Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-9rk55 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-21T06:10:46.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing membership interest group networks across space and time, size, issue and industry*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2015

JANET M. BOX-STEFFENSMEIER  and
DINO P. CHRISTENSON
JANET M. BOX-STEFFENSMEIER
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University, 2140 Derby Hall, 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1373, USA (e-mail: steffensmeier.2@osu.edu)
DINO P. CHRISTENSON
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science & Engineering, Boston University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215, USA (e-mail: dinopc@bu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compare and contrast the network formation of interest groups across industry and issue area. We focus on membership interest groups, which by virtue of representing the interests of voluntary members face particular organizational and maintenance constraints. To reveal their cooperative behavior we build a network dataset based on cosigner status to United States Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs and analyze it with exponential random graph models and multidimensional scaling. Our methodological approach culminates in a clear and compact spatial representation of network similarities and differences. We find that while many of the same factors shape membership networks, religious, labor, and political organizations do not share the same structure as each other or as the business, civic and professional groups.

Keywords

interest groupsmembership organizationscoalition strategiesamicus curiae briefsexponential random graph modelsmultidimensional scaling

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 3 , Issue 1: Networks in Space and in Time: Methods and Applications , March 2015 , pp. 78 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Authors are listed alphabetically. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2013 ARS Conferene in Rome, Italy, and the 2012 Political Networks Conference in Boulder, Colorado. Further information on the original data and other papers on this project can be found at the project website: http://amicinetworks.com/.

