IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v41y2025i3p1025-1044..html

Partisanship, expertise, or connections? A conjoint survey experiment on lobbyist hiring decisions

Author

Listed:
  • David R Miller
  • Joshua McCrain
  • Hans J G Hassell
  • Benjamin C K Egerod

Abstract

Lobbyists are important agents of organized interests. While prior studies have investigated the observed hiring patterns of interest groups, conclusions about the demand for lobbyist characteristics may be confounded by the availability of lobbyists with certain characteristics. To assess the demand for lobbyists with expertise, connections, and who share groups’ preferences, we use a conjoint survey experiment to examine the hiring preferences for lobbyists. We find that organized interests prefer lobbyists with policy-specific expertise and the necessary connections to get access to decision-makers, but find little evidence that connections are more valuable than expertise. We also find that organized interests prefer lobbyists who share their political ideology, but that this preference diminishes when the hiring organization is not aligned ideologically with the party in unified control of government. Overall, our study paints a more nuanced picture of the role of preferences and connections in lobbying than many would expect.

Suggested Citation

  • David R Miller & Joshua McCrain & Hans J G Hassell & Benjamin C K Egerod, 2025. "Partisanship, expertise, or connections? A conjoint survey experiment on lobbyist hiring decisions," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 1025-1044.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:41:y:2025:i:3:p:1025-1044.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewae013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    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:oup:jleorg:v:41:y:2025:i:3:p:1025-1044.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.