IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v78y1984i01p64-76_25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Salisbury, Robert H.

Abstract

Interest group theory traditionally assumed that policies advocated by group representatives in some sense grow out of the interests or values of the group's members. Mancur Olson and others compelled important revisions in this assumption, but still left the process of interest advocacy to membership groups. It is contended here that institutions, such as corporations or local governments, occupy a dominant position with respect to interest representation in Washington, and this finding requires substantial revisions in both theoretical and descriptive formulations of the governmental process.

Suggested Citation

  • Salisbury, Robert H., 1984. "Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 64-76, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:78:y:1984:i:01:p:64-76_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000305540025243X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. David Lowery & Virginia Gray, 2004. "Bias in the Heavenly Chorus," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 5-29, January.
    2. Nicole Bolleyer, 2021. "Civil society – Politically engaged or member-serving? A governance perspective," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 495-520, September.
    3. Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & James Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2015. "Scientific advocacy, environmental interest groups, and climate change: are climate skeptic portrayals of climate scientists as biased accurate?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 607-619, December.
    4. Contandriopoulos, Damien & Brousselle, Astrid & Larouche, Catherine & Breton, Mylaine & Rivard, Michèle & Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique & Haggerty, Jeannie & Champagne, Geneviève & Perroux, Mélanie, 2018. "Healthcare reforms, inertia polarization and group influence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(9), pages 1018-1027.
    5. Bouwen, Pieter, 2002. "A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers," MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    6. 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.
    7. Paul Johnson, 1988. "On the theory of political competition: Comparative statics from a general allocative perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 217-235, September.
    8. Joost Berkhout & Jan Beyers & Marcel Hanegraaff, 2023. "The Representative Potential of Interest Groups: Internal Voice in Post-Communist and Western European Countries," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 50-64.
    9. Martina Battisti & Martin Perry, 2015. "Small enterprise affiliations to business associations and the collective action problem revisited," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 559-576, March.
    10. David Lowery & Virginia Gray & Matthew Fellowes, 2005. "Sisyphus Meets the Borg," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 41-74, January.
    11. Schmid, A. Allan & Soroko, David, 1997. "Interest groups, selective incentives, cleverness, history and emotion: The case of the American Soybean Association," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 267-285, February.
    12. Robert J. Bennett, 1998. "Business associations and their potential contribution to the competitiveness of SMEs," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 243-260, January.
    13. Matt Grossmann, 2006. "The Organization of Factions: Interest Mobilization and the Group Theory of Politics," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 107-124, June.
    14. Iain McMenamin & Roger Schoenman, 2007. "Together Forever? Explaining Exclusivity in Party–Firm Relations," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(1), pages 153-173, March.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:78:y:1984:i:01:p:64-76_25. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.