Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:35:37.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing Theories about Advocacy and Public Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2020

Paul Burstein Open the ORCID record for Paul Burstein [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One critical way that social scientists contribute to our understanding of policy change is developing and testing theories to explain the impact of advocacy efforts by nonparty organizations and activists to influence policy. What does the theory testing discover? To find out, this article analyzes all tests of such theories published in 25 major journals in political science and sociology between 2000 and 2018. Nineteen theories were tested and are generally quite similar, proposing that advocacy will affect policy and seeing electoral concerns as the basis of that influence. But they differ in terms of whose impact they seek to explain: there are different theories for interest groups, social movement organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. Predictions made by the theories are consistent with the data just over half the time. The theory-testing articles fail to show what their findings add to the weight of evidence for or against their theories, rarely test competing theories against each other, and seldom generalize or make specific suggestions for future work. This article highlights the most constructive suggestions for future work and argues for breaking down barriers between subdisciplines and systematically spelling out the value added by each new test of theory.

Type
Reflection
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 148 - 159
Copyright
© American Political Science Association 2020

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.)

Footnotes

*

Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/7VW5HS

A previous version of this article was presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Boston. I would like to thank Christopher Witko and Patrick Bernhagen for helpful advice and comments, and Kathleen Collins for bibliographic assistance.

