Interest groups

PPIG77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups 
Chad Patterson (May 22, 2014 5:46 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Hi,
I agree with you that collective action theory does not appear to work because people are selfish like you said in your post.  There are just to many free-loaders that take advantage of the system or complete refuse to take part in the system in order for it to continually maintain itself.  As for the “anti-vaxxers," one of my good friends is one, and both her and her husband have earned post-grad college degrees.  Not only does she avoid vaccinations for her two children at all cost, she makes her own medicines from all natural organic products.  In addition, she is obviously anti-flu shot too.  Her entire family was sick with the flu three times this year compared to my family that all received the flu shot being sick just one time, at the same time.  Nothing I say to her matters, as she will not listen to reason.
I do understand how abortion groups formed from the "disturbance" of Roe v. Wadecase.  Am I not correct that the number of pro-life and pro-choice groups makes the topic an examples of pluralism as well?
As for pluralism, I agree with you that  it is alive and well today.   You make a good point with the campaign limits being lifted will only feed the monster of political interest groups more and more with each election cycle.  I can only imagine right now what 2016 holds in terms of PAC's advertisements.  The questions that I see down the road is do you see the law being changed once (or even if) the average voter wakes up to realize what has occurred while they were self absorbed in their own daily struggles?  
Chad
It is agreeable that most of the people on the collective action are just riding along and taking advantage of the rest of the group. For there to be benefits that can be shared by all in the group, there must be some sense of sharing. This means that everyone shares in the efforts as much as they want to get a share of the benefits accruing. As such, the system is not going to self maintain if the parties involved are not ready to bear the struggles associated and only want to come in when all the other members have spent their energies. This pretty much relates to the tragedy of commons and for there t be some form tranquility, there should be rules and schedules, dictating the responsibilities that be borne by the different members of the group. Failure to this, the system only works to benefit a few that are crafty enough to gain where they have not had any form of input other than during benefits sharing, where they voice their demands.
When the idea of pluralism was born, the basic principle behind it was that the power comes back to the people. This was during a time when most of the people had started noticing the fact that power and privileges in the society was being controlled some lucky few individuals in the society. The few people with economic and political might controlled the larger masses of people that did not have the same privileges. This is the same case today, where a few of the people control the greater majority. Political might is still at the center stage of the society dynamics, putting the aspects of pluralism on a dark path. The political class has been pulling strings to have more control of the economic and social affairs in the country. The political action committees have made deliberate attempts to have unlimited funding. This will mean that those with more economic might carry the day with respect to all the major decisions.New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups 
Paul Pigulski (May 22, 2014 5:55 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Yes, collective action is so, well, "progressive."  Olson and his ilk would have done well to have explored a bit about the history of collectivism before advocating it.  Those of us who oppose it (in all its forms: mass transit, socialism, etc.) are really not very bright and tend to drag our knuckles.  Not only that, we don't care about our children: we have been known to push wheel-chaired grandmothers over cliffs.
In 1999 Orlando Fige, a contemporary historian and Sovietologist par excellence. wroteInterpreting the Russian Revolution: The Language and Symbols of 1917.1  On page 181 he said: "Exasperated because collectivism wasn't taking hold in the manner they expected it to, the revolutionaries introduced the notion of 'Soviets' or smaller councils dedicated to socializing their vocations: factory workers, musicians, professors, etc.  The idea was to stamp out individuality as being counter revolutionary."  And we all know how well this worked out.  
Yet, some people continue to tell us about the nobility of collective action and the base selfishness of individuality, Right, Mancur?  Right, Ann?  I would suggest there is a reason collectivism has been relegated to the dustbin of history; advocating it here just predisposes us to taking the same path.
I would also mention Rosenberg's study of 1957.2  Briefly, he showed that we are predisposed to seeing trends and attributing motives when it is consistent with our weltanschaung to do so.  If we really believe pluralism is a mistaken notion endemic to our political system, we are predisposed to conclusions that affirm this point of view.
1Orlando Fige, Interpreting the Russian Revolution: The Language and Symbols of 1917 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 181.
2Theodore Rosenberg, "Perception as the Basis of Social Knowledge" Sociology, Alex Popenoe (ed). (New York: Random House, 1970), 254.New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups 
Linda Abrams (May 24, 2014 8:19 AM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Hello,
Is Olson really advocating collective action or just describing what is taking place. He warns that if too many specialized interest groups arise, as we see today, then the economy will be threatened.HYPERLINK "../../../labrams/Desktop/POLS 511/Forums/Research Forum 7.docx" \l "_ftn1" \t "_blank"
[1] That does not sound like some suggesting collective action as a positive or desirable thing. I also think he is describing what happens when pluralism breaks down.
Pluralism requires people be engaged in the system and push for their policies through a group structure. But we know most people are not politically active enough to do that. What pluralism really attacks is the concept that the individual can make a difference. It suggests that only through group action can the government be influenced. When enough people do not participate, pluralism degenerates into collective action where a few small groups have undue influence on the government which produces poor economic policy.