References

Andrews, K., Ganz, M., Baggetta, M., Han, H., & Lim, C. (2010). Leadership, membership, and voice: Civic associations that work. American Journal of Sociology, 115 (4), 1191–1242.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A. (1996). Organizational ecology. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A., & Mezias, S. J. (1992). Localized competition and organizational failure in the manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 580–604.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A., & Singh, J. V. (1994a). Organizational niches and the dynamics of organizational founding. Organization Science, 5 (4), 483–501.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A., & Singh, J. V. (1994b). Organizational niches and the dynamics of organizational mortality. American Journal of Sociology, 100 (2), 346–380.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F., Berry, J., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D., & Leech, B. (2009). Advocacy and public policymaking. Retrieved from http://lobby.la.psu.edu/Google Scholar
Bearman, P. S., Moody, J., & Stovel, K. (2004). Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks1. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (1), 44–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R. J., & Ramsden, M. (2007). The contribution of business associations to SMEs strategy, bundling or reassurance? International Small Business Journal, 25 (1), 49–76.Google Scholar
Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, J. M., & Wilcox, C. (1989). The interest group society. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bhadra, A., Jordan, F., Sumana, A., Deshpande, S., & Gadagkar, R. (2009). A comparative social network analysis of wasp colonies and classrooms: Linking network structure to functioning. Ecological Complexity, 6 (1), 48–55.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Christenson, D. P. (2014). The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks. Social Networks, 36, 82–96.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Christenson, D. P., & Craig, A. (2013a). Interest group signals from dear colleague letters. (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association)Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Christenson, D. P., & Hitt, M. P. (2013b). Quality over quantity: Amici influence and judicial decision making. American Political Science Review, 107 (3), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Christenson, D. P., & Morgan, J. W. (2013c). The frailty exponential random graph model. (Paper presented at the Annual Political Networks Conference)Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Christenson, D. P., & Ratlif, L. (2013d). The role of interest group networks in executive branch nominations. (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association)Google Scholar
Carpenter, D. P., Esterling, K. M., & Lazer, D. M. J. (1998). The strength of weak ties in lobbying networks: Evidence from health care politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10, 417–444.Google Scholar
Collins, P. M. (2004). Friends of the Court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in US Supreme Court litigation. Law & Society Review, 38 (4), 807–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. M. (2008). Friends of the supreme court: Interest groups and judicial decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, C. (1984). Participation in public interest groups. American Politics Research, 12 (4), 409–430.Google Scholar
Cranmer, S., & Desmarais, B. (2011). Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Political Analysis, 19 (1), 66–68.Google Scholar
Desmarais, B., & Cranmer, S. (2012). Micro-level interpretation of exponential random graph models with application to estuary networks. Policy Studies Journal, 40 (3), 402–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, D&B. (2010). Million dollar database. Dun and Bradstreet. (Online Directory)Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P. (1988). Group identities and individual influence: Reconstructing the theory of interest groups. British Journal of Political Science, 18 (01), 21–49.Google Scholar
Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Esterling, K. M. (2004). The political economy of expertise: Information and efficiency in american national politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Faust, K., & Skvoretz, J. (2002). Comparing networks across space and time, size and species. Sociological Methodology, 32 (1), 267–299.Google Scholar
Fertuck, L. (1975). A test of industry indices based on sic codes. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 10 (5), 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Gale. (2010). Gale associations unlimited. Encyclopedia of Business Information Sources. (Online Directory)Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L. (1997). United states supreme court judicial data base, phase ll: User's guide [Computer software manual]. NewYork: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodreau, S. M., Handcock, M. S., Hunter, D. R., Butts, C. T., & Morris, M. (2008). A statnet tutorial. Journal of Statistical Software, 24 (9), 1–26.Google Scholar
Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A., & Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks*. Demography, 46 (1), 103–125.Google Scholar
Gower, J. (1966). Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika, 53 (3–4), 325–338.Google Scholar
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). A niche theory of interest representation. Journal of Politics, 58, 91–111.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. (1999). The effect of core change on performance: Inertia and regression toward the mean. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (3), 590–614.Google Scholar
Grier, K., Munger, M., & Roberts, B. (1991). The industrial organization of corporate political participation. Southern Economic Journal, 57 (3), 727–738.Google Scholar
Grier, K., Munger, M., & Roberts, B. (1994). The determinants of industry political activity, 1978–1986. American Political Science Review, 88 (4), 911–926.Google Scholar
Grier, K., Munger, M., & Torrent, G. (1990). Allocation patterns of PAC monies: The US senate. Public Choice, 67 (2), 111–128.Google Scholar
Grossmann, M. (2013). The variable politics of the policy process: Issue-area differences and comparative networks. The Journal of Politics, 75, 65–79.Google Scholar
Gugerty, M. K., & Prakash, A. (2010). Conclusions and future research: Rethinking advocacy organizations. In Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (Eds.), Advocacy organizations and collective action (pp. 283–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), 929–964.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49 (2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J. (1985). The political economy of group membership. The American Political Science Review, 79 (1), 79–96.Google Scholar
Harris, J. K. (2014). An introduction to exponential random graph modeling, volume 173. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Heaney, M. T. (2014). Multiplex networks and interest group influence reputation: An exponential random graph model. Social Networks, 36 (1), 66–81.Google Scholar
Heaney, M. T., & Lorenz, G. M. (2013). Coalition portfolios and interest group influence over the policy process. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 2 (3), 251–277.Google Scholar
Hojnacki, M. (1998). Organized interests' advocacy behavior in alliances. Political Research Quarterly, 51 (2), 473–459.Google Scholar
Holyoke, T. T. (2003). Choosing battlegrounds: Interest group lobbying across multiple venues. Political Research Quarterly, 56 (3), 325–336.Google Scholar
Hula, K. (1995). Rounding up the usual suspects: Forging interest group coalitions. In Cigler, A. J., & Loomis, B. A. (Eds.), Interest group politics (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, D., Goodreau, S., & Handcock, M. (2008). Goodness of fit of social network models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103 (481), 248–258.Google Scholar
Hunter, D., & Handcock, M. (2006). Inference in curved exponential family models for networks. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15 (3), 565–583.Google Scholar
Johnson, R., Kovacs, B., & Vicsek, A. (2012). A comparison of email networks and off-line social networks: A study of a medium-sized bank. Social Networks, 34 (4), 462–469.Google Scholar
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics (Vol. 35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (1981). Congressmen's voting decisions (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. (1994). Political networks: The structural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koger, G., & Victor, J. N. (2009). The beltway network: A network analysis of lobbyists' donations to members of congress. (Prepared for presentation at the Midwest Political Science Association Meetings)Google Scholar
Krebs, V. (2002). Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connections, 24 (3), 43–52.Google Scholar
LaPira, T. M., Thomas, H. F., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2009). The structure and stability of lobbying networks in washington. (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association)Google Scholar
Lecy, J. D., Mitchell, G. E., & Schmitz, H. P. (2010). Advocacy organizations, networks, and the firm analogy. In Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (Eds.), Advocacy organizations and collective action (pp. 283–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leighley, J. (1996). Group membership and the mobilization of political participation. The Journal of Politics, 58 (02), 447–463.Google Scholar
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., & Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using facebook.com. Social Networks, 30, 330–342.Google Scholar
Lowery, D. (2007). Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity, 39 (1), 29–54.Google Scholar
Mahoney, C. (2004). The power of institutions: State and interest-group activity in the european union politics. European Union Politics, 5 (4), 441–466.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McPherson, M. (1983). An ecology of affiliation. American Sociological Review, 48 (4), 519–532.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.Google Scholar
Moe, T. (1981). Toward a broader view of interest groups. The Journal of Politics, 43 (02), 531–543.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups, second printing with new preface and appendix (Harvard economic studies).Google Scholar
Opsahl, T. (2013). Triadic closure in two-mode networks: Redefining the global and local clustering coefficients. Social Networks, 35 (2), 159–167.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W. & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences1. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (4), 1132–1205.Google Scholar
Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (2010). Advocacy organizations and collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Risse, T. (2010). Rethinking advocacy organizations? a critical comment. In Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (Eds.), Advocacy organizations and collective action (pp. 283–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., & Lusher, D. (2007a). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29 (2), 173–191.Google Scholar
Robins, G., Snijders, T., Wang, P., Handcock, M., & Pattison, P. (2007b). Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29, 192–215.Google Scholar
Salisbury, R. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13 (1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized interests and american democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. (2007). The social embeddedness of lobbying. (Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association)Google Scholar
Skocpol, T., Ganz, M., & Munson, Z. (2000). A nation of organizers: The institutional origins of civic voluntarism in the united states. American Political Science Review, 94 (3), 527–546.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (2000). Grassroots associations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Snijders, T., Pattison, P., Robins, G., & Handcock, M. (2006). New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociological Methodology, 36 (1), 99–153.Google Scholar
Snijders, T., & Van Duijn, M. (2002). Conditional maximum likelihood estimation under various specifications of exponential random graph models. In Contributions to social network analysis, information theory, and other topics in statistics; A festschrift in honour of Ove Frank (pp. 117–134). Stockholm: Department of Statistics, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Truman, D. B. (1951). The governmental process: Political interests and public opinion (1st ed.). New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (1983). The origins and maintenance of interest groups in america. The American Political Science Review, 77 (2), 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, P., Sharpe, K., Robins, G., & Pattison, P. (2009). Exponential random graph (p*) models for affiliation networks. Social Networks, 31 (1), 12–25.Google Scholar
Wasby, S. (1995). Race relations litigation in an age of complexity. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whitford, A. B. (2003). The structures of interest coalitions: Evidence from environmental litigation. Business and Politics, 5 (1), 45–64.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. (1973). Political organizations. New Jersey: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: Erg models of a friendship network documented on facebook1. American Journal of Sociology, 116 (2), 583–642.Google Scholar