References

*Agnone, Jon. 2007. “Amplifying Public Opinion: The Policy Impact of the U.S. Environmental Movement.” Social Forces 85(4): 1593–1620.10.1353/sof.2007.0059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahlquist, John S. 2017. “Labor Unions, Political Representation, and Economic Inequality.” Annual Review of Political Science 20: 409–32.10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-023225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amenta, Edwin, Caren, Neal, Chiarello, Elizabeth and Su, Yang. 2010. “The Political Consequences of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 36: 287–307.10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Amenta, Edwin, Caren, Neal and Olasky, Sheera Joy. 2005. “Age for Leisure: Political Mediation and the Impact of the Pension Movement on U.S. Old-Age Policy.” American Sociological Review 70(3): 516–38.10.1177/000312240507000308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Amenta, Edwin and Halfmann, Drew. 2000. “Wage Wars: Institutional Politics, WPA Wages, and the Struggle for U.S. Social Policy.” American Sociological Review 65(4): 506–28.10.2307/2657380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Kenneth T. and Edwards, Bob. 2004. “Advocacy Organizations in the U.S. Political Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 479–506.10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, Jason. 2016. “Democracy’s Denominator: Reassessing Responsiveness with Public Opinion on the National Policy Agenda.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80(2): 437–59.10.1093/poq/nfv082CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barakso, Maryann. 2005. “Civic Engagement and Voluntary Associations: Reconsidering the Role of the Governance Structures of Advocacy Groups.” Polity 37(3): 315–34.10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, Berry, Jeffrey M., Hojnacki, Marie, Kimball, David C. and Leech, Beth L.. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226039466.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Leech, Beth L.. 1998. Basic Interests. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400822485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Bearce, David H. 2003. “Societal Preferences, Partisan Agents, and Monetary Policy Outcomes.” International Organization 57(2): 373–410.10.1017/S0020818303572058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Boyle, Elizabeth H., Kim, Minzee and Longhofer, Wesley. 2015. “Abortion Liberalization in World Society, 1960–2009.” American Journal of Sociology 121(3): 882–913.10.1086/682827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Budros, Art. 2011. “Explaining the First Emancipation: Social Movements and Abolition in the U.S. North, 1776–1804.” Mobilization 16(4): 439–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunea, Adriana and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2014. “The State of the Discipline: Authorship, Research Designs, and Citation Patterns in Studies of EU Interest Groups and Lobbying.” Journal of European Public Policy 21(10): 1412–34.10.1080/13501763.2014.936483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 1998a. Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 1998b. “Interest Organizations, Political Parties, and the Study of Democratic Politics.” In Social Movements and American Political Institutions, eds. Costain, Anne and McFarland, Andrew, 39–56. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2014. American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress: What the Public Wants and What It Gets. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2019. “The Influence of Organizations on Policy: Theories, Findings, Conclusions.” Interest Groups & Advocacy 8(1): 1–22.10.1057/s41309-019-00048-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul and Linton, April. 2002. “The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social Movement Organizations on Public Policy.” Social Forces 81(2): 380–408.10.1353/sof.2003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Harris, Hedges, Larry V. and Valentine, Jeffrey C.. 2019. “Research Synthesis as a Scientific Process.” In The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis, 3rd edition, eds. Cooper, Harris, Hedges, Larry V. and Valentine, Jeffrey C., 3–16. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.10.7758/9781610448864.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*, Marie, King, Brayden G., Legerski, Elizabeth M., Dahlin, Eric C. and Schiffman, Kendra S.. 2007. “Signals or Mixed Signals: Why Opportunities for Mobilization Are Opportunities for Policy Reform.” Mobilization 12(3): 239–54.10.17813/maiq.12.3.k6q6303j65h1l432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Figueiredo, John M. and Richter., Brian Kelleher 2014. “Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying.” Annual Review of Political Science 17: 163–85.10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha and Charman, Andrew. 2019. “A Dialogue with the Data: The Bayesian Foundations of Iterative Research in Qualitative Social Science.” Perspectives on Politics 17(1): 154–67.10.1017/S1537592718002177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraussen, Bert and Halpin, Darren R.. 2018. “Political Parties and Interest Organizations at the Crossroads: Perspectives on the Transformation of Political Organizations.” Policy Studies Review 16(1): 25–37.10.1177/1478929916644868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Gawande, Kishore and Hoekman, Bernard. 2006. “Lobbying and Agricultural Trade Policy in the United States.” International Organization 60(2): 527–61.10.1017/S0020818306060243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Gilens, Martin and Page, Benjamin I.. 2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–81.10.1017/S1537592714001595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giugni, Marco. 1998. “Was It Worth the Effort? The Outcomes and Consequences of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 371–93.10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Giugni, Marco. 