Linda



HYPERLINK "../../../labrams/Desktop/POLS 511/Forums/Research Forum 7.docx" \l "_ftnref1" \t "_blank"
[1] Rosser, J. B. "The Rise and Decline of Mancur Olson's View of the Rise and Decline of Nations."
Southern EconomicJournal 74, no. 1 (07, 2007): 4,
HYPERLINK "http://search.proquest.com/docview/212151394?accountid=8289" \t "_blank"http://search.proquest.com/docview/212151394?accountid=8289; Anthony J. Nownes and Grant Neeley, “Public
Interest Group Entrepreneurship and Theories of Group Mobilization,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 1
(Mar., 1996), pp. 119-146, /stable/449044 .
 
 
 New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups 
Paul Pigulski (May 24, 2014 8:35 AM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Linda, you may be 100% correct.  I see nowhere where Olson specifically advocates for collective action.  Yet, his disparagement of pluralism seems to suggest a wistful and "if only..." attitude.  I admit to reading between the lines and that you may be very well be correct.  That being said, I believe we should always be vigilant against collectivism in all its malignant shapes and forms.
Thank you.New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups 
Linda Abrams (May 24, 2014 8:37 AM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Ann,
I think the Disturbance Theory is pretty accurate. Some interest groups do form because of major events but Truman does not suggest that that is case all the time. Anything which disturbs the status quo or the equilibrium of society can result in the formation of an interest group. The abolitionists that you mention did not respond to the formation of another interest group but they certainly responded to what they believed affected the equilibrium of society; an entire group of people held in slavery. The balance in society was off and they formed a group to correct that problem. Other interest groups form in response to the power being exerted on the government by another group, which they perceived disturbed the equilibrium. Many gun control groups have formed to counterbalance the power the NRA has with Congress.
Do we form interest groups when everything is good? I am trying to think of an interest group that formed because nothing was wrong. I am sorry there have been some but they do not come to mind.
LindaNew!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups 
Paul Pigulski (May 24, 2014 9:02 AM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
The problem with the disturbance theory is that it sees society as essentially static to begin with, hence any deviation is seen as a disturbance.  Conversely, some see society as dynamic and a continuing series of disturbances - large and small.
This approach has its roots in the dialectic, from Socrates to Hegel to Marcuse.  The notion of a static society, or structure-functionalism - is a relatively new notion.  It really didn't take off until it reformulated itself as a reaction to positivism.
Thank you.New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups " Re: Crawford - Week 7 - Interest Groups 
Kenneth Kovach (May 24, 2014 9:34 AM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
I would have to agree in the assessment of static versus wrong/problems being the starting point of disturbance theory.  In a post further up the abolition movement is started not because people realized slavery was wrong because that and the inherent racial beliefs continued for another 150 or so years after the abolition movement began.  In fact, many of the northern abolitionists were actually quite racist themselves and installed Jim Crow-esque laws even as they decried slavery in the South (Lawson). Therefore, in the case of slavery and the abolition movement the static case was slavery.  The disturbances began starting in the Revolution as blacks who fought for the United States were given freedom, then continued with the industrial revolution in the North removing the economic need for slaves tied with their Puritanical base beliefs, moving to the growth of a black educated middle-class.  All of these 'disturbed' the static nature of slavery until it reached a point where the abolitionist groups began to form which in the extreme end resulted in open conflict between pro- and anti-slavery groups in the Civil War.  Now that's not to say Occupy Wall Street and the anti-rich sentiment or any of the modern groups is going to result in the next Civil War because this was an extreme case, but is still an example of where disturbance theory can lead when taken to an end.
Lawson, Steven F. "Segregation". National Humanities Center. Accessed May 24, 2014. HYPERLINK "http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/freedom/1865-1917/essays/segregation.htm" \t "_blank"http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/freedom/1865-1917/essays/segregation.htm.
 New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups " Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups 
Kenneth Kovach (May 22, 2014 11:47 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
a. The theory of pluralism described by Robert Dahl relates to groups of individuals working to improve their interests who compete with other groups, which creates conflict and leads to bargaining to produce equilibrium.  My biggest critique of the theory of pluralism is the concept of eventual equilibrium because politics is fluid and equilibrium only lasts so long in politics (maybe at most 30-40 years) before realignment into a new party system.  However, the conflict and bargaining does actually happen, with a good example being the interest groups who have come together on immigration reform (Reasoner, 2014).  Many groups who usually oppose each other have come together to try to compromise on immigration reform and this is an example of pluralism at work.  However, this equilibrium is fragile as the tech industry has started to move away from the coalition in hopes of getting a standalone bill (Kelly, 2014).
b. David Truman believed interest groups formed in reaction to other groups who threatened their spheres of influence and would grow in response to these threats.  I do not agree with the first portion of the theory that interest groups form as a reaction to other groups, but I do agree with the second portion of them growing in response to their threats.  I believe interest groups come up when there is a powerful minority group who is threatened (gun owners, tax payers, etc) by an action by the government (new law, court ruling, etc) and only in rare instances will groups organize to oppose the original group.  For years the NRA has ruled the gun control debate and there really has not been a similar single organization on the pro-control side.  Additionally, AARP has controlled the debate over entitlements because there is not a similar group for younger people fighting for reform because the youth are the ones who will pay the bill and lose the benefits when the money runs out.  However, pro-life groups like the National Right to Life Counsel rose up in response to Roe v. Wade and very quickly pro-choice groups like Susan B. Anthony List came to counter those organizations.  Therefore, I feel it depends on the publicity surrounding a particular issue whether groups will form to oppose other groups or the formation will be single-sided and responsive to the initial threat.
