Interest groups constitute critical mediating institutions linking citizens and political elites, thereby enhancing participation and representation at all levels of government. But to what extent are citizens connected to the organizations to which they belong? In this article, we demonstrate that some voluntary organizations are structured more democratically than others and examine the reasons for these differences. Analyzing the bylaws of a random sample of 114 national membership organizations, we find that groups from which exit is more costly (professional associations and unions) are structured more democratically than those in which members face fewer barriers to exit (citizen associations). Our findings raise important concerns about the extent to which members of citizen associations are provided meaningful avenues for participation and, ultimately, the extent to which these organizations truly link citizens to their government.
Aldrich, J.H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of party politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Alexander, J., Nank, R., & Stivers, C. (1999). Implications of welfare reform: Do nonprofit survival strategies threaten civil society?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 425-475.
3.
Arnold, R.D. (1982). Overtilled and undertilled fields inAmerican politics. Political Science Quarterly, 97, 91-103.
4.
Barakso, M. (2004). Governing NOW: Grassroots activism in the National Organization for Women. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5.
Barakso, M. (2007). Is there a “woman's way” of governing? Assessing the organizational structures of women's membership associations . Politics & Gender, 3, 201-227.
6.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. Berkeley : University of California Press.
7.
Baumgartner, F.R., & Leech, B.L. (1998). Basic interests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Berry, J.M. (1994). An agenda for research on interest groups. In W. Crotty, M. A. Schwartz, & J. C. Green (Eds.), Representing interests and interest group representation (pp. 21-28). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
9.
Berry, J.M. (1999). The new liberalism: The rising power of citizen groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
10.
Brulle, R.J. (2000). Agency, democracy, and nature: The U.S. environmental movement from a critical theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Cigler, A.J. (1991). Interest groups: A subfield in search of an identity . In W. Crotty (Ed.), Political science: Looking to the future: Vol. 4. American institutions (pp. 99-135). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
12.
Cook, C.E. (1984). Participation in public interest groups: Membership motivations. American Politics Quarterly, 12, 409-430.
13.
Day, C.L. (1999). Grassroots involvement in interest group decisionmaking . American Politics Quarterly, 27, 216-235.
14.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Henry Holt.
15.
Diani, M. (2004). Networks and participation. In D. A. Snow, S. Soule , & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 339-359). London: Basil Blackwell.
16.
Edwards, B. (1994). Semiformal organizational structure among social movement organizations: An analysis of the U.S. peace movement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24, 309-333.
17.
Eisinger, P.K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior inAmerican cities. American Political Science Review, 67, 11-28.
18.
Freeman, J. (1975). The politics of women's liberation: A case study of an emerging social movement and its relation to the policy process. New York: David McKay.
19.
Fung, A. (2003). Associations and democracy: Between theories, hopes, and realities. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 515-539.
20.
Galston, W.A. (2002). Liberal pluralism: The implications of value pluralism for political theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Ganz, M. (2000). Resources and resourcefulness: Leadership, strategy, and organization in the unionization of California agriculture (1959-1966) . American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1003-1062.
22.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Jacobson, G.C. (2005). The case against mandatory competition for APSA offices. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Perestroika! The raucous rebellion in political science (pp. 241-249). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
Johnson, P.E. (1990). Unraveling in democratically governed groups. Rationality and Society, 2, 4-34.
25.
Kitschelt, H. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 57-95.
26.
Knoke, D. (1981). Commitment and detachment in voluntary associations . American Sociological Review, 46, 141-158.
27.
Knoke, D. (1988). Incentives in collective action organizations . American Sociological Review, 53, 311-329.
28.
Knoke, D. (1990). Organizing for collective action: The political economies of associations. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
29.
Knoke, D., & Wood, J.R. (1981). Organized for action: Commitment in voluntary associations. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
30.
Krehbiel, K. (1991). Information and legislative organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
Lipset, S., Trow, M., & Coleman, J. (1956). Union democracy. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
32.
Mansbridge, J.J. (1986). Why we lost the ERA. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
33.
Mansbridge, J. J. (Ed.). (1990). Beyond self interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Martin, A. (2004). A return to their social movement roots: Union organizing efforts in the late twentieth century. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Pennsylvania.
35.
Martin, A.W. (2007). Organizational structure, authority and protest: The case of union organizing in the United States, 1990-2001. Social Forces, 85, 1413-1435.
36.
McFarland, A.S. (1984). Common Cause: Lobbying in the public interest . Chatham, NJ: Chatham University Press.
37.
Michels, R. (1915). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Free Press.
38.
Minkoff, D.C. (1995). Organizing for equality: The evolution of women's and racial ethnic organizations in America, 1955-1985. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
39.
Moe, T. (1980). The organization of interests: Incentives and the internal dynamics of political interest groups. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
40.
Monroe, K.R. (2005). Governance: Minutes from a public meeting. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Perestroika! The raucous rebellion in political science (pp. 260-264). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital . Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.
43.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
44.
Rosenblum, N.L. (1998). Membership and morals: The personal uses of pluralism in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Rothenberg, L.S. (1992). Linking citizens to government: Interest group politics at Common Cause. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
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.
47.
Schattschneider, E.E. (1935). Politics, pressure, and the tariff. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
48.
Schlozman, K.L., & Tierney, J.T. (1986). Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
49.
Scott, R.W. (1999, September). A call for two-way action: Improving the connection between social movement theory and organization/institutional theory. Paper presented at “Zaldfest”: A conference to honor Mayer D. Zald, Ann Arbor, MI.
50.
Shaiko, R. (1999). Voices and echoes for the environment: Public interest representation in the 1990s and beyond. New York : Columbia University Press.
51.
Skocpol, T. (1999). How Americans became civic. In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 27-80). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
52.
Staggenborg, S. (1994). The pro-choice movement: Organization and activism in the abortion conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
Steinmo, S. (2005). The emperor has no clothes: The politics of taking back the APSR. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Perestroika! The raucous rebellion in political science (pp. 294-303). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
Tannenbaum, A.S., & Smith, C.G. (1964). The effects of member influence in an organization: Phenomenology versus organizational structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 401-410.
55.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
Voss, K., & Sherman, R. (2000). Breaking the iron law of oligarchy: Union revitalization in the American labor movement. American Journal of Sociology , 106, 303-349.
57.
Walker, E.T., & McCarthy, J.D. (2005, January). The influence of organizational structure, membership composition and resources on the survival of poor people's social movement organizations. Paper presented at Membership Based Organizations of the Poor: Theory, Experience and Policy conference, Ahmedabad , India.
58.
Weingast, B., & Marshall, W. (1988). The industrial organization of Congress. Journal of Political Economy, 96, 132-163.
59.
Widmer, C., & Houchin, S. (1999). Governance of national federated organizations . Washington, DC: Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.
60.
Young, D., Bania, N., & Bailey, D. (1996). Structure and accountability: A study of national nonprofit associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership , 6, 347-365.
