1 / 24

Pressure groups

Pressure groups. Lecture 1. What do we mean by a p/group?. ‘The field of organized groups possessing both formal structure and real common interests in so far as they influence the decisions of public bodies’ (W J M Mackenzie)

ashtyn
Download Presentation

Pressure groups

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Pressure groups Lecture 1

  2. What do we mean by a p/group? • ‘The field of organized groups possessing both formal structure and real common interests in so far as they influence the decisions of public bodies’ (W J M Mackenzie) • Some group activity directed at private bodies, but still relatively limited • Social movements may not have a formal structure and are usually united by ideas not interests

  3. Differ from parties • Party wants to win control of government or at least a share of office to implement policies • Parties are broad coalitions that have to aggregate interests, groups often single issue • Parties run candidates in elections, but note ‘interest parties’

  4. Social movements approach (1) • Literature in sociology • Represent people with an outsider orientation • Seek to change elements in the existing power structure • Often use direct action methods • Opposed to conventional power politics

  5. Social movements approach (2) • Do not want to influence state, want to act in civil society • Loosely defined organisational structure • Either lack clearly defined leadership or have charismatic leader • Often left of centre, lifestyle politics, but note petrol protests

  6. Changing terminology • A search for ‘hurrah words’ to describe pressure or interest groups • Stakeholders – used by government and EU • Non-governmental organisations (originated with UN) • Campaigning groups • Advocacy groups

  7. What’s in a name? • We don’t want to restrict your choice of group • You can study international organisations or from country other than UK – but need understanding • You can study direct action groups • Key consideration is feasibility – is there enough material • Step 1: check out web site

  8. Web site design (1) • Does it download reasonably quickly? • Is the site design coherent? • Is it uncluttered? • Is the meaning of categories clear? • Can you find what you want quickly and easily? • How would the site appear to someone wanting to get involved?

  9. Web site design (2) • Can you join on line or download a membership form? • Can you find out how to get involved in campaigns? • Are illustrations relevant and appealing? • Podcasts or videos? • Has it been updated recently?

  10. Balance of question • Approximate division between two parts of question is one third/two thirds • Assessment of group effectiveness is core of second part of question • You will be given credit for examining methodological problems of assessing effectiveness

  11. PGs and democracy – in favour • Additional route for political participation, allowing citizens to develop political skills • Increasing sense of involvement in politics and responsiveness of process, reducing alienation • May counter political exclusion at a time when more conventional forms of participation are declining

  12. PGs and Democracy – in favour (2) • Allow diversity of opinions to be expressed which is important as society becomes more diverse – more ‘fine grained’ views than those of political parties • Allow the intensity of opinions to be expressed so that democracy is more than a ‘head counting’ exercise

  13. PGs and democracy – in favour (3) • Provide information to government about public concerns – conduit of information • Provide expertise not easily available to government or only at disproportionate cost, leading to better decision-making • Consistent with basic democratic norm of freedom of association

  14. PGs and democracy – against (1) • Extent of participation is often very limited in both quantity and quality • Involvement may just be financial • May be motivated by selective incentives • Membership often very passive • No greater engagement with civil society

  15. PGs and democracy – against (2) • Groups often lack internal democracy, very hierarchical, run almost as businesses • Hence opportunities for participation may be limited • Over represent educated and affluent, hence increase rather than decrease political exclusion

  16. PGs and democracy – against (3) • May be fronts for business activities, a lack of transparency • Patient groups are coy about how much money they receive from pharmaceutical companies, but at least half do • Lobbying for (expensive) drugs sold by companies to treat particular conditions

  17. PGs and democracy – against (4) • Fragment the political process, especially ‘single issue’ groups • Arouse expectations that cannot be met, fuelling cynicism • Do not aggregate demands – do not have choose between priorities or consider opportunity costs of policies

  18. Summary of concerns • Using language of Gerry Stoker • Participatory failure – not engaging many citizens effectively • Reinforcement of (social) bias • Undermining effective governance by increasing polarisation • See book chapter on website for elaboration of these arguments

  19. How can we categorise pressure groups? • Insider/outsider groups cuts across traditional sectional/cause distinction arguing that was helpful but insufficient • Insider groups recognised as legitimate by government • But had to abide by rules of the political game which imposed constraints

  20. Outsider groups • A more disparate category • Include ‘would be’ insider groups, outsider groups by necessity • Ideological or protest groups who do not want to be drawn into embrace of government • Implication of typology that insider groups more likely to succeed – but not always

  21. Aberdeen Group modify typology • Core insiders dealing with a broad range of issues • Specialist insiders in policy niches • Peripheral insiders, little influence

  22. Criticisms of typology • One can pursue both strategies simultaneously – Greenpeace • But does set up tensions within a group, Greenpeace very hierarchical and hence can control them • In some areas now insider and outsider groups – National Farmers Union and Farmers for Action

  23. Easy to become an insider • Insider groups number outsiders by 9:1 • Not that hard to be placed on a consultation list. Blair Govt. has consultation code • Internet lowers costs of formation, mobilisation and involvement • Being involved in consultation is not same as real access to policy makers

  24. Most important criticism • Nature of politics has changed, leading to changes in nature of pressure group activity • Outsider groups becoming more successful, hence undermining one of key points of distinction • Growth of direct action

More Related