2007. “Useless Protest? A Time-Series Analysis of the Policy Outcomes of Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in the United States, 1977–1995.” Mobilization 12(1): 53–77.10.17813/maiq.12.1.b05j1087v7pxg382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnacki, Marie, Kimball, David C., Baumgartner, Frank R., Berry, Jeffrey M. and Leech, Beth L.. 2012. “Studying Organizational Advocacy and Influence: Reexamining Interest Group Research.” Annual Review of Political Science 15: 379–99.10.1146/annurev-polisci-070910-104051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbeau, Louis M., Petry, Francois and Lamari., Moktar 2001. “Left-Right Party Ideology and Government Policies: A Meta-Analysis.” European Journal of Political Research 40(1): 1–29.10.1111/1475-6765.00587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Ingram, Paul and Rao, Hayagreeva. 2004. “Store Wars: The Enactment and Repeal of Anti-Chain-Store Legislation in America.” American Journal of Sociology 110(2): 446–87.10.1086/422928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Jensen, Carsten. 2012. “Two Sides of the Same Coin? Left-Wing Governments and Labour Unions as Determinants of Public Spending.” Socio-Economic Review 10(2): 217–40.10.1093/ser/mwr015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Johnson, Erik W., Agnone, Jon and McCarthy, John D.. 2010. “Movement Organizations, Synergistic Tactics, and Environmental Public Policy.” Social Forces 88(4): 2267–92.10.1353/sof.2010.0038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, Grant, Halpin, Darren and Maloney, William A.. 2004. “Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2): 1–18.10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00134.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Kane, Melinda. 2003. “Social Movement Policy Success: Decriminalizing State Sodomy Laws 1969–1998.” Mobilization 8(3): 313–34.10.17813/maiq.8.3.q66046w34wu58866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*King, Brayden G., Cornwall, Marie and Dahlin, Eric C.. 2005. “Winning Woman Suffrage One Step at a Time: Social Movements and the Logic of the Legislative Process.” Social Forces 83(3): 1211–34.10.1353/sof.2005.0037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike and Pickup, Mark. 2019. “Are They Listening? Public Opinion, Interest Groups and Government Responsiveness.” West European Politics 42(1): 91–112.10.1080/01402382.2018.1483662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Koo, Jeong-Woo and Ramirez, Francisco O.. 2009. “National Incorporation of Global Human Rights: Worldwide Expansion of National Human Rights Institutions, 1966–2004.” Social Forces 87(3): 1321–53.10.1353/sof.0.0167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Lax, Jeffrey R. and Phillips, Justin H.. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103(3): 367.10.1017/S0003055409990050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R. and Phillips, Justin H.. 2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 148–66.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00537.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Beth. 2010. “Lobbying and Influence.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, eds. Maisel, Sandy L., Berry, Jeffrey M. and Edwards, George C., 696–719. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2016. “Can the Biomedical Research Cycle Be a Model for Political Science?” Perspectives on Politics 14(4): 1054–66.10.1017/S153759271600298XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Longhofer, Wesley, Schofer, Evan, Miric, Natasha and Frank, David John. 2016. “NGOs, INGOs, and Environmental Policy Reform, 1970–2010.” Social Forces 94(4): 1743–68.10.1093/sf/sow031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Martin, Isaac William. 2010. “Redistributing toward the Rich: Strategic Policy Crafting in the Campaign to Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, 1938–1958.” American Journal of Sociology 116(1): 1–52.10.1086/653597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, Doug, Tarrow, Sidney and Tilly, Charles. 1996. “To Map Contentious Politics.” Mobilization 1(1): 17–34.10.17813/maiq.1.1.y3p544u2j1l536u9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*McAdam, Doug and Su, Yang. 2002. “The War at Home: Antiwar Protests and Congressional Voting, 1965 to 1973.” American Sociological Review 67(5): 696–721.10.2307/3088914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1987. “Three Fragments from a Sociologist’s Notebooks.” Annual Review of Sociology 13: 1–28.10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.000245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Olzak, Susan and Soule, Sarah A.. 2009. “Cross-Cutting Influences of Environmental Protest and Legislation.” Social Forces 88(1): 201–26.10.1353/sof.0.0236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Anne, Mader, Lars Kai and Reher, Stefanie. 2018. “With a Little Help from the People? The Role of Public Opinion in Advocacy Success.” Comparative Political Studies 51(2): 139–64.10.1177/0010414017695334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheitle, Christopher P. and Hahn, Bryanna B.. 2011. “From Pews to Policy: Specifying Evangelical Protestantism’s Influence on States’ Sexual Orientation Policies.” Social Forces 89(3): 913–34.10.1353/sof.2011.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Sorensen, Rune J. 2003. “The Political Economy of Intergovernmental Grants: The Norwegian Case.” European Journal of Political Research 42(2): 163–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, Sarah A. and King., Brayden G. 2006. “The Stages of the Policy Process and the Equal Rights Amendment, 1972–1982.” American Journal of Sociology 111(6): 1871–1909.10.1086/499908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Soule, Sarah A. and Olzak., Susan 2004. “When Do Movements Matter? The Politics of Contingency and the Equal Rights Amendment.” American Sociological Review 69(4): 473–97.10.1177/000312240406900401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Steidley, Trent. 2018. “Big Guns or Big Talk? How the National Rifle Association Matters for Conceal Carry Weapons Laws.” Mobilization 23(1): 101–25.10.17813/1086-671X-23-1-101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Uba, Katrin. 2005. “Political Protest and Policy Change: The Direct Impacts of Indian Anti-Privatization Mobilizations, 1990–2003.” Mobilization 10(3): 383–96.10.17813/maiq.10.3.004857754441n353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uba, Katrin. 2009. “The Contextual Dependence of Movement Outcomes: A Simplified Meta-Analysis.” Mobilization 14(4): 433–48.10.17813/maiq.14.4.m8477j873p47p546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Burstein Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/7VW5HS
Link