). Symbolic crusade. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
12.
Haider-Markel, D. P. (1997). Interest group survival: Shared interests versus competition for resources. Journal of Politics, 59, 903-912.
13.
Haider-Markel, D. P. (1998). The politics of social regulatory policy: State and federal hate crime policy and implementation effort. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 69-88.
14.
Haider-Markel, D. P. (2002). Regulating hate: State and local influences on law enforcement actions related to hate crime. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2(2), 126-160.
15.
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Meier, K. J. (1996). The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of the conflict. Journal of Politics, 58, 332-349.
16.
Heaney, M. T. (2004). Outside the issue niche: The multidimensionality of interest group identity. American Politics Research, 32, 611-651.
17.
Hojnacki, M. (1997). Interest groups’ decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 61-87.
18.
Holyoke, T. T. (2003). Choosing battlegrounds: Interest group lobbying across multiple venues. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 325-336.
19.
Jenness, V. (1995). Social movement growth, domain expansion, and framing processes: The gay/lesbian movement and violence against gays and lesbians as a social problem. Social Problems, 42, 145-170.
20.
Jenness, V., & Broad, K. (1997). Hate crimes: New social movements and the politics of violence. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
21.
Jenness, V., & Grattet, R. (2001). Making hate a crime: From social movement concept to law enforcement practice. New York: Russell Sage.
22.
Johnson, P. E. (1988). On the theory of political competition: Comparative statistics from a general allocative perspective. Public Choice, 58, 217-235.
23.
Johnson, P. E. (1998). Interest group recruiting: Finding members and keeping them. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (5th ed., pp. 35-62). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
24.
Lowry, R. C. (1997). The private production of public goods: Organizational maintenance, managers’ objectives, and collective goals. American Political Science Review, 91, 308-323.
25.
McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165-179.
26.
Mohr, L. B. (1973). The concept of organizational goal. American Political Science Review, 77, 470-481.
27.
Nownes, A. J., & Freeman, P. (1998). Interest group activity in the states. Journal of Politics, 60, 86-112.
28.
Pierce, J. C., Steger, M. A. E., Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (1992). Citizens, political communication, and interest groups: Environmental organizations in Canada and the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger.
29.
Ringquist, E. J. (1995). Political control and policy impact in EPA’s Office of Water Quality. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 336-363.
30.
Sabatier, P. A., Loomis, J., & McCarthy, C. (1995). Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: An analysis of U.S. forest service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 204-242.
31.
Sabatier, P. A., & McLaughlin, S. M. (1990). Belief congruence between interest-group leaders and members: An empirical analysis of three theories and a suggested synthesis. Journal of Politics, 52, 914-935.
32.
Salazar, D. (1996). The mainstream-grassroots divide in the environmental movement: Environmental groups in Washington state. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 626-643.
33.
Salisbury, R. H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13, 1-32.
34.
Salisbury, R. H., Heinz, J. P., Laumann, E. O., & Nelson, R. L. (1987). Who works with whom? Interest group alliances and opposition. American Political Science Review, 81, 1217-1234.
35.
Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1983). More of the same: Washington pressure group activity in a decade of change. Journal of Politics, 45, 351-377.
36.
Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
37.
Smith, R. A. (1995). Interest group influence in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 89-139.
38.
Steel, B. S., Pierce, J. C., & Lovrich, N. P. (1996). Resources and strategies of interest groups and industry representatives involved in federal forest policy. Social Science Journal, 33, 401-419.
39.
Thomas, C. S., & Hrebenar, R. J. (1999). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray, R. L. Hansen, & H. Jacob (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (7th ed., pp. 113-143). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
40.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). 1990 census of population social and economic characteristics: United States (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author.
41.
Wald, K. D., Button, J. W., & Rienzo, B. A. (1996). The politics of gay rights in American communities: Explaining antidiscrimination ordinances and policies. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 1152-1178.
42.
Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
44.
Wilson, J. Q. (1995). Political organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
