IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expanding the Scope of Conflict: Interest Groups and Interstate Compacts


  • Ann O'M. Bowman
  • Neal D. Woods


This study looks at how the characteristics of states' interest group environments affect state participation in interstate compacts. Drawing on prominent theories of interest system characteristics, we hypothesize that interest group density and concentration will influence a state's propensity to join compacts. Copyright (c) 2010 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann O'M. Bowman & Neal D. Woods, 2010. "Expanding the Scope of Conflict: Interest Groups and Interstate Compacts," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 669-688.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:91:y:2010:i:3:p:669-688

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. John Kincaid, 1998. "The devolution tortoise and the centralization hare," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue May, pages 13-40.
    2. Rorie Spill Solberg & Eric N. Waltenburg, 2006. "Why Do Interest Groups Engage the Judiciary? Policy Wishes and Structural Needs," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(3), pages 558-572.
    3. Dennis Mueller & Peter Murrell, 1986. "Interest groups and the size of government," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 125-145, January.
    4. Christopher Witko & Adam J. Newmark, 2005. "Business Mobilization and Public Policy in the U.S. States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 86(2), pages 356-367.
    5. Lowery, David & Gray, Virginia, 1997. "How Some Rules Just Don't Matter: The Regulation of Lobbyists," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 139-147, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Charles Davis & Katherine Hoffer, 2012. "Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(3), pages 221-241, September.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:bla:socsci:v:91:y:2010:i:3:p:669-688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.