Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of organizations on policy: theories, findings, conclusions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Interest Groups & Advocacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyzes recent research on the impact of non-party organizations on policy, describing its theoretical coherence, operationalization of key concepts, views of different types of organizations, hypothesis testing, efforts to generalize from its findings, and proposals for improving future research. The analysis shows that few relevant articles in major journals in political science and sociology test theory; researchers seldom explicitly define key concepts; though researchers regularly study interest groups and social movement organizations, much of their work focuses on other types of organizations; researchers regularly make no predictions about organizations’ impact on policy, and when they do, a majority of their predictions are wrong. Researchers rarely generalize; they seldom claim that their conclusions have implications for theory; and their suggestions for future work are mostly generic. The analysis points to weaknesses in current research and proposes ways to overcome them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Note: articles coded are designated *

  • *Agnone, Jon. 2007. Amplifying public opinion: the policy impact of the U.S. environmental movement. Social Forces 85(4): 1593–1620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amenta, Edwin, Neal Caren, Elizabeth Chiarello, and Su Yang. 2010. The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bailey, David J. 2015. Resistance is futile? The impact of disruptive protest in the ‘silver age of permanent austerity’. Socio-Economic Review 13(1): 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroni, Laura, Brendan J. Carroll, Adam William Chalmers, Luz Maria Munoz Marquez, and Anne Rasmussen. 2014. Defining and classifying interest groups. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3: 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 2015. The politics of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 1998. Basic interests. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • *Bernhagen, Patrick, Andreas Dur, and David Marshall. 2014. Measuring lobbying success spatially. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3(2): 202–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Best, Rachel Kahn. 2012. Disease politics and medical research funding. American Sociological Review 77: 780–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyers, Jan, Andreas Dur, David Marshall, and Arndt Wonka. 2014. Policy-centered sampling in interest group research: lessons from the INTEREURO project. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3: 160–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Boyle, Elizabeth H., Minzee Kim, and Wesley Longhofer. 2015. Abortion liberalization in world society, 1960–2009. American Journal of Sociology 121(3): 882–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Budros, Art. 2011. Explaining the first emancipation: social movements and abolition in the U.S. north, 1776-1804. Mobilization 16(4): 439–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunea, Adriana, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2014. The state of the discipline: authorship, research designs, and citation patterns in studies of EU interest groups and lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy 21(10): 1412–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, Paul. 1998. Interest organizations, political parties, and the study of democratic politics. In Social movements and American political institutions, ed. Anne Costain and Andrew McFarland, 39–56. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, Paul. 1999. Social movements and public policy. In How social movements matter, ed. Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, 3–21. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, Paul. 2003. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56: 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, Paul. 2014. American public opinion, advocacy, and policy in congress: what the public wants and what it gets. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, Paul, and April Linton. 2002. The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy. Social Forces 81: 380–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushman, Brad J., and Morgan C. Wang. 2009. Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed, ed. Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine, 207–220. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, Anthony S. 2007. The party of Lincoln and the politics of state fair employment practices legislation in the north, 1945–1964. American Journal of Sociology 112: 1713–1774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, Elisabeth S. 1997. The people’s lobby. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Harris, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine. 2009. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cornwall, Marie, Brayden G. King, Elizabeth M. Legerski, Eric C. Dahlin, and Kendra S. Schiffman. 2007. Signals or mixed signals: why opportunities for mobilization are opportunities for policy reform. Mobilization 12(3): 239–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, James A. 1994. What’s wrong with sociology? Sociological Forum 9(2): 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dixon, Marc. 2008. Movements, countermovements, and policy adoption: the case of right-to-work activism. Social Forces 87(1): 473–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dynamics of Collective Action Project. Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/group/collectiveaction/cgi-bin/drupal.

