The Politics Of Interests

This is a thematically unified survey of current and significant issues affecting interest group politics and scholarship in the USA. Petracca has drawn together interest group scholars and practitioners to write 16 original essays dedicated to making the best and newest research accessable to students at all levels. The mix of perspectives and approaches aims to offer a stimulating analysis of contemporary American interest group activity.

An exploration of the role that special interest groups play in modern democratic politics.

A generation ago, scholars saw interest groups as the single most important element in the American political system. Today, political scientists are more likely to see groups as a marginal influence compared to institutions such as Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary. Frank Baumgartner and Beth Leech show that scholars have veered from one extreme to another not because of changes in the political system, but because of changes in political science. They review hundreds of books and articles about interest groups from the 1940s to today; examine the methodological and conceptual problems that have beset the field; and suggest research strategies to return interest-group studies to a position of greater relevance. The authors begin by explaining how the group approach to politics became dominant forty years ago in reaction to the constitutional-legal approach that preceded it. They show how it fell into decline in the 1970s as scholars ignored the impact of groups on government to focus on more quantifiable but narrower subjects, such as collective-action dilemmas and the dynamics of recruitment. As a result, despite intense research activity, we still know very little about how groups influence day-to-day governing. Baumgartner and Leech argue that scholars need to develop a more coherent set of research questions, focus on large-scale studies, and pay more attention to the context of group behavior. Their book will give new impetus and direction to a field that has been in the academic wilderness too long.

Political interest is the strongest predictor of 'good citizenship', yet little is known about it. This book explains why some people find politics interesting while others don't.

It is impossible to separate the content of a book from its form. In this study, Filipe Carreira da Silva and Mónica Brito Vieira expand our understanding of the history of social and political scholarship by examining how the entirety of a book mediates and constitutes meaning in ways that affect its substance, appropriation, and reception over time. Examining the evolving form of classic works of social and political thought, including W. E. B. Du Bois’s The Souls of Black Folk, G. H. Mead’s Mind, Self, and Society, and Karl Marx’s 1844 Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Carreira da Silva and Brito Vieira show that making these books involved many hands. They explore what publishers, editors, translators, and commentators accomplish by offering the reading public new versions of the works under consideration, examine debates about the intended meaning of the works and discussions over their present relevance, and elucidate the various ways in which content and material form are interwoven. In doing so, Carreira da Silva and Brito Vieira characterize the editorial process as a meaning-producing action involving both collaboration and an ongoing battle for the importance of the book form to a work’s disciplinary belonging, ideological positioning, and political significance. Theoretically sophisticated and thoroughly researched, The Politics of the Book radically changes our understanding of what doing social and political theory—and its history—implies. It will be welcomed by scholars of book history, the history of social and political thought, and social and political theory.

Competitive Interests does more than simply challenge the long-held belief that a small set of interests control large domains of the public policy making landscape. It shows how the explosion in the sheer number of new groups, and the broad range of ideological demands they advocate, have created a form of group politics emphasizing compromise as much as conflict. Thomas T. Holyoke offers a model of strategic lobbying that shows why some group lobbyists feel compelled to fight stronger, wealthier groups even when they know they will lose. Holyoke interviewed 83 lobbyists who have been advocates on several contentious issues, including Arctic oil drilling, environmental conservation, regulating genetically modified foods, money laundering, and bankruptcy reform. He offers answers about what kinds of policies are more likely to lead to intense competition and what kinds of interest groups have an advantage in protracted conflicts. He also discusses the negative consequences of group competition, such as legislative gridlock, and discusses what lawmakers can do to steer interest groups toward compromise. The book concludes with an exploration of greater group competition, conflict, and compromise and what consequences this could have for policymaking in a representation-based political system.

Drawing upon extensive experience of both theoretical and empirical research, according to the Italian school of Political Science, this book provides a holistic assessment of contemporary world politics. It begins by defining concepts such as “world order”, before going on to classify foreign policies into four models of political cultures: namely, the “interests-intensive” conservative; the “ideologies-intensive” liberal, the leftist constructivist, and the leftist Manichean. The volume shows how multipolar and bipolar systems have remained relatively stable, with each main power defending its own interests, yet ultimately not promoting ideas and order. Change periods, however, are instable. Between 1915 and 1945, Nazi-fascist and communist ideologies emerged, but, after Yalta, the West did not effectively export market, democracy and peace to the Third World. After 1989, the ideas of liberalism (in economic globalization and EU enlargement), neo-conservatism (in the Iraq war), and multi-cultural leftism (in pluri-national conflict resolution processes) began to be applied toward a “near” world order. Since 2001, Islamic fundamentalism’s threat has prevented both stability (with the failure of the concert of powers of the 1990s), and order (with minimal improvements in democracy and peace). Following the Arab Spring, Obama has also abandoned interests-intensive conservative diplomacy, no longer supporting “lesser evils” (personalistic or military regimes) against “absolute evils” (such as the Islamic State), and waged only “low intensity” wars in Iraq, Syria and Libya.