Dr. Jeff Sheldon discusses various topics from a London School of Economics public policy analysis course: impact of interest groups on public policy

Introduction

Between 31 January and 16 April 2024 I took a ten week, 80+ hour graded course from the London School of Economics and Political science (LSE) in public policy analysis. In this series, presented in the order of the ten LSE course modules, I offer up selections of my writings from across the course that include topics in economics, institutions, policy, statistics, policy evaluation, and politics, etc. Most are an answer to a prompt or question (provided if applicable), and vary between 250 and 800 words in length, short but hopefully insightful. This discussion is the follow-up to the piece posted on 23 July of this year. As always, you might not agree or agree only in part with my answers or assessments so feel free to engage me in dialogue, it will be most welcome. Likewise, if you’d like context, please don’t hesitate to ask. Enjoy!

Interest groups

In this unit we learnt the reasons why interest groups may be more successful at addressing the collective action problem than mass citizen organisations. As you might recall from your own political theory courses, the collective action problem occurs when individuals in a group would benefit from a common goal, but each person has an incentive to free-ride or act in their self-interest rather than contribute to the group effort, leading to suboptimal outcomes for everyone. This often results in under-provision of public goods or difficulty in coordinating cooperative behavior. In this discussion I answer two questions regarding interest groups in a real-world context based on an influential article by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page on theories of interest groups in America. To put my answers in context, do read the article, it’s both prescient and relatable to our times 10 years on.

Question 1: What role do you think interest groups should play in the policy process??

Answer 1: From the economic-elite domination (which I discuss below) and biased pluralism perspectives, I say they should have no role. Laugh as one might, we all know it’s likely never going to happen as the Gilens and Page findings are as relevant today as they were in 2014 in stating that: “majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts” and “that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” So, nothing really has changed and it seems special interests are even more entrenched in pushing for and setting the Reagan-era policy agenda than they were in 2014. For example, we know, economic-elite domination by people such as the Koch brothers has had an outsize influence on what policies are considered and taken up, and those that are, in essence, dead on arrival, especially those increase oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Koch brothers have had enormous economic resources at their disposal (i.e., Koch Industries) which has allowed them to help unify through a common industrial heritage in setting the policy agenda most favourable to shareholders. The countervailing argument, however, is that as a majoritarian electoral democracy, if we could align and harness interest groups from a majoritarian pluralism perspective as the second face of power then perhaps we would be able to set the policy agenda in “ways that represent the needs and interests of all citizens.” Overcoming biased pluralism and economic-elite domination is a Sisyphean task to say the least.????

Question 2: The research by Gilens and Page focuses on the US. Do you think that the findings by the authors are also relevant to your context? Who do you think has the most influence in politics in your context? Would it be the average citizens, economic elites, or interest groups?

Answer 2: As I noted in my answer to the first question, I do think their findings are as relevant today as they were in 2014. As an example of biased pluralism (i.e., a theory suggesting that policy decisions disproportionately reflect the preferences of wealthy individuals and interest groups, rather than the broader public, leading to an unequal distribution of political influence), the US pharmaceutical industry has lobbied congress extensively to not consider policies that would put a cap on the obscene amounts of money they charge for life-saving drugs while simultaneously lobbying congress to promote policies which move new drugs through the Food and Drug Administration’s approval protocols with alacrity so they come to market sooner even if not shown to be fully effective. In another example of economic-elite domination (i.e., economic-elite domination refers to the disproportionate influence that wealthy individuals and large corporations have over policy decisions, often shaping outcomes to benefit their interests at the expense of the general population) similar to that of the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson was a GOP mega-donor who contributed over $100 million to Trump-supporting Super PACS in both the 2016 and 2020 election cycles along with another $250 million supporting both Trump and GOP House and Senate candidates in 2020. Why? For favourable anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel policies, and for policies favourable to China where he was trying to establish casinos. The answer to the second part of the question is fairly obvious in that it’s a combination of economic elites and interest groups which have the most influence in American politics today, as they say, follow the money. What do people in congress crave most? Power and influence. To stay in power and to have influence they have to stay in congress and running for office doesn’t come cheap. So, big-pocket donors contribute to campaign coffers in return for either promulgating policies favourable to their interests or opposing policies which are diametrically opposed to their interests. Big money talks, congress listens, but that’s nothing you don’t already know.

Reference

Gilens, M., and Page, B. I. 2014. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics Vol. 12/No. 3.? 564 – 581 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Thanks for reading. Please feel to ask questions or offer comments below. Next up: policy recommendations for corruption.