Suchergebnisse

Rather than striving to measure the influence of groups in the policy-making process this article concentrates instead on the ways in which interest groups are created and the means by which they remain in existence. A survey by mail was conducted during 1980-1981 of all voluntary associations that are open to membership and concerned with some aspects of public policy at the national level. The sample of groups was chosen from the Congressional Quarterly's Washington Information Directory. Questionnaires were delivered to 913 interest groups, and usable responses were received from 564, yielding a response rate of 64.8%.Most studies of groups have concerned the tactics employed by group leaders in attracting and holding their members. This study demonstrates that the origins and maintenance of groups depends even more upon the success of group leaders in securing funds from outside their membership which are needed to keep their groups in operation. Estimates of patronage from different sources are provided as well as data on the congruence between the policy goals of groups and their patrons.

RATHER THAN STRIVING TO MEASURE THE INFLUENCE OF GROUPS IN THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS THIS ARTICLE CONCENTRATES INSTEAD ON THE WAYS IN WHICH INTEREST GROUPS ARE CREATED AND THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY REMAIN IN EXISTENCE. A SURVEY BY MAIL WAS CONDUCTED DURING 1980-1981 OF ALL VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE OPEN TO MEMBERSHIP AND CONCERNED WITH SOME ASPECTS OF PUBLIC POLICY AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. THE SAMPLE OF GROUPS WAS CHOSEN FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY'S WASHINGTON INFORMATION DIRECTORY. QUESTIONNAIRES WERE DELIVERED TO 913 INTEREST GROUPS, AND USABLE RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FROM 564, YIELDING A RESPONSE RATE OF 64.8%. MOST STUDIES OF GROUPS HAVE CONCERNED THE TACTICS EMPLOYED BY GROUP LEADERS IN ATTRACTING AND HOLDING THEIR MEMBERS. THIS STUDY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ORIGINS AND MAINTENANCE OF GROUPS DEPENDS EVEN MORE UPON THE SUCCESS OF GROUP LEADERS IN SECURING FUNDS FROM OUTSIDE THEIR MEMBERSHIP WHICH ARE NEEDED TO KEEP THEIR GROUPS IN OPERATION. ESTIMATES OF PATRONAGE FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES ARE PROVIDED AS WELL AS DATA ON THE CONGRUENCE BETWEEN THE POLICY GOALS OF GROUPS AND THEIR PATRONS.

Political scientists have been experiencing a 30-year boom in students, resources, opportunities and salaries unlike none other in the history of the profession, but there is little doubt that trends in all these areas are now turning downward. Some lingering skepticism remains about the magnitude of the coming troubles, but most members of our profession are aware not only that the boom is over, but that something ranging from a recession to a thumping depression is almost upon us.The Committee on Professional Development has been formed in response to the gathering difficulties faced by political scientists. The Committee's task is to identify and precisely describe the problems being encountered by the profession and to suggest solutions. We begin by communicating with members of the National Association through its committees and publications, but hope that our reports and proposals might also stimulate debate and action within political science departments across the country. The profession still is in the early stages of what surely will be an extremely trying period of its history. If foresight is exercised, however, and we are flexible enough to adapt to changing social needs, it is possible that some of our problems can be transformed into opportunities. Our Committee is intended to aid in this important process of adaptation by encouraging the entire profession to discover new bases for intellectual growth.

The choice of issues for debate is of central importance in any political system. By deciding what they will decide about, legislators also establish the terms and the most prominent participants in debate and, ultimately, the distribution of power and influence in the society. As Schattschneider has pointed out:Political conflict is not like an intercollegiate debate in which the opponents agree in advance on a definition of the issues. As a matter of fact, the definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power; the antagonists can rarely agree on what the issues are because power is involved in the definition. He who determines what politics is about runs the country, because the definition of alternatives is the choice of conflicts, and the choice of conflicts allocates power.

Political science, if you haven't noticed, is a highly disjointed discipline. The staggering outpouring of articles and books produced each year testify to the prodigious energy of political scientists, but as we have been reminded over and over again in protest manifestos and addresses by presidents of the APSA, the discipline suffers from a chronic case of theoretical underdevelopment. Research methods have improved, to be sure, or at least more of us are "into" statistics these days, but despite the heroic efforts of functionalists, systems theorists, formal modelers, Marxists, and other more or less global thinkers, most empirical work in political science is either highly descriptive and exploratory, or is based on propositions drawn primarily from common sense speculation.If political science lacks the kind of intellectual guidance that allegedly would stem from consensus on a macro-political theory a la Keynes, this does not mean that researchers in the discipline are left completely adrift. There may not be any ruling paradigm to shape their efforts, but political scientists still have firm ideas about what ought to be studied and what should be ignored. An inspection of political science journals during the past decade indicates that substantial agreement exists among political scientists about the subjects that demand their attention.

We are now in the midst of a notable revival of interest in the politics of the American states. During the last decade many studies have been conducted of the social, political and economic determinants of state policy outcomes. Several of these writers have argued that the relative wealth of a state, its degree of industrialization, and other measures of social and economic development are more important in explaining its level of expenditures than such political factors as the form of legislative apportionment, the amount of party competition, or the degree of voter participation. It has been claimed that such factors as the level of personal income or the size of the urban population are responsible both for the degree of participation and party competition in a state, and the nature of the system's policy outputs. By making this argument these writers have called into question the concepts of representation and theories of party and group conflict which, in one form or another, are the foundations for much of American political science.There is a growing awareness, however, that levels of expenditure alone are not an adequate measure of public policy outcomes. Sharkansky has shown, for example, that levels of expenditure and levels of actual service are seldom correlated; presumably, some states are able to reach given service levels with much less expenditure than others. Besides establishing the appropriate level of expenditure for a program, policy makers must also decide about the program's relative scope, provisions for appeal from administrative orders, eligibility requirements, the composition of regulatory boards and commissions, and many other matters which have little to do with money.

During the last thirty years, there have been numerous attempts to revise or reconstitute the "classical" theory of democracy: the familiar doctrine of popular rule, patterned after the New England town meeting, which asserts that public policy should result from extensive, informed discussion and debate. By extending general participation in decision-making the classical theorists hoped to increase the citizen's awareness of his moral and social responsibilities, reduce the danger of tyranny, and improve the quality of government. Public officials, acting as agents of the public at large, would then carry out the broad policies decided upon by majority vote in popular assemblies.Although it is seldom made clear just which of the classical democratic theorists is being referred to, contemporary criticism has focused primarily on the descriptive elements of the theory, on its basic conceptions of citizenship, representation and decision-making. The concept of an active, informed, democratic citizenry, the most distinctive feature of the traditional theory, is the principal object of attack. On empirical grounds it is argued that very few such people can be found in Western societies. Public policy is not the expression of the common good as conceived of by the citizenry after widespread discussion and compromise. This description of policy making is held to be dangerously naive because it overlooks the role of demagogic leadership, mass psychology, group coercion, and the influence of those who control concentrated economic power. In short, classical democratic theory is held to be unrealistic; first because it employs conceptions of the nature of man and the operation of society which are Utopian, and second because it does not provide adequate, operational definitions of its key concepts.