Interest Group Behavior and Influence

  • Frans A. A. M. van Winden

During the last two decades economics has witnessed a remarkable upsurge in theoretical as well as empirical studies of the behavior and of the political influence of interest groups. Recent books by Sloof (1998), Drazen (2000), Persson and Tabellini (2000), and Grossman and Helpman (2001) refer to a wealth of evidence of the significance of organized interests in the political arena, besides presenting surveys of theoretical studies. Political economics definitively seems to move away from the common assumption of atomistic demand in ‘political markets’ (the median voter model) towards a more realistic framework. In a sense it is picking up and deepening some older strands of literature inspired by classical writers on political economy (like Marx and Pareto), the so-called pluralists in political science (like Bentley and Truman), and others, who were concerned with the political impact of particular social groups under the label of ‘factions’, ‘classes’, or ‘elites’ (see e.g., Bottomore 1970; Moe 1980). The modern political economic literature to be surveyed in this paper, however, is characterized by much greater rigor, through the use mathematical modeling, and keener attention for individual incentives. Strict adherence to methodological individualism would require the modeling of the following chain of events regarding the interaction between policymakers and interest groups: group formation/adjustment → group decision making → group activity → political decision making → government policies (plus other relevant events) → group formation/adjustment. Due to the complexity involved, group formation and adjustment (influenced by policy outcomes) are typically neglected by taking the existence of interest groups as given, thereby sidestepping the thorny issue of individual incentives for participation in collective action (Olson 1965). In addition, interest groups are commonly assumed to act as single (unitary) actors. Nevertheless, our conclusion will be that there has been substantial theoretical progress, opening up many promising paths for important and exciting research.


Interest Group Public Choice Cheap Talk American Political Science Review Nash Bargaining Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abelson, R.P., Kinder, D.R., Peters, M.D., and Fiske, S.T. (1982). ‘‘Affective and semantic components in political person perception.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,619-630.Google Scholar
  2. Aidt, T. (1998). ‘‘Political internalization of economic externalities and environmental policy.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 69, 1-16.Google Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S. (1993). ‘‘Regulating lobbyists and interest group influence.’’ The Journal of Politics, 55,41-56.Google Scholar
  4. Ainsworth, S. and Sened, I. (1993). ‘‘The role of lobbyists: entrepreneurs with two audiences.’’ American Journal of Political Science, 37, 834-866.Google Scholar
  5. Aumann, R. and Kurz, M. (1977). ‘‘Power and taxes.’’ Econometrica, 45, 1137-1161.Google Scholar
  6. Aumann, R., Kurz, M., and Neyman, A. (1983). ‘‘Voting for public goods.’’ Review of Economic Studies, 50, 677-693.Google Scholar
  7. Austen-Smith, D. (1987). ‘‘Interest groups, campaign contributions, and probabilistic voting.’’ Public Choice, 54, 123-139.Google Scholar
  8. Austen-Smith, D. (1993). ‘‘Information and influence: lobbying for agendas and votes.’’ American Journal of Political Science, 37, 799-833.Google Scholar
  9. Austen-Smith, D. (1994). ‘‘Strategic transmission of costly information.’’ Econometrica, 62, 955-963.Google Scholar
  10. Austen-Smith, D. (1995). ‘‘Campaign contributions and access.’’ American Political Science Review, 89, 566-581.Google Scholar
  11. Austen-Smith, D. (1997). ‘‘Interest groups: money, information and influence,’’ in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J.S. (2002). ‘‘Costly signaling and cheap talk in models of political influence.’’ European Journal of Political Economy, 18, 263-280.Google Scholar
  13. Austen-Smith, D. and Wright, J.R. (1992). ‘‘Competitive lobbying for a legislator’s vote.’’ Social Choice and Welfare, 9, 229-257.Google Scholar
  14. Banks, J.S. and Weingast, B.R. (1992). ‘‘The political control of bureaucracies under asymmetric information.’’ American Journal of Political Science, 36, 509-524.Google Scholar
  15. Baron, D. (1989). ‘‘Service-induced campaign contributions and the electoral equilibrium.’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 45-72.Google Scholar
  16. Battaglini, M. (2002). ‘‘Multiple referrals and multidimensional cheap talk.’’ Econometrica, 70, 1379-1401.Google Scholar
