As discussed above, lobbying involves working to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain favourable policy outcomes. In order to accomplish their goals, interest groups develop a strategy or plan of action and execute it through specific tactics. The particular strategies developed and the specific tactics used, however, vary widely both among and within political systems.
Three factors are of particular importance in shaping lobbying strategies and tactics. One is whether the political system is democratic or authoritarian. Because there generally are few restrictions on interest groups in democratic societies, they have more options available (e.g., hiring lobbyists, using the press, and staging public demonstrations). Thus, strategies and tactics are more formalized and open than in authoritarian societies, where they must be more ad hoc and less publicly visible.
A second factor is the structure of the policy process. As indicated above, in democratic parliamentary systems, where the executive is drawn from the major political party or party coalition in the parliament (e.g., Finland, India, and Ireland), the legislative branch is less important than the prime minister and the cabinet in policy making. In contrast, because of the power placed in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures, the United States is one of the few countries in which legislative lobbying is a major strategy of interest groups. The courts in most parliamentary systems also play a minor role in policy making. Again, in contrast, in the United States the separation-of-powers system has provided the courts, which have the power to invalidate legislation, with a major role in policy making, and, as a result, litigation strategies are often vital to American interest groups.
A third factor is political culture as it relates to group activity and lobbying. In the United States, for example, the use of contract lobbyists—those hired by contract specifically to lobby government—is much more accepted than in most other Western democracies, including those of the European Union, where public officials usually prefer to deal directly with the members of the concerned group, organization, or business.
More From Britannicapublic opinion: Interest groupsThree major factors can also be identified to explain why lobbying strategies and tactics vary within a political system. One is the nature of the group and its resources. “Insider” groups—those older and more traditional business, labour, and professional groups with extensive resources, including money and established access to public officials—are more able to pursue “insider tactics,” utilizing their close friends and associates in government to promote their goals, and generally have many more options available to them than do “outsider” groups. Such outsider groups tend to be newer and sometimes promote radical causes; they usually lack key contacts with policy makers and major financial resources, and they often focus their energy on grassroots efforts, which may include letter writing or Internet campaigns or public demonstrations to gain media coverage (insider groups may also use such methods). Second, whether the purpose is to promote or defeat a legislative proposal helps to explain variations in strategies and tactics across different political systems. For instance, in the United States, a system that was designed by its founders to prevent government action, the so-called “advantage of the defense” operates. All an interest has to do to stop a proposal is to get a sympathetic committee chair in the legislature to oppose it or a president or governor to veto it. To get a proposal enacted requires that it clear hurdles in both houses of the legislature and be signed by the executive. In contrast, in parliamentary systems, with power concentrated in an executive committed to the platform of the major party or party coalition in parliament, it is much harder to defeat something if it has been agreed upon by the party beforehand. Third, a country’s political climate influences strategies taken by interest groups. Which party is in power (such as one favourably disposed to an interest group’s agenda), the major issues facing the government, and the country’s budget circ*mstances will influence the types of strategies an interest group uses. For example, the National Education Association (NEA) in the United States pursues a different strategy when the Republicans are in power in Washington, D.C., and in the states than when the Democrats are in power. The NEA has “insider status” with the Democrats but generally not with the Republicans.
Although strategies and tactics vary between and within political systems, there is one aspect of lobbying that is common in all systems, whether democratic or authoritarian: building close personal contacts between group representatives and public officials to foster trust and credibility and to persuade the government that it needs the group. In democracies, tactics are usually broad-ranging, but building relationships is universal regardless of the type of democratic system. In authoritarian and developing political systems, personal contacts between political elites within and outside of government are often the major tactic (and sometimes the only tactic available). For example, patron-client networks, which are modern manifestations of court cliques in traditional monarchies, are based not on a shared interest (as set out in the definition of an interest group above) but on the personal benefit of the patron and clients. However, patron-client connections can work to represent and gain benefits for a group, such as merchants or landowners.
Among democracies, it is in the United States that interest group activity is most accepted and displays the widest range of tactics. The lobbying profession, both at the federal and the state level (and increasingly at the local government level), is highly developed. In regard to lobbyists in Washington, D.C., in newspapers and other popular writings, they are often talked about in connection with the terms “K Street” and “Gucci gulch,” as it is on K Street that many of the contract lobbying firms are located, and the corridors in the Capitol where lobbyists congregate have been nicknamed for the expensive shoes and garments they often wear. Increasingly, however, American-style tactics have been adopted in other democracies and in transitional systems as ideology, and the centralization of the policy process has been eroded. In the United Kingdom and other countries of the European Union, Australia, and Canada, lobbyists are becoming increasingly important (they are usually known by other designations such as political consultants or government-affairs or public-affairs representatives), and there also has been more use of the media and increased campaign contributions.
Influence of interest groups
Research conducted in the United States provides major insights into the factors that determine interest group influence. Money is important in explaining the influence (or lack thereof) of interest groups, but, contrary to what might be believed by the public, it is not simply money that determines political clout. Factors determining the influence of individual interest groups include the group’s financial resources, the managerial and political skills of its leaders, the size and cohesiveness of its membership, and political timing—presenting an issue when the political climate is right. Three factors appear to be of particular importance:
How much influence a group has depends on the extent to which government officials need the group. The more elected or appointed public officials who rely on an interest, business, or organization, the greater its leverage will be over government. Some corporations may have a presence in many districts throughout the country, and decisions that affect them will affect employment in those districts, thus making it likely that members of the legislature from those districts will be favourably predisposed to legislation that the group supports. Moreover, many interest groups provide major financial backing to political campaigns; the more widely dispersed its funds are in a country, state, or local jurisdiction, the more likely that legislators will listen to the concerns of that group.
Lobbyist–policy-maker relations are also important in explaining the relative power of an interest group, since it is at this point that the demands of the group are conveyed to government. The more skillful the lobbyists are in forging personal contact with government officials, the more successful the group is likely to be. As noted earlier, this is the case in both democratic and authoritarian systems alike. In the United States, political scientists have identified phenomena known as “iron triangles” and “policy niches” in regard to lobbyist–policy-maker relations. In such cases, lobbyists, members of the legislature, and, in particular, members of the key committees work together to get policy enacted. These arrangements typify a form of elitism with privileged access leading to established lobbyist–policy-maker relationships that gives “insiders” an upper hand in influencing public policy.
The relative level of organized opposition to a group is essential to understanding the success or failure of that group. The more intense the opposition to a group’s cause, the more difficult it will be to achieve its goals. Some groups have natural political enemies (e.g., environmentalists versus developers and corporations versus labour unions). Other interests, such as those advocating stricter laws against domestic violence and child abuse, have little opposition, though such groups may be limited by the other factors that determine influence, such as a lack of financial resources.
