IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v16y2004i1p5-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bias in the Heavenly Chorus

Author

Listed:
  • David Lowery
  • Virginia Gray

Abstract

Counts of lobbying organizations before government long have been used to assess overall bias in the politics of interest representation (Schattschneider, 1960). We argue that this effort is fundamentally flawed, that we cannot extract useful conclusions about interest system bias from one-shot lists of organizations seeking influence. We first examine the extensive literature on bias in interest representation, highlighting the uneven attention of scholars to its two core assumptions. We then turn to enumerating the many ways in which the distribution of interests in society and before government are unlikely to be isomorphic over time or over space. Finally, we return to the still vital question of bias in interest representation to consider how it can be addressed in a more satisfactory, if indirect, manner.

Suggested Citation

  • David Lowery & Virginia Gray, 2004. "Bias in the Heavenly Chorus," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 5-29, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:16:y:2004:i:1:p:5-29
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629804038900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629804038900
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629804038900?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hansen, John Mark, 1985. "The Political Economy of Group Membership," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(1), pages 79-96, March.
    2. Denzau, Arthur T. & Munger, Michael C., 1986. "Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(1), pages 89-106, March.
    3. Coughlin, Cletus C, 1985. "Domestic Content Legislation: House Voting and the Economic Theory of Regulation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(3), pages 437-448, July.
    4. Caldeira, Gregory A. & Wright, John R., 1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(4), pages 1109-1127, December.
    5. Quinn, Dennis P. & Shapiro, Robert Y., 1991. "Business Political Power: The Case of Taxation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 851-874, September.
    6. Smith, Richard A., 1984. "Advocacy, Interpretation, and Influence in the U.S. Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 44-63, March.
    7. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Vesenka, Mary H., 1989. "Economic interests and ideological conviction : A note on PACs and agricultural acts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 259-263, October.
    10. Hall, Richard L. & Wayman, Frank W., 1990. "Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 797-820, September.
    11. Salamon, Lester M. & Siegfried, John J., 1977. "Economic Power and Political Influence: The Impact of Industry Structure on Public Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(3), pages 1026-1043, September.
    12. Henry Chappell, 1981. "Campaign contributions and voting on the cargo preference bill: A comparison of simultaneous models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 301-312, January.
    13. Wright, John R., 1990. "Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 417-438, June.
    14. Langbein, Laura I, 1993. "PACs, Lobbies and Political Conflict: The Case of Gun Control," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 551-572, November.
    15. Wright, John R., 1985. "PACs, Contributions, and Roll Calls: An Organizational Perspective," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 400-414, June.
    16. Salisbury, Robert H., 1984. "Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 64-76, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    2. Ansolabehere, Stephen & De Figueiredo, John M. & Snyder, James M., 2003. "Are Campaign Contributions Investment in the Political Marketplace or Individual Consumption? Or "Why Is There So Little Money in Politics?"," Working papers 4272-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. Stephen Ansolabehere & John M. de Figueiredo & James M. Snyder Jr, 2003. "Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 105-130, Winter.
    4. Dana L. Hoag & Thomas G. Field, 1999. "Political and Economic Factors Affecting Agricultural PAC Contribution Strategies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(2), pages 397-407.
    5. Brian Kelleher Richter & Krislert Samphantharak & Jeffrey F. Timmons, 2009. "Lobbying and Taxes," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 893-909, October.
    6. Joseph P. McGarrity & Daniel Sutter, 2000. "A Test of the Structure of PAC Contracts: An Analysis of House Gun Control Votes in the 1980s," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(1), pages 41-63, July.
    7. Robert Florence, 1999. "An analysis of PAC contributions and legislator quality," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 27(1), pages 59-73, March.
    8. David Lowery & Virginia Gray & Matthew Fellowes, 2005. "Sisyphus Meets the Borg," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 41-74, January.
    9. Bellemare, Marc F. & Carnes, Nicholas, 2015. "Why do members of congress support agricultural protection?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-34.
    10. Bronars, Stephen G & Lott, John R, Jr, 1997. "Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? Or, Do Donors Support Candidates Who Value the Same Things That They Do?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 317-350, October.
    11. Delis, Manthos & Hasan, Iftekhar & To, Thomas & Wu, Eliza, 2022. "The real effects of bank lobbying: Evidence from the corporate loan market," MPRA Paper 111642, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Rebecca L. Perlman, 2020. "For Safety or Profit? How Science Serves the Strategic Interests of Private Actors," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 293-308, April.
    13. Stavins, Robert & Keohane, Nathaniel & Revesz, Richard, 1997. "The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-25, Resources for the Future.
    14. Nicholas R. Jenkins & Michelangelo Landgrave & Gabriel E. Martinez, 2020. "Do political donors have greater access to government officials? Evidence from a FOIA field experiment with US municipalities," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    15. Cotton, Christopher, 2012. "Pay-to-play politics: Informational lobbying and contribution limits when money buys access," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 369-386.
    16. Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2003. "Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 137-154, February.
    17. Marcel Hanegraaff & Arlo Poletti, 2021. "The Rise of Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: An Agenda for Future Research," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 839-855, July.
    18. Russell, Levi, 2018. "Ideology, Electoral Incentives, PAC Contributions, and the Agricultural Act of 2014," Working Papers 06978, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    19. Richard Damania & Per G. Fredriksson & Thomas Osang, 2005. "Polluters and Collective Action: Theory and Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(1), pages 167-185, July.
    20. Brown, Jeffrey R. & Huang, Jiekun, 2020. "All the president's friends: Political access and firm value," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 415-431.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:16:y:2004:i:1:p:5-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.