  17. Becker, G. (1983). ‘‘A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence.’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371-400.Google Scholar
  18. Bennedsen, M. and Feldmann, S.E. (2002a). ‘‘Lobbying legislatures,’’ Journal of Political Economy, 110, 919-946.Google Scholar
  19. Bennedsen, M. and Feldmann, S.E. (2002b). ‘‘Lobbying and legislative organization, the effect of the vote of confidence procedure.’’ Business and Politics, 4, 187-203Google Scholar
  20. Bennedsen, M. and Feldmann, S.E. (2006). ‘‘Informational lobbying and political contributions.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 90, 631-656.Google Scholar
  21. Bergemann, D. and Välimaki, J. (2003). ‘‘Dynamic common agency.’’ Journal of Economic Theory, 111, 23-48.Google Scholar
  22. Bernheim, B.D. and Whinston, M.D. (1986). ‘‘Menu auctions, resource allocation, and economic influence.’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 1-31.Google Scholar
  23. Besley, T. and Coate, S. (1997). ‘‘An economic model of representative democracy.’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 85-114.Google Scholar
  24. Besley, T. and Coate, S. (2001). ‘‘Lobbying and welfare in a representative democracy.’’ Review of Economic Studies, 68, 67-82.Google Scholar
  25. Borooah, V. and van der Ploeg, F. (1983). Political Aspects of the Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Bosman, R. and van Winden, F. (2002). ‘‘Emotional hazard in a power-to-take experiment.’’ The Economic Journal, 112, 147-169.Google Scholar
  27. Bottomore, T.B. (1970). Elites and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  28. Brandts, J., Riedl, A. and van Winden, F. (2007). On Competition and Well-being. mimeo, CREED, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Brock, W. and Magee, S. (1980). ‘‘Tariff formation in a democracy.’’ in J. Black and B. Hindley (eds.) Current Issues in Commercial Policy and Diplomacy. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  30. Cairns, R. (1989). ‘‘Dynamic rent-seeking.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 39, 315-334.Google Scholar
  31. Camerer, C.F. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Cameron, C.M. and Jung, J.P. (1992). Strategic Endorsements. mimeo, New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  33. Coate, S. (2004). ‘‘Political competition with campaign contributions and informative advertising.’’ Journal of the European Economic Asscociation, 2, 772-804.Google Scholar
  34. Coggins, J., Graham-Tomasi, T., and Roe, T. (1991). ‘‘Existence of equilibrium in a lobbying economy.’’ International Economic Review, 32, 533-550.Google Scholar
  35. Coughlin, P. (1992). Probabilistic Voting Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Coughlin, P., Mueller, D., and Murrell, P. (1990). ‘‘Electoral politics, interest groups, and the size of government.’’ Economic Inquiry, 29, 682-705.Google Scholar
  37. Crawford, V. and Sobel, J. (1982). ‘‘Strategic information transmission.’’ Econometrica, 50, 1431-1451.Google Scholar
  38. Denzau, A. and Munger, M. (1986). ‘‘Legislators and interest groups: how unorganized interests get represented.’’ American Political Science Review, 80, 89-106.Google Scholar
  39. Dharmapala, D. (1999a). ‘‘Comparing tax expenditures and direct subsidies: the role of legislative committee structure.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 72, 421-454.Google Scholar
  40. Dharmapala, D. (1999b). Legislative Bargaining and Vote Buying Under the Influence of Lobbying,. mimeo, Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  41. Dixit, A., Grossman, G.M., and Helpman, E. (1997). ‘‘Common agency and coordination: general theory and application to government policy making.’’ Journal of Political Economy, 105, 752-769.Google Scholar
  42. Dougan, W.R. and Snyder, J.M., Jr. (1996). ‘‘Interest-group politics under majority rule.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 61, 49-71.Google Scholar
  43. Drazen, A. (2000). Political Economy in Macroeconomics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Drissen, E. (1999). Government Decisions on Income Redistribution and Public Production. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  45. Edelman, S. (1992). ‘‘Two politicians, a PAC, and how they interact: two extensive form games.’’ Economics and Politics, 4, 289-305.Google Scholar
  46. Epstein, D. and O’Halloran, S. (1995). ‘‘A theory of strategic oversight: congress, lobbyists, and the bureaucracy.’’ Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11, 227-255.Google Scholar
  47. Esteban, J. and Ray, D. (2000). ‘‘Wealth constraints, lobbying and the efficiency of public allocation.’’ European Economic Review, 44, 694-705.Google Scholar
  48. Fafchamps, M., De Janvry, A., and Sadoulet, E. (1999). ‘‘Social heterogeneity and wasteful lobbying.’’ Public Choice, 98, 5-27.Google Scholar