  • Fassiotto, Magali, and Sarah A. Soule. 2017. Loud and clear: the effect of protest signals on congressional attention. Mobilization 22(1): 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firebaugh, Glenn. 2008. Seven rules for social research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • *Frank, David J., Bayliss J. Camp, and Steven A. Boutcher. 2010. Worldwide trends in the criminal regulation of sex, 1945 to 2005. American Sociological Review 75: 867–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraussen, Bert, and Darren R. Halpin. 2018. Political parties and interest organizations at the crossroads: perspectives on the transformation of political organizations. Policy Studies Review 16(1): 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gawande, Kishore, and Bernard Hoekman. 2006. Lobbying and agricultural trade policy in the united states. International Organization 60(2): 527–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gifford, Brian. 2006. Why no trade-off between ‘guns and butter’? Armed forces and social spending in the advanced industrial democracies, 1960–1993. American Journal of Sociology 112: 473–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Giugni, Marco. 2007. Useless protest? A time-series analysis of the policy outcomes of ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in the united states, 1977–1995. Mobilization 12(1): 53–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gordon, Joshua C. 2015. Protecting the unemployed: varieties of unionism and the evolution of unemployment benefits and active labor market policy in the rich democracies. Socio-Economic Review 13(1): 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Grossmann, Matt, and Kurt Pyle. 2013. Lobbying and congressional bill advancement. Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(1): 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Haeder, Simon F., and Susan Webb Yackee. 2015. Influence and administrative process: lobbying the U.S. President’s Office of Management and Budget. American Political Science Review 109(3): 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Halebsky, Stephen. 2006. Explaining the outcomes of antisuperstore movements. Mobilization 11(4): 443–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining access: congress and the farm lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hecock, R.D. 2006. Electoral competition, globalization, and subnational education spending in Mexico, 1999–2004. American Journal of Political Science 50: 950–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hojnacki, Marie, David C. Kimball, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Beth L. Leech. 2012. Studying organizational advocacy and influence. Annual Review of Political Science 15: 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hojnacki, Marie, Kathleen M. Marchetti, Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech. 2015. Assessing business advantage in Washington lobbying. Interest Groups and Advocacy 4(3): 205–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbeau, Louis M., Francois Petry, and Moktar Lamari. 2001. Left-right party ideology and government policies: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Research 40(1): 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jenkins, J.Craig, Kevin T. Leicht, and Heather Wendt. 2006. Class forces, political institutions, and state intervention: subnational economic development policy in the United States, 1971–1990. American Journal of Sociology 111: 1122–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jensen, Carsten. 2012. Two sides of the same coin? Left-wing governments and labour unions as determinants of public spending. Socio-Economic Review 10(2): 217–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Johnson, Erik W. 2008. Social movement size, organizational diversity and the making of federal law. Social Forces 86(3): 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Johnson, Erik W., Jon Agnone, and John D. McCarthy. 2010. Movement organizations, synergistic tactics, and environmental public policy. Social Forces 88(4): 2267–2292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Michael D., Holly L. Peterson, Jonathan J. Pierce, Nicole Herweg, Amiel Bernal, Holly Lamberta Raney, and Nikolaos Zahariadis. 2016. A river runs through it: a multiple streams meta-review. Policy Studies Journal 44(1): 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, Grant, Darren Halpin, and William A. Maloney. 2004. Defining interests: disambiguation and the need for new distinctions. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Koo, Jeong-Woo, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 2009. National incorporation of global human rights: worldwide expansion of national human rights institutions, 1966–2004. Social Forces 87(3): 1321–1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lax, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. 2009. Gay rights in the states: public opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science Review 103: 367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lax, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. 2012. The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science 56: 148–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Learning, Cengage. 2017. Encyclopedia of associations. Detroit: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, Beth. 2010. Lobbying and influence. In The Oxford handbook of American political parties and interest groups, ed. Sandy L. Maisel, Jeffrey M. Berry, and George C. Edwards, 696–719. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lewis, Daniel C. 2013. Advocacy and influence: lobbying and legislative outcomes in Wisconsin. Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(2): 206–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, Stanley. 1992. Einstein, Renoir, and Greeley: some thoughts about evidence in sociology. American Sociological Review 57: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, Susanne. 1993. A signaling model of informative and manipulative political action. American Political Science Review 87: 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, Susanne. 1998. An information rationale for the power of special interests. American Political Science Review 92: 809–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, Christine, and Frank Baumgartner. 2008. Converging perspectives on interest group research in Europe and America. West European Politics 31(6): 1253–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mallinson, Daniel J. 2014. Upstream influence: the positive impact of PAC contributions on Marcellus shale roll call votes in Pennsylvania. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3(3): 293–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Martin, Isaac William. 2010. Redistributing toward the rich: strategic policy crafting in the campaign to repeal the sixteenth amendment, 1938–1958. American Journal of Sociology 116: 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 1996. To map contentious politics. Mobilization 1: 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McCammon, Holly. 2009. Beyond frame resonance: the argumentative structure and persuasive capacity of twentieth-century U.S. women’s jury-rights frames. Mobilization 14(1): 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McCammon, Holly J., Soma Chaudhuri, Lyndi Hewitt, Courtney Sanders Muse, and Harmony D. Newman. 2008. Becoming full citizens: the U.S. women’s jury rights campaigns, the pace of reform, and strategic adaptation. American Journal of Sociology 113: 1104–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *McCammon, Holly J., Courtney S. Muse, Harmony D. Newman, and Teresa M. Terrell. 2007. Movement framing and discursive opportunity structures. American Sociological Review 72: 725–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. 1987. Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebooks. Annual Review of Sociology 13: 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Edward Alan. 2005. State health policy making determinants, theory, and methods: A synthesis. Social Science & Medicine 61:2639–2657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Negro, Giacomo, Fabrizio Perretti, and Glenn R. Carroll. 2013. Challenger Groups, commercial organizations, and policy enactment: local lesbian/gay rights ordinances in the United States from 1972 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology 119(3): 790–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Mancur. 1971. The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Olzak, Susan, and Emily Ryo. 2007. Organizational diversity, vitality, and outcomes in the civil rights movement. Social Forces 85(4): 1561–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Olzak, Susan, and Sarah A. Soule. 2009. Cross-cutting influences of environmental protest and legislation. Social Forces 88(1): 201–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Santoro, Wayne A. 2008. The civil rights movement and the right to vote. Social Forces 86: 1391–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Scheitle, Christopher P., and Bryanna B. Hahn. 2011. From pews to policy: specifying evangelical Protestantism’s influence on states’ sexual orientation policies. Social Forces 89(3): 913–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shipan, Charles R., and Craig Volden. 2006. Bottom-up federalism: the diffusion of antismoking policies from U.S. cities to states. American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 825–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shipan, Charles R., and Craig Volden. 2008. The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 840–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Soule, Sarah A., and Brayden G. King. 2006. The stages of the policy process and the equal rights amendment, 1972–1982. American Journal of Sociology 111: 1871–1909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Steil, Justin Peter, and Ion Bogdan Vasi. 2014. The new immigration contestation: social movements and local immigration policy making in the United States, 2000–2011. American Journal of Sociology 119(4): 1104–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Studlar, Donley T., Kyle Christensen, and Arnita Sitasari. 2011. Tobacco control in the EU-15: the role of member states and the european union. Journal of European Public Policy 18(5): 728–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sutton, John R. 2013. The transformation of prison regimes in late capitalist societies. American Journal of Sociology 119(3): 715–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Taghizadeh, Jonas Larsson. 2014. Quality over quantity? Technical information, interest advocacy and school closures in Sweden. Interest Groups and Advocacy 4(1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, Charles. 1976. Major forms of collective action in Western Europe, 1500–1975. Theory and Society 3: 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, Charles. 1997. Parliamentarization of popular contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Theory and Society 26: 245–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uba, Katrin. 2009. The contextual dependence of movement outcomes. Mobilization 14: 433–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Vasi, Ion Bogdan. 2007. Thinking globally, planning nationally, and acting locally. Social Forces 86(1): 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Vasi, Ion Bogdan, and David Strang. 2009. Civil liberty in America: the diffusion of municipal bill of rights resolutions after the passage of the USA PATRIOT act. American Journal of Sociology 114: 1716–1764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yamasaki, Sakura. 2009. A boolean analysis of movement impact on nuclear energy policy. Mobilization 14(4): 485–504.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Washington, Seattle, USA

    Paul Burstein

Authors
  1. Paul Burstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Burstein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest statement

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burstein, P. The influence of organizations on policy: theories, findings, conclusions. Int Groups Adv 8, 1–22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-019-00048-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-019-00048-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation