Pressure Groups and Social Movements
interest groups: a body that works outside government to influence public policy, also known as non-governmental organization (NGO)
types
functions
nimby: an acronym for 'not in my backyard', describing efforts of some local interest groups to block geographically focused developments
promotional group: an 'interest' group that promotes wider issues and causes than is the case with protective groups, focused on the tangible interests of their members
protective group: an interest group that seeks selective benefits for its members and insider status with relevant government departments
selective: only group members benefit
insider: frequently consulted by government and actively seeks this role
closed: membership is restricted
defends an interest
seeks to influence national and global bodies on broad policy matters
promotes a cause
open: anyone can join
collective: benefits go to both members and non-members
aim to influence national government on specific issue affecting members
outsider: consulted less by government; targets public opinion and the media
public awareness and agenda-setting: raising public awareness on a particular issue through strikes, discussion groups etc. this can influence the political agenda
monitoring of government: if the government does something, interest groups can observe these changes and put up an opposition
increase representation an participation: if you defend specific interests of a group, you represent those interests in the political system
lobbying: increasingly corrupt (offering money) but not always the case. it does not always lead to success, but it is still very problematic (bribing judges). several EU attempts to curb and stop lobbying
channels of influence
direct influence on policy-makers
indirect influence through public opinion
how do interest groups relate to one another and the state? what is their role in politics?
pluralism: builds on market mechanism of interest groups and its relation to each other and to the state = a competition between interest groups for influence on public policies in which the state plays a neutral role
corporatism: institutionalized cooperation between key interest groups, political parties and the state in formulation of public policies
negotiation and compromise are central tenants to this system
most interest groups are united under an umbrella where they concentrate and are represented collectively (peak association)
decline in Europe
interest groups are social partners to the state
industrial to post-industrial society: less concentrated union membership
emergence of Eastern European democracies: trade unions are discredited due to their associations with non-democratic communism in the past, policymaking is much more preferred by new political elites than by corporatist system
European integration/globalisation: this undermined the importance of the national level in policy-making
intgrated in an set of institutional arrangements facilitating permanent bargaining
centralized and concentrated in 'peak associations'
willing to compromise
criticism
corporatism is non-democratic, because it reinforced interest groups but excludes other types of interest groups (especially in Latin America and Easter Europe)
pluralism assumes a conflict/competition, corporatism assumes a consensus/cooperation to arrive at some public policies
interest groups are...
unlike corporatism, pluralism doesn't work with one institutionalized model, every interest group has an equal chance at influencing policies, no groups are excluded a priori, and none are privileged
fragmented into a number of groups
dispersed across different institutional areas
competing with each other
criticism
pluralism is good on paper, but never really existed in practice because some interest has always dominated the state -> iron triangle: a policy-influencing relationship involving interest groups, the bureaucracy, and legislative committees, and experts that work on policy proposals of mutual interest
social movement: a movement emerging from society to pursue non-establishment goals through non-institutionalized means. its objectives are broad rather than sectional and its style involves a challenge by traditional outsiders to political elites
3 similarities between social movements
3 differences from interest groups
3 important elements (Kriesi, 2008)
sustained action: social movements are distinguished from from protest movements through their SUSTAINED action
common sense of identity: people that are part of these movements share a sense of identity, in contrast to having a common set of goals
non-institutionalized channels of operation: non-conventional channels of operation (boycotts, sit-ins, etc.) because they have no regular access to the state
3 points about imperfection
they raise awareness through their activities for certain political issues
they are typified by unconventional tactics (demonstration, boycotts)
they make a political claim on the state
focus on horizontal type of organizations
they don't try to be part of government, unlike parties
in their repertoires of contention, their tactics
even though social movements are characterized by horizontal organization, sometimes they are organized hierarchically and in a militaristic form, for example the American militias
crucial to understand the relationship of social movements to the state, some states are more inclined to accept social movements and their demands than others
social movements often also work through or with conventional means of participation, for example lobbying ideologically friendly political parties
click to edit
why are social movements more succesful in some countries than others?
when and why do social movements transform into other organizational forms?
how much participation takes place via social movements?