  49. Ferejohn, J.A. and Fiorina, M.P. (1974). ‘‘The paradox of not voting: a decision theoretic analysis.’’ American Political Science Review, 68, 525-536.Google Scholar
  50. Findlay, R. and Wellisz, S. (1983). ‘‘Some aspects of the political economy of trade restrictions.’’ Kyklos, 36, 469-481.Google Scholar
  51. Gardner, R. (1981). ‘‘Wealth and power in a collegial polity.’’ Journal of Economic Theory, 25, 353-366.Google Scholar
  52. Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1994). ‘‘Protection for sale.’’ American Economic Review, 84, 833-850.Google Scholar
  53. Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1995). ‘‘Trade wars and trade talks.’’ Journal of Political Economy, 103, 675-708.Google Scholar
  54. Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1996). ‘‘Electoral competition and special interest politics.’’ Review of Economic Studies, 63, 265-286.Google Scholar
  55. Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1998). ‘‘Intergenerational redistribution with short-lived governments.’’ The Economic Journal, 108, 1299-1329.Google Scholar
  56. Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1999). ‘‘Competing for endorsements.’’ American Economic Review, 89, 501-524.Google Scholar
  57. Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (2001). Special Interest Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Harrington, J.E. (1993). ‘‘The impact of reelection pressures on the fulfilment of campaign promises.’’ Games and Economic Behavior, 5, 71-97.Google Scholar
  59. Harsanyi, J. (1962). ‘‘Measurement of social power, opportunity costs, and the theory of twoperson bargaining games.’’ Behavioral Science, 7, 67-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hettich, W. and Winer, S.L. (1999). Democratic Choice and Taxation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Hillman, A. (1989). The Political Economy of Protection. Chur: Harwood.Google Scholar
  62. Hillman, A. and Ursprung, H. (1988). ‘‘Domestic politics, foreign interests, and international trade policy.’’ American Economic Review, 78, 729-745.Google Scholar
  63. Hirshleifer, J. (1976). ‘‘Comment (on: Peltzman 1976).’’ Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 240-244.Google Scholar
  64. Hojnacki, M. and Kimball, D.C. (1998). ‘‘Organized interests and the decision of whom to lobby in Congress.’’ American Political Science Review, 92, 775-790.Google Scholar
  65. Hoyt, W.H. and Toma, E.F. (1989). ‘‘State mandates and interest group lobbying.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 38, 199-213.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, P.E. (1996). ‘‘Corporate political offices in a rent-seeking society.’’ Public Choice, 88, 309-331.Google Scholar
  67. Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A.E. (eds.) (1995). The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Kirchsteiger, G. and Prat, A. (2001). ‘‘Inefficient equilibria in lobbying.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 82, 349-375.Google Scholar
  69. Kollman, K. (1997). ‘‘Inviting friends to lobby: interest groups, ideological bias, and congressional committees.’’ American Journal of Political Science, 41, 519-544.Google Scholar
  70. Laffont, J. and Tirole, J. (1991). ‘‘The politics of government decisionmaking: a theory of regulatory capture.’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1089-1127.Google Scholar
  71. Lagerlof J. (1997). ‘‘Lobbying, information, and private and social welfare.’’ European Journal of Political Economy, 13, 615-637.Google Scholar
  72. Lohmann, S. (1995). ‘‘Information, access, and contributions: a signaling model of lobbying.’’ Public Choice, 85, 267-284.Google Scholar
  73. Lohmann, S. (1998). ‘‘An informational rationale for the power of special interests.’’ American Political Science Review, 92, 809-827.Google Scholar
  74. Marceau, N. and Smart, M. (2003). ‘‘Corporate lobbying and commitment failure in capital taxation.’’ American Economic Review, 93, 241-251Google Scholar
  75. Marcus, G.E. and Mackuen, M.B. (1993). ‘‘Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: the emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns.’’ American Political Science Review, 87, 672-685.Google Scholar
  76. Mazza, I. and van Winden, F. (1996). ‘‘A political economic analysis of labor migration and income redistribution.’’ Public Choice, 88, 333-363.Google Scholar
  77. Mazza, I. and van Winden, F. (2002). ‘‘Does centralization increase the size of government? The effects of separation of powers and lobbying.’’ International Tax and Public Finance, 9, 379-389.Google Scholar
  78. Mazza, I. and van Winden, F. (forthcoming). ‘‘An endogenous policy model of hierarchical government.’’ European Economic Review.Google Scholar
