Transcript Pressure groups - sociologytwynham.com

Pressure groups
Lecture 1
Dr Justin Greaves
What is a pressure group?
• ‘A pressure group is an organization
which seeks as one of its functions to
influence the formulation and
implementation of public policy’ (Grant
2000)
OR:
• ‘The field of organized groups
possessing both formal structure and
real common interests in so far as they
influence the decisions of public bodies’
(W J M Mackenzie)
Changing times
• But are such definitions out of date?
• Some group activity now directed at
private companies (see Grant and
Greaves, 2005)
• State has shed some of its functions,
with public tasks being carried out by
private providers
EG: ‘retailer governance’
Targeting Tesco
• Tescopoly is a coalition of eight
environmental, women's, workers' and
third world organisations
• Groups include Friends of the Earth, the
GMB union and War on Want
• The campaign uses the slogan 'Every
little hurts' in a play on the Tesco slogan
'Every little helps'
Differ from parties
• Party wants to win control of
government or at least a share of office
to implement policies
• Parties are broad coalitions that have to
aggregate interests, groups often single
issue
• Parties run candidates in elections, but
note ‘interest parties’
Social movements
• Difficult to define – used in a vague way
• In contrast to Mackenzie’s definition
may not have a formal structure and are
usually united by ideas not interests
Klandermans (1997)
• ‘Social movements ...are populated by
individuals sharing collective goals and
a collective identity who engage in
disruptive action’
Jordan (1998)
• ‘There is a tendency to relabel any
group using non-conventional strategies
and tactics as social movements’
But distinction important
• Literature important as reminds us
pressure groups are only one way of
bringing about change
• Feminism one of the important social
movements (impact on changing
consciousness, family level, still few
women legislators)
• Many of its goals require political action
• Pressure groups spring from it
Social movements: a summary
• Literature in sociology
• Represent people with an outsider
orientation
• Seek to change elements in the existing
power structure
• Often use direct action methods
• Opposed to conventional power politics
Social movements: summary
(2)
• Do not want to influence state, want to
act in civil society
• Loosely defined organisational structure
• Either lack clearly defined leadership or
have charismatic leader
• Often left of centre, lifestyle politics, but
note petrol protests
Recent literature
• ‘The new social movement literature has
little space for reform-oriented single issue
pressure groups which merely seek to
change their bit of the world, and are
reasonably comfortable with the state of
society and politics as they find them –
surely the operating rationale of so many
voluntary organisations?’ (McKay and
Hilton, 2009)
Think tanks
• Grant’s definition encompasses think
tanks even though they do not engage
in lobbying
• May have a close relationship with a
political party, e.g. Fabian Society
• Can be influential (e.g. IEA and
Thatcherism, Adam Smith Institute and
the poll tax)
Think tanks (2)
• Demos has been proving influential
• Here is a short video clip showing their
engagement with politicians and others
Think tanks (3)
• Think tanks seek to change the
intellectual climate of opinion
• Stone (1996) argued that the distinction
between think tanks and interest groups
has become blurred
• She argues their impact is modest.
‘Policy making is mainly driven by
interests, not by ideas’
Changing terminology
• A search for ‘hurrah words’ to describe
pressure or interest groups
• Stakeholders – used by government
and EU
• Non-governmental organisations
(originated with UN)
• Campaigning groups
• Advocacy groups
Your projects
• Here is some advice which should come
in helpful for your pressure group
projects
What’s in a name?
• We don’t want to restrict your choice of
group
• You can study UK, American, EU or
home country organisation – but need
understanding
• You can study direct action groups
• Key consideration is feasibility – is there
enough material?
• Step 1: check out web site
Four criteria for a good
website
1.
2.
3.
4.
Useful
Usable
Accessible for all
Sticky (*makes people want to come
back)
Web site design
•
•
•
•
•
Does it download reasonably quickly?
Is the site design coherent?
Is it uncluttered?
Is the meaning of categories clear?
Can you find what you want quickly and
easily? (easy to navigate)
• How would the site appear to someone
wanting to get involved?
Web site content (1)
• Can you join on line or download a
membership form?
• Can you find out how to get involved in
campaigns?
• Are illustrations relevant and appealing?
• Podcasts or videos?
• Has it been updated recently?
Web site content (2)
• Does it provide information:
1.About group
2.The history of group
3.Methods it uses
4.Its successes
5.Contact details for more info
Balance of question
• Approximate division between two parts
of question is one third/two thirds
• Assessment of group effectiveness is
core of second part of question
• You will be given credit for examining
methodological problems of assessing
effectiveness
Further advice
• Make sure you answer all parts of the
question (especially all three parts on
the website).
• For the first part a comparison with
another website can be a good idea.
• Please ensure you look at ‘Pressure
Groups and British Politics’, Chapter 10.
(available online)
• Before we continue, a quite moving and
inspirational video-clip on Amnesty
International
Types of pressure groups
• There are many ways of categorising
pressure groups
Causal/sectional groups
• Sectional groups represent a section of
the community (e.g. trade unions, CBI
etc)
• Cause groups represent a belief or
principle (e.g. Friends of the Earth,
Amnesty International)
Insider/outsider typology
• Developed by Grant (1978)
• Insider/outsider groups cuts across
traditional sectional/cause distinction
• Insider groups recognised as legitimate
by government
• But had to abide by rules of the political
game which imposed constraints
Outsider groups
• A more disparate category
• Include ‘would be’ insider groups,
outsider groups by necessity
• Ideological or protest groups who do not
want to be drawn into embrace of
government
• Implication of typology that insider
groups more likely to succeed – but not
always
Aberdeen group
• Work of Jordan, McLaughlin and
Maloney (94)
• Political price for entry not as high as
typology suggests
• Large number of groups consulted
Aberdeen Group modify
typology
• Core insiders dealing with a broad
range of issues
• Specialist insiders in policy niches
• Peripheral insiders, little influence
Easy to become an insider
• Reinforced by work of Page (98) – insiders
outnumber pure outsiders by nine to one
• Not that hard to be placed on a
consultation list. Blair Govt. has
consultation code
• Internet lowers costs of formation,
mobilisation and involvement
• Being involved in consultation is not same
as real access to policy makers
Pursuing both strategies
• One can pursue both strategies
simultaneously – Greenpeace
• But does set up tensions within a group,
Greenpeace very hierarchical and
hence can control them
• In some areas now insider and outsider
groups – National Farmers Union and
Farmers for Action
Most important criticism
• Nature of society and political process
has changed
• Far more groups representing a more
fragmented society
• Outsider groups becoming more
successful, hence undermining one of
key points of distinction
• Growth of direct action
Next week
• More on insiders/outsiders
• Pressure groups and the internet
• Direct action strategies