Using population data on six state populations of interest organizations from 1980 and 1990, the authors find that (a) organized interests frequently exit the lobbying community; (b) institutions exit at a higher rate than associations or membership groups; (c) exit rates potentially have great influence on the composition of interest organization populations; and (d) exit, but not entry, rates are greatly influenced by the density of interest organization populations. On the basis of these findings, the authors make a number of suggestions for the further study of the demography of interest organization communities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Conybeare, John A. C., and Peverill Squire .1994. Political action committees and the tragedy of the commons. American Politics Quarterly22:154-74.
2.
Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery.1988. Interest group politics and economic growth in the U.S. states. American Political Science Review82:109-31.
3.
—. 1993. Stability and change in state interest group systems, 1975 to 1990. State and Local Government Review25:87-96.
4.
Hannan, Michael T., and Glenn R. Carroll .1992. Dynamics of organizational populations. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman.1989. Organizational ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
6.
Hrebenar, Ronald J., and Clive S. Thomas .1992. Interest group politics in the southern states. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
7.
Hunter, Kennith G., Laura Ann Wilson, and Gregory Brunk.1991. Societal complexity and interest-group lobbying in the American states. Journal of Politics53:488-503.
8.
Lowery, David, and Virginia Gray.1993a. The density of state interest group systems. Journal of Politics55:191-206.
9.
—. 1993b. The population ecology of Gucci Gulch, or the natural regulation of interest group numbers in the American states. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April.
10.
—. 1994. Do lobbying regulations influence lobbying registrations?Social Science Quarterly75:382-4.
11.
—. Forthcoming. How some rules just don't matter: The regulation of lobbyists . Public Choice.
12.
Moe, Terry M.1980. The organization of interests. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
13.
Olson, Mancur, Jr.1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
—. 1982. The rise and decline of nations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Petracca, Mark P.1992. The rediscovery of interest group politics. In The politics of interests, edited by Mark P. Petracca, 3-31. Boulder, CO: Westview .
16.
Sabatier, Paul A.1992. Interest group membership and organization. In The politics of interests, edited by Mark P. Petracca, 99-129. Boulder, CO: Westview .
17.
Salisbury, Robert.1984. Interest representation: The dominance of institutions . American Political Science Review81:64-76.
18.
—. 1992. Research on interest groups. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September.
19.
Schattschneider, E.E.1960. The semisovereign people. New York : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
20.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman.1984. What accent the heavenly chorus? Political equality and the American pressure system. Journal of Politics46:1006-32.
21.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and John T. Tierney .1983. More of the same: Washington pressure group activity in a decade of change. Journal of Politics45:351-73.
22.
—. 1986. Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
23.
Thomas, Clive S., and Ronald J. Hrebenar .1992. Changing patterns of interest group activity: A regional perspective. In The politics of interests, edited by Mark P Petracca, 150-174. Boulder, CO: Westview.
24.
Truman, David.1951. The governmental process. New York : Alfred A. Knopf.
25.
Walker, Jack L., Jr.1991. Mobilizing interest groups in America: patrons, professionals, and social movements. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan.