  79. Milner, H.V. and Rosendorff, B.P. (1996). ‘‘Trade negotiations, information, and domestic politics: the role of domestic groups.’’ Economics and Politics, 8, 145-189.Google Scholar
  80. Mitchell, W.C. and Munger, M.C. (1991). ‘‘Economic models of interest groups: an introductory survey.’’ American Journal of Political Science, 35, 512-546.Google Scholar
  81. Moe, T.M. (1980). The Organization of Interests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  82. Moore, M.O. and Suranovic, S.M. (1992). ‘‘Lobbying vs. administered protection.’’ Journal of International Economics, 32, 289-303.Google Scholar
  83. Morton, R. and Cameron, C. (1992). ‘‘Elections and the theory of campaign contributions: a survey and critical analysis.’’ Economics and Politics, 4, 79-108.Google Scholar
  84. Neary, H.M. (1997). ‘‘A comparison of rent-seeking models and economic models of conflict.’’ Public Choice, 93, 373-388.Google Scholar
  85. Nitzan, S. (1994). ‘‘Modelling rent-seeking contests.’’ European Journal of Political Economy, 10, 41-60.Google Scholar
  86. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Ortoni, A., Clore, G.L., and Collins, A. (1988). The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Osborne, M.J. (1984). ‘‘Why do some goods bear higher taxes than others?’’ Journal of Economic Theory, 32, 111-127.Google Scholar
  89. Osborne, M.J. and Slivinski, A. (1996). ‘‘A model of political competition with citizen candidates.’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 65-96.Google Scholar
  90. Peck, R. (1986). ‘‘Power and linear income taxes: an example.’’ Econometrica, 54, 87-94.Google Scholar
  91. Pedersen, K.R. (1995). ‘‘Rent-seeking, political influence and inequality: a simple analytical example.’’ Public Choice, 82, 281-305.Google Scholar
  92. Pelzman, S. (1976). ‘‘Toward a more general theory of regulation.’’ Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 211-240.Google Scholar
  93. Persson, T. (1998). ‘‘Economic policy and special interest policy.’’ The Economic Journal, 108, 310-327.Google Scholar
  94. Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (1994). ‘‘Does centralization increase the size of government?’’ European Economic Review, 38, 765-773.Google Scholar
  95. Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (2000). Political Economics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  96. Potters, J. (1992). ‘‘Lobbying and pressure.’’ Tinbergen Institute Research Series No. 36, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  97. Potters, J. and Sloof, R. (1996). ‘‘Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence.’’ European Journal of Political Economy, 12, 403-442.Google Scholar
  98. Potters, J., Sloof, R., and van Winden, F. (1997). ‘‘Campaign expenditures, contributions and direct endorsements: the strategic use of information and money to influence voter behavior.’’ European Journal of Political Economy, 13, 1-31.Google Scholar
  99. Potters, J., and van Winden, F. (1990). ‘‘Modelling political pressure as transmission of information.’’ European Journal of Political Economy, 6, 61-88.Google Scholar
  100. Potters, J. and van Winden, F. (1992). ‘‘Lobbying and asymmetric information.’’ Public Choice, 74,269-292.Google Scholar
  101. Potters, J. and van Winden, F. (1996). ‘‘Models of interest groups: four different approaches,’’ in N. Schofield (ed.) Collective Decision-Making, Social Choice and Political Economy. Boston: Kluwer, 337-362.Google Scholar
  102. Prat, A. (2000). ‘‘An economic analysis of campaign finance.’’ World Economics, 1, 13-28.Google Scholar
  103. Prat, A. (2002a). ‘‘Campaign spending with office-seeking politicians, rational voters, and multiple lobbies.’’ Journal of Economic Theory, 103, 162-189.Google Scholar
  104. Prat, A. (2002b). ‘‘Campaign advertising and voter welfare.’’ Review of Economic Studies, 69, 997-1017.Google Scholar
  105. Prat, A., and Rustichini, A. (1998). ‘‘Sequential common agency.’’ Discussion Paper No. (9895). CentER, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  106. Prat, A. and Rustichini, A. (2003). ‘‘Games played through agents.’’ Econometrica, 71, 989-1026. Przeworski, A. and Wallerstein, M. (1988). ‘‘Structural dependence of the state on capital.’’ American Political Science Review, 82, 1-29.Google Scholar
  107. Rama, M. and Tabellini, G. (1998). ‘‘Lobbying by capital and labor over trade and labor market policies.’’ European Economic Review, 42, 1295-1316.Google Scholar
  108. Rasmusen, E. (1993). ‘‘Lobbying when the decisionmaker can acquire independent information.’’ Public Choice, 77, 899-913.Google Scholar
