Revision notes on Interest Groups. Topics covered:
- Pluralism
- Arbiter and arena theory
- Olson's critique
- Privileged and intermediate groups
- Role of business and NGOs
- Political participation and leadership
- Business associations
- State corporatism
- Rent-seeking and informational lobbying
Pluralism claims that power in society is dispersed (widely, but not necessarily equally).
Inequalities in power are non-cumulative (cannot be transferred from one arena to
another), and exercise of power is checked by pressure groups. Truman: political/social
problems are important only once they sufficiently impact the life of a citizen that they
decided to spontaneously collaborate to tackle the problem. Under his view, inequalities
depend on the structure and values of society (explaining the US). The highest status
would be accorded to business interests. Truman’s central position is that spontaneous
mobilisation is not only possible but fairly easy (an understandable empirical conclusion,
given the state of US civil society at the time). The prevailing assumption is that interests
counterbalance each other - business interests would be countervailed by organised
labour. Polanyi thinks in a similar way, but on a much longer time scale and a much larger
(global) scale.
‘Arbiter’ Theory: government stands above pressure groups, setting the rules of the
game and correcting imbalances. Implies a relatively interventionist state, broadly aiming
to achieve equity.
e.g. The EC - concern over power excesses in business lead it to provide financial
support to minorities, environmental groups, etc. While true, arbitration is not
necessarily sufficient to counter powerful interests!
‘Arena’ Theory: less interventionist. Politicians as co-equal participants within pressure
group battle, assuming the distribution of power, the status quo, is acceptable. Under this
view, ministries in government may act as spokespersons for particular client groups.
Societal Corporatism: privileges groups arising from division and organisation of labour,
drawing them into an institutionalised state relationship, both as a means of mediation
between different interests and achieving policy goals.
e.g. Sweden, Austria, Denmark. In the UK, this was the case in the 1960s, petering
out towards the end of the century.
Olson’s Critique
Truman neglected individual action, privileging group interests and attitudes as the only
thing that mattered. He saw pressure groups as benign, and thought overlapping of
interests would ensure that they remained weak and divided. Olson: mass mobilisation is
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller aclark32. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