c. Mancur Olson’s collective action theory explains the ‘free rider’ problem of groups where members will enjoy the benefits of the group without having to pay the costs of the group.  Olson believed large groups tended to suffer this more than small groups because the incentive for active participation is lower with the large groups.  Incentives are the biggest question in collective action theory as having significant incentives will reduce the ‘free rider’ problem.  Many groups do incentives differently, whether they are passive and every member receives a benefit or if they are active and only those who participate receive the benefit.  An example of passive incentives are public roads, which are paid as a result of taxes collected on gas used in the area, but some free riders would be those who don’t buy gas in an area but still use the roads.  Active incentives would be those who choose to live in gated communities and if they do not pay their dues they cannot use the facilities or if they do not follow the rules they receive a fine.  While not the traditional interest groups both of these types of people are a group, gas tax payers and gated community residents.  However, for many interest groups today they have members pay in dues and give them some type of reward, such as discounts from AARP as an active incentive to induce people to become members.  The offering of discounts is used by organizations as a selling point because members of society in the effected demographic will still benefit from the work, but will not have these added discounts in the absence of being a member.
Dahl, Robert. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1961.
Kelly, Erin. “Tech Industry Creates Fears Among Immigration Advocates”. USA Today. April 29, 2014 and accessed May 22, 2014.
Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Group. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Reasoner, W. D. “The Migration Equation: Big Business+BigAgriculture+BigLabor+Big Religion=Big Immigration”. Center for Immigration Studies. April 9, 2013 and accessed May 22, 2014. /reasoner/migration-equation-big-businessbig-agriculturebig-laborbig-religionbig-immigration.
Truman, David. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Knopf, 1951.New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups "Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups 
Chad Patterson (May 23, 2014 1:04 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Last Edited By Chad Patterson on May 23, 2014 5:02 PM
Ken,
I was just reading your post, when I though about collective action and Occupy Wall Street.   In this recent example, we have "recent college grads," or so they say, that could not get a good job  or a job in general that were protesting for income equality.   Obviously, this protest, if successful would benefit all works that did not take part in the protest which would be the "free-riders".  OWS represents an interest group that is protesting against major companies for more representative share of a companies income.  OWS blamed capitalism for its failure to provide accountability for owners to provide better salaries and benefits.   In reality, what this is a modern day example of  Marxism at its best with the works protesting against the owners for a larger piece of the pie.
Chad
 New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups "Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups 
Paul Pigulski (May 23, 2014 7:04 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
And where is OWS now?  On the dustheap of history, methinks.New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups "Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups 
Linda Abrams (May 25, 2014 10:38 PM) - Read by: 5
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Hi Chad,
In looking at Occupy Wall Street as an example of collective action, what were the incentives or benefits? It does not seem like there were any material benefits which Olson suggests are important to collective action interest group formation. Apart from calling attention to something they perceived as inequity in society, what did they hope to achieve?
This calls into question why people join interest groups in the first place. Is it for material benefits as the collective action theory suggests or are their more altruistic reasons. Looking at big interest groups like AARP or the NRA, it seems it is maybe a little of both. People want the material benefits, like special discounts but they also want those groups to be their advocate in Washington on specific issues.
Linda
 New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups "Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups 
Paul Pigulski (May 25, 2014 11:00 PM) - Read by: 5
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Methinks it might be a good idea to remember the context of this forum.  As I understand it, we are not exploring collective behavior generally, but special interest groups and their formation/membership.  Therefore, while AARP and the NRA are relevant, Occupy probably isn't.New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups "Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups 
Daniel Smith (May 24, 2014 10:36 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Nice analysis of the three different theories of interest groups.  But it is not clear which theory you find most convincing, or what you think creates interest group formation, and their success.  It seems perhaps that you think that groups can form for all of the reasons hypothesized in the theories.  Is this correct? Is there one which you think is the principle reason? And is there something else you think that they have missed? New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups "Re: Kovach - Week 7 Theories of Interest Groups 
Kenneth Kovach (May 25, 2014 9:45 AM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
To start with I find Dahl's Pluralism to be too idealistic.  While there are interest groups who join together as I stated with the immigration reform debate, these groups are not necessarily diametrically opposed to each other.  Olson's Collective Action Theory occurs too, however, I don't think this is a complete reason for forming but rather a description of what occurs after the interest group has formed.  Free riders are difficult to prevent because most interest groups can't stop non-members from also receiving benefits of their work.  Especially today where earmarks are shunned there can't be a special carve out for a single group, but there used to be special carve outs (a la the creation of the railroads getting monopolies on everything surrounding the tracks).  Therefore, I am most convinced by Truman's Disturbance Theory because it explains their formation and what they do after they formed.  While interest groups might work together occasionally, the more ...