  109. Renaud, P.S.A. (1989). Applied Political Economic Modelling. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  110. Renaud, P. and van Winden, F. (1988). ‘‘Fiscal behaviour and the growth of government in the Netherlands,’’ in J. Lybeck and M. Henrekson (eds.) Explaining the Growth of Government. Amsterdam: North Holland, 133-156.Google Scholar
  111. Rothenberg, L.S. (1988). ‘‘Organizational maintenance and the retention decision in groups.’’ American Political Science Review, 82, 1129-1152.Google Scholar
  112. Sadiraj, V., Tuinstra, J., and van Winden, F. (2005). ‘‘Interest groupsize dynamics and policymaking.’’ Public Choice, 125, 271-303.Google Scholar
  113. Sadiraj, V., Tuinstra, J., and van Winden, F. (2006). ‘‘A computational electoral competition model with social clustering and endogenous interest groups as information brokers.’’ Public Choice, 129, 169-187.Google Scholar
  114. Saint-Paul, G. (2000). ‘‘The new political economy: recent books by Allan Drazen and Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini.’’ Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 915-925.Google Scholar
  115. Sloof, R. (1998). Game-Theoretic Models of the Political Influence of Interest Groups. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  116. Sloof, R. (1999). ‘‘Campaign contributions and the desirability of full disclosure laws.’’ Economics and Politics, 11, 83-107.Google Scholar
  117. Sloof, R. (2000). ‘‘Interest group lobbying and the delegation of policy authority.’’ Economics and Politics, 12, 247-274.Google Scholar
  118. Sloof, R., and van Winden, F. (2000). ‘‘Show them your teeth first!’’ Public Choice, 104, 81-120.Google Scholar
  119. Spiller, P.T. (1990). ‘‘Politicians, interest groups, and regulators: a multi-principals agency theory of regulation, or ‘let them be bribed.’’ Journal of Law and Economics, 33, 65-101.Google Scholar
  120. Stigler, G. (1971). ‘‘The theory of economic regulation.’’ Bell Journal of Economics and Management, 2, 3-21.Google Scholar
  121. Sutter, D. (2002). ‘‘Constitutional prohibitions in a rent seeking model.’’ Public Choice, 111, 105-125.Google Scholar
  122. Tollison, R.D. (1997). ‘‘Rent seeking,’’ in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 506-525.Google Scholar
  123. Tullock, G. (1967). ‘‘The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft.’’ Western Economic Journal, 5, 224-232.Google Scholar
  124. Tullock, G. (1980). ‘‘Efficient rent-seeking,’’ in J.M. Buchanan, R.D. Tollison, and G. Tullock (eds.) Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 97-112.Google Scholar
  125. van Dijk, F., Sonnemans, J., and van Winden, F. (2002). ‘‘Social ties in a public good experiment.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 85, 275-299.Google Scholar
  126. van Dijk, F. and van Winden, F. (1997). ‘‘Dynamics of social ties and public good provision.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 323-341.Google Scholar
  127. van Velthoven, B. (1989). The Endogenization of Government Behaviour in Macroeconomic Models. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  128. van Velthoven, B. and van Winden, F. (1985). ‘‘Towards a politico-economic theory of social security.’’ European Economic Review, 27, 263-289.Google Scholar
  129. van Winden, F. (1983). On the Interaction between State and Private Sector. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  130. van Winden, F. (1999). ‘‘On the economic theory of interest groups: towards a group frame of reference.’’ Public Choice, 100, 1-29.Google Scholar
  131. van Winden, F. (2002). ‘‘Experimental investigation of collective action,’’ in S.L. Winer and H. Shibata (eds.) Political Economy and Public Finance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 178-196.Google Scholar
  132. Van Winden, F. (2007). ‘‘Affective Public Choice,’’ in J. Casas Pardo and P. Schwartz (eds.), Public Choice and the Challenges of Democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 45-61.Google Scholar
  133. van Winden, F., Schram, A., and Groot, F. (1987). ‘‘The interaction between economics and politics: modelling cycles.’’ European Journal of Political Research, 15, 185-202.Google Scholar
  134. Verbon, H. (1989). The Evolution of Public Pension Schemes. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  135. Welch, W. (1980). ‘‘The allocation of political monies: economic interest groups.’’ Public Choice, 35,97-120.Google Scholar
  136. Wright, J.R. (1990). ‘‘Contributions, lobbying, and committee voting in the U.S. House of Representatives.’’ American Political Science Review, 84, 417-438.Google Scholar
  137. Zusman, P. (1976). ‘‘The incorporation and measurement of social power in economic models.’’ International Economic Review, 17, 447-462.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frans A. A. M. van